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
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit
Line 274: Line 274:
*'''Strong Support''' - there are no WP:COMMONNAME because there are multiple names being used to casually refer to the epidemic. Wikipedia is imposing a title onto society by picking names from the causal ones, whereas the official name has been "imposed" onto society anyway. [[User:Tsukide|Tsukide]] ([[User talk:Tsukide|talk]]) 07:45, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
*'''Strong Support''' - there are no WP:COMMONNAME because there are multiple names being used to casually refer to the epidemic. Wikipedia is imposing a title onto society by picking names from the causal ones, whereas the official name has been "imposed" onto society anyway. [[User:Tsukide|Tsukide]] ([[User talk:Tsukide|talk]]) 07:45, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
*'''Speedy close'''. There was the same discussion three days ago on this page, involving this and other related articles, with no-consensus outcome. One cannot propose the same move requests again and again until they are accepted. --[[User:Ritchie92|Ritchie92]] ([[User talk:Ritchie92|talk]]) 08:22, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
*'''Speedy close'''. There was the same discussion three days ago on this page, involving this and other related articles, with no-consensus outcome. One cannot propose the same move requests again and again until they are accepted. --[[User:Ritchie92|Ritchie92]] ([[User talk:Ritchie92|talk]]) 08:22, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
**I tell you to '''Oppose''' renaming the article to Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 because [[WP:COMMONNAME]] is applied to this article.[[Special:Contributions/36.76.229.147|36.76.229.147]] ([[User talk:36.76.229.147#top|talk]]) 08:31, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Revision as of 08:32, 14 February 2020

R nought

Dekimasu Based on the CDC statement and other reports the number 5 for R-nought is an generally considered an outlier estimate at this time. Shouldn't we mention that? It doesn't have to be a restoration of the quote this article from the Atlantic may give more context. Dartslilly (talk) 17:34, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please note that I did not add the higher number. At the time it was added, there was a hidden comment asking editors not to add an unreliable basic reproduction number. I believe that in response to the 3-5 addition I added the 1.4-3.8 figure, which was from the outbreak article at the time. I don't think there should be any problem with rewording that part to deemphasize the 3-5 estimate. As a more general problem faced by this article, it seems like there are various research groups that want to add their names and links to their research and their own specific conclusions here, perhaps because this article is currently attracting a lot of traffic; it is difficult to manage all of these, particularly since they are generally citing unpublished research at this time. Dekimasuよ! 17:42, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Dartslilly, I have rephrased those sentences per this comment (although of course the article may be changed by others again before you see this). Dekimasuよ! 04:59, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adding first published values of R0

I suggest to add the first published values of R0 that appeared in peer-review journals (NEJM and Eurosurveillance) this week.

"Research groups have estimated the basic reproduction number (R0 R_{0}, pronounced R-nought) of the virus to be between 1.4 and 5, with most estimates below 3.8.[42][43][44][45] This means that, when unchecked, the virus typically results in 1.4 to 3.8 new cases per established infection."

Could be changed to:

"The the basic reproduction number (R0 R_{0}, pronounced R-nought) of the virus has been estimated to be between 1.4 and 3.9."

The two references that support each others findings are as follows:

[1][2]

