Jump to content

Talk:SARS-CoV-2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mazca (talk | contribs) at 18:01, 31 January 2020 (→‎Requested move 22 January 2020: close requested move, there is consensus to NOT move to Wuhan coronavirus, but further discussion is encouraged.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Older med refs

Requested move 22 January 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: Consensus to not move to the suggested title, though there is a significant level of dissatisfaction with the current title. Moving it to "Wuhan coronavirus" or a variant of it is resoundingly unpopular particularly later in the discussion, with large numbers of editors pointing out multiple documented issues with over-enthusiastically naming diseases after places. While it's clearly a common name for the disease, it is neither the common name, nor is it officially used as the name by official organisations. The current title is clearly something of a compromise, with the not-very-catchy 2019-nCoV being the official designation, and "novel coronavirus" being a commonly used, relatively neutral media term for it. Reasonable suggestions for other, less cumbersome titles have been made, with specifically 2019 novel coronavirus and 2019-nCoV both being discussed favourably, but there is simply no way a closer could legitimately extract a consensus for either of those from this discussion, which is understandably focused primarily on flaws with the originally suggested title.

I would suggest a new discussion to see if a positive consensus for one of the other, cleaner, neutral titles can be found - but the consensus in this discussion is very much a negative one. ~ mazca talk 18:01, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

