Talk:SARS-CoV-2

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the SARS-CoV-2 article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11: 90 days

Template:Vital article

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to COVID-19, broadly construed, which is a contentious topic. Please consult the procedures and edit carefully.

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

There have been attempts to recruit editors of specific viewpoints to this article, in a manner that does not comply with Wikipedia's policies. Editors are encouraged to use neutral mechanisms for requesting outside input (e.g. a "request for comment", a third opinion or other noticeboard post, or neutral criteria: "pinging all editors who have edited this page in the last 48 hours"). If someone has asked you to provide your opinion here, examine the arguments, not the editors who have made them. Reminder: disputes are resolved by consensus, not by majority vote.

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Molecular Biology: Genetics B‑class Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Molecular Biology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Molecular Biology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Molecular BiologyWikipedia:WikiProject Molecular BiologyTemplate:WikiProject Molecular BiologyMolecular Biology articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Genetics task force (assessed as Top-importance).

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

COVID-19 B‑class Top‑importance

	COVID-19 portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject COVID-19, a project to coordinate efforts to improve all COVID-19-related articles. If you would like to help, you are invited to join and to participate in project discussions.COVID-19Wikipedia:WikiProject COVID-19Template:WikiProject COVID-19COVID-19 articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Disaster management B‑class Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Medicine: Emergency / Society / Pulmonology B‑class Top‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Emergency medicine and EMS task force (assessed as Top-importance).
	This article is supported by the Society and Medicine task force (assessed as High-importance).
	This article is supported by the Pulmonology task force (assessed as High-importance).

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Viruses B‑class Top‑importance

	Viruses portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Viruses, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of viruses on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.VirusesWikipedia:WikiProject VirusesTemplate:WikiProject Virusesvirus articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject COVID-19 consensus

WikiProject COVID-19 aims to add to and build consensus for pages relating to COVID-19. They have so far discussed items listed below. Please discuss proposed improvements to them at the project talk page.

General

Superseded by TfD October 2020 and later practice - consult regular {{Current}} guidance.

Refrain from using Worldometer (worldometers.info) as a source due to common errors being observed as noted on the Case Count Task Force common errors page. (April 2020, April 2020)

For infoboxes on the main articles of countries, use Wuhan, Hubei, China for the origin parameter. (March 2020)

"Social distancing" is generally preferred over "physical distancing". (April 2020, May 2020)

Page title

COVID-19 (full caps) is preferable in the body of all articles, and in the title of all articles/category pages/etc.(RM April 2020, including the main article itself, RM March 2021).

SARS-CoV-2 (exact capitalisation and punctuation) is the common name of the virus and should be used for the main article's title, as well as in the body of all articles, and in the title of all other articles/category pages/etc. (June 2022, overturning April 2020)

Map

There is no consensus about which color schemes to use, but they should be consistent within articles as much as possible. There is agreement that there should be six levels of shading, plus gray for areas with no instances or no data. (May 2020)

There is no consensus about whether the legend, the date, and other elements should appear in the map image itself. (May 2020)

For map legends, ranges should use fixed round numbers (as opposed to updating dynamically). There is no consensus on what base population to use for per capita maps. (May 2020)

To ensure you are viewing the current list, you may wish to purge this page.

Moves, mentions, and copied material

This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:

Omer Benjakob (9 February 2020). "On Wikipedia, a fight is raging over coronavirus disinformation". Wired (magazine). Retrieved 9 February 2020. ... the article about the '2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak' was created on January 5, 2020. Four days later, a new article was spun off from it, dedicated solely to the 'Novel coronavirus' – officially known as 2019-nCoV. Yet another was created in February to detail the symptoms of the respiratory disease caused by the virus.
Mikael Thalen (24 March 2020). "Meet the Wikipedia editors fighting to keep coronavirus pages accurate". The Daily Dot. Retrieved 31 March 2020. Those pages include the Wikipedia article for the virus itself, known as Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2, the disease it causes, COVID-19, and the ongoing global pandemic the coronavirus has caused.
Omer Benjakob (8 April 2020). "Why Wikipedia Is Immune to Coronavirus". Haaretz. Retrieved 10 April 2020. Asked by Haaretz to gauge the merits of the English-language article on the virus, Prof. Nadav Davidovitch, who heads the department of public health at Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, said he was 'pleasantly surprised by its quality.'

Text has been copied to or from this article; see the list below. The source pages now serve to provide attribution for the content in the destination pages and must not be deleted as long as the copies exist. For attribution and to access older versions of the copied text, please see the history links below.

Copied Novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) (oldid, history) → 2019-nCoV acute respiratory disease (diff) on 5 February 2020
Copied Novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) (oldid, history) → 2019-nCoV acute respiratory disease (diff) on 5 February 2020
Copied Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2#Strains and variants (oldid, history) → Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 variants (diff) on 23 December 2020

This article has previously been nominated to be moved. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination.

Discussions:

29 April 2020, Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 → COVID-19 virus, Speedy close, consensus to not move (permalink)
12 March 2021, Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 → SARS-CoV-2, Consensus to not move (permalink)
21 June 2022, Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 → SARS-CoV-2, Moved (#Requested move 21 June 2022)
17 August 2022, SARS-CoV-2 → SARS coronavirus 2, Withdrawn (#Requested move 17 August 2022)

Older discussions:

22 January 2020, Novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) → Wuhan coronavirus, Consensus against moving (permalink)
31 January 2020, Novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) → 2019-nCoV, Consensus to move to "2019 novel coronavirus" (permalink)
9 February 2020, 2019 novel coronavirus → 2019 Novel coronavirus, Speedy close, not moved (permalink)
11 February 2020, 2019 novel coronavirus → SARS-CoV-2, Speedy close, no consensus (permalink)
18 February 2020, 2019 novel coronavirus → Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, Moved (permalink)
16 March 2020, Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 → COVID-19 virus, WP:SNOW closed, not moved (permalink)
24 April 2020, Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 → SARS coronavirus 2, Withdrawn by nominator, not moved (permalink)

Highlighted open discussions

This section is pinned and will not be automatically archived.

