Jump to content

Talk:SARS-CoV-2: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Oldosfan (talk | contribs)
100 edits
No edit summary
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit
Line 149: Line 149:
Against this move ,the whole world is saying 2019-nCoV [[User:Recto sama|Recto sama]] ([[User talk:Recto sama|talk]]) 05:00, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
Against this move ,the whole world is saying 2019-nCoV [[User:Recto sama|Recto sama]] ([[User talk:Recto sama|talk]]) 05:00, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
* ''Oppose'' Moving it to something like [[2019 Wuhan novel coronavirus]] would seem more appropriate [[User:Oldosfan|Would (oldosfan)]] 06:22, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
* ''Oppose'' Moving it to something like [[2019 Wuhan novel coronavirus]] would seem more appropriate [[User:Oldosfan|Would (oldosfan)]] 06:22, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
* '''Oppose''' The scientific name is preferred. It would like to see this article by just scientific name (2019-nCoV) without word "novel coronavirus". German, Indonesian, Danish, Dutch, Catalan Wikipedias doesn't use names like "novel coronavirus" because it is ambiguous and can be confusing if any viruses other than 2019-nCoV is released and grammatically incorrect.


== Edit protection of some kind ==
== Edit protection of some kind ==

Revision as of 07:41, 28 January 2020

Template:Older med refs

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:22, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

twitter discussion that might be of interest on this page

https://twitter.com/arambaut/status/1216026183118344196 JuanTamad (talk) 23:59, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Paper on this virus asks for assistance in editing

Evolution of the novel coronavirus from the ongoing Wuhan outbreak and modeling of its spike protein for risk of human transmission from SCIENCE CHINA Life Sciences.Since I am not a medical major and my English is not good, I ask other colleagues for help.Ask wikis who are good at related fields to make appropriate additions based on the content of the paper contained in this source. Thank you.--舞月書生👉☎️👈∮Strive to be a good Wikipedians. 18:22, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is a subscription link, it would be good were papers published openly at this particular time and then a "cite journal" ref link can be added as is normal for scientific/medical papers. An editor cannot seek to rely on a link they cannot read. Wikimucker (talk) 20:15, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Add an article about Wuhan virus in Journal of Medical Virology ：Homologous recombination within the spike glycoprotein of the newly identified coronavirus may boost cross‐species transmission from snake to human(Wiley

biorxiv)，Note that this is an unpublished version。--舞月書生👉☎️👈∮Active at zh.wikipedia, strive to be a good Wikipedian. 00:41, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]