  • Procedural comment. Clearly, this is ready to close in 12 hours. However, it was also moved from 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) to Novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) without discussion by a now-blocked sock on January 19. The previous title is not great, because it is simply the same title twice, in violation of WP:AT. However, the current title is also really the same title twice; and the move would normally be reverted if it could be determined there was previously a stable title. [Follow-up: It was at Wuhan coronavirus, the title rejected here, between its creation on January 9 and January 16, so it is safe to say there is no stable title.] I would thus advise leaving open the option of initiating a new move request to simply 2019-nCoV (or 2019 novel coronavirus) when closing this request. (I have not !voted here, but I am involved in editing the article, so I will leave it to another RM closer.) Dekimasuよ! 06:20, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support There will be more novel coronaviruses. Tradition with epidemics is to indicate location and type e.g. Spanish Influenza and Middle East Respiratory Syndrome. We can now confirm epidemic within city of Wuhan, and Wuhan as epicenter. Common usage is growing for Wuhan Coronavirus. Erudite_Ed —Preceding undated comment added 22:43, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Although the CDC and WHO seem to still be calling it Novel, it does look like a majority of news websites are using Wuhan - a couple more examples of its use: NPR, Business Insider, The Guardian, so it looks like Wuhan is turning into the more common term. Lcodyh803 (talk) 18:27, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Lcodyh803: The CDC and WHO websites are professional government and international websites, and are reliable sources, using professional and scientific names. NPR, Business Insider, and The Guardian are all news websites using "Wuhan virus" just to catch the readers attention to give info in the title. Wikipedia is not just a news website, it is a factual encyclopedia, and should have factual, encyclopedically like titles, that follow Wikipedia's article title policy. Just because Wuhan is a "common term" does not mean it is an officially scientifically approved term. The name of this virus has not been given yet as of January 24, 2020 (Pacific Time), as this virus is still new. The common name could change later, when the virus becomes more widely known and popular. "Wuhan coronavirus" sounds unprofessional and rudimentary to me, which was explained in this discussion. 75.52.95.136 (talk) 01:07, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Wuhan coronavirus - The c should be lowercase. "novel coronavirus" is a placeholder name, and not an official name by any stretch. --Nessie (📥) 19:03, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • No Support: change article name to "Wuhan pneumonia". TFSA (talk) 19:15, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@TFSA: Why should you change the article name to "Wuhan pneumonia"? What are the reasons? The reasons have to follow the article title policy. Also, this is a proposal to change the title to "Wuhan coronavirus", not "Wuhan pneumonia". Because of these reasons, I believe your claim may be not relevant to the discussion we have. 75.52.95.136 (talk) 01:07, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not Support, I propose to name it as "XiaodongWang Coronavirus", the governor of Hubei province, whose group do nothing but keep the virus spread countrywide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greatworld2020 (talk • contribs) 18:16, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Greatworld2020: This is a proposal to talk about changing the article title to "Wuhan coronavirus", not "XiaodongWang Coronavirus". Also, the names of viruses are not usually bamed after people in that format, so your request sounds unlikely. Also, please base your reasons on the article title policy page. Thanks! 75.52.95.136 (talk) 01:07, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The term "novel coraonavirus" is just a placeholder due to the fact that it is a new strain: "Wuhan coronavirus" is both being widely used, as above, and is more likely to endure as a name. MadameButterflyKnife talk 19:54, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@MadameButterflyKnife: I disagree on the part where it is more likely to endure as a name. The CDC shows that this outbreak is a "rapidly evolving situation" as of January 24, 2020 (Pacific Time), at this link, so the name can also probably rapidly evolve too, as new things are discovered about its human to human transmission which have not been discovered yet as of January 24, 2020 (Pacific Time). 75.52.95.136 (talk) 01:07, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You're correct that this is just a placeholder. However, viruses never have a place name in them, so it's not going to stick. If we did this, it would just need to be changed again.Mvolz (talk) 20:01, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Mvolz: that’s not true at all, go to ICTV and you’ll find many many species of viruses named after places. --Nessie (📥) 22:25, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree "never" was a bit too strong (Although not to put too fine a point on it, but this is a strain of virus, not a species- strain names tend to have the name of the disease it causes, the antigens that make it different from other strains, the name of an animal if it's epizoontic) That said, it's still very unlikely for it to be named Wuhan coronavirus exactly, so the point still stands :). Mvolz (talk) 09:44, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose We should use the placeholder name until virologists give it a new name. Otherwise we'll just have to move it again. A redirect to here from Wuhan coronavirus is appropriate. Mvolz (talk) 20:01, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
CDC is calling it "2019 Novel Coronavirus, Wuhan, China" see [1]. If you want to be strict and follow CDC, why not use that? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:08, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's not the name of the strain, that's the title of the webpage. In that page they don't name it at all, they just call it "a novel corona virus." The WHO spells it out for us: "This new virus was temporarily named “2019-nCoV.”"
