Talk:SARS-CoV-2

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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."

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)

References

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)

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)

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)

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

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

• Lee, Stephanie (2020-02-04). "Shoddy Coronavirus Studies Are Going Viral And Stoking Panic: Scientists are rapidly posting findings about the new coronavirus outbreak online, accelerating the speed of scientific discoveries — and of misinformation". BuzzFeed. Archived from the original on 2020-02-05.

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

✗ 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)

Animation

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

What information does it convey? Graham Beards (talk) 07:50, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

I had the same question. Dekimasuよ! 08:03, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

This electron microscope image has also been added to the CDC site recently. Dekimasuよ! 08:08, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

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)

@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)

It clearly shows that it is round. But no strong feeling either way. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:10, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

---

• 2019 novel coronavirus → SARS-CoV-2
• Timeline of the 2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak in December 2019 – January 2020 → Timeline of the COVID-19 outbreak in December 2019 – January 2020
• Evacuations related to the 2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak → Evacuations related to the COVID-19 outbreak
• 2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak by country and territory → COVID-19 outbreak by country and territory
• Timeline of the 2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak → Timeline of the COVID-19 outbreak
• Mainland China during the 2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak → Mainland China during the COVID-19 outbreak
• Misinformation related to the 2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak → Misinformation related to the COVID-19 outbreak
• Xenophobia and racism related to the 2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak → Xenophobia and racism related to the COVID-19 outbreak
• Timeline of the 2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak in February 2020 → Timeline of the COVID-19 outbreak in February 2020
• Template:2019-nCoV → Template:COVID-19

– 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)

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)

Comment - Must have missed this. Source on the new classifications? BlackholeWA (talk) 02:08, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

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)

There are no merges in the main proposal; a side proposal for one merge was made. Boud (talk) 23:49, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

@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)

@Mvolz: Hi! Thank you for the feedback :) FranciscoMMartins (talk) 16:29, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Agree with any move to a COVID name. SARS-cov 2, no opinion. IBE (talk) 23:55, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

• Support move all pages per official names. robertsky (talk) 23:34, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. Per WP:COMMONNAME policy, since "coronavirus" is the most commonly used name by news organizations, and also some specialized medical news organizations. And in any case "coronavirus disease" is the long form of "COVID". See also parallel discussions on the recent outbreak page and on the disease page. --Ritchie92 (talk) 00:03, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose — ENGLISH-101: Welcome to YEAR-20, you catch SARS-2 and get COVID-19? I speaks COMMONNAME OVER-9000! 89.206.119.197 (talk) 00:29, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
• Servere Acute Respiratory Syndrome-related Coronavirus 2 should be the ne not SARS-CoV 2. We need to be precise Hushskyliner (talk) 22:45, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

• I mean severe acute respiratory syndrome related coronavirus 2 Hushskyliner (talk) 22:16, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

• 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)
• 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)
  • This "research literature" is ICTV's own Coronavirus Study Group people writing about their cool new taxonomy. I don't think that counts.--Artoria2e5 🌉 04:54, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
• (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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)

Edited - Wikmoz (talk) 07:02, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose I think Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 would be better than SARS-CoV-2. Mvolz (talk) 03:20, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
• Support but wait SARS-CoV-2 is not official yet for the paper is still in preprint stage. --MuanN (talk) 03:27, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - It appears a single unpublished paper is using the proposed name. Much like how there are battles here on the name academics are also in a race and battle to be the one(s) that give it a name. The home page of the WHO web site, https://www.who.int/, has "Novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) outbreak". WHO's web page about the virus and disease is at https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019 which uses also uses "Novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV)" in the headline. Even if you drill to more technical pages, such as this one they are still using "2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV)." --Marc Kupper|talk 04:47, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Removing the name of the city of origin - Wuhan - from the name starkly reduces recognizability and might be ultimately fueled by the subterranean anti-racist sentiment. It would turn Wikipedia into a joke as such a remarkable virus' name would be censored.--Adûnâi (talk) 05:30, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

• Comment Redirection pages exist. See also heart attack, strep throat, high blood cholesterol and irregular heartbeat. Also, censor is quite a strong word. This page will be kept as a redirection page and presumably the first sentence of the new page will list this name as a "commonly known" alternative, just as these pages do.Rethliopuks (talk) 08:02, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