rename - Wuhan coronavirus

@DocJames: would this move be per policy? Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:38, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Jtbobwaysf: some of this was discussed here. As I said there, "novel coronavirus" is just a placeholder name. I agree "Wuhan coronovirus" is more descriptive. The virus will likely not receive a formal name for a while, and then the article will need to be moved again then. --Nessie (📥) 00:12, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Jtbobwaysf: This is a copycat discussion, we already have a official proposal. Anyways, I strongly oppose the renaming because I believe that this move will not follow the Wikipedia Policy, because in my opinion, "Wuhan coronavirus" does not follow the Article title policy rule points of both "precision" and "conciseness". This is because the Wuhan coronavirus is new and not popular yet, so it does not have a popular name yet, and can easily be confused with other viruses, so it is unspecific and can be ambiguous, not following "precision". This also means that the title does not follow "conciseness", because there can be other "Wuhan coronavirus"-es for the same reason, because the virus is new and not popular yet, so the article will need to be changed again if there is another "Wuhan coronavirus". "Wuhan coronavirus" or even "Wuhan virus" is not even a popular phrase used in casual speaking yet, so the name of the virus may changed, as quote from the CDC website of January 22nd, 2020 (Pacific Time), this is a "rapidly evolving situation" and the title may change just as quickly as it rapidly evolves. 75.52.95.136 (talk) 00:37, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@NessieVL: is there an official naming policy? Or at wikipedia do we just use what the RS are using? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:44, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Jtbobwaysf: in WikiProject Viruses, we usually go by what ICTV uses. But this is not officially a species yet, so i think we go with WP:COMMONNAME. --Nessie (📥) 12:28, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Jtbobwaysf: Yes, there is an official naming policy for article titles. The link was given at the official discussion in this talk page as of January 23, 2020, 4:13P.M. in the dialog box at the top of the discussion. It says that the discussion should talk about the points given in the Article title policy at "Wikipedia:Article titles", which are that the title has to be/have "Recognizable", "Naturalness", "Precision", "Conciseness", and "Consistency". I believe that "Wuhan coronavirus" breaks both precision and conciseness. 75.52.95.136 (talk) 00:37, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@NessieVL: seems is it going to be called Wuhan Coronavirus, and today I was seeing it called WARS (Wuhan Acute Respiratory Syndrome.) Probably we should move the article to something the press is using. Nobody is using this Novel Coronavirus. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 14:29, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Jtbobwaysf: I suggest you start the formal process at WP:RMCM because of the related discussion and the high amount of interest in this article. Also Wuhan coronavirus exists as a redirect and we'd need some help with that part --Nessie (📥) 15:11, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Jtbobwaysf: I dont think it shoukd be called "Wuhan coronavirus" or "Wuhan Coronavirus", as it is unprofessional and ambiguous and vague. I also don't agree with calling the virus "WARS (Wuhan Acute Respiratory Syndrome.)" because a different name could be given to the virus instead, and may make rare unnoticed symptoms that may change its nature enough to give it a new name. This is because I believe that this is, quote from the CDC website, a "rapidly evolving situation" as of January 23, 2020 (Pacific Time), and the proposals for the name may change drastically, as this is a new virus and hasn't gained a huge amount of popularity yet in common social culture.
Also, according to the CDC website on the new coronavirus from Wuhan, the human-to-human interactions are not clearly explained yet, so this is an unknown that I believe could greatly influence the name of the virus, because of the "Acute" part of "Wuhan Acute Respiratory Syndrome", as this may be long term, and the virus could have started way earlier and the supposed "Patient Zero" may have been late to report.
By the way, I also think "Snake flu" is an unprofessional, unconcise, and vague name used by news articles to grab readers to read their article and make a little money to subscribe to their news. 75.52.95.136 (talk) 00:37, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I believe people are also starting to call it "Snake flu" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.27.170.66 (talk) 21:13, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 22 January 2020

Novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) → Wuhan Coronavirus – Widespread use in top shelf sources Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:21, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here are a few sources that are using it Note Wuhan is a location in China that seems to be primarily associated with its origin. CNN, NYT, WSJ Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:52, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Amend proposal to move to Wuhan coronavirus per obvious capitalization error. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:39, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support There will be more novel coronaviruses. Tradition with epidemics is to indicate location and type e.g. Spanish Influenza and Middle East Respiratory Syndrome. We can now confirm epidemic within city of Wuhan, and Wuhan as epicenter. Common usage is growing for Wuhan Coronavirus. Erudite_Ed
  • Support Although the CDC and WHO seem to still be calling it Novel, it does look like a majority of news websites are using Wuhan - a couple more examples of its use: NPR, Business Insider, The Guardian, so it looks like Wuhan is turning into the more common term. Lcodyh803 (talk) 18:27, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Lcodyh803: The CDC and WHO websites are professional government and international websites, and are reliable sources, using professional and scientific names. NPR, Business Insider, and The Guardian are all news websites using "Wuhan virus" just to catch the readers attention to give info in the title. Wikipedia is not just a news website, it is a factual encyclopedia, and should have factual, encyclopedically like titles, that follow Wikipedia's article title policy. Just because Wuhan is a "common term" does not mean it is an officially scientifically approved term. The name of this virus has not been given yet as of January 24, 2020 (Pacific Time), as this virus is still new. The common name could change later, when the virus becomes more widely known and popular. "Wuhan coronavirus" sounds unprofessional and rudimentary to me, which was explained in this discussion. 75.52.95.136 (talk) 01:07, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@TFSA: Why should you change the article name to "Wuhan pneumonia"? What are the reasons? The reasons have to follow the article title policy. Also, this is a proposal to change the title to "Wuhan coronavirus", not "Wuhan pneumonia". Because of these reasons, I believe your claim may be not relevant to the discussion we have. 75.52.95.136 (talk) 01:07, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Greatworld2020: This is a proposal to talk about changing the article title to "Wuhan coronavirus", not "XiaodongWang Coronavirus". Also, the names of viruses are not usually bamed after people in that format, so your request sounds unlikely. Also, please base your reasons on the article title policy page. Thanks! 75.52.95.136 (talk) 01:07, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@MadameButterflyKnife: I disagree on the part where it is more likely to endure as a name. The CDC shows that this outbreak is a "rapidly evolving situation" as of January 24, 2020 (Pacific Time), at this link, so the name can also probably rapidly evolve too, as new things are discovered about its human to human transmission which have not been discovered yet as of January 24, 2020 (Pacific Time). 75.52.95.136 (talk) 01:07, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You're correct that this is just a placeholder. However, viruses never have a place name in them, so it's not going to stick. If we did this, it would just need to be changed again.Mvolz (talk) 20:01, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Mvolz: that’s not true at all, go to ICTV and you’ll find many many species of viruses named after places. --Nessie (📥) 22:25, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree "never" was a bit too strong (Although not to put too fine a point on it, but this is a strain of virus, not a species- strain names tend to have the name of the disease it causes, the antigens that make it different from other strains, the name of an animal if it's epizoontic) That said, it's still very unlikely for it to be named Wuhan coronavirus exactly, so the point still stands :). Mvolz (talk) 09:44, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose We should use the placeholder name until virologists give it a new name. Otherwise we'll just have to move it again. A redirect to here from Wuhan coronavirus is appropriate. Mvolz (talk) 20:01, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
CDC is calling it "2019 Novel Coronavirus, Wuhan, China" see [1]. If you want to be strict and follow CDC, why not use that? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:08, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's not the name of the strain, that's the title of the webpage. In that page they don't name it at all, they just call it "a novel corona virus." The WHO spells it out for us: "This new virus was temporarily named “2019-nCoV.”"

First of all, the phrase, "Wuhan coronavirus", is an unprofessional and rudimentary name.

I strongly believe that the article's title should not be changed because it is not a news article. "Wuhan coronavirus" sounds unprofessional, and if this is a formal encyclopedia, then you should have a more professionial name. Also, there may be multiple "Wuhan coronavirus"-es. This is very general and vague and not specific. News headlines only use "Wuhan coronavirus" to summarize the place and to catch readers, so I think that this is a factual encyclopedia with a specific and non vague fairly scientific name. "Wuhan corona virus sounds very rudimentary. Wuhan is just to identify the event and where it started! A scientific name is better, so I oppose! It is very unprofessional! Secondly, "Wuhan coronavirus" is likely to be changed again, due to its unofficial name format (nomenclature), both scientifically and socially.

Also, like Mvolz said, viruses should not officialy have a place name, so it will need to be changed again. We need to limit the amount of changes to this article, as multiple changes can also confuse readers. Also NessieVL, even though you will find "many many species" of viruses named after places, "Wuhan coronavirus" sounds very unprofessional, and I dont think virus names have two English words. So Dicklyon, in my opinion, I believe that changing the name would not be a good choice if it has not been named yet, because then the title would need to be changed twice, wasting time and effort and energy that could have been used in something else. Lastly, Redirecting can be used instead, to redirect from "Wuhan coronavirus" into the main real page.

I also agree with Mvolz in a redirect for the search term, "Wuhan coronavirus", because a more professional name would suit the article better, and may enhance Wikipedia's reputation in terms of its element of professionality. Also, I disagree with TheMemeMonarch because only a redirected is needed. I really wonder if people here take redirects into consideration.