First of all, the phrase, "Wuhan coronavirus", is an unprofessional and rudimentary name.
I strongly believe that the article's title should not be changed because it is not a news article. "Wuhan coronavirus" sounds unprofessional, and if this is a formal encyclopedia, then you should have a more professionial name. Also, there may be multiple "Wuhan coronavirus"-es. This is very general and vague and not specific. News headlines only use "Wuhan coronavirus" to summarize the place and to catch readers, so I think that this is a factual encyclopedia with a specific and non vague fairly scientific name. "Wuhan corona virus sounds very rudimentary. Wuhan is just to identify the event and where it started! A scientific name is better, so I oppose! It is very unprofessional!
Secondly, "Wuhan coronavirus" is likely to be changed again, due to its unofficial name format (nomenclature), both scientifically and socially.
Also, like Mvolz said, viruses should not officialy have a place name, so it will need to be changed again. We need to limit the amount of changes to this article, as multiple changes can also confuse readers. Also NessieVL, even though you will find "many many species" of viruses named after places, "Wuhan coronavirus" sounds very unprofessional, and I dont think virus names have two English words. So Dicklyon, in my opinion, I believe that changing the name would not be a good choice if it has not been named yet, because then the title would need to be changed twice, wasting time and effort and energy that could have been used in something else.
Lastly, Redirecting can be used instead, to redirect from "Wuhan coronavirus" into the main real page.
I also agree with Mvolz in a redirect for the search term, "Wuhan coronavirus", because a more professional name would suit the article better, and may enhance Wikipedia's reputation in terms of its element of professionality. Also, I disagree with TheMemeMonarch because only a redirected is needed. I really wonder if people here take redirects into consideration.
Please take my opinion into consideration even though I am anonymous. Thanks! By the way, I am exercising the "be bold" saying, and trying to be helpful to people and not vandalize. I have tried to rebuke all of the "Support" bullet points, and tried to support the "Oppose" points. 10:56 P.M., January 22 2020 75.52.95.136 (talk) 06:57, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose and leave as is, at least until until dust settles, for reasons mentioned by Mvolz and75.52.95.136. Novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) IS the authoritative description used all by English speaking/publishing relevant medical entities at this time (WHO, ECDC, CDC etc). People will find info they need as is because of redirect.--Wuerzele (talk) 09:15, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Oppose We have a redirect from Wuhan Coronavirus already. The correct medical name should be used. However there is a separate wiki article named "Wuhan Coronavirus Outbreak" which is correctly named. Wikimucker (talk) 18:46, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support It’s the common name for this virus. My only quibble is that coronavirus shouldn’t be capitalized.
As a comparison, the Spanish flu article currently uses the common name instead of the technical name (1918 flu pandemic). Apparently page views for that article increased significantly when the name was changed to the common name. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 20:28, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Blaylockjam10: The page views can just be a coincidence. If the name of an article was just changed into the "Spanish flu", then I believe that this is just a coincidence, because Wikipedia may have been primitive at the time, and was not as reliable either. You should compare whether your source is reliable too, because where did you get the page views from? Also, the page views can just be because if the content, because maybe it was just created. And even though the "Spanish flu" is the common name, the flu is more widely known and popular than the new coronavirus we have. According to the CDC website on the coronavirus in Wuhan, this is a "rapidly evolving situation" as of January 23, 2020 (Pacific Time), so the name can change quickly. Do not use the post hoc fallacy. 75.52.95.136 (talk) 01:07, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. As a note, (1918 flu pandemic) is not a technical name, nor should it be. The correct name is H1N1. The name mentioned is the name of the event, not the strain. Same here. The event page is named as it should be.
  • Oppose, even the dumbass "science reporters" in the media know that a name will be generated by the proper medical authorities and are holding off on using a common name. Abductive (reasoning) 22:44, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose There is no reason to change the name from the current medical terminology. If this terminology changes, then we should reconsider a name change. There is no reason to overrule medical terminology because a couple journalists found 2019-nCov too confusing a term. Acebulf (talk) 00:53, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This is the common name of the virus. It is more recognizable than the current official name of the virus. PCelestia (talk) 01:37, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ambivalence But one argument against that I would like to counter is that the current title should be kept because it seems more "professional"; this thinking goes against WP:COMMONNAME, which suggests this article should use whatever name settles as the standard name, even if that name is different to it's WHO designation. Also note that the 2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak article has been renamed. People may be interested to see the talk page there. Ypna (talk) 04:49, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Oppose This is a scientifically based article for all information regarding the (yet to be named) Novel coronavirus. The article should retain its title because

