Talk:SARS-CoV-2

Requested move 14 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: page moved as proposed. – bradv🍁 20:09, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

---

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)

• Comment: Boud, I am confused. It looks like you support this name change, so why are you invoking WP:SNOW? And when I look at the comments on here, it looks much more like a consensus to make the requested move. Please clarify. - Inkwzitv (talk) 03:03, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

• @Inkwzitv: WP:SNOW: Sometimes the support for a proposal is so overwhelming or so obvious that there isn't a snowball's chance in hell that it could fail. Such proposals may also be suitable for early closure, ... Hope this clarifies. But I'm an involved person, so it's not for me to close. Boud (talk) 10:52, 18 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)

• Comment @Dekimasu, as I wrote in more detail below (18 Feb), I think WP:COMMONNAME is not applicable because this is a medical article (WP:NCMED). But here are more sources using the new short name (SARS-CoV-2) that include MIT Tech Review, Virological forum, NY Times, European CDC, BMJ, The Lancet, NIAID (maybe considered a primary vice secondary source?), and others using the new long name include MSU (university), Eureka Alert, Daily Mail, AsiaOne via GLOBENEWSWIRE, Chemical and Engineering News (shows both preliminary and new name). - Inkwzitv (talk) 03:03, 18 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 [1], 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 -[2]. 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)
  • Comment: Note that CDC has since taken on the new naming, as shown on the [above-cited page] as "Updated February 16, 2020" which says "this new virus (named SARS-CoV-2)". - Inkwzitv (talk) 01:09, 18 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)

• Strong support Per others. Patriccck (talk) 17:58, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
• Support I was considering a snow close of this, but the instructions say I have a COI where previously I supported a future use of this name. So I will support use of the full name in this request. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:58, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

• Support 2019 novel coronavirus is a placeholder name. We can't call it that forever, because at some point it won't be novel anymore. If we'll have to make the change at some point, why not do it now? YttriumShrew (talk) 8:29, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
• Strong support - Current name was a placeholder and moving to it was probably a mistake. We have a new name, the new name has caught in expert sources, and people referring to it shorthand as "coronavirus" in non-expert sources doesn't form a meaningful argument against (people refer to a lot of things that are the most newsworthy of their kind by such shorthand, e.g. "influenza" as "the flu" or "Donald Trump" as "Trump"). I'm not going to IAR myself, but I'd support it. Magic9mushroom (talk) 07:54, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
• Strong support - SARS-CoV-2 is the official name of the new virus. It must match the name given. TheGreatSG'rean (talk) 09:11, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
• Strongly opposed - WHO is not a medical authority. First of all SARS-COV-2 is a teribble naming scheme for any scientific paper. Even within this comment section someone named it SARS-COV2, what is a coronavirus2? Wait for the medical community(phds releasing papers and the peer review process) before naming this. We have hardly any information outside of China as it is, let alone enough information to call it thi. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.164.174.47 (talk) 19:44, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment - Note that WHO did not name the virus; that was done by the Coronavirus Study Group (CSG) of the ICTV (as noted above). CSG is the international group that is "responsible for developing the official classification of viruses and taxa naming (taxonomy) of the Coronaviridae family". And Global Biodefense says: "For an outbreak of a new viral disease, there are three names to be decided: the disease, the virus and the species. The World Health Organization (WHO) is responsible for the first, expert virologists for the second, the ICTV for the third." As also noted above, their paper naming SARS-CoV-2 hasn't been peer-reviewed, and I have no idea at what rate their chosen names make it through review. Other medical papers have no role in this naming function, to my understanding.- Inkwzitv (talk) 00:16, 18 February 2020 (UTC) You might also be interested to read the CSG article, which addresses why the name was chosen using "SARS" as a base but that they don't mean by that to indicate that this virus is connected to SARS at all. That's a family name. It's way complicated. And I await a better naming scheme from ICTV. - Inkwzitv (talk) 01:09, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
• Strong support - my reading of WP:NCMED is that WP:COMMONNAME doesn't apply, since this is a medically-related article. Since the organization tasked with choosing the name has chosen (CSG spoke) I don't think any of us gets a vote about it. (My only hesitation regards whether the CSG's paper's peer review will result in a change; I have no idea what their pass rate is. But even if it's changed, the scientific community for now seems to be taking on the new name without hesitation. I have not seen any scientific articles that dispute the name once CSG spoke on February 11, 2020. That's not to say I agree with the name but, as I said, I don't think we/I get to vote on the name, esp. since I'm not a virologist.) However, I am amused to note that ICTV is considering a change to "Binomial nomenclature for virus species", which might mean that all WP articles on viruses will be renamed in about a year, assuming their progress proceeds apace. Also (tho' this isn't the place to have this discussion) I wonder why the naming policy for articles with official names doesn't say such pages should start with a brief identification of alternative names, such as previous names, previous temporary names, common names, etc. - Inkwzitv (talk) 01:09, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