Thanks! Calthaus (talk) 11:24, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Li, Qun and Guan, Xuhua and Wu, Peng and Wang, Xiaoye and Zhou, Lei and Tong, Yeqing and Ren, Ruiqi and Leung, Kathy S M and Lau, Eric H Y and Wong, Jessica Y and Xing, Xuesen and Xiang, Nijuan and Wu, Yang and Li, Chao and Chen, Qi and Li, Dan and Liu, Tian and Zhao, Jing and Li, Man and Tu, Wenxiao and Chen, Chuding and Jin, Lianmei and Yang, Rui and Wang, Qi and Zhou, Suhua and Wang, Rui and Liu, Hui and Luo, Yingbo and Liu, Yuan and Shao, Ge and Li, Huan and Tao, Zhongfa and Yang, Yang and Deng, Zhiqiang and Liu, Boxi and Ma, Zhitao and Zhang, Yanping and Shi, Guoqing and Lam, Tommy T Y and Wu, Joseph T K and Gao, George F and Cowling, Benjamin J and Yang, Bo and Leung, Gabriel M and Feng, Zijian (2020). "Early Transmission Dynamics in Wuhan, China, of Novel Coronavirus-Infected Pneumonia". N Engl J Med. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa2001316.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  2. ^ Riou, Julien and Althaus, Christian L. (2020). "Pattern of early human-to-human transmission of Wuhan 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), December 2019 to January 2020". Eurosurveillance. 25 (4). doi:10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2020.25.4.2000058.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
 Done Basically instituted: kept the second sentence but adjusted the numbers and added the sources. It seems clear at this point that the 5 number is an outlier (and, as you pointed out, these are published and that wasn't), so I have removed that reference for now. Dekimasuよ! 04:00, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, I should note that any conflicts of interest should be self-reported, as your username may be taken to indicate one here. Dekimasuよ! 05:47, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well spotted! 89.206.115.106 (talk) 12:36, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Dekimasu: wait... where? how? robertsky (talk) 14:17, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The second source, but the journal seems reliable enough, so I've left things at that for now. Dekimasuよ! 14:36, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
C. Althaus, good spotting. @Dekimasu: Where's a good place to declare conflicts of interest for specific articles? I should declare that my spouse works on this stuff (same last name - Erik M Volz), but I've been careful not to cite anything written by him. I did fix a link that someone else added from Imperial College London to the more specific Imperial_College_Faculty_of_Medicine (his employer). Mvolz (talk) 13:53, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Mvolz, thanks for pointing this out voluntarily. If you want to mark it here or on another specific article talk page, you can use Template:Connected contributor at the top of the article's talk. In this case it doesn't sound like you need to do so. On your userpage, you can create a list using Template:UserboxCOI or create a similar text-based list. Dekimasuよ! 13:29, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Caption on the image

@Hemiauchenia: the image may be "very clearly a computer generated 3d render" to you, but as I mentioned here and at WP:ERRORS, the source of the image calls it an illustration, and does not provide further information on how it was produced. Unless you have a source saying the image was produced by a computer, we should stick with the verifiable facts. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 14:55, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't understand your point, It's like saying we shouldn't say a picture of the moon is of the moon unless it is explicitly stated by the source. Saying that we can't know how the image is produced is silly, and merely shows your ignorance of computer graphics. It is clearly a 3d model of the virus (I. e. a computer graphic), with lighting, shading and blur effects, which by definition makes it a render. This isn't something that could be produced by any other method. I think that calling it an illustration is clearer and I don't disagree with the change, but your logic that we can't know it's a render is off. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:14, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

While we're on the topic of the infobox and the treachery of images, I'm wondering if it's about time to remove the picture of China ("Wuhan, China, the epicenter of the only recorded outbreak"). It's true that Wuhan is still the epicenter of the outbreak, but the outbreak is also global at this point, and the map may be one of the factors that is prompting the insertion of too much information on the specific outbreak into this article on the virus. Still, I'm not sure, so would like to hear other opinions on this. Dekimasuよ! 15:22, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The outbreak is still largely confined to china and Hubei province, there isn't really significant human to human transmission outside China yet, so it should remain as is currently. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:28, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. Where the outbreak happens to be taking place is not really germane to a description of the virus, though, is it? Unless it is necessary context for discussing the natural reservoir. Dekimasuよ! 15:34, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider adding some brief function descriptions for the various parts shown in the (2nd) cross-sectional image. It would be great if those functions could also be linked to relevant wikipages. Jahibadkaret (talk) 16:55, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Epidemiologist interview

Yug has twice added the following text to the section on virus research: "Zhejiang University's renowned epidemiologist Li Lanjuan has announced a possible timeline of few months to produce production and test a vaccine. Patients samples allowed researchers to isolate the virus strain, from which 4 weeks are needed to create vaccine strains, 2 weeks to test these, 6 weeks for official approval.[1]"

I have removed the addition, because many well-known doctors have made comments about vaccine research in regards to 2019-nCoV, and it is unclear why we should focus on this single researcher's opinion here. The YouTube clip cited does not say that Li Lanjuan or the university is directly involved in any vaccine development. It only explains one possible timeline and is not really an "announcement" (Yug did add "possible" in the second addition). I am moving the discussion to talk to try to resolve this; other opinions welcome. Dekimasuよ! 16:45, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dekinasu, I understand your concerns, yet I see value in this citation, be it by the fact it's a leading Chinese virologist, still in charge at Zhejiang University, and because this citation state the details of a timeline, the vaccine's substeps. Positive inclusion in my opinion. Yug (talk) 16:53, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dekimasu and Yug!