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

  • Comment: WHO - yes; CDC - yes; NCBI - I don't see "2019-nCoV" in the content of the page, rather I see "Wuhan-Hu-1|China|2019-Dec" and then an alphanumeric code MN908947 for the particular genome (which would be too specific for the title here). Boud (talk) 21:58, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. There's a longstanding preference not to name viruses after populated locations, because of the perceived associated stigma. Espresso Addict (talk) 05:42, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relevant quote from a plos blog: "Nomenclature is still up in the air. The first name, “2019-nCoV” for “novel coronavirus first seen in 2019,” is descriptive but not easy to remember. “Wu Flu” isn’t correct – it’s not a flu virus, nor is “Wuhan SARS” quite right because the new pathogen’s genome isn’t exactly like that of SARS. I’ll call it the Wuhan coronavirus until the World Health Organization decides on a name. WHO avoids places in disease names to avoid stigma, although I don’t see the Rocky Mountains suffering from lack of visitors due to the spotted fever that takes it’s name (which isn’t viral, but still)." Mvolz (talk) 16:15, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relevant quote from a newspaper article: "None of these is likely to be the virus’ or the disease’s permanent name. They almost certainly would be unacceptable to the Chinese, and to the World Health Organization, which discourages the use of place names in the naming of diseases." Mvolz (talk) 16:18, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. It is a non-professional and misleading name for an article on a scientific topic. I would support the move to Coronavirus 2019-nCoV, which is proper scientific nomenclature. --TadejM my talk 23:32, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. We're no longer in the times of the Spanish flu (which, BTW, wasn't Spanish.) It's unscientific, damning and contrary to the accepted practice in modern epidemiology. --MaeseLeon (talk) 08:02, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. As already mentioned, the current name is the currently official designations for the virus. Having a redirect from a publicly used, but unofficial name to this article is fine, but I can't support a move to an article with an unofficial name. WHO has outlined that the name is temporary, but moving it to a later determined official name, if applicable, is something I'd support. Alternatively, moving it to Coronavirus 2019-nCoV, as TadejM mentioned. -- OliviaZoe0 ❤️ (She/her) (talk) 10:55, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support move to Wuhan coronavirus per WP:COMMONNAME. Note what the policy says: Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it generally prefers the name that is most commonly used. Wuhan coronavirus is used by major news outlets. e.g. [2][3][4], etc., even used by the science journal Nature - [5]. Given that Novel Coronavirus 2019 is temporary anyway, so why use it? Hzh (talk) 11:55, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support For the simple fact that when the next zoonotic transmission occurs with a new strain in the following years, this will merely be confusion and make no sense and provide no context. -- Berkaysnklf (|talk) 12:59, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly oppose. Redirects and alternative names in article body are enough. Article page name is extremely encyclopedic, which fits in the context of an extremely complex topic anyway. Optakeover(U)(T)(C) 13:55, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The intent of the request is met adequately by the redirect and a bold text 'popularly known as' in the lead. Keep the best available scientific name until a more formal scientific name is adopted (by the WHO?). xref WP:NOTNEWS. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:28, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I said earlier that Wuhan coronavirus is the common name. However I now think that we should change the name to Wuhan coronavirus, then mention the scientific name somewhere within the start of the article. PCelestia (talk) 18:47, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I think it's too early to determine its common name. Benimation (talk) 19:26, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support move to Wuhan coronavirus per WP:COMMONNAME. Miniapolis 20:23, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have no knowledge on how epidemics or pandemics work... but shouldn’t the name be something the general public can easily identify if they want to read an article about it? Wuhan coronavirus is likely a misnomer but you get my drift. At best, redirect. ⌚️ (talk) 23:46, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • If somebody searches using the (current) media name, Wuhan coronavirus, they will go automagically to this article and the second pair of words they will see in bold is Wuhan coronavirus. It seems to me that they are likely to be reassured by the scientific nomenclature that what they are reading is credible and not some fake news click bait. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 00:40, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support To add to the discussion re: media usage, Chinese state media is also using the phrase Wuhan Coronavirus. An unscientific run through Twitter reaffirms that this is by far the more popular way to refer to it, and frankly mitigates the stigma argument, given that PRC state media is particularly sensitive to public image. As Hzh pointed out, policy can be read to prefer articles using the popular name of a topic. WhinyTheYounger (talk) 03:25, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose WHO goes with "2019-nCoV".[6] So should we. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:43, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose and Close with No Concensus name is used by the WHO and other major bodies. Clearly no concensus on the topic is likley to be reached so this discussion should be closed. Hemiauchenia (talk) 04:58, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose because where do we draw the line? We could call it Wuhan coronavirus, but it has now spread to many Chinese cities, so why not China coronavirus or Chinese coronavirus instead? And it is even starting to go beyond China now. I think it is probably best not to jump the gun and to wait for an official announcement from scientific authorities before deciding on a new name; for now, the placeholder novel coronavirus will do. Buttons0603 (talk) 12:00, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Oppose WHO uses 2019-nCov. Journal articles use nCov (https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)30154-9/fulltext). Let's go with what international scientific organisations and journals are using rather than some random newspapers. Adam Williams (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:48, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose It doesn't make sense to change an accurate name that can easily be reached through other pages. A redirect would be more accurate and consistent with current titling convention. TheExceptionCloaker (talk) 18:45, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose WHO's current nomenclature is as commonly recognized as the suggested name "Wuhan Coronavirus" which is mentioned by medias more than others. The final name is still debatable, however, this proposal during early stage of this pandemic situation is not as ideal as it is. For the record, Imperial College London used 2019-ncov1; earliest paper on the matter used novel coronavirus2; both Lancet articles also used novel coronavirus34. Thus my personal opposition to this notion of redirecting to "Wuhan coronavirus". 复读姬 (talk) 21:35, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Both the WHO and the CDC are referring to the virus as: “2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV).” The article should not be renamed until one, or both, of those authoritative sources rename the virus. Jason M. Smith 21:39, 26 January 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Javasmith (talk • contribs)