Please take my opinion into consideration even though I am anonymous. Thanks! By the way, I am exercising the "be bold" saying, and trying to be helpful to people and not vandalize. I have tried to rebuke all of the "Support" bullet points, and tried to support the "Oppose" points. 10:56 P.M., January 22 2020 75.52.95.136 (talk) 06:57, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose and leave as is, at least until until dust settles, for reasons mentioned by Mvolz and75.52.95.136. Novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) IS the authoritative description used all by English speaking/publishing relevant medical entities at this time (WHO, ECDC, CDC etc). People will find info they need as is because of redirect.--Wuerzele (talk) 09:15, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Oppose We have a redirect from Wuhan Coronavirus already. The correct medical name should be used. However there is a separate wiki article named "Wuhan Coronavirus Outbreak" which is correctly named. Wikimucker (talk) 18:46, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support It’s the common name for this virus. My only quibble is that coronavirus shouldn’t be capitalized.

As a comparison, the Spanish flu article currently uses the common name instead of the technical name (1918 flu pandemic). Apparently page views for that article increased significantly when the name was changed to the common name. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 20:28, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Blaylockjam10: The page views can just be a coincidence. If the name of an article was just changed into the "Spanish flu", then I believe that this is just a coincidence, because Wikipedia may have been primitive at the time, and was not as reliable either. You should compare whether your source is reliable too, because where did you get the page views from? Also, the page views can just be because if the content, because maybe it was just created. And even though the "Spanish flu" is the common name, the flu is more widely known and popular than the new coronavirus we have. According to the CDC website on the coronavirus in Wuhan, this is a "rapidly evolving situation" as of January 23, 2020 (Pacific Time), so the name can change quickly. Do not use the post hoc fallacy. 75.52.95.136 (talk) 01:07, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. As a note, (1918 flu pandemic) is not a technical name, nor should it be. The correct name is H1N1. The name mentioned is the name of the event, not the strain. Same here. The event page is named as it should be.
  • Oppose There is no reason to change the name from the current medical terminology. If this terminology changes, then we should reconsider a name change. There is no reason to overrule medical terminology because a couple journalists found 2019-nCov too confusing a term. Acebulf (talk) 00:53, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ambivalence But one argument against that I would like to counter is that the current title should be kept because it seems more "professional"; this thinking goes against WP:COMMONNAME, which suggests this article should use whatever name settles as the standard name, even if that name is different to it's WHO designation. Also note that the 2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak article has been renamed. People may be interested to see the talk page there. Ypna (talk) 04:49, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Oppose This is a scientifically based article for all information regarding the (yet to be named) Novel coronavirus. The article should retain its title because