• First, this is not an article on the disease (that's at 2019-nCoV acute respiratory disease), but an article on the virus, which arguably places it under the auspices of the Tree of Life project as much as under the Medicine project. Put another way, the top of WP:NCMED specifically says "This page delineates style guidelines for editing medical articles" but does not say how we should decide what articles are "medical". We don't move, say, Sesame to Sesamum indicum on this basis of some people being allergic to it. (Though a virus is neither fauna nor flora, I note WP:FAUNA: "Use the most common name when possible: Article titles are determined by the application of five criteria. The article title should usually consist of the name that is most common in English, following Wikipedia:Article titles#Common names. For well known animals, this will normally be the vernacular name.") More to the point, WP:NCMED is a guideline and cannot supersede WP:AT, which is policy. I don't mean to demean WP:NCMED, but the only way in which WP:NCMED is material to this discussion is that reinforces the request in WP:AT that we use high-quality sources. To your last point, it's also dealt with at WP:AT: WP:OTHERNAMES, which (since this is about the text of the article, not the title itself) refers us to MOS:ALTNAME. Dekimasuよ! 03:19, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

• Comment. Now that the SARS strain is at Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus, the WP:TITLECON criterion of WP:AT indicates that moving to the long form is probably warranted. It's possible that there is still a recognizability issue involved. Dekimasuよ! 04:11, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

  Redirects and a clear statement in the lead should be able to deal with that. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:32, 18 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.

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)

I think we are getting to the point where we are able to shift toward published sources rather than relying to a large extent on preprints. As far as the first key point, it is good that this is consistent with what we already have in the article. For the others, I'm not sure yet where they would be added, but are there plans for this to be published? Dekimasuよ! 06:12, 17 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...

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)

Thanks, I tried to follow your advice and I have rewritten everything, trying to remove all the Sars-specific stuffs and what I'm not sure about. It required a lot of work because it is far from being my specialty, since I was happy of the result I added it to the article. My goal was to introduce in simple words that highly mysterious part of the infection. Don't be afraid to correct what deserves to be. Also I think it would be worth adding a paragraph on the pathogenesis of such lung damaging coronavirus, the immune protection and response, what happens between two cells infection, how the infection evolves from one organ to the other, from the contagion to the viral clearance or death. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reuns (talk • contribs)

Updated version (refunded for discussion)

Coronavirus life cycle

Although the novel coronavirus appeared recently, its genome organization and life cycle is similar to Sars-Cov and other coronaviruses.

Cell receptor attachment and membrane fusion

The virus has a tiny lipid bilayer where the membrane (M), enveloppe (E) and spike (S) proteins are anchored. Inside there is the nucleocapsid, multiple copies of the (N) protein serving as a shell for the long one-strand (30000 nucleotides) RNA genome. The capsid, membrane and protein envelope make the virus resistant oustide and inside the body.

The main exposed active site is the (S) protein. Its receptor binding domain (RBD) recognizes and attaches to the ACE2 receptor (of lung epithelial cells). It is proposed that an interaction with the near TMPRSS2 protease does priming (cleavage and reorganization). The S proteins are now ready for membrane fusion, they insert a harpin into the cell lipid membrane and bending their spatial structure they achieve a merging of the viral and cell membrane. When overexpressed inside the infected cell the S protein may be secretored on the surface of the cell's membrane which will provoke a membrane fusion with the neighboring cells.

Release of the genome, recruitment of ribosome, translation of the replicase gene

The uncoated nucleocapsid passes into the cytoplasm where the viral genome is released. This genome is intepreted as a messenger RNA by the cell's ribosomes which effects in the translation of 2/3 of the genome into large overlapping polyproteins. They contain a few proteases which detach and cleave the polyproteins at various sites, obtaining about 15 proteins needed for cell hijacking and replication.

Replication

Among them there is the replicase complex containing various analogs of naturally occuring enzymes, among which there is a RNA polymerase which achieves from the full length genome (and the nucleotides dissolved in the cytosol) the synthesis of various size complementary (-)RNA followed by the transcription to the corresponding mRNAs. Occasionally the full-length negative then positive RNA strand is synthesized to become the genome of the new virions.

The various smaller mRNAs correspond to the last third of the virus genome and are translated (by ribosomes) mainly into the structural proteins that will become part of the numerous new virions.

Assembly of the virions inside the endoplasmic reticulum

Those transcriptions and protein expressions tend to be localized inside the endoplasmic reticulum. The proteins and the capsid move along the secretory pathway into the Golgi intermediate compartment. There, the M proteins direct most protein-protein interactions required for assembly of the virion.