  • rename CAR - Chinese Acute Respiratory Syndrome- As of January 27, 2020, as many as four cities with over 10 million people are now impacted: — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.194.163 (talk) 07:13, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Calling 2019-nCoV the 'Wuhan coronavirus' kinda downplays its significance, since it implies that it's almost entirely localized in Wuhan (when it isn't, it just happens to be where it started to spread) (MERS-CoV is called the 'Middle East coronavirus' since it's almost entirely localized in the Middle East). Several contributors above me have also pointed out that WHO calls the virus '2019-nCoV', so yeah. jaclar0529 (talk) 11:18, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the record, the country with the second highest number of cases from MERS is South Korea, a country not in the Middle East. -- zaiisao (talk | contribs) 23:00, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose As several others have pointed out, naming viruses after locations or people is no longer an accepted practice in scientific communities. The outbreak and knowledge of the virus is still fairly new, and while we don't know what name will stick in the long-term, for now keeping the page name "2019-nco" with a redirect from Wuhan Coronavirus is the best solution. TorontoBio (talk) 13:21, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - The virus is officially named "2019-nCov" and hence it should remain at this page. The "Wuhan coronavirus" title should be treated as similar to the "Spanish flu" and be about the current pandemic, not the virus. Tsukide (talk) 16:31, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - More specifically, oppose for now. We're still early in the process, and changes to the "common" name seem entirely likely. The current title, "Novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV)", is used by relevant authorities, which makes it a good starting point. We should give it a few months and see how the name shakes out. Eventually the WHO and CDC will come up with another name, which will be a contender, and we can see if "Wuhan coronavirus" manages to stick the as the common usage. — Alan De Smet | Talk 17:30, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - as per arguments above, we should follow the scientific consensus on this one for the strain itself, we have 2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak for the outbreak itself. --hroest 21:26, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Both CDC and WHO are using '2019-nCoV' as the name for the virus at this moment. Whatever the name "mainstream" media is using should not be the reason to rename the page. MrSeaman (talk) 21:48, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – A scientific name is preferred, particularly considering there have been instances of the virus outside the Wuhan region and the outbreak article already has Wuhan in the title. Master of Time (talk) 23:44, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Scientific name is preferred. It is not "Wuhan coronavirus" anymore in the near future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.170.68.162 (talk) 02:45, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Wiki is not urban dictionary, its the official page name should remain factual names provided by relevant health organisations, not naming conventions of trending news sites. There is a reason why WHO did not name it Wuhan coronavirus in the beginning, the name can carry permanent and far reaching implications in today's day and age. It is already redirected from "Wuhan coronavirus" and listed as an alternative name, I don't see why we need to move it, at least not now. Things can change quickly in the future, let's wait for things to smooth out before changing something so important. H1230016 (talk) 15:22, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Against this move ,the whole world is saying 2019-nCoV Recto sama (talk) 05:00, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Moving it to something like 2019 Wuhan novel coronavirus would seem more appropriate Would (oldosfan) 06:22, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The scientific name is preferred. It would like to see this article by just scientific name (2019-nCoV) without word "novel coronavirus". German, Indonesian, Danish, Dutch, Catalan Wikipedias doesn't use names like "novel coronavirus" because it is ambiguous and can be confusing if any viruses other than 2019-nCoV is released and grammatically incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 36.76.226.238 (talk) 07:41, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Tsukide's reasoning that "Wuhan coronavirus" isn't a common name for the virus itself. "Novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV)" is overspecified, though, and I agree with the IP above that "2019-nCoV" by itself would seem adequate. 82.16.89.102 (talk) 13:20, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The WHO recommends against naming diseases after locations and people: NYT article from 2015, Poz.com article from this week. The name currently used by epidemiologists and the WHO is "2019-nCOV"; that's what we should use too, with a redirect from "Wuhan coronavirus" and similar terms. — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk; please {{ping}} me in replies) 14:26, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Oppose. we cannot repeat the problems we created with Sin Nombre virus and the 1918 Influenza pandemic. By calling the former the "Four Corners virus," massive economic harm was done to the indigenous populations who were already terrified of the novel and deadly hemorrhagic fever. As we now know, the "Spanish" flu truly has nothing to do with Spain whatsoever. It was a misnomer then, and it would be a misnomer now. We cannot repeat these mistakes, causing more damage when all science is trying to do is help. --Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 14:44, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Oppose. Go with Scientific name, since this refers to the biology and other technical language, rather than the origin place of the virus. WHO uses 2019-nCoV, and so does much of the epidemiology world. Kylerschin (talk) 03:22, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I understand WHO's position, unfortunately, discrimination is already happening for better or worse. In addition, this is Wikipedia, we do not need to follow WHO naming convention. Article name not only serve as a identifier, but also serves as a TL;DR in grand scheme of things. "Wuhan" would be a meaningful qualifier in the years to come, while a string of letters and numbers would be meaningless. --Voidvector (talk) 05:46, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, unless the CDC and others adopt it as a/the permanent name for this virus. I'm not particuarly concerned with the move leading to discrimination, as that isn't Wikipedia's place/thing to correct, however I am concerned that such a move, at this time, would deviate from the ecyclopeidc nature of Wikipedia. I'm sure the Urban dictionary will define the "Wuhan Coronavirus" as a synonym to the "2019-nCoV", but we aren't the Urban Dictionary. The fact that the virus was first reported in Wuhan, China is noted in our article, and should remain there, as it is a relevant fact. However, that doesn't mean it has to be in the title of the page. Thus, unless the CDC and others adopt "Wuhan Coronavirus (WC)" as its official name, then we shouldn't change the article title to "Wuhan Coronavirus". ElectroChip123 (talk) 17:18, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, "Novel coronavirus(2019-nCoV)" is more official and identifies this virus properly. And it is as unambiguous as "Wuhan coronavirus". The latter, however, is rude and biased. Will you call Black Death "Europe disease"? If we want to do something meaningful and avoid geographical discrimination and enmity, "Novel coronavirus(2019-nCoV)" is a much better name.137.132.220.25 (talk) 19:29, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, was going to support initially but every time I hear it on the news, it's "novel coronavirus", not "Wuhan coronavirus". Gatemansgc (TɅ̊LK) 21:08, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Every news article I see lately simply refers to it as "the coronavirus" — not preceded by 'Wuhan' or 'Novel'. 144.178.0.204 (talk) 04:37, 31 January 2020 (UTC) Darwin[reply]
  • Oppose The WHO, the CDC, and the FDA use "2019-nCoV" Whywhenwhohow (talk) 05:23, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove parenthesis and Keep "2019-nCoV" or Rename the article 2019 Novel Coronavirus which is the current full name of the virus. Or just go with the abbreviated name 2019-nCoV. The current title is confusing as it gives part of the full name and the abbreviation of the full name in parenthesis. This makes no sense. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 15:35, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Either move to 2019-nCoV or to 2019 novel coronavirus per Coffeeandcrumbs. The current title is neither one thing nor the other, and using part of the formal title as a disambiguator isn't usual practice.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:41, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • If we can read consensus for 2019-nCoV out of this discussion, that's great; with the amount of discussion that's taken place here, I was under the impression a new request would be needed for it. Dekimasuよ! 15:46, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Remember the controversies of the names of the 2009 influenza and MERS-CoV? We don't want that to happen again. Foxtail286 (talk) 16:06, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. One should never nominate a virus/disease with the name of a city/country/living human being, in respect of non-discrimination. JoshuaGhost (talk) 16:38, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Semi Protection Request 24 Jan