1. It is currently the name adopted by WHO, CDC and NCBI.
2. Names used by News media are for delivering information to the general public and do not reflect the proper taxonomic name used by virologists
3. To answer Blaylockjam10, the Spanish flu article refers to the pandemic event of 1918. The article regarding the virus itself uses its scientific name (Influenza A virus subtype H1N1). Similarly, the 2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak article reflects the event, whereas this article should continue to use Novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) until the WHO confirms its taxonomy. --Neodymium123 (talk) 05:38, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: WHO - yes; CDC - yes; NCBI - I don't see "2019-nCoV" in the content of the page, rather I see "Wuhan-Hu-1|China|2019-Dec" and then an alphanumeric code MN908947 for the particular genome (which would be too specific for the title here). Boud (talk) 21:58, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relevant quote from a plos blog: "Nomenclature is still up in the air. The first name, “2019-nCoV” for “novel coronavirus first seen in 2019,” is descriptive but not easy to remember. “Wu Flu” isn’t correct – it’s not a flu virus, nor is “Wuhan SARS” quite right because the new pathogen’s genome isn’t exactly like that of SARS. I’ll call it the Wuhan coronavirus until the World Health Organization decides on a name. WHO avoids places in disease names to avoid stigma, although I don’t see the Rocky Mountains suffering from lack of visitors due to the spotted fever that takes it’s name (which isn’t viral, but still)." Mvolz (talk) 16:15, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relevant quote from a newspaper article: "None of these is likely to be the virus’ or the disease’s permanent name. They almost certainly would be unacceptable to the Chinese, and to the World Health Organization, which discourages the use of place names in the naming of diseases." Mvolz (talk) 16:18, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. It is a non-professional and misleading name for an article on a scientific topic. I would support the move to Coronavirus 2019-nCoV, which is proper scientific nomenclature. --TadejM my talk 23:32, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. We're no longer in the times of the Spanish flu (which, BTW, wasn't Spanish.) It's unscientific, damning and contrary to the accepted practice in modern epidemiology. --MaeseLeon (talk) 08:02, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. As already mentioned, the current name is the currently official designations for the virus. Having a redirect from a publicly used, but unofficial name to this article is fine, but I can't support a move to an article with an unofficial name. WHO has outlined that the name is temporary, but moving it to a later determined official name, if applicable, is something I'd support. Alternatively, moving it to Coronavirus 2019-nCoV, as TadejM mentioned. -- OliviaZoe0 ❤️ (She/her) (talk) 10:55, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support move to Wuhan coronavirus per WP:COMMONNAME. Note what the policy says: Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it generally prefers the name that is most commonly used. Wuhan coronavirus is used by major news outlets. e.g. [2][3][4], etc., even used by the science journal Nature - [5]. Given that Novel Coronavirus 2019 is temporary anyway, so why use it? Hzh (talk) 11:55, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support For the simple fact that when the next zoonotic transmission occurs with a new strain in the following years, this will merely be confusion and make no sense and provide no context. -- Berkaysnklf (|talk) 12:59, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly oppose. Redirects and alternative names in article body are enough. Article page name is extremely encyclopedic, which fits in the context of an extremely complex topic anyway. Optakeover(U)(T)(C) 13:55, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The intent of the request is met adequately by the redirect and a bold text 'popularly known as' in the lead. Keep the best available scientific name until a more formal scientific name is adopted (by the WHO?). xref WP:NOTNEWS. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:28, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I said earlier that Wuhan coronavirus is the common name. However I now think that we should change the name to Wuhan coronavirus, then mention the scientific name somewhere within the start of the article. PCelestia (talk) 18:47, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I think it's too early to determine its common name. Benimation (talk) 19:26, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support move to Wuhan coronavirus per WP:COMMONNAME. Miniapolis 20:23, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have no knowledge on how epidemics or pandemics work... but shouldn’t the name be something the general public can easily identify if they want to read an article about it? Wuhan coronavirus is likely a misnomer but you get my drift. At best, redirect. ⌚️ (talk) 23:46, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • If somebody searches using the (current) media name, Wuhan coronavirus, they will go automagically to this article and the second pair of words they will see in bold is Wuhan coronavirus. It seems to me that they are likely to be reassured by the scientific nomenclature that what they are reading is credible and not some fake news click bait. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 00:40, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support To add to the discussion re: media usage, Chinese state media is also using the phrase Wuhan Coronavirus. An unscientific run through Twitter reaffirms that this is by far the more popular way to refer to it, and frankly mitigates the stigma argument, given that PRC state media is particularly sensitive to public image. As Hzh pointed out, policy can be read to prefer articles using the popular name of a topic. WhinyTheYounger (talk) 03:25, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose WHO goes with "2019-nCoV".[6] So should we. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:43, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose and Close with No Concensus name is used by the WHO and other major bodies. Clearly no concensus on the topic is likley to be reached so this discussion should be closed. Hemiauchenia (talk) 04:58, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose because where do we draw the line? We could call it Wuhan coronavirus, but it has now spread to many Chinese cities, so why not China coronavirus or Chinese coronavirus instead? And it is even starting to go beyond China now. I think it is probably best not to jump the gun and to wait for an official announcement from scientific authorities before deciding on a new name; for now, the placeholder novel coronavirus will do. Buttons0603 (talk) 12:00, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Oppose WHO uses 2019-nCov. Journal articles use nCov (https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)30154-9/fulltext). Let's go with what international scientific organisations and journals are using rather than some random newspapers. Adam Williams (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:48, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose It doesn't make sense to change an accurate name that can easily be reached through other pages. A redirect would be more accurate and consistent with current titling convention. TheExceptionCloaker (talk) 18:45, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose WHO's current nomenclature is as commonly recognized as the suggested name "Wuhan Coronavirus" which is mentioned by medias more than others. The final name is still debatable, however, this proposal during early stage of this pandemic situation is not as ideal as it is. For the record, Imperial College London used 2019-ncov1; earliest paper on the matter used novel coronavirus2; both Lancet articles also used novel coronavirus34. Thus my personal opposition to this notion of redirecting to "Wuhan coronavirus". 复读姬 (talk) 21:35, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Both the WHO and the CDC are referring to the virus as: “2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV).” The article should not be renamed until one, or both, of those authoritative sources rename the virus. Jason M. Smith 21:39, 26 January 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Javasmith (talk • contribs)
  • rename CAR - Chinese Acute Respiratory Syndrome- As of January 27, 2020, as many as four cities with over 10 million people are now impacted: — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.194.163 (talk) 07:13, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Calling 2019-nCoV the 'Wuhan coronavirus' kinda downplays its significance, since it implies that it's almost entirely localized in Wuhan (when it isn't, it just happens to be where it started to spread) (MERS-CoV is called the 'Middle East coronavirus' since it's almost entirely localized in the Middle East). Several contributors above me have also pointed out that WHO calls the virus '2019-nCoV', so yeah. jaclar0529 (talk) 11:18, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose

