Template talk:Filoviridae

Ebola specific links

User:Starstr previously added the links Contact tracing, Quarantine, and Convalescent serum in a section called Related. I removed these because they are not directly related to Ebola. Since then, however, the section Experimental medication has had links added to medications that are not Ebola specific. For consistency, should the links to these medications be removed, or should a Related/See also section be created? JKDw (talk) 00:18, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Ping User:Randy Kryn JKDw (talk) 06:08, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. My personal choice would be a Related section, but one which would have to be monitored for relevancy. "Contact tracing" is a good link for that, although the article itself is at the moment a stub and is weighted towards AIDS (but Ebola is mentioned). I'm not medical savvy enough to know which medications should or should not be included, either in the proper section or a Related section. Related could also include something about public panic, or social panic and how it relates to the overall culture of a region (I haven't searched for what page that would be, just musing and rambling). Great work on the template, thanks again for starting and maintaining it. Randy Kryn 10:10 15 October, 2014 (UTC)

I started the section. Perhaps you mean mass hysteria? JKDw (talk) 05:57, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi, glad that Ebola River is on the template, it educates people that ebola is named after a river and is not a new word. Mass hysteria, good link, but it would probably only apply if people begin to subconsciously create symptoms without having the illness, something which would be hard to do (unless someone has a very active, powerful, and impressionable subconscious!). Randy Kryn 13:52 17 October, 2014 (UTC)

Proposed move to Filoviridae

I had the idea to move this template to Template:Filoviridae, expanding the scope to include Ebolavirus, Marburgvirus, and Cuevavirus as three subsections. I realise that this would probably make the template slightly less convenient for Ebolavirus articles, but of course much more convenient for the other two genera. This is just a wild idea and I will not move the template without consensus. JKDw (talk) 05:33, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Thinking ahead of the virus! Not having medical knowledge I don't know if it's a good plan or not, but nice to see someone keeping track of these things and interested in sharing them with readers and researchers. Randy Kryn 16:20 20 October, 2014 (UTC)

I like this idea on first glance. We could add another line for marburgvirus outbreaks and include the 1967, 1998, and 2004 outbreaks, but the only targets for those are sections in Marburg virus disease. But they could have articles, so linking with appropriate link text might be okay. (Or just include the 1967 outbreak and note it as "Marburg"?) Then we'd just need additional species lines for Marburgvirus and "Cuevavirus". (It might need to be noted as "proposed" in the infobox, but maybe it's enough the article says so.) Anyways, I think it could work, just a few considerations. I say go for it if you feel like it... Xqxf (talk) 17:06, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Randy and Xqxf. User:Epicgenius and User:Starstr: as contributors to this template, I would be interested to hear your opinions if you have any. Eventually it would be ideal to create navboxes for every viral family (there are 90 or so), but the messy state of viral taxonomy on Wikipedia is discouraging. JKDw (talk) 07:54, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Yep, sure. We can expand the template and move it. – Epicgenius (talk) 12:37, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Alright, I've expanded it. JKDw (talk) 09:00, 22 October 2014 (UTC)