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

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

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

Wikimucker, ElHef I have a background in science/medicine though I'm more familiar with cancer research than virology. I cleaned up some of the redundant, incorrect details just now and reorganized the article to model influenza. Open to feedback. Moksha88 (talk) 05:04, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also, what's your perspective on including details of the virus in this article, 2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak? I think it makes more sense to merge the virus details from that article into this one. Moksha88 (talk) 05:15, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Moksha88 If you could please. The science in this article will be fast moving and many papers will be published as 'open source' research rather than fully and correctly peer reviewed so unlike cancer research where a paper could be 6 months old by the time peer reviewing is completed and publication is final.
We will likely get papers straight off the computer screeen over the next few weeks here. It will require very delicate handling in terms of assertions made, "allegations" that are not reviewed in any way, and how this fast moving science is presented properly in wiki terms. A crap paper may even contain a nugget of gold we don't know about.
I do not have the science to pretend to be capable of editing an article like this beyond this point. If you would allow for less rigour than in your own field, for now anyway, you could be the perfect editor this page requires now that the 'newsy' data is moved to a different article. Wikimucker (talk) 11:36, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wikimucker, I'll do my best. I'm more adept at the medical/clinical section than the virology bits as it's been at least a decade since I completed any coursework on the topic. Moksha88 (talk) 01:12, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Wikimucker: Please do not suggest that open access research (or even better, reproducible research that is based on free-licensed software) is not (in general) peer-reviewed: the phrase 'open source' research rather than peer reviewed could be interpreted to mean that. There are some fields, such as high energy physics and cosmology/extragalactic astronomy where almost all research is both green open access and, after a delay of typically 1-12 months for the peer review process, peer-reviewed; the article remains green open access after the peer review, and increasingly often gold open access too. Of course, many open-access and closed-access articles fail peer review. Boud (talk) 15:52, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Boud: OK amended in italics to " rather than fully and correctly " . Please read my originally worded comment as 'perfect is the enemy of good', in the circumstances. Thx. Wikimucker (talk) 16:00, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Wikimucker: Thanks :). This is getting off-topic, and there's no point you making further edits here, but while peer review is a procedure fundamental to science as a systematic way of seeking knowledge (and from the Wikipedia POV is the main objective criterion we can use for deciding on medical articles to use as sources), it is not at all a guarantee of good science; see Reproducibility#Reproducible_research, e.g. this Nature article. Which also gets back to the open access aspect, which is expected to constitute a key element of improved standards in reproducibility. Boud (talk) 16:18, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Boud If you read the bit at the very beginning of the section then everything I actually asked for is in place now, what with you showing up. :)
You could simply delete this entire section of the talk page with my blessings.
You may also need to trim other discussions from the period up to ~the ~24th as they are now only clutter since the Wuhan outbreak article was spun out around that day. Obviously only the newsy rather than the sciency talk. As I said to Moksha88 this article has to be carefully curated by the scientists from now on and some of that will be 'fast science' in the circumstances. Wikimucker (talk) 16:31, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Overlap with Outbreak Article