Release of the virions through secretory vesicles exocytosis

References

Hello Reuns, I appreciate your work on this and I want to point out that I do find it informative. I have been trying to figure out how to discuss things like the viral components in the article text, as opposed to simply mentioning them in figures. However, I still do not think this material is suitable for inclusion in the article at this time. It would be great if we had enough knowledge about this virus to be able to make clear statements about its life cycle with conviction, and I do agree with you that if we were able to do so it would be more than appropriate material for the article. However, this is still not cited to an extent that we can add it to the article. This is not because of any shortcomings in your writing or editing, but because no one has released reliable sources that specifically deal with the life cycle of this virus yet. In other words, it's not possible to verify that what you've written here is accurate, because the texts you're citing predate the advent of this virus. We can guess that the life cycle is the same as in other coronaviruses that were mentioned in those texts, but as I wrote above, we would be on more solid ground doing so in the article Coronavirus (or something similar) rather than here. We simply have to wait for the sources in order to add this type of information in order to avoid synthesizing things that aren't in the sources or engaging in our own original research. Dekimasuよ! 11:39, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Not just to Reuns, but to everyone: are there individual statements in research on SARS-CoV-2/2019-nCoV that can be used to support individual parts of the section? Dekimasuよ! 11:43, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Dekimasu Did you miss that my now main reference is treating coronaviruses all at once ? The only Sars-specific stuff is ACE2, TMPRSS2 and I sourced those parts. To be sure I'm not extrapolating anything you can take a look at the table 3 to 6 of supplementary material.pdf of this preprint which is merely telling (to experts) that in first approximation nCov is not different from Sars (which is why the phylogeny says nCov is in the Sars-related group and why they now chose the name Sars-Cov-2). The preprint is saying

In addition to these ORFs regions (ie. proteins) that are shared by all members of the subgenus Sarbecovirus, WHCV is similar to SARS-CoV in that it carries a predicted ORF8 gene (366 nt in length) located between the M and N ORF genes.

So I have a reference which is describing the life-cycle of every coronavirus, another one emphasizing what is Sars specific, and a preprint which is saying that nCov is similar to all other members of the Sars-related subgenus. Can you really expect to have more sources ? Reuns (talk) 12:41, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

I see that you have added more sources. I can't go through the preprint at this moment. But as far as what you called the main reference above, it is from 2015. I still don't believe it is appropriate to be making precise statements about 2019-nCoV on the basis of sources from a time before it existed (there are clearly some differences between it and other coronaviruses, which is what makes it a different strain). In order to avoid synthesis, we need what's cited to be present explicitly in the cited texts. But as before, why not try to have something like this added at the article on Coronavirus rather than trying to make it apply to the more specific topic here? It's not that I expect you to find more sources in order to add this here, it is that I believe no adequate sources exist at this time because of the recency of the strain's emergence. (I think it would be helpful to hear from others on this topic.)

As a side matter, the individual statements in the addition would still need to be cited more precisely. I think the difficulty in doing so is one indication of the possibility that synthesis is still involved here.

I apologize if this response is inadequate, since I'm in a rush. I will try to write more or respond further later. Dekimasuよ! 14:07, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Well I can put it in another article (I'd say thisone, not coronavirus) but nobody will read it thus nobody will correct and improve it. Given it is a recent event we use the sources at disposal, and those that exist at this point indicate that the knowledge about coronavirus life-cycle applies to nCov (which is a coronavirus). I'm quite sure anyone reading the article knows that it is only a temporary synthesis about a recent event so that not everything is definitively reliable. Reuns (talk) 14:20, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Sorry Reuns, I agree with Dekimasu. That "not everything is definitively reliable" is one reason why it cannot be added. And we cannot contravene our policies on WP:NOR and WP:SYNTH just because this is a newly emerged strain and there aren't many reliable sources. It might turn out to be true but at the moment it is speculation.Graham Beards (talk) 14:38, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

FWIW, Coronavirus has been viewed over 11 million times in the last month—much more than this article. Dekimasuよ! 15:59, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

I see, you definitively don't understand the topic but you are willing to tell other people they cannot post their work.. What a pain for wikipedia ! THIS IS THE LIFE-CYCLE OF CORONAVIRUS, not of a specific virus strain, IT APPLIES TO EVERY CORONAVIRUS. Reuns (talk) 18:10, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

@Reuns: please there is no need to shout. Actually your text, which you have now posted on the SARS virus page, was riddled with errors which I have corrected there. It would not have lasted five minutes here. Please do not accuse other editors of ignorance. Graham Beards (talk) 19:37, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Information is generally posted to the page that most closely matches the scope of its applicability. Take Cat#Reproduction, for an example based upon life cycles. The information there is specific to cats. We do not explain the placental circulation system that applies to all mammals on the page for cats, even in the section on reproduction. If, as you have said, this "applies to every coronavirus", then it is not really within the scope of what needs to be covered in this particular article. Anyway, whether the description is a good synthesis or a bad synthesis, if it is synthesis, it is not suitable for inclusion. That is not my rule, but the community's policy. Dekimasuよ! 12:04, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