• Support all moves of the form "... 2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak ..." → "... COVID-19 outbreak ...". News sources have also started to use "COVID-19". Also Support Template:2019-nCoV → Template:COVID-19. Wait for 2019 novel coronavirus → SARS-CoV-2.  --Lambiam 06:18, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
• Support number 1 for now per above. Ythlev (talk) 06:27, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose Our article names should not come as a shock. Less common names can go latter. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:14, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

• Comment heart attack, strep throat, high blood cholesterol and irregular heartbeat. Rethliopuks (talk) 08:02, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

• It's neither here nor there (i.e. WP:WAX), but I think there is a good argument for moving the first three of those. As far as the last one goes, "arrhythmia" is fairly common anyway. Dekimasuよ! 08:50, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

• Support the move of the middle two. Heart attack has two meanings (cardiac arrest and myocardial infarction). Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:52, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose It's not common to call a viral disease COVID at all. "Coronavirus" is much more recognizable. Also there is very little clue from the names that COVID-19 is linked to SARS. Lysimachi (talk) 07:20, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
• Support all COVID-19 moves. Support but wait for SARS-CoV-2 moves. wizzwizz4 (talk) 07:54, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
• Support as Wikipedia is at its most basic an encyclopaedia. Official names should be reflected as such so as not to confuse people. Rethliopuks (talk) 08:02, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

• Oppose use the common name. This new COVID is a joke and until the RS follow it we leave as it is. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:21, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• Support as per BlackholeWA. Bondegezou (talk) 13:48, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

• 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)
• Oppose. Let the dust settle a bit first. Why add to the confusion at this point? DrHenley (talk) 14:15, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
• 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)

  "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)
• Support. It's better to move all pages per official names. --Cuaxdon (talk) 16:34, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
  • It is worth reading WP:Official name which tells us not to emphasise it too much. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:11, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
    • Sure, wherein it says that the official name must always be considered as one possibility. The primacy of WP:COMMONNAME, which I assume is the point of the emphasis you're referring to, is not applicable in this scenario as "Wuhan coronavirus" has never been the common name nor the most popular common name. Sleath56 (talk) 22:05, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
• 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)
• Support Per wp:commonname and official name142.103.143.128 (talk) 22:55, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)

---

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)

---

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)

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)

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)

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)

• Oppose per above. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 05:16, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Per above. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:43, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose See Influenza A virus subtype H5N1 and Influenza A virus subtype H1N1. We keep subtypes apart. If the naming is not good then we should be renaming the articles not merging them. I admit the names "Severe acute respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus" and "2019 novel coronavirus" are bad. Perhaps we should have "Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus subtype 1" and "Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus subtype 2" respectively.--Officer781 (talk) 10:30, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Merging them would also create the false impression that SARS-CoV-1 is still active (all indications are that that virus is now extinct). It's worth noting that SARS-CoV-2 is not a descendant of SARS-CoV-1 - both are descendants of a SARS-CoV found only in animals and made the jump into humans separately with different mutations. The Coronavirus Study Group describes it as "a sister" to SARS-CoV-1. As more research comes out, we probably should have three separate articles: SARS-CoV-1 (about the subtype that caused the 2003 SARS outbreak), SARS-CoV-2 (about the subtype causing COVID-19) and SARS-CoV (about the whole SARS-CoV species). Smurrayinchester 10:51, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

---

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)

Notice of an ongoing split discussion at Talk:Severe acute respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus

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)

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)

• Support per official name. robertsky (talk) 01:18, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
• Strong support with comment this RM similar with my requested move which involve all article with "Wuhan coronavirus outbreak" name. But i support for only single move request because per official name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 36.76.229.147 (talk) 02:07, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
• Comment There is a ongoing discussion whether to split Severe acute respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus into a SARS-CoV-1 article. If that is done, this should be SARS-CoV-2 for reciprocity. Sleath56 (talk) 04:57, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
• Evidence is required, still. More than simple supports and opposes, what is needed if the page is to be moved is evidence that fits WP:NAMECHANGES and doesn't simply rely upon the idea that one or another title is 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. Without any evidence of common usage, it is unlikely that this has enough policy/guideline support to pass. Please provide evidence of usage in reliable, secondary sources if you would like to see this move go through (not primary sources like the WHO). What is being used in stories from the BBC, The New York Times, the South China Morning Post, etc. since the WHO changed the name officially? We follow sources, not precede them. Dekimasuよ! 05:08, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
• Support With caveat that there's an article out as of yesterday about how there's disagreement over this name in the science community which makes me more hesitant: "Coronavirus latest: Scientists clash over virus name". Nature. 2020-02-13. doi:10.1038/d41586-020-00154-w. It's unfortunate we've had so much trouble over naming for this one. (Both this article, and the scientific community at large!) Mvolz (talk)
• 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. 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. --Ritchie92 (talk) 08:22, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