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

Material that is actually related to the progress of the outbreak should be in that article. That includes information on transmission and symptoms as well as its spread. Information on the virus itself (which includes most of the information about its phylogeny, for example), should go here. I have my doubts that the section on genetics in the other article is necessary at all (it could be reduced to part of the "context" there). Dekimasuよ! 05:50, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, this article should be able to use more medical terminology than the other one, which is attempting to provide information to the general public about an epidemic that could affect them. Tsukide (talk) 16:39, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Pursuant to this, I have removed the new addition of a large "cases reported" table divided by country. The geography of the current outbreak is only tangentially relevant to the virus itself, which is the topic of this article. The table is still at the outbreak's page and can be edited/updated there as necessary, but I object to the addition of that table here without establishing consensus for its inclusion. Dekimasuよ! 11:32, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Dekimasu I merged 'Signs & Symptoms' with the outbreak article. I think what's missing is an article devoted to the clinical syndrome because now the 'Treatment' section is misplaced, like Influenza vs Influenza virus Moksha88 (talk) 03:20, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I generally agree with this. For the time being, I have added part of a sentence to describe the "symptoms" that are already listed under "treatment". I think the treatment section is fine to keep for now, since the effectiveness of various treatments is specifically related to the characteristics of the virus. As you noted, there isn't yet a specific article on the syndrome or apparent agreement on what it would be called (noting as well that the pneumonia redirect listed a few sections below is likely to be redirected to the outbreak article, rather than continuing to point here). Dekimasuよ! 04:37, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Dekimasu, I'm just seeing this now and deleted the symptoms part. I paraphrased the symptoms part because kidney disease and pneumonia are not technically symptoms, they are diseases. I didn't think they were that important to keep, but maybe we can compromise on a few symptoms that can be treated with medication, like cough. Moksha88 (talk) 23:55, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I still generally agree, although it might be worth continuing to note that the infection can progress to pneumonia or kidney failure. In some cases the symptoms are also indicative of method of transmission, so that is another reason to consider retaining them. Dekimasuよ! 09:20, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Infectious during incubation controversy

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

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

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

Sadly this controversy was caused not least by the Health Minister in China, Ma Xiaowei , see > https://www.foxnews.com/health/coronavirus-spread-during-incubation-period-chinese-official-claims
It will require a high level countervailing statement from top officialdom/WHO to clarify, if he is wrong. Wikimucker (talk) 08:01, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
From what I have understood about the comments, the CDC have only said that they don't have evidence for human-to-human transmission during the incubation period, but that doesn't mean the Chinese assertions are wrong. Sadly I don't have the source link to hand and I can't find it on Google. Tsukide (talk) 09:58, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I remember the US CDC (not the Chinese one) saying that. However China clearly has more data! Wikimucker (talk) 11:39, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please unlock the article, I have vital info to contribute.

Guys, locking the article like this at the peak of this whole thing is grossly counterproductive, with so much info streaming in every day. You need to rethink your decision, because how can this article represent "the sum of all human knowledge on the subject" if you wont let people contribute in good faith? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.253.226.193 (talk) 14:39, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Because many people don't - vandalism was rampant - ergo, the protection. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.9.165 (talk) 22:13, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't you just create an account and become an autoconfirmed user? 4 days and 10 edits and you'll be able to contribute, it's not that difficult. Hundreds of thousands of people are viewing this article everyday and to serve our readers we need to make sure the information added is accurate, which a lot of contributions by ip users are not. If you truly have "vital info" that you need to contribute then you need to make a semi-protected edit request. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:49, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You can request edits here, or use Template:Edit semi-protected. Any vital info can be added on your behalf. (An aside: is this the peak of this thing?) Dekimasuよ! 16:35, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What you consider "vandalism" may have been people contributing their honest understanding and knowledge of the developing situation. It is so unfair to let one group judge others for their fair contribution, let alone refer to it in such disparaging terms. After all, what makes any of the knowledge in this article accurate to any extent at all? Scientific degrees, standing or "proper referencing", phlogiston anyone? Because I am well unhappy about it being all snakes the first week and bats the second, can't all those trained scientist tell the difference? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.253.226.193 (talk) 08:24, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It was a mixture of honest information and stupidity (and really bad english). Not sure if I saw any vandalism before the protection but I sure saw a lot of crummy work. Just register like you were told. You will be equal to everyone in 10 days. Wikimucker (talk) 11:36, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Probable wrong bp count

Please edit the base pairs count of the CoV-2019 virus or provide a confirming source, it is probably wrong (not 30473 bases). --188.62.136.84 (talk) 14:41, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The NCBI genome ID link shows 29,903, so I have updated the article to 29,903. Beyond that, it would require more information to know what other issues there might be with the number. Dekimasuよ! 16:34, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

R nought

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

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

"Wuhan seafood market pneumonia" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wuhan seafood market pneumonia. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. 67.70.33.184 (talk) 17:51, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sources for Subgenus: Sarbecovirus

Where are the sources for the classification as Sarbecovirus? this is from February 2019, this virus was not known then, and this and that neither mentioned ›Sarbecovirus‹ nor ›lineage B‹. Of course, there is good reason to think so, but without reference, it is just speculation. NCBI 2697049 classifies this virus as ›unclassified Betacoronavirus‹. – Sivizius (talk) 00:28, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sivizius, the third source you noted ("that") says "The 2019-nCoV is a β CoV of group 2B". Does "group 2B" refer to lineage B there? (I note that Betacoronavirus also says something similar, using the nextstrain site as its reference. But that site doesn't label the clades, so as a non-expert I don't know what "lineage B" corresponds to on that tree.) Dekimasuよ! 04:46, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
User:Dekimasu, yes, group 2B Cov does refer to BCoV lineage B. The "group 2" part is redundant with "β CoV", by the way. PMC1797546 gives a good example for lineages C/D as group 2C/D; you might get some good hits on "SARS 2B" too. --Artoria2e5 🌉 12:51, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File: C-Tan-nCov Wuhan strain 01-20200123104509.jpg