User talk:Graham Beards Glad to see you helped for improving. Not sure why you removed the harpin bending-structure explanation of membrane fusion, I have a reference for it. To me your "two polyproteins" in this edit is a mistake. As far as I understand, the full-length genome is translated directly into the replicase complex (two large polyproteins). Then the replicase complex (autocleaved by proteases) does the transcription, generating several copies of the full genome, plus several mRNA capped copies of pieces of the last 1/3 of the RNA (each mRNA comes from an identical minus strand, the book Coronaviruses has a detailed explanation of which of Cis-regulatory_element, pseudoknot, nucleic_acid_secondary_structure applies in the transcription of the RNA and the ribosomal frameshift, the quantities of each kind of strand, and if it is degraded by the cell's ribonuclease) mainly coding for the structural proteins of the progeny viruses. There are no "two polyproteins" in this step. Reuns (talk) 03:08, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi, you are on the wrong page now I think. Graham Beards (talk) 12:03, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Structural biology removals–can the info be salvaged?

In this edit, My very best wishes removed most of the structural biology section using the edit summary "reads like promotion; also should be sourced to secondary RS". I don't necessarily disagree with the first statement. Although I think we've been careful to avoid promotion and it was edited down so that the focus was on the research itself, that section has been in a similar form for weeks and I may have gotten so used to seeing it that I don't see the promotional aspects anymore. The idea that we should be focused on secondary sources is also, of course, correct. On the other hand I think there was quite important information about the current state of research on the virus strain's structure in that paragraph, and I think it would be useful to recover some of that information if possible. Can we re-source or re-write it in a better way? Suggestions appreciated. Dekimasuよ! 03:00, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

In addition to poor sourcing (this is self-published), this info does not make much sense. Yes, sure, one can model a lot of proteins using I-TASSER and Swiss-model (those are automated modeling tools), but all these computationally generated models will be to some degree incorrect. And so what? Does this modeling help to solve or understand anything? My very best wishes (talk) 03:47, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

That can be linked to the page I think. My very best wishes (talk) 04:07, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Repeated addition of "China Virus"

Half of Symphony Regalia's contributions to Wikipedia now consist of adding "China Virus" to this article in different forms. WP:POVNAMING requires that a "name is widely used in reliable sources"; the sources added here are reliable, but none of them calls the virus by this name. They simply use it as shorthand in titles. China virus does not even redirect here (nor should it) and this is not a common name for this virus. The addition is a description, not a name; in some of the sources added, "China" is just part of a chain of adjectives, and "China" is only adjacent to "virus" because it describes the place discussed in the article ("China virus death toll"). In my view, this is like saying we should add "Chinese food" as an alternate title at Fried rice or, say, add "Gent superstar" as an alternate title at Jonathan David on the basis of a headline that says Ajax among clubs interested in Gent superstar.

The edits ([3] [4]) also involve removing the naming section, including the information on WHO sometimes calling this "the COVID-19 virus" and (conveniently) the explanation of why the WHO deprecates names that involve places, or why it was ICTV that chose the strain name. Now, I think there was always some idea that the naming section would be temporary, but the removal in this fashion looks to me to be counterproductive. The new version of the introduction says the virus is called "China Virus", doesn't explain what the ICTV is, and says nothing about WHO usage. I have reverted using a chain of more and more descriptive summaries ("unnecessary to amplify further deprecated names", "rare, derogatory, does not redirect here, and deprecated by WHO as a place-based name; unnecessary and unproductive to amplify", "Cite does not even verify the addition; it is used in the title as shorthand for "a virus in China", not as a name for the virus, and is never used in the article body. And yes, we do care about WP:POVNAMING. The added *descriptive* title is rare and unnecessary (105 Ghits)") to no effect, so other opinions on this would be appreciated. Dekimasuよ! 01:53, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: "China Virus" does not appear at all in 2019–20 coronavirus outbreak or Coronavirus disease 2019. It appears once at Xenophobia and racism related to the 2019–20 coronavirus outbreak as a phrase that was called out by the consul general of China in Vancouver when it appeared in a Canadian newspaper headline. The editor of that newspaper explicitly stated that calling the virus by that name in an article title "was a way to geographically locate the origin of the virus". He further stated "I have certainly spoken with and heard from many people who felt the words 'China virus' in a headline could encourage racism against the community, and so for that, I do apologize. It was certainly not our intention to do that or to give the virus a new name." Dekimasuよ! 02:10, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