The addition that was removed should, I believe, be reinstated as soon as there is another source of an interview with another epidemiologist. If there is already an alternate source of relevant and scientic information, I don't see the point of removing it or discussing it either. Ty! FranciscoMMartins (talk) 23:00, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The less speculation about vaccine research, the better. All that can be said by now is that the initial antigen purifications are proceeding far better than with SARS - basically all vaccine workgroups can be supplied in abundance, so vaccine development can proceed at good speed. But this does not mean a vaccine for public use is anywhere close. An experimental therapeutic vaccine for emergency trials in already-infected patients may be ready out in less than a month if research proceeds at present speed, but this is not the same as a tested and safe vaccine for mass preventive inoculation. The latter is more limited by the time and resources required to set up a production and distribution chain, i.e. a problem of economics and logistics that is mostly outside the scope of biomedical research.
So for some time we will be getting different "expert opinions" most of which will be equally true despite vastly contradicting, because they define "vaccine" differently. And as most media reports are not likely to go into details in that regard, they're worthless (no robust information) or counterproductive (resulting in incomplete information appearing as self-contradict) as sources.
What to do? Document key steps in vaccine research as they occur, but refrain from using media speculation about future timeframes. That way, we can give clear, accurate and reliable information. 2001:4DD1:5030:0:6834:8598:D1E5:CC5E (talk) 02:23, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Need to be careful what "studies" we allow in the article

Before adding any research papers to the main article, please review

and make sure the research is sound. Research, both solid and not so solid, is moving very fast. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:09, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I consider it very inappropriate to troll this otherwise relevant discussion so blatantly. A reminder to vet your sources from no less than BuzzFeed? Give me a break! 89.206.112.110 (talk) 11:51, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's actually a BuzzFeed News story not Buzzfeed. BuzzFeed News, unlikely BuzzFeed is an RS (WP:Perennial sources) so they should not be conflated. I would still urge great caution with them on science matters, however the general advice in this case seems sound and no one is proposing adding them to the article. Nil Einne (talk) 13:47, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have not seen one reference to the pangolin story added here yet. On one hand, this is a positive development. On the other hand, I feel like it might be better to get ahead of any overconfident additions by adding a reference to the "intermediate host cannot be ruled out" sentence in the lede—that is, pointing out that the pangolin claims are from news stories and press releases, not the unpublished study that is supposed to have been referenced in them. Dekimasuよ! 15:46, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Another example is scientific correspondence. We have let a few of these through so far, but we need to be aware that something like this does not serve as evidence of ocular transmission, only suggests it as a topic for further study, and being sourced to The Lancet doesn't mean it gets a free pass as fact. Dekimasuよ! 03:09, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Persistence of coronaviruses on inanimate surfaces and its inactivation with biocidal agents

Can someone add the information please?

We therefore reviewed the literature on all available information about the persistence of human and veterinary coronaviruses on inanimate surfaces as well as inactivation strategies with biocidal agents used for chemical disinfection, e.g. in healthcare facilities. The analysis of 22 studies reveals that human coronaviruses such as Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) coronavirus, Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) coronavirus or endemic human coronaviruses (HCoV) can persist on inanimate surfaces like metal, glass or plastic for up to 9 days, but can be efficiently inactivated by surface disinfection procedures with 62-71% ethanol, 0.5% hydrogen peroxide or 0.1% sodium hypochlorite within 1 minute. Other biocidal agents such as 0.05-0.2% benzalkonium chloride or 0.02% chlorhexidine digluconate are less effective. As no specific therapies are available for 2019-nCoV, early containment and prevention of further spread will be crucial to stop the ongoing outbreak and to control this novel infectious thread.

https://www.journalofhospitalinfection.com/article/S0195-6701(20)30046-3/fulltext

--80.187.106.5 (talk) 12:25, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

✗ Not done. This has been removed from the article repeatedly, not least because the review does not include any studies at all on this particular coronavirus. The WHO also writes "From previous analysis, we know coronaviruses do not survive long on objects" (Myth busters). As before, I suggest bringing this up at Talk:Coronavirus if necessary. Dekimasuよ! 15:22, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Animation