• I disagree that this is the same request. The structure and timing of the previous request were both suboptimal, and it is possible that we can achieve consensus for a new title in this discussion. I would like to ask for a temporary moratorium on move requests if that does not take place. (Note that the previous close is also under Wikipedia:Move review due to objections that it should not have been closed early. I would say we should let one more go all the way through and get a real close for the first time since the introduction of a new "official" name.) Dekimasuよ! 09:28, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

• This proposal is very likely to affect the "main" COVID-19 pages move proposals, presently under a de facto moratorium, but differs because it deals with a very specific restricted topic and a single article. A discussion on one specific, well-defined narrow topic is more likely to converge than one on a wider more complex topic. The present content of this move proposal is an example: we're presently close to WP:SNOW. Boud (talk) 21:23, 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.36.76.229.147 (talk) 08:31, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
• Comment "Novel coronavirus" literally means 'new coronavirus' and is intended to be a placeholder name until the WHO reached a consensus regarding the official name. Now that it has been officially determined, the article should be moved.Lutein678 (talk) 09:45, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

• Comment - I support this comment basically. The COMMONNAME is basically "novel coronavirus" or "new coronavirus" or just "coronavirus" which is very stupid for an encyclopedia. Tsukide (talk) 09:55, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
• Again, we do not rely simply upon WP:OFFICIAL names. The uptake of the official name is important. As far as the possibility that the common name is "coronavirus", that would lead us to a variety of ways of disambiguating the title for precision since there are also other things called "coronavirus". One natural disambiguation for "coronavirus" is the current title. But this conversation can all be avoided if evidence is provided that the new names are being used in reliable, independent secondary sources. Dekimasuよ! 10:11, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

• No No evidence of widespread use in sources. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 11:37, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
• Comment - the previous RM was closed with the suggestion not to start new RMs until 20 Feb at the earliest and, although it was a non-admin closure, that moratorium was sound and should be honoured. An uninvolved admin should close this now.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:45, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

• To be fair, that close is at WP:MR. Dekimasuよ! 12:05, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

• Support - That is the official name of the virus. TheGreatSG'rean (talk) 11:52, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
• Support. This is now the official name, and there is no generally accepted WP:COMMONNAME to use as an alternative. -- The Anome (talk) 12:24, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

• There is evidence provided above that the "official name" is not generally recognized yet either, however. To posit that the official name should be used in the absence of a generally accepted common name requires that we recognize the authority of one particular body to establish an official name. In practice we may do this sometimes, but in theory we don't, so another type of argument might be preferable. Dekimasuよ! 12:27, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

• WARNING For all administrator and editors, this request move, even with official name recognized by many institution, need to reach consensus to all English Wikipedia community because there are many aspect that the official name does not widely accepted by English Wikipedia community despite being accepted on other languages community. For this request move, please find evidence from many source around the world, including non-english source that use the official names like (SARS-CoV-2) because this RM require whole consensus to be reached by Wikipedia community, not just only plenty editors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.137.191.96 (talk) 14:02, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

• No need to shout. Naming on the English Wikipedia is based upon usage in English language sources. That's the first sentence of Wikipedia:Article titles#Deciding on an article title. Dekimasuよ! 16:00, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Comment Shouldn't the name be "Severe acute respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus 2" This name change is really confusing as the disease it causes isn't techically Severe acute respiratory syndrome, but Coronavirus disease 2019. Is COVID-19 a temporary name? Will the disease be renamed into another form of SARS? I'm not really sure. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:55, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

• My understanding is that "related" is not used precisely because this strain is not related to the syndrome. The sources do not use "related". Basically, "severe acute respiratory syndrome" is being emptied of its original meaning and applied to this strain. Dekimasuよ! 16:02, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

• Strong support. If we cannot rely on International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses (ICTV) to designate the name of the virus, then WHO? *Ba dum tsss* — Hasdi Bravo • 16:24, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

  "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)."