As several others have pointed out, naming viruses after locations or people is no longer an accepted practice in scientific communities. The outbreak and knowledge of the virus is still fairly new, and while we don't know what name will stick in the long-term, for now keeping the page name "2019-nco" with a redirect from Wuhan Coronavirus is the best solution. TorontoBio (talk) 13:21, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose - The virus is officially named "2019-nCov" and hence it should remain at this page. The "Wuhan coronavirus" title should be treated as similar to the "Spanish flu" and be about the current pandemic, not the virus. Tsukide (talk) 16:31, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - More specifically, oppose for now. We're still early in the process, and changes to the "common" name seem entirely likely. The current title, "Novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV)", is used by relevant authorities, which makes it a good starting point. We should give it a few months and see how the name shakes out. Eventually the WHO and CDC will come up with another name, which will be a contender, and we can see if "Wuhan coronavirus" manages to stick the as the common usage. — Alan De Smet | Talk 17:30, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - as per arguments above, we should follow the scientific consensus on this one for the strain itself, we have 2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak for the outbreak itself. --hroest 21:26, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Both CDC and WHO are using '2019-nCoV' as the name for the virus at this moment. Whatever the name "mainstream" media is using should not be the reason to rename the page. MrSeaman (talk) 21:48, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – A scientific name is preferred, particularly considering there have been instances of the virus outside the Wuhan region and the outbreak article already has Wuhan in the title. Master of Time (talk) 23:44, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Scientific name is preferred. It is not "Wuhan coronavirus" anymore in the near future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.170.68.162 (talk) 02:45, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Against this move ,the whole world is saying 2019-nCoV Recto sama (talk) 05:00, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose Moving it to something like 2019 Wuhan novel coronavirus would seem more appropriate Would (oldosfan) 06:22, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The scientific name is preferred. It would like to see this article by just scientific name (2019-nCoV) without word "novel coronavirus". German, Indonesian, Danish, Dutch, Catalan Wikipedias doesn't use names like "novel coronavirus" because it is ambiguous and can be confusing if any viruses other than 2019-nCoV is released and grammatically incorrect.

Edit protection of some kind

I've been kind of keeping an eye on this page throughout the day,and I've noticed some light vandalism. its probably a good idea to get some kind of edit protection going. - T — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:558:6007:46:4551:8B4F:5C74:9DB2 (talk) 05:23, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@2001:558:6007:46:4551:8B4F:5C74:9DB2: I tried to get something through; Semi-protection just has too much colateral damage (contructive IP editors cannot edit). N0nsensical.system(err0r?)(.log) 12:09, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Incubation period

Can we add the information on the exact (or maybe the longest) duration of the flu incubation period? You know, the time since a person was infected by the bacteria until he/she is confirmed to have the flu and must be treated immediately at the hospital. Must be from highly reliable medical-related sources. Chongkian (talk) 09:04, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are right Chongkian but since it is a new virus/disease, the incubation period might be unknown to scientists, doctors, etc. I am not so sure about this as I am not a professional. But it's only my assumption. Sarthakdangol (talk) 14:57, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Xinhua News Agency (official Chinese state-run press agency) has reported that the longest incubation period of the disease is about 14 days. It also seems to be the number quoted on Chinese Wikipedia. Xinhua also mentions that judging from the experience with SARS and MERS, the incubation period may not be contagious.