NOTE: It is recommended to link to this list in your edit summary when reverting, as:
[[Talk:SARS-CoV-2#Current consensus|current consensus]] item [n]
To ensure you are viewing the current list, you may wish to purge this page.

01. There is consensus that the terms "Wuhan virus" or "China virus" should not be used in the Lead of the article. The terms and their history can be discussed in the body of the article. (April 2020)

Work towards A-Class status

I propose we consciously embark on making this an A-Class article. The criteria are:

Provides a well-written, clear and complete description of the topic, as described in Wikipedia:Article development. It should be of a length suitable for the subject, appropriately structured, and be well referenced by a broad array of reliable sources. It should be well illustrated, with no copyright problems. Only minor style issues and other details need to be addressed before submission as a featured article candidate

. Do any of the wikiprojects involved in this entry have an A-Class assessment departments? Forich (talk) 16:49, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think A-class is a very uncommon rating. Perhaps WP:GA would be a good goal. –Novem Linguae (talk) 17:43, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Caption for the bottom image accompanying article lead

'Atomic model of the external structure of the SARS-CoV-2 virion. Each "ball" is an atom.'

Despite the rather confusing description of the source stating this also: Each "ball" depicted is not an individual Atom but rather a Chemical compound consisting of multiple different chemically bonded atoms.

I have never seen the individual structures of the viral envelope referred to as 'atoms' before, though it it possible that is simply an archaic convention among virologists that I am unaware of.

At any rate though, the link in the caption for this image does direct to the Wikipedia article for atoms.

Would anyone mind correcting for the above? I believe that I am unable to do so myself given the (understandable) protected status of this article. 2A02:A443:AF4E:1:D5A2:151D:A66C:5A5 (talk) 20:29, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, each "ball" is actually a specific amino acid, which the source image discusses in depth in its description. — Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 23:54, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Erroneous statement of similarity to feline coronavirus

In the "Phylogenetics and taxonomy" section, the claim is made: "The furin cleavage site PRRAR↓ is identical to that of the feline coronavirus, an alphacoronavirus 1 strain." However, the source cited for this statement contradicts this claim. According to the source, there are two variants of feline coronavirus. FECV, which is milder, and FIPV which can be fatal, and that the mild variant has an optimized furin cleavage site, whereas the severe variant has a mutated or even missing furin cleavage site:

For example, the feline enteric coronavirus (FECV), responsible for a milder and localized form of enteric infection in the infected cat, carried a highly optimized furin cleavage site at S1/S2. In contrast, in the spike protein of the feline infectious peritonitis virus (FIPV), that caused systemic infection and death of the infected cat, the polybasic insert was either completely lost or found mutated.

It goes on to state that the mild form (FECV) has a furin cleavage site with the sequence RRARR↓ (note that this does not match the sequence PRRAR↓ which the Wikipedia article claims is identical):

The presence of a furin cleavage site RRARR↓S in the feline spike protein of the less infectious strain FECV and the presence of PRRAR↓S in the SARS-CoV-2 prompted us to analyse the sequences more carefully.

It also states that of the two feline coronavirus variants, SARS-CoV-2's cleavage site is more similar to the mild variant's site (which as shown above does not have an identical furin cleavage site):

Thus the polybasic insert of CoV-2 spike protein is closer to that of the spike protein of the milder feline coronavirus but carries crucial substitutions that are either uncommon or are disfavored in classical Furin substrates.

This clearly shows that the cited paper does not support the claim made in this article that the PRRAR↓ furin cleavage site present in SARS-CoV-2 is identical to the furin cleavage site in the feline coronavirus. It even appears that not only is the claim not supported by that source, but that the claim may even be incorrect (according to the statements from the source). Moulding (talk) 21:11, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't we just say "nearly identical" since it's only one proline off? And other source say they're very similar: [1] [2]

Indeed, the second source there says: For instance, a similar P-R-R-A-R motif in the spike of a feline CoV has been observed to be encoded with a CGG-CGA for the double Arginine (Bank-Wolf et al. 2014). In this case, a single mutation could change the CGG-CGA to a CGG-CGG. — Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 21:54, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The second source refers only to the general PRRAR motif found in some FIPV sequences, not the entire cleavage sequece. As can be seen in the original source graphic, the entire cleavage sequence that matched that motif in FIPV was PRRARM↓S, which still is not identical to PRRAR↓S. It also shows that the consensus sequence appears to be SRRSRR↓S (which is not at all similar to SARS-CoV-2's sequence, and it may be misleading for this Wikipedia article to suggest otherwise).

Original source graphic: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3713968/figure/F2/ Moulding (talk) 23:06, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just gonna change the text to be "highly similar" to, since they are quite similar in the sense of BLOSUM similarity. — Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 01:57, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Airborne

I changed the lead to clarify that SARS-CoV-2 is airborne. Sparkie82 (t•c) 23:46, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Origin update?...

From the article's intro: "Available evidence indicates that it is most likely of zoonotic origin and has close genetic similarity to bat coronaviruses, suggesting it emerged from a bat-borne virus."

The citation provided there though (#18) is dated 2020, when the pandemic was still quite new, and our understanding of the virus and its origins were much more limited. We now have US government agencies, like the Energy Dept in the recent report, saying that a lab leak origin is more likely. So I would suggest that this part of the intro be updated, rewritten, and much newer citations used. -2003:CA:871C:D28:77AA:E11E:9B4:E4E6 (talk) 11:32, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]