People's thought on this? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:54, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What information does it convey? Graham Beards (talk) 07:50, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I had the same question. Dekimasuよ! 08:03, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This electron microscope image has also been added to the CDC site recently. Dekimasuよ! 08:08, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's an ultrathin section. Some readers might have difficulty understanding the image. (Not a reason in itself for not using it of course). Graham Beards (talk) 12:19, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Doc James: I'd say "no" on the animation unless it can be shown that the virus spins and moves as rapidly as in the animation. As other's asked "What information does it convey?" As it is, images such as File:2019-nCoV-CDC-23312 without background.png would be better if they included an explanation of what the various colored bits are and that the colors are only for display purposes. A virus is smaller than a wavelength of visible light and thus it, and its parts, do not have visible colors. I like File:3D medical animation coronavirus structure.jpg as it shows what the pieces are though I would have preferred if it also included a ruler. --Marc Kupper|talk 06:05, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It clearly shows that it is round. But no strong feeling either way. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:10, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FYI on naming

COVID-19: a disease caused by the 2019-nCoV

2019-nCoV: a new coronavirus first identified by health authorities in Wuhan, thought to derive from pangolins and ultimately bats

The outbreak that's currently taking place should be called "2019-20 COVID-19 epidemic" no matter how clumsy that sounds,similar to the 2009 flu pandemic (which was known at the time as Swine Flu), with redirects from the numerous nicknames given to the epidemic. SomethingNastyHere (talk) 15:51, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I basically agree with this assessment. We are still waiting on the name for the virus from ICTV. Dekimasuよ! 16:06, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 11 February 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: No consensus, please see: [1] New RM is recommended first on the 20th of february, where all relevant articles should be included.
(non-admin closure) Carl Fredrik talk 01:57, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