I added "China Virus" to the collection of informal names, because it is an informal name that is used to refer to the topic, and encyclopedias are supposed to include this information. It is used as a shorthand in titles because that is what a lot of people search for. In other words the existence of it as shorthand in the title of multiple reliable major sources, is direct evidence of the fact that many people use that specific phrase when looking for information on the topic. Furthermore, it is not only used as shorthand. In the Washington Post source, the title of the article is What's being done to limit the spread of the China Virus?. I understand that the name may bother dekimasu and possibly others, but it is a name that is used, and removing relevant information from an article because an editor does not like it is, from my understanding, both a dereliction of duty and the definition of editor bias. For instance the article for the novel And Then There Were None has an extremely derogatory alternative name, but the article includes it because the purpose of an encyclopedia is to present information and not interpret it. Symphony Regalia (talk) 05:18, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Just because you have cherry picked a handful of examples that use the term does not mean the term is widely used. Out of hundreds of articles on this outbreak you have cited less than half a dozen. Some of these are using the term not as "China virus" but as part of a sentence. You talk good game for somebody with less than 10 edits across your entire account history. "Dereliction of duty"? Give a break. what's next, proclaiming yourself persecuted like Gallileo? Hemiauchenia (talk) 05:39, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

It's been used by Reuters, Washington Post, ABC news, Aljazeera, among others. Additionally I've witnessed many, many, many, many people use this term informally on all varieties of internet platforms. If the article is going to mention names used informally, which it should so that people can find it, it should mention all them that are relevant. It is indeed a dereliction of duty and editor bias to remove relevant information from an article just because an editor does not like it, just as it is bias when your argument is based around the amount of edits someone has rather than the substance of what they are saying. Symphony Regalia (talk) 04:42, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

The plural of anecdote is not data. Just because people use term online does not mean it is worthy of inclusion in a encyclopedic article viewed by tens of thousands of people daily. For instance I see loads of people on reddit call racoons "trash pandas", is this name mentioned anywhere in the wikipedia article on raccons? No. The term "Trash Panda" redirects to the article, but there is no reference to the term anywhere in the article, as it isn't notable enought to include. Thousands of people of chinese descent are being racially abused and in some cases physically assaulted because of the outbreak. The term "China virus" is incredibly generic, Wuhan virus is at least more specific. Why is including this term in the article so important to you that you feel the need to repeatedly add it back in after it is removed? Why do you feel the need to push this issue when you have less than 20 edits to your name as an editor? You are repeatedly adding content to the article despite the fact that 2 editors disagree with you, engaging in WP:edit warring. In content disputes the burden of justification generally falls on those who are adding the content, and you have failed to prove your case. Hemiauchenia (talk) 05:06, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

First of all Chinese is not a race. It is a nationality, and anyone of any race can be Chinese. Such an antiquated view erases Black Chinese, White Chinese, the Uighur Chinese in Xinjiang, and so on. Second of all introducing social reasons at all as justification for removing relevant information from an encyclopedia article is a clear sign that you are biased on this topic, in that you are viewing it through an emotional lens. "China Virus" meets the same criteria that "Wuhan Virus" does, and as mentioned earlier removing relevant information from an article because an editor does not like it is, from my understanding, both a dereliction of duty and the definition of editor bias. You're essentially making the argument that we should engage in social activism from the editing chair of Wikipedia to censor information that might be considered harmful, even when it is relevant. Whether some people consider the term offensive or not has nothing to do with if it qualifies for mention or not, and since it is used so widely it clearly does. No one is making the suggestion to re-name the article, but to simply include it in the single sentence that includes the other commonly used informal names. Such an extreme objection to a widely used and well-sourced variation does not seem reasonable to me. Symphony Regalia (talk) 02:51, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

(ec) The criteria for inclusion is not "all names used informally". Coverage is expected to be balanced, and the term you are adding is rare. See WP:PROPORTION: "An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news." No one here has been removing anything on the sole basis of not liking it. The fact that you are continuing to add the same name to the article despite objections from multiple editors shows that, as presumably a new editor, you might benefit from reviewing Wikipedia:Consensus and WP:BRDD. We have taken out the more detailed naming section to which you objected, but you have now added "China Virus" [sic] at least five times despite explanations as to why sources showing the phrase are using it as a description, not a name, and only rarely. This is edit warring. Dekimasuよ! 05:11, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

