A while ago I got into a dispute with another editor about the inclusion of "non-cellular life" in the infobox. I suppose their reasons were good enough but the list had since expanded to include prions. Has anyone ever described prions as alive? I'm not trying to debate here; I would just like to know if there are any reliable sources that support this. I've found some sparse results on Google Scholar but these discussions are generally part of an abstract philosophical discussion about what the definition of life can extend to, often including computer viruses, which I can't imagine will ever be added to the infobox (although I suppose stranger things have happened). Anyway, I'm interested in getting some input on this. — Anonymous 01:37, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
- This is NOT A FORUM, and we cannot go on editors' opinions. I've bever seen a reliable source that says so, and reliable sources are all that matter here. Chiswick Chap (talk) 04:04, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
- In case I wasn't clear, I don't think prions should be listed; I'm asking if anyone can justify their inclusion (otherwise they should be removed). — Anonymous 04:22, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
- The same goes for the numerous other random "non-cellular" particles that have been added over the years. I didn't really want to get back into the previous dispute, but IIRC the justification for including most other particles besides viruses seemed to be leaning into OR (i.e. the sources were not explicitly calling them alive). However it's been a while and my memory's foggy. I could also use a short rest from Wikipedia after a long day of editing. — Anonymous 04:28, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
- You're asking for removal not addition, I see. I've removed a listicle from the infobox as off-topic and not discussed in the text. Thanks for drawing it to attention. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:32, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
level-1 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
.jpg){kind=small}