– World Health Organization and International Committee for Taxonomy of Virus called new official name of virus and disease as SARS-CoV 2 and COVID-19. 36.76.229.147 (talk) 22:21, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative request move for first article from 2019 novel coronavirus to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 or severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus subtype 2 36.76.229.147 (talk) 21:40, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Must have missed this. Source on the new classifications? BlackholeWA (talk) 02:08, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with all the merges. I vote Merge all pages due to the change of names by WHO and ICTV. FranciscoMMartins (talk) 23:20, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There are no merges in the main proposal; a side proposal for one merge was made. Boud (talk) 23:49, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@FranciscoMMartins: I've moved the side proposal to Talk:2019 novel coronavirus#Merge proposal if you could clarify which you support. Mvolz (talk) 03:05, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Mvolz: Hi! Thank you for the feedback :) FranciscoMMartins (talk) 16:29, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with any move to a COVID name. SARS-cov 2, no opinion. IBE (talk) 23:55, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait for all the *Wuhan coronavirus outbreak* articles for Talk:2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak#Requested move 11 February 2020 to be resolved, and then propose a name change of those articles consistent with that decision. Boud (talk) 00:39, 12 February 2020 (UTC) Boud (talk) 00:51, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support renaming 2019 novel coronavirus to SARS-CoV-2 (with both hyphens), as the official name chosen by the International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses and used in the research literature (not yet peer-reviewed). Boud (talk) 00:51, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • (ec) I think these are two different discussions, which is the point of drawing a distinction between this page that has an "official" title made by the ICTV and the "COVID-19"-related pages that have "official" titles made by the WHO. On the other hand, we need to keep in mind WP:NAMECHANGES and WP:OFFICIAL. We do not necessarily change page titles because official titles have changed. Instead, we reflect how common usage has adapted after the official name changes. There is no way we can yet know the extent to which these names will be adopted after less than 12 hours, and no evidence of a shift in usage has been presented here, so the move request was premature. I would anticipate supporting a move to Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (the full name given by ICTV here; it does not include "related" because the naming is based upon the name of the previous SARS virus, not any relationship to SARS "disease") or possibly "SARS-CoV-2" at some point in the future. I think a merge of the strains is unwarranted at this time, although if that is not done it may be necessary to clarify the relationship further at Severe acute respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus. No objection to a speedy close of this request if it is determined that the multimove grouping made by the IP proposer is suboptimal. Dekimasuよ! 00:57, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as this is too many to consider at once and is overlapping with other move discussions in progress. It would be better to stick with one proposal to rename this page. Anyway before renaming anything make sure that other independent sources start using the new names before we react. This page should probably eventually rename to the full name of Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:48, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral: It's got a name now, but how many people know about it at this time? Not many. If you go out on the streets, you'll most likely hear people call it the coronavirus and not "sars cov two". Yes things like this should be formal, but then for convenience purposes, we'll use the simple non-complex term. Can I Log In (talk) 01:56, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Feel like commonname isn't a good argument for the current title, as the current title isn't really even a "name", it's more a description. The name that the media is using is "coronavirus", with no qualification, which obviously isn't appropriate as it refers to an entire virus family. Moving to the new designation would reflect both the official terminology and also give the article a unique name that isn't just a slightly exhaustive description of its subject. BlackholeWA (talk) 02:04, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support all of the COVID name changes. Searches for COVID are skyrocketing on Google Trends (7-day). It looks like it is now more popular than "Wuhan coronavirus" so it checks off WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NCMED. Support but wait a few days on the Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) rename as it's clear that one will take a little bit more time to become widely recognized. Wikmoz (talk) 02:19, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Edited - Wikmoz (talk) 07:02, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - we should move the page to SARS-CoV-2
The more and more I edit these Wikipedia pages, the more and more that I have realised how politically motivated most editors are despite the fact that this is an ongoing medical emergency. The main article on the outbreak is unreadable because it's written so simply... readers who don't speak fluent English aren't coming here and we can compute technical terms. The facts are as follows:
"SARS-CoV-2 is the official name of the virus and hence should be the title of the virus's wikipedia article. The article is mostly technical anyway so WP:COMMONNAME is stupid.
COVID-19 is the official name of the disease and this article is also mostly technical so hence should be the name of the disease
2019-20 COVID-19 epidemic should be the name of the article, which is similar to the conventions established previously through articles such as 2009 flu pandemic, which would be called Swine flu if it were COMMONNAME. Furthermore, using people or using locations to refer to epidemics is disliked by the political and medical community, except to refer to the disease WITHIN a locality or person, such as referring to the "Princess Cruise Outbreak" about the COVID-19 epidemic within the confines of the cruise (currently docked in or near Japan). I notice that it's mostly the same people who constantly revamp the pages to suit their political agendas.