Survival time of virus outside animal or man body?

Is there any knowledge about the survival time of the virus outside of the animal or human body? It is important to know if for deciding if I can reuse my mask or I can enter a room in which an infected (or probably infected) person was.

They have deciphered the virus, so I think they are making tests of this kind because this is highly important. 09:09, 23 January 2020 (UTC)~ You are right but since it is a new virus/disease, the time might be unknown to scientists, doctors, etc. I am not so sure about this as I am not a professional. But it's only my assumption.

For SARS I just checked it was 24 hours living time outside human / animal body. 130.92.100.253 (talk) 20:04, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source of virus - snakes

There's some twitter traffic among virologists about the phylogeny. Probably not snakes, probably bats. May want to edit that section. JuanTamad (talk) 12:04, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jtamad: Yes the most reliable paper is https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.01.22.914952v2.full.pdf p.10 showing that during 16 years of investigations on Sars, they found many related beta-coronavirus in bats (more precisely in Rhinolophus) that they called Sars-like coronavirus, that Wuhan-cov falls into this class, and that (only) one of them found in Rhinolophus Affinis is very close to Wuhan-cov.
Very close means that Affinis virus is as close to Wuhan as the human h3n2 flu of 2010 is close to the one of 2019.
The snake stuffs is only a guess based on Codon_usage_bias in the virus genome and I don't think it is reliable for such recent zoonoses. Reuns (talk) 23:07, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Jtamad: Highly agree. Seems that a lot of virologists are pointing out major flaws in the paper and believe that it is highly improbable for this coronavirus to have come from a snake, especially since there are no documented coronaviruses in the same family occurring in reptiles.
Dialtastic (talk) 00:39, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi Protection Request 24 Jan

Can this page be semi protected and perhaps brought under the watchful eye of an Admin with a science background who understands the difference between news and scientific research. ???? It has the potential to cause fake news issues in the current circumstances. Wikimucker (talk) 15:01, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikimucker:  Not done: requests for increases to the page protection level should be made at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. That said, articles are typically only protected if they've seen heavy and continued vandalism from multiple users. Preemptive semi-protection isn't usually done. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 15:20, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Elhef Thanks for all that but I would point out that a lot of outbreak news is still coming in here thick and fast and really this article should be a science/medicine one with proper citations and relatively little outbreak news to clutter it up. Wikimucker (talk) 15:34, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimucker, ElHef I have a background in science/medicine though I'm more familiar with cancer research than virology. I cleaned up some of the redundant, incorrect details just now and reorganized the article to model influenza. Open to feedback. Moksha88 (talk) 05:04, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also, what's your perspective on including details of the virus in this article, 2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak? I think it makes more sense to merge the virus details from that article into this one. Moksha88 (talk) 05:15, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Moksha88 If you could please. The science in this article will be fast moving and many papers will be published as 'open source' research rather than peer reviewed so unlike cancer research where a paper could be 6 months old by the time peer reviewing is completed and publication is final.
We will likely get papers straight off the computer screeen over the next few weeks here. It will require very delicate handling in terms of assertions made, "allegations" that are not reviewed in any way, and how this fast moving science is presented properly in wiki terms. A crap paper may even contain a nugget of gold we don't know about.
I do not have the science to pretend to be capable of editing an article like this beyond this point. If you would allow for less rigour than in your own field, for now anyway, you could be the perfect editor this page requires now that the 'newsy' data is moved to a different article. Wikimucker (talk) 11:36, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wikimucker, I'll do my best. I'm more adept at the medical/clinical section than the virology bits as it's been at least a decade since I completed any coursework on the topic. Moksha88 (talk) 01:12, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Treatment