• Support - the original move to 2019 novel coronavirus was a mistake since it was clearly a temporary name. I would have preferred another more common name - Wuhan coronavirus is clearly the more popular option according to Google Trends [2], but keeping a name that is already obsolete is worse. Hzh (talk) 18:29, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose This is not its official name, or rather, there is more than one official name out there. The name announced by WHO is Covid-19.Disease caused by the novel coronavirus officially has a name: Covid-19 and that is the name that was reported in news sources. Per the same source, it had been known provisionally as 2019-nCoV, and we have redirects from that name to this article. We should absolutely not use this cumbersome title, which I have seen virtually nowhere, and we should not change this article's title until science and coverage determine a generally accepted name. Set up redirects until the situation is clear, and keep this name for now. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:33, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

You misunderstood the news source, Covid-19 is the disease (Covid stands for coronavirus disease), SARS-CoV-2 is the name of the virus -[3]. Hzh (talk) 18:40, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Exactly! This article from Science Magazine explains the confusion: the name you are proposing is the name of the VIRUS, not the name of the disease. The name of the disease, assigned by WHO, is COVID-19 Or Covid-19. That is the proper name for this article, which should be about the disease, not the virus. And that is the name that is starting to be used, and will be used, by reliable sources and eventually by us. See New York Times -- MelanieN (talk) 18:44, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

This proposal is about renaming the article about the virus, not the disease. The disease article is in 2019-nCoV acute respiratory disease, a different discussion to move is in the talkpage there. I'm not sure what your point is. Hzh (talk) 18:50, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake. I was under the impression that this was about the disease and discovered my mistake just now while looking to see how Wiki handles the names of similar diseases. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:53, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

• Strong Support since now everyone uses it.--Njzjz (talk) 19:16, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
• Support on the basis of the official recommendation that has come into sustained use in online sources over the last several days. Boud (talk) 21:16, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

• Boud, can you show some examples? Dekimasuよ! 02:38, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

• はい。 New England Journal of Medicine - title "A Locally Transmitted Case of SARS-CoV-2 Infection in Taiwan"; The Conversation - SARS and the new SARS-CoV-2 share ... strong possibility that SARS-CoV-2 will continue; Straits Times - The disease caused by the coronavirus Sars-CoV-2 is now; Live Science image shows SARS-CoV-2 (yellow) ... revealed some of the first images of SARS-CoV-2 ... the disease caused by SARS-CoV-2 ... The SARS-COV-2 virus looks similar; (mostly paywalled 'Scrip Informa Pharma Intelligence' - title: "Codagenix-Serum Join Fray To Develop SARS-CoV-2 Vaccine"; Nature - the risk of SARS-CoV-2 spreading ... risk of importing SARS-CoV-2 on the basis ... model of SARS-CoV-2's international spread ... capacity to detect SARS-CoV-2 in people ... concerns that SARS-CoV-2 could spread ... the risk of SARS-CoV-2 spreading ... could diagnose SARS-CoV-2, and. Boud (talk) 03:18, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

• ありがとうございます。Thanks, this is very helpful. Do you think it's being used in a preponderance of current sources? Dekimasuよ! 04:13, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Support and IAR to close early consensus is to move to the "official" names. Unlike the related move discussion/RfC, this one has clear consensus. --Almaty (talk) 03:47, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

• Support per my previous discussion comments. BlackholeWA (talk) 04:08, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
• Support; Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 is the official name for this virus--that's a strong enough reason to why this page should be renamed as above Rebestalic^{[dubious—discuss]} 04:57, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
• Comment because there seems to clear consensus about this RM, this time to close this RM and move that article into the official name, unlike the 11 Feb RM, which has no consensus because that RM involve all articles with "Wuhan coronavirus outbreak" name. For all articles which contain "Wuhan coronavirus outbreak" name such as Timeline, misinformation, Evacuations related to xxxx, these RM should be requested at the single talk page on Wuhan coronavirus outbreak talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.137.126.17 (talk) 05:04, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

• We do not usually determine consensus for a move request in one day. This is considered a controversial request and is supposed to go for a week. I understand wanting to go faster, but one day is probably not a good idea. Not everyone edits Wikipedia every day, new evidence can be presented over the course of a discussion, and most importantly it is not clear that the discussion has run its course. In particular, the discussion here is still primarily characterized by comments that refer to an official name, which is not how we choose titles, so a move request closer would discount comments based upon that reasoning. See WP:RMCI#Determining consensus and WP:OFFICIAL#Rationale. Dekimasuよ! 05:12, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

• Ladies and Gentlemen: This virus has at least three official names, so let's use some WP common sense to be constructive:

1) Use the FIRST one - which is the most commonly known at the moment - for this article.