The term I'm adding is not rare though. It is extremely common; in fact it is so common that you yourself cited an instance of a major Canadian newspaper using it, apology or not. It being used as a descriptive name in title of multiple major reliable sources still indicates that it is what many people call the virus, and as mentioned prior it is not only used descriptively. In the Washington Post source, the title of the article is What's being done to limit the spread of the China Virus?. You've also mentioned social concern as justification for not including the name, and I don't believe that is in line with Wikipedia guidelines, otherwise editors would be able to arbitrarily censor politically sensitive articles. I've reviewed Wikipedia:Consensus and it mentions that consensus should be reached while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If someone can show why the name does not belong without mentioning stigma or personal opinion I will be in agreement, but how things appear now it's a valid informal name with reliable sources, just like "Wuhan Virus" is. Symphony Regalia (talk) 02:51, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Why again to do you feel the need to push your views on this particular article when you seem to have absolutely no desire to edit the rest of the encyclopedia? Why is this so important to you that after having the content repeatedly removed from the article you add it again and again? Is the artice significantly improved by the addition of this name? Not really. I don't understand why you repeatedly feel the need to add it. The chinese government has condemned the use of the phrase. Wikipedia's content is supposed to be neutral and encyclopedic in tone. Would the term "China virus" be used in a Brittanica article on SARS-COV-2? Probably not. "I don't believe that is in line with Wikipedia guidelines," says the editor with less than 30 edits. I think the term can be included in wikipedia if you provide better evidence that the term has signifcant use colloquially, but it shouldn't be in this article, it should really be included in Xenophobia and racism related to the 2019–20 coronavirus outbreak, where I think it fits better. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:46, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

You mentioning edit count again in a judgmental fashion, I believe, only showcases that you are biased and are avoiding arguments of substance. Including a reliably sourced phrase is not "pushing my views", but rather improving the article and making it more representative. It is precisely because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that it is not supposed to exclude pertinent information based on whether it is positive or not. The views of the Chinese government, which of course is an organization that is not neutral in any sense of the word, should not influence what is allowed on Wikipedia. Such a suggestion is preposterous and contrary to the entire purpose of Wikipedia. Symphony Regalia (talk) 05:09, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

On second thoughts, I think removing the informal names section entirely is best, as the "Wuhan Coronavirus" name has fallen into disuse as the virus has become a global pandemic. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:50, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Removing both phrases, when both are valid and used, simply because you don't like one of them but cannot find a good reason to disqualify only one of them, seems like tendentious editing. This degrades the user experience because people who use those names now will be unable to find the article. Symphony Regalia (talk) 05:09, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

That's not actually how finding articles works, but the stated reason "fallen into disuse" is clearly different from your characterization "don't like". Wuhan virus and Wuhan coronavirus still redirect to this article. Dekimasuよ! 05:38, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

The name(s) have not fallen into disuse, and his stated justification for assuming so is factually incorrect. As it stands 85% of cases are currently in China. Also, I was referring to people using search engines. Symphony Regalia (talk) 09:44, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

You have not presented any evidence that "China Virus" is common. "Common" is not the same as "I can find cases of it on the internet." Try going to Google, putting in the search string ("China virus" -"China's virus"), and going to the last page of results. I get under 120 total Google hits, or 196 in Google News–this might even be considered surprisingly low, but then the phrase uses substandard grammar. How many do you get? These are overwhelmingly either false positives or headlines that are honing in on a location and an article topic–that is, describing the article contents, not naming something "China Virus". I pointed this out above in the example of the headline "Ajax among clubs interested in Gent superstar". That headline is not creating the new name Gent superstar by inserting it in the headline. The first actual hit I see that refers to what you are adding here is from the Bangkok Post: "China virus cases drop as foreign fears rise". This is a reference to where virus cases are emerging, not an attempt to describe "cases of the China Virus". The second I get is a Nikkei article about South Korea that reads, "The 'hate China virus' could end up being as harmful as the epidemic that is threatening to put a crimp on the nation's economy." Next is an ABC News story, "Mainland China virus cases rise again after earlier decline." In no sense is the story calling this coronavirus "China virus". The Washington Post article is behind a paywall, so I can't see it. But I have no reason to think it's any different. And it doesn't employ caps in the strange way you are attributing to it.

You have now added this at least six times, even though no one has agreed with your position. You have been warned, by an editor not taking part in this discussion, that this represents edit warring and can result in being blocked from editing. It seems that you believe this represents taking a stand against censorship, but what you are really doing is not listening and rehashing. It is important for all of us at Wikipedia to be supportive of new editors, but since you are not working on anything else, there is a thin line here between Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Disruption and Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Disruption-only. I suggest that you try to contribute to the encyclopedia in other productive ways so that you do not end up the subject of a preventative block. Dekimasuよ! 03:53, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Although it is extremely common, I'd like to point out that the phrase "China Virus" does not have to be common (which can be hard to quantify as informal terms by definition do not show up on formal internet articles very often) to qualify for mention as an informal name. Rather, it has to be informal and it has to have reliable sources. It is, and it does. I've presented just as much credible evidence, and in fact even more, as there is for "Wuhan Virus". It's been used by Reuters, Washington Post, ABC news, Aljazeera, among others. And yes the Washington Post article does use it as "China Virus", and this should be apparent to anyone as the paywall does not prevent the viewing of the title.