SomethingNastyHere (talk) 08:43, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Evidence is required. Since it looks like this is not going to be speedily closed, I'll point out again that more than simple supports and opposes, what is needed if the pages are to be moved is evidence that the common names for the things discussed in these articles is changing—that is, evidence that fits WP:NAMECHANGES and doesn't simply rely upon the idea that one or another title is official. There is a confounding issue in that some of the pages involved in the move request are descriptive titles (WP:NDESC) that don't work exactly the same way as far as common names go under WP:AT, but without any evidence beyond a comment on Google Trends it is unlikely that this has enough policy/guideline support to pass. Please provide the evidence if you would like to see these moves go through. Dekimasuよ! 08:54, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:Dekimasu what makes a page COMMONNAME though? Who actually uses the term "2019 novel coronavirus" is common parlance? The term "coronavirus" or "new sars" would be alone enough to identify the outbreak. I have never actually heard the word "Wuhan" being used to refer to the outbreak, the closest is usually just "are you worried about that outbreak from China". SomethingNastyHere (talk) 09:01, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is something to be said for the idea that no common name has been established for something that came into the public eye so recently, it's true. That's one of the reasons I did not object when 2019-nCoV acute respiratory disease was immediately moved to COVID-19, although it's since been reverted and now requires further discussion. The underlying guidance is that we "generally prefer the name that is most commonly used, as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources". Here that means not what people are saying on the street, but what medical journals, papers of record, and other reliable secondary sources use to refer to these subjects. In this case we would want to see, for example, that The New England Journal of Medicine or The New York Times, etc., are using the new titles. Things released directly by the WHO and the ICTV do not really fall under the purview of WP:COMMONNAME on their own. (We also have WP:TITLECHANGES, which says if there's not a good reason to move a page to a new title, we shouldn't. When possible, title stability is another underlying goal.) Dekimasuよ! 09:07, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the common name isn't "novel coronavirus", nor is it "SARS-CoV-2". But what's the point at situating the page at "novel coronavirus" if it is neither the official name nor the common name? 935690edits (talk) 10:23, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support of the move to SARS-CoV-2 as per the WP:COMMONNAME - Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources. SARS, MERS, even H1N1 were all novel coronaviruses. It causes significant confusion, and the current name is an extremely ambiguous name. --Almaty (talk) 12:29, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose all. But I support moving all the articles in WP:CONSISTENCY with current 2019 novel coronavirus. And support moving Timeline of the 2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak in December 2019 – January 2020 to Timeline of the 2019 novel coronavirus outbreak in Wuhan. Otherwise we will keep on changing the titles every week/month. —usernamekiran (talk) 12:53, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I am one of the editors that has contributed somewhat to this article. I am making one generic comment to cover all three article pages, with a general "support" to all the moves except in terms of the technicalities of the name... I consider the name of the virus to be "SARS-CoV-2" so precedence would suggest that the name of the virus article should be "Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2". The WP:COMMONNAME appears to be "coronavirus" and "novel/new coronavirus" which make for unencyclopedic article titles and should remain nothing more than placeholder names... The disease is called "COVID-9" so similarly the article should be "Coronavirus disease 2019". The usage of the word "novel" should be discouraged as per comments above... The outbreak article should be "2019-20 coronavirus outbreak" (similar to the Zika virus outbreak) or as suggest in other comments "2019-20 COVID-9 outbreak" (similar to the 2009 flu pandemic as suggested elsewhere). I disagree that the name would confuse people because the vast majority of people are either going to be confused with "coronavirus" (in which case the Simple English Wikipedia would help) or they would be able to deduce what it means. There are numerous WP:COMMONNAME that can be used so I think that all of them should redirect to a more formal name... Putting together all these arguments, which aren't related to the arguments about whether a virus/disease/outbreak ought to be named after cities, I am against the usage of the word "novel" in article titles and supportive of using official names across the virus, disease and outbreak articles. I also disagree that there is an established WP:COMMONNAME out there and this Wikipedia article may in fact be "forcing" the "Wuhan coronavirus outbreak" onto society. Tsukide (talk) 13:29, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as per BlackholeWA. Bondegezou (talk) 13:48, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. It isn't clear that COVID-19 will be widely adopted, far too early, so I would leave it as it is and use WP:COMMONNAME at least for the time being. As I indicated in previous renaming discussing of the 2019 novel coronavirus article, the name used for the article was meant to be temporary and we shouldn't really use a temporary name. Others however disagree and we kept a temporary name as the article title, which is highly unsatisfactory. The situation is similar here, and I would suggest a wait-and-see approach to see if COVID-19 becomes commonly used. I can however make an exception for the 2019 novel coronavirus article, the name of which was, as I mentioned earlier, only temporary, and should not have been used in the first place, although I would use something more descriptive. Hzh (talk) 13:58, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Let the dust settle a bit first. Why add to the confusion at this point? DrHenley (talk) 14:15, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support. International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses (ICTV) has designated the virus on 2020-02-11 as "SARS-CoV-2". See their paper: — Hasdi Bravo • 15:23, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    "Based on phylogeny, taxonomy and established practice, the [Coronavirus Study Group (CSG) of ICTV] formally recognizes this virus as a sister to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronaviruses (SARS-CoVs) of the species Severe acute respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus and designates it as severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)."
  • Move to Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 per WP:CONSISTENT and WP:NCMED. We have articles like SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV which do not use the abbreviations as the article titles so per WP:CONSISTENT, this should follow likewise instead of moving to "SARS-CoV-2". Secondly, WP:NCMED as a guideline advocates a move. But some may argue that we wait first per WP:NAMECHANGES as a policy. That makes sense but note that WP:NCMED is something to consider. LightKeyDarkBlade (talk) 15:44, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. It's better to move all pages per official names. --Cuaxdon (talk) 16:34, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support for all as this will be the official name. Stability at last, stability at last, oh thank the WHO I have stability at last. That said, I have no objection to waiting a couple of weeks. I also strongly support leaving redirects from all terms used widely used by the press since this started. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:03, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support Official nomenclature with criteria for non-stigmatizing colloquial usage in mind. https://time.com/5782284/who-name-coronavirus-covid-19/ kencf0618