2) Add a NAMEING section to the article, giving the dates and citations for when each one was introduced.

3) Add an AKA section underneith the first name including the others.

This should cross reference all possible searches without umpteen disambiguation pages, explain the confusion to anyone interested, and give a fair airing for everyone's choice - unless you all want to open a DISCUSSION page as well! (IMHO "SARS-2" is confusing.) Cheers! Shir-El too 06:27, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

• Support per nom. The current title doesn't really meet WP:COMMONNAME. We're talking about going from the official temporary name to the official permanent name. Bondegezou (talk) 11:06, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
• Support. Per WP:CONSISTENT with Severe acute respiratory syndrome and nom. –Wefk423 (talk) 12:56, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
• Strong support The originally name was a temporary name. Correct names should be used. Garo (talk) 14:10, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
• Support renaming to Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 as per ICTV. All other names are provisional. --Nessie (📥) 14:23, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
• Support, as I had similarly proposed in the previous move discussion, 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. Secondly, WP:NCMED as a guideline advocates a move. LightKeyDarkBlade (talk) 17:07, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
• Support I was in the "support but wait" group when a similar RM was made a few days ago. Given the technical content, I think WP:RECOGNIZABILITY is a lower concern. 90% of non-medical readers are going to be looking for the content contained in the COVID-19 disease and outbreak topics. Those in the medical community will recognize SARS-CoV-2. We should keep the current name as an also known as in the lead. - Wikmoz (talk) 20:00, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
• Support. Why do we even have a discussion here? Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles#Article titles clearly says that it should be named per WHO. ${\texttt {adamant}}$^{(talk/contribs)} 19:16, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
• Strong support per nom and above. I don't see any reason to stick with its provisional name. I also invite everyone to participate with the discussion regarding the proposed split of Severe acute respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus into two more articles here. –hueman1 (talk) 21:10, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose We like official names. But proposed species name "SARS-CoV-2" has not been peer reviewed yet, and there is some dispute in the scientific literature on the species. Nor has the CDC yet recognized any non-provisional designation, and still refers to it as the "2019 novel coronavirus" in its most recent communications. Renaming the widely-known "2019 novel coronavirus" to the tentative and incompletely adopted "Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2" will cause confusion. Wikipedia should follow consensus from the rear, not set it. Wait for peer-review and consensus, then rename.—wing gundam 22:12, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
  • (Also the Manual of Style (cited above) only defers to WHO or ICD-10 for disease names like COVID-19, not species names, as is this article.)—wing gundam 22:12, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
• Strong Support Please read the full text of the CDC source you linked, not only the first line. The introduction explains the background of a novel (new) coronavirus that was first detected in Wuhan City, which is in the following text named SARS-COV2. The group responsible for naming it has named it Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 and everyone is in agreement that it is not considered the same species as Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus. LoveToLondon (talk) 23:27, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

• The string "2019 novel coronavirus" occurs only once in the present version of the US CDC link, and that's in the caption of the figure, not the main text; and the string "SARS-CoV2" (with the second hyphen missing) occurs four times. So the US CDC is switching to the formal name (it just didn't update the figure caption, and it missed the second hyphen). Boud (talk) 10:58, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

• Support per above. Ythlev (talk) 03:49, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Comment: an uninvolved admin should apply WP:SNOW - there is an overwhelming consensus here. Boud (talk) 10:58, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

• Strong support Yes, per reasons stated TWICE. Do it. Do it naaawwwwwuuggghh!!! — Hasdi Bravo • 15:06, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

New images

There are several new images of the virus available at this Flickr account (Attribution 2.0 Generic (CC BY 2.0)). I think they could be useful. They are from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Dekimasuよ! 16:09, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