Two people does not constitute a consensus, the only other person here disagreeing with me is actively involved in the editing, has made arguments centered around personal social views/the approval of the Chinese government/edit counts indicating that he/she is extraordinary biased in regards to this topic, and seemingly neither of you have provided any reason according to the guidelines as to why the name is being censored. Yes I am aware that it has stigma, and no the encyclopedia including it is not an endorsement. If you are insinuating that you are threatening to ban me for following the guidelines and engaging in a proper open discussion, then I'd like to point out that edit warring works in both directions, and that I welcome others to review this case. Once again if someone can show why the name does not belong without mentioning stigma or personal opinion I will be in agreement, but how things appear now it's a valid informal name with reliable sources, just like "Wuhan Virus" is. Symphony Regalia (talk) 05:09, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

I am not going to "ban you". I have given you actionable advice, and so far it looks like you are not interested in following up on prevalence on Google, addressing the idea that there is a difference between a description and a name, discussing WP:PROPORTION, or working in other areas. As far as who is edit warring: Wikipedia:Tendentious editing#Assigning undue importance to a single aspect of a subject may be informative. It is good that you are engaging in discussion. Engaging in discussion does not justify reinserting the same text a half dozen times while the discussion is ongoing, when you know the addition is still being opposed by other editors. Dekimasuよ! 05:25, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

I followed up on most of those in my prior response, and both of you have yet to inform me which guideline was used to justify the arbitrary removal of reliably sourced information concerning the virus. As far as I'm concerned you and the other editor simply do not like those names and thus want them gone even though they are reliably sourced, but is not that the definition of editor bias? This question is not in bad faith. I'd also like to point out that engaging in discussion does not justify removing reliably sourced information a half dozen times while the discussion is ongoing. There should be no reason to remove reliably sourced information from an encyclopedia article as long as it is reliably sourced and in the proper context, which it was. I'm well aware that I'm going to be the one who ends up blocked though, because Wikipedia is not actually about who is being fair and who is being biased, but rather is about who has the most friends. Symphony Regalia (talk) 09:44, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

The list is specifically of points that you have not addressed. I am confused as to why you are readding “China Virus” repeatedly when you know you have not convinced anyone of the validity of your argument. The idea that there is such a name has not been established, and I have given logical evidence to the contrary. Even were the name established to be in circulation at some level, it is not the case that all cited statements are valid inclusions. I gave you the example of WP:PROPORTION, but another one is the idea that “Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information” (WP:NOT). Rather than violate WP:3RR on purpose for little benefit, you could have attempted to address some of these issues, or you could just slow down and not try to right great wrongs (the great wrong of censorship, I assume, although that is not what is taking place here). Dekimasuよ! 10:05, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Having a decent edit count implies experience and investment in the content of the encyclopedia. Almost all of your edits have to do with the controversy, and nothing else. How can you proclaim to speak with authority on the content and purpose of wikipedia when you have barely edited it, against people who have been here for years and have made thousands of edits? Tens of thousands of people read this article every day, what makes you think that your opinion is more valid than any other person? I was once in a similar position to yourself as a suspicious new user nearly three years ago now, and people distrusted me then, but I was reasonable and explained myself and then people listened to me. You are showing no desire to seek concensus or come to any sort of compromise, but repeatedly re-add the content to the article against the opinion of multiple contributors, as if some invisible "will of the people" agrees with you. The reason I am terse with you is that arguing with you is like arguing with a brick wall, you repeat the same claims over and over again in spite of evidence to the contrary that you don't address in the hope that your persistance will eventually force us to give in and that the content will be included, as often happens in wikipedia discussions, plus the fact that you repeatedly add the content back to the article as if your opinion is the only one that matters, which is extremely rude. The informal names already link to the article as redirects, so it isn't exactly hard for people to find the article using these names. Please desist from re-adding the content to the article while we have this discussion, as you may be blocked for doing so. Hemiauchenia (talk) 05:58, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Correlation does not equal causation. Insisting that people without decent edit counts must lack those qualities is of course logically flawed and in many cases incorrect. It also seems you are implying that your opinion is more important than others because you registered your account earlier, which is of course a very problematic way of thinking to have, and also highlights the substantial bias I've been talking about. Indeed, you are showing no desire to seek consensus or come to any sort of compromise at all. The content has only been added back because it is reliably sourced and did not violate any guidelines, but was removed due to what seems to be personal editor bias. Which brings me to the point: seemingly neither of you have provided any reason according to the guidelines as to why the name is being censored. Once again if someone can show why the name does not belong without mentioning stigma or personal opinion I will be in agreement, but how things appear now it's a valid informal name with reliable sources, just like "Wuhan Virus" is. Please desist from removing properly sourced content from the article while we have this discussion, as you may be blocked for doing so. That includes the reliably sourced "Wuhan Virus", which was present by other editors long before this discussion started and is not even the topic. Symphony Regalia (talk) 09:44, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