  • Support. Now it has an official name, I feel it is best to use it. 5.252.192.144 (talk) 19:19, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. It isn't at all clear that COVID-19 will be widely accepted. Too early -what's the rush? Graham Beards (talk) 19:28, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Support for all. This is the official name, arguments on 'whether it will be adopted' are facetious in my view when there is already wide use in RS that overshadow all others since its official designation and and derivative articles should be adjusted to reflect that. There are 77m results for "COVID-19" compared to 28.4m for "Wuhan coronavirus". Even before this, "Wuhan coronavirus" is not and has never been the WP:COMMONNAME so the guidelines of that policy are not applicable. Sleath56 (talk) 19:38, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom and above but Move 2019 novel coronavirus to Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. –hueman1 (talk) 21:50, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Per wp:commonname and official name142.103.143.128 (talk) 22:55, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. WHO has proposed to name the Wuhan coronavirus disease COVID-19. This is a politically-motivated change to use an undescriptive name because the placename Wuhan is regarded as insulting to the city of Wuhan, China, where the disease was first identified. However, Wikipedia is not bound by politically-motivated name changes, but should use names that are descriptive and helpful to the reader. Trying to conceal the fact this viral disease first emerged in Wuhan is unhelpful to readers and should be discouraged, regardless of what WHO's opinion. --Zeamays (talk) 23:06, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose move to anything containing COVID. With all due respect to the virologists at WHO, "COVID-19" is a terrible name for this virus, as "COVID" is far too similar to "CORVID", the family name for crows, which is a scientific term the lay public are already reasonably familiar with. Just from a quick Google search I can see numerous mainstream media articles mistakenly calling it "CORVID-19". This seems terribly misleading - if I knew nothing about this virus and heard that name, the obvious assumption is that this is some new kind of bird flu originating in crows, which is not the case at all. For that matter, I can't say SARS-2 is a particularly great name either, this is not a movie sequel! The WP:COMMONNAME in the media seems to be "the new coronavirus" or more rarely "Wuhan coronavirus". Personally I don't see what's wrong with 2019-nCoV for a technical name, already lots of papers that have been published using that name. Meodipt (talk) 00:13, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose [TL;DR: was originally going to go Support upon seeing WHO announcement on Twitter but once I began editing, the person above me made me reconsider things] While WHO has created an official name for this virus as mentioned by multiple users above, there is more opposition than I expected to see here. However, as @Meodipt: pointed out above me, CORVID and COVID are going to be quite confusing to differentiate especially with media already beginning to perpetuate this (and might have already begun to leave some impressions on Google's search prediction algorithims). Overall, renaming this article would probably cause more ambiguity for future viewers, especially mainstream media journalists in the long run. Applying WP:COMMONNAME and keeping the current article name makes it clear which disease is being discussed, regardless of the existence of a technical name. Perhaps we can acknowledge WHO's technical name somewhere in the article while respecting WP:COMMONNAME. RayDeeUx (talk) 02:03, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Merge proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Not merged. The discussion is only 12 hours old, but with unanimous opposition so far other than the proposer, I don't think consensus will develop and it adds confusion while the move discussion is also ongoing.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:35, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative Proposal: Merge 2019 novel coronavirus into Severe acute respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus As these are now both considered strains of the same virus. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:52, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose merge to SARS coronavirus; they might be classified as the same species by the ICTV but they clearly have significantly different properties. It would be very confusing to have to rewrite an existing well-developed article in every sentence to state what applies to both and where they differ, and likely to lead to mistakes and confusion. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:30, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose merge to SARS coronavirus. These are completely different stains with completely different epidemiological properties, i.e. SARS-CoV-2 has a much, much lower infection fatality rate, different R0, etc. Plenty of viruses have different articles for different strains. Also, I am moving this merge proposal into its own section below because it was incredibly confusing getting redirected from the tag to the talk page of the other article and then have to hunt down the thread here. Mvolz (talk) 03:05, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose merge very different stuff. Being the same species does not exclude having different articles; our taxobox has lower levels for these cases. --Artoria2e5 🌉 04:44, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

A new discussion about move to COVID-19

I'm notifying you about a new discussion over at the 2019-nCov acute respiratory disease talk page about moving it to the COVID-19 page that might be of interest to you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2019-nCoV_acute_respiratory_disease#Requested_move_12_February_2020

935690edits (talk) 10:54, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is a discussion to split SARS CoV into Sars 1 and the Sars species, which would be a container for this article. Discussion over at Talk:Severe acute respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hemiauchenia (talk • contribs) 22:06, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 14 February 2020

2019 novel coronavirus → Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 – This is the official name given by the WHO, and "novel coronavirus" was just a placeholder name until an official name could be determined. Now that the official name has been decided upon as "severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2", the article should be moved. Lutein678 (talk) 01:05, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:SARS-CoV-2&oldid=940737459"