FYI, File: C-Tan-nCov Wuhan strain 01-20200123104509.jpg has been nominated for deletion. -- 67.70.33.184 (talk) 06:18, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adding link from Indonesian Wikisource

Hello, I found links from Indonesian Wikisource: Information about 2019 Novel Coronavirus, (CDC) Because the wikisource has no articles about 2019-nCoV in English it is so interested to add link from Indonesian Wikisource to this article. This article originally published in English by Center of Disease Control in the United States and translated to Indonesian in Wikisource. Because there's no equivalent Wikisource article in English can someone add link from Indonesian wikisource to English Wikipedia article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 36.76.226.238 (talk) 11:51, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

mouse chimeric virus

I understand the point of mentioning an ongoing concern about SARS re-emerging as some background, but is it really the best place to mention it here where we are talking about virology? There just doesn't seem to be enough justification for mentioning a particular group's particular construct over this issue (virus with altered spike protein don't get caught by antibodies and vaccines targeting the original spike protein, yeah imagine the SURPRISE!), and I wonder what the consensus is on keeping/removing it. (The paragraph was copied from the outbreak article, by the way.) --Artoria2e5 🌉 12:50, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As you said, the background point is fair, but it is also mentioned as context in the next paragraph. I agree with your assessment and have removed the paragraph for now. Dekimasuよ! 13:05, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Molecular model

This is the first open source molecular model I've found:

https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019%E6%96%B0%E5%9E%8B%E5%86%A0%E7%8B%80%E7%97%85%E6%AF%92#/media/File:Coronavirus_2019-nCoV.png

kencf0618 (talk) 13:06, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is that different from the one that's in the article already, besides being rotated? Dekimasuよ! 13:08, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image in the taxobox

I have changed the image in the taxobox to an image of MERS Cov, as it is in the same genus as 2019 nCov and we don't have an image of 2019 nCov without copyright issues (doubtless one will eventually come out from the cdc though) no images of SARS exist on commons either that aren't under threat of immediate deletion (the image in the taxobox of the coronavirus article was pointed out to me as being taken in 1975 and therefore could not possibly be SARS, but the wording in the image description on commons is misleading). Unlike an image of an animal or a plant, I don't really think that the image in the taxobox matters all that much, as all coronaviruses look roughly the same. Any objections? Hemiauchenia (talk) 13:22, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is acceptable in the context (it is clearly labeled as closely related, and not as the virus itself), but it has been commented out by another editor. I would suggest reinstating it until we can find something better. Dekimasuよ! 15:26, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@分液漏斗: would you object if the file is replaced with this?
Image of generic coronavirus taken in 1975
(ec) This is actually explicitly covered at MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE. "Images should look like what they are meant to illustrate, whether or not they are provably authentic. Similarly, an image of a generic-looking cell under a light microscope might be useful on multiple articles, as long as there are no visible differences between the cell in the image and the typical appearance of the cell being illustrated" [emphasis added; true, this is from an electron microscope]. Clearly the MERS image is informative insofar as it illustrates the "corona". There is currently some edit warring over the image on the main page, but I think this makes it clear that keeping the MERS photo should be our default for now. Dekimasuよ! 15:42, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My thinking was that using the image of MERS was less repetitive than using the same 1975 Coronavirus image (that I've just linked) that is used in the main article. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:45, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That was just carried over from the edit conflict, and wasn't intended to indicate preference for one image over the other. I think both are acceptable and each is better than having no image. Dekimasuよ! 15:49, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I feel it is worth updating here that I have changed the image to that of a CDC SARS virion image that I just uploaded to commons as it has an 80% similarity to 2019 nCoV Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:32, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed the image to a high definition render of 2019 nCov from CDC, which I have also added to the main Coronavirus article. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:49, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Epidemiology and Reservoir

Epidemiology: Nov 2019 or earlier

I suggest to add a sentence about the statement from Daniel R. Lucey, an infectious disease specialist at Georgetown University. About a significant finding. About the first human infections must have occurred in November 2019 and maybe earlier. How about the draft paragraph below? With notable source.

According to Daniel Lucey at Georgetown University, the first human infections must have occurred in November 2019 and maybe earlier.[1][2]

References

  1. ^ Cohen, Jon (2020-01-26). "Wuhan seafood market may not be source of novel virus spreading globally". ScienceMag American Association for the Advancement of Science. (AAAS). Archived from the original on 2020-01-27. Retrieved 