Talk:Influenza

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Influenza article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4: 3 months

Influenza is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.

This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on January 1, 2007.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
October 20, 2006	Good article nominee	Listed
October 23, 2006	Peer review	Reviewed
November 2, 2006	Featured article candidate	Promoted

Current status: Featured article

Medicine: Translation / Pulmonology Top‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Translation task force (assessed as High-importance).
	This article is supported by the Pulmonology task force (assessed as Top-importance).
	This article was selected on the Medicine portal as one of Wikipedia's best articles related to Medicine.

Microbiology High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Microbiology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Microbiology 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.MicrobiologyWikipedia:WikiProject MicrobiologyTemplate:WikiProject MicrobiologyMicrobiology
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Viruses High‑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
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Influenza.

PubMed provides review articles from the past five years (limit to free review articles)
The TRIP database provides clinical publications about evidence-based medicine.
Other potential sources include: Centre for Reviews and Dissemination and CDC

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Fatality rate numbers

Are the fatality rate numbers correct? See here: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File_talk:InfluenzaCaseMortality.svg .

Abbreviations

I see there are some edits regarding these. I think we should spell out the viruses' names because no one (virologist) uses them. Unlike HAV for hepatitis A virus and HCV for hepatitis C virus most sources, and I have two books open in front of me, say influenza A virus and so forth. (Some sources reduce this to just influenza A but this is really the name of the disease and not the virus). Graham Beards (talk) 13:41, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the literature on the topic, it does appear that the abbreviations are fairly commonly used - eg Journal of Virology, Current Opinion in Virology, etc. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:09, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I see, thanks. But those are just the author's choice rather than standard, accepted abbreviations. This list of accepted abbreviations only has a couple of viruses on it and one is HIV: [1]. Abbreviating viruses' names stems from the days of paper journals and manual typewriters, to save space and time. I quickly checked the Manuals of Style for Virology (journal) and The Journal of Virology, but there was no guidance on this. I think for our, mainly lay, readers it is best to spell the names out in this article. Graham Beards (talk) 10:10, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be better to restore the previous version - it's pretty standard to introduce the full phrase at first appearance and abbreviate thereafter. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:10, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. They have enough to take in with H1N2, H2N3, H3N2 and so on, which stand for haemagglutinin and neuraminidase. The article will be riddled with abbreviations. Graham Beards (talk) 06:32, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. There isn't a requirement that these be the only abbreviations used, and the article was accessible (and less wordy) in the previous version. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:54, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Two editors disagree with you. Graham Beards (talk) 05:19, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Flu Doesn't Only have A, B, C, & D

There Is A H Copy Too - It Is The Same As Flu Except It Does Not Have Vomit Syptom. I Have Ever Had It In Life Except I Did Not Vomit To It 2601:680:8300:7670:D5C5:A607:61B2:93E2 (talk) 01:52, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The H refers to the strain as in H1N1 and not the type. Graham Beards (talk) 05:36, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WHO research streams

Hi @Nikkimaria, thanks for taking a look at my edits. You have taken out my elaboration of the WHO research streams as "overdetail". I would like to put them back. Without explanatory text they are just five sentences of waffle.

It is important to recognise that much of the research into prevention and control of disease is not just virology or pharmacology, which was the content prior to my edit. There are social aspects to controlling disease (as we discovered with COVID), prevention of zoonosis, research into predispositions and comorbitities, etc. Bob (talk) 07:46, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't that WHO report getting rather old? We are already seven years into the five to ten year plan. Also, I am skeptical that the Research sections in articles adds much encyclopedic value; they are often too speculative. Graham Beards (talk) 09:30, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Graham Beards, I agree with you one both counts - but that doesn't invalidate my edit.

Yes the research streams have been around for a while - so maybe they should have been included a long time ago. The streams are still valid and form a good framework for the research section. WHO have a poor record at keeping their own deadlines, I expect they will get round to updating eventually.

Agree that the "research" section is often non-encyclopedic, I suppose that's why it's usually tucked away at the bottom of an article. I took a look at a couple of the named drug candidates in the "treatment" paragraph - one has completed trials and is licenced, the other flopped. Neither qualify for inclusion any more. But it's good to have it if only as a place for inexperienced editors to drop in something they have come across.

A summary of research directions (priorities, themes, streams, whatever) seems appropriate and should be OK without revision for a few years.

Cheers, Bob (talk) 19:37, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest this sounds like a better rationale for removing the section entirely than for expanding it - we shouldn't have a section sitting around just to act as a junk drawer for people to drop stuff in. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:05, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you. Graham Beards (talk) 08:30, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading illustration

I would like to replace this illustration File:Influenza geneticshift.svg which appears in the section "Antigenic drift and shift". Reasons:

It is an inaccurate reproduction of the source ^[1]. The two "parents" are correctly labeled, but in the original the progeny is not given a description whereas the Wikimedia reproduction labels the progeny as "highly pathogenic human strain". Accompanying text in the original explains that a human strain may acquire characteristics from a highly pathogenic avian strain, but makes no assumption about the characteristics of the progeny.
This section contains no explanation of pathogenicity
The image only illustrates shift, not drift.

Here's a possible replacement File:Viruses-10-00497-g003.png

Bob (talk) 21:21, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Yoo E (February 2014). "Conformation and Linkage Studies of Specific Oligosaccharides Related to H1N1, H5N1, and Human Flu for Developing the Second Tamiflu". Biomolecules & Therapeutics. 22 (2): 93–99. doi:10.4062/biomolther.2014.005. PMC 3975476. PMID 24753813.

[:1-1] Yoo E (February 2014). "Conformation and Linkage Studies of Specific Oligosaccharides Related to H1N1, H5N1, and Human Flu for Developing the Second Tamiflu". Biomolecules & Therapeutics. 22 (2): 93–99. doi:10.4062/biomolther.2014.005. PMC 3975476. PMID 24753813.

[1]