Something like targeted chemo or radiotherapy could be used as treatment (I understand that this is over the top but I think that it still warrants putting some more information in the Treatment section). I read a news report on it (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aerq4byr7ps) and they say flu antivirals have been tested but I don't know if broad-spectrum antivirals been tested on it yet, and if not perhaps the treatment section should be updated. 2A00:23C5:E41E:1200:D17A:344D:30C7:DA34 (talk) 15:25, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cancer-treatments like chemo- and radio-therapy are wildly irrelevant. If you really read or saw that somewhere, then you may safely assume that everything else from that source is equally insane. But yes, antivirals previously effective on similar coronaviruses (SARS, MERS) are being tested. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 12:37, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Seconded - it'd be wise to avoid putting any far-flung treatment suggestions in the article. No sense inciting people to injure themselves. Ekalosak (talk) 05:16, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Update on Outbreak

The article states that the outbreak reached Texas in America, but the case has not yet been confirmed to be the Coronavirus, so I would think it would be best to change it so Texas is no longer there in the article. ItsDaBunnyYT (talk) 01:07, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Removed 'kung flu' alternate name

"Kung Flu" as an alternate name for Novel coronavirus 2019-nCoV wasn't supported by reference [3], hasn't appeared in any coverage I've seen, and generally has the flavor of a joke, so I've preemptively removed it. If someone wants to add it back, please add a supporting citation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:FE10:3BF0:0:0:0:2D (talk) 19:36, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/blain-we-know-next-nothing-about-what-kung-flu-does-next is a legitimate source with the mention of it. And regardless if it's origin was a joke or not, people know what it is and reference it by that name relatively often in serious discussion too in America. 198.90.104.65 (talk) 00:27, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Seconding the above. People are consistently referring to it as the "Kung Flu" in discussions on social media, chat programs, word-of-mouth, etc. Just because it was oroginally a joke doesn't mean it's not relevant. I mean, look at the Wikipedia redirection page for Boogaloo. Monstarules (talk) 00:36, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have made a redirect, kung flu, as there are quite a few "journalists" that have used the name now. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:50, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Good enough for now. We should petition to have it added to the page though, since many people are honestly using it now. Not sure where to add the poll. Monstarules (talk) 05:04, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Zero Hedge is not remotely reliable for this. Frankly I'd oppose any addition unless a major outlet like BBC uses it.  EvergreenFir (talk) 05:09, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Overlap with Outbreak Article

One question, what is the best approach to handle two articles with overlapping material? The outbreak article shares several sections with this one, and while we edit this article, the other article will lag. Moksha88 (talk) 01:27, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Material that is actually related to the progress of the outbreak should be in that article. That includes information on transmission and symptoms as well as its spread. Information on the virus itself (which includes most of the information about its phylogeny, for example), should go here. I have my doubts that the section on genetics in the other article is necessary at all (it could be reduced to part of the "context" there). Dekimasuよ! 05:50, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, this article should be able to use more medical terminology than the other one, which is attempting to provide information to the general public about an epidemic that could affect them. Tsukide (talk) 16:39, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ribbon Diagram

The Ribbon diagram depicts a homology model of a single viral protein, the protease which cleaves the produced polyprotein into it's constituent proteins, rather than a whole virion or virus particle. The caption should specify this. Skeletoncowboy (talk) 02:55, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

True. Fixed. --分液漏斗 (talk) 03:13, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 27 January 2020

Please change the photo in the infobox with this one, as it has a more detailed explanation about the virus details, as far as we know for now

File:2019-ncov.png
Visualization of 2019-nCoV with Transmission Electron Microscopy

Lollixzc (talk) 21:20, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Infectious during incubation controversy

There is a statement in the virology section stating "The virus is infectious even during the incubation period."

While this is stated definitively in the Wikipedia article, this is not a confirmed fact, and has been disputed both by epidemiologists and US officials. (https://q13fox.com/2020/01/26/china-says-coronavirus-can-spread-before-symptoms-show-calling-into-question-us-containment-strategy/ )

I recommend that this statement be ommited until further information is discovered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.200.137.27 (talk) 22:29, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:SARS-CoV-2&oldid=937958151"