For what it's worth, there was a great deal of compromise with your position: your removal of the naming section was accepted (note that you did not object to the removal of reliable sources there). Your idea that some nicknames should not receive more focus than others is what resulted in the removal of the other geographic names, at a time when that removal was finally appropriate, considering that the name has now been "SARS-CoV-2" for as long as it was under the provisional name "2019-nCoV" or was simply in a state where there was no single widely-accepted name. The only part of your edits that was strenuously objected to was the idea that this coronavirus is often called "China Virus", and you gave only weak anecdotal evidence in support of your position, such as cramped-for-space newspaper headlines of articles that never use the phrase in the body, and with no evidence of widespread use in other reliable sources–particularly the sorts of reliable sources that are favored here, generally WP:MEDRS. Dekimasuよ! 10:57, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Symphony Regalia is now engaging in personal attacks using edit summaries. For the record, 1) I am not "colluding" with Hemiauchenia; I do not think we have ever interacted outside of the context of this article. 2) No one is engaging in "censorship" here. 3) The idea that the virus might be called "China Virus" by someone does not represent "information sensitive to the Chinese government". There is no grounds for accusing any editors here of having political purposes. This is an article on an organism, not a political topic. I do not now and never have had any association with the Chinese government. 4) The edit summary claims that Symphony Regalia is not the only one (!) in violation of 3RR here, but Hemiauchenia is not in violation of 3RR here. I did not even report Symphony Regalia's fourth addition of the same text in 8 hours, but now we're at a fifth addition, and it does not appear that the editor has any intention of desisting from violating the 3RR, so intervention appears to be needed. It's unfortunate that Symphony Regalia has decided to go down the path of falling on a sword ("I'm well aware that I'm going to be the one who ends up blocked though, because Wikipedia is not actually about who is being fair and who is being biased, but rather is about who has the most friends"). Dekimasuよ! 10:37, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

I checked out his claims that the term is being widely used online, on twitter it seems to be used maybe a dozen times an hour?, which when compared with the coronavirus traffic as a whole is really insignificant, so Symphony Regalia's reasoning doesn't hold up at all. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:49, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

A virus by any other name is just as deadly. Months from now, nobody is going to care if the virus was called "Wuhan Coronavirus" or "China virus" or "Trump virus". The virus has spread all over the world, such that China is even banning travel from Italy (and other countries) to protect its own Chinese citizens from the outbreak. If anything, the media is mostly calling SARS-CoV-2 informally as "the coronavirus" if not "the COVID-19 virus". If you want to list all the names this virus has been called in "reputable" news and publications, get your own page. — Hasdi Bravo • 17:23, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Add mention of multiple strains

The article should mention the recent findings that support the existence of at least two strains of SARS-CoV-2, termed the "L" and "S" strains. Here is the academic article that discovered the divergence: Tang, Xiaolu; Wu, Changcheng; Li, Xiang; Song, Yuhe; Yao, Xinmin; Wu, Xinkai; Duan, Yuange; Zhang, Hong; Wang, Yirong; Qian, Zhaohui; Cui, Jie; Lu, Jian. "On the origin and continuing evolution of SARS-CoV-2". National Science Review. doi:10.1093/nsr/nwaa036.

Here are some secondary sources documenting this finding:

• Guzman, Joseph (4 March 2020). "The coronavirus could be mutating as scientists claim to have identified a more aggressive strain". TheHill.
• "Coronavirus is mutating. Chinese scientists find second strain". Fortune.

Thanks. 131.128.73.81 (talk) 15:22, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

We will have to keep an eye on this one. The claim is out there, yes. However, the "strain" terminology used here is very imprecise/incorrect (SARS-CoV-2 itself is a single strain according to a normal definition), and there has already been quite a bit of criticism of this paper. As you can see from the article, Nextstrain shows a large number of genomes with small differences. This paper seems to be stating that there is a difference in transmissibility on the basis of one small change, but given that there is a good deal of skepticism about this, I think it is best that we wait for actual WP:MEDRS-compliant sources rather than relying upon generalist news sources that may be misinterpreting the results. There may be some arbitrariness in their definitions. My guess is that this will not pan out, but I will stay up to date on it. Dekimasuよ! 15:33, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Example criticism. Dekimasuよ! 15:46, 5 March 2020 (UTC)