The genomes of many species are crowded with repetitive mobile sequences. In the case of endogenous retroviruses (ERVs) there is, for various reasons, considerable confusion regarding names assigned to families/groups of ERVs as well as individual ERV loci. Human ERVs have been studied in greater detail, and naming of HERVs in the scientific literature is somewhat confusing not just to the outsider. Without guidelines, confusion for ERVs in other species will also probably increase if those ERVs are studied in greater detail. Based on previous experience, this review highlights some of the problems when naming and classifying ERVs, and provides some guidance for detecting and characterizing ERV sequences. Because of the close relationship between ERVs and exogenous retroviruses (XRVs) it is reasonable to reconcile their classification with that of XRVs. We here argue that classification should be based on a combination of similarity, structural features, (inferred) function, and previous nomenclature. Because the RepBase system is widely employed in genome annotation, RepBase designations should be considered in further taxonomic efforts. To lay a foundation for a phylogenetically based taxonomy, further analyses of ERVs in many hosts are needed. A dedicated, permanent, international consortium would best be suited to integrate and communicate our current and future knowledge on repetitive, mobile elements in general to the scientific community.