New phylogenetic analysis out (COI)

https://www.imperial.ac.uk/mrc-global-infectious-disease-analysis/news--wuhan-coronavirus Report 5: Phylogenetic analysis of SARS-CoV-2 WHO Collaborating Centre for Infectious Disease Modelling MRC Centre for Global Infectious Disease Analysis Abdul Latif Jameel Institute for Disease and Emergency Analytics (J-IDEA) Imperial College London Erik Volz1 , Marc Baguelin, Sangeeta Bhatia, Adhiratha Boonyasiri, Anne Cori, Zulma Cucunubá, Gina CuomoDannenburg, Christl A. Donnelly, Ilaria Dorigatti, Rich FitzJohn, Han Fu, Katy Gaythorpe, Azra Ghani, Arran Hamlet, Wes Hinsley, Natsuko Imai, Daniel Laydon, Gemma Nedjati-Gilani, Lucy Okell, Steven Riley, Sabine van Elsland, Haowei Wang, Yuanrong Wang, Xiaoyue Xi, Neil M. Ferguson https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial-college/medicine/sph/ide/gida-fellowships/Imperial-College---COVID-19---genetic-analysis-FINAL.pdf

COI - spouse is TFA, also I helped a tiny bit with figure 1 :)

Key points: Time of origin is early December ("We estimate the TMRCA to be on 5 December 2019 (95% CI: 6 November - 13 December 2019)"). Doubling time ~ 7 days, in line with several other previously published estimates. Estimates of the total number of infected from the limited data were still too unstable to be reliable. Mvolz (talk) 16:57, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

wikipedia articels differ

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coronavirus#Novel_coronavirus_(2019-nCoV)

says different things from this article - can the 2 be looked at so they are consistent with each other. AS they are both protected it is not possible to easily edit them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.115.204.102 (talk) 02:14, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

I found one inconsistency and fixed it. The numbers are not up to date there, but it has an "as of" caveat. If there is something else, please let us know. Dekimasuよ! 04:53, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Coronavirus life cycle

Would anybody help for the redaction of a paragraph on the full life cycle of the virus ?

The virus has a tiny lipid bilayer where the membrane and enveloppe proteins are anchored as well as the spike protein. Inside there is the nucleocapsid: a protein binded to (and protecting) the long one strand (30000 nucleotides) RNA genome. The capsid+lipid membrane+protein envelope makes the virus resistant oustide and inside the body.

The (RBD part of the) spike protein on the surface of the virus binds to the ACE2 receptor of lung epithelial cells, some part binds to the neighbor TMPRSS2 protease which does priming (cleavage and reorganization).

The S1/S2 spike protein is now ready for membrane fusion: the viral membrane merges with the cell lipid membrane.

The uncoated nucleocapsid passes into the cytoplasm where the genome is released.

The cell's small ribosomal subunit (40S) binds to the genome 5' beginning and the large 60s ribosome assembles around it and starts the translation of the first 2/3 of the genome (called the replicase gene) into two overlapping large polyproteins, both containing the main protease Mpro which detaches and cleaves the polyproteins at 5 sites. There are two other proteases PL1, PL2 inside the polyproteins which does more cleavages, thus obtaining the 16 proteins needed for cell hijacking and replication.

The last 1/3 of the genome is translated mainly into the structural proteins (the proteins that assemble into the new virions).

Part of the 16 proteins the most important is the viral replicase transcriptase complex (RTC) which contains the RNA dependent polymerase which transcripts the genome into a full (-) RNA strands which then serves itself for the transcription of the new virions' genome.

The virion genomes and structural proteins accumulate and are assembled into the vesicles of Golgi / secretory pathway. Finally they are released outside of the cell, into the interstitial fluid and go infecting other cells. Some of them can attain the lymph and trigger immune response. A non-adapted immune response can trigger cell death and make some holes into the vascular walls which provokes lung damages and releasing of virions into the blood: septic shock, cytokine storm. The virions are filtered by the kidneys where they might start a new infection and provoke multiple organ failure.

Source: chapter II and III of Molecular Biology of the SARS-Coronavirus plus a few articles. Reuns (talk) 03:36, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

A few comments: first, if any of this is to be added, it needs to be cited more precisely. And from what I can tell of the book that's being used to make the description, everything that's written applies to the older SARS-CoV strain. It's possible (or likely) that the new strain functions in the same way, but I don't think we can use this cite from years ago to explain the life cycle of the strain that was discovered recently. We need to avoid synthesizing information or adding original research. Maybe some of this would be more in place at the main Severe acute respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus article, after that is split, or at Coronavirus. Dekimasuよ! 08:09, 16 February 2020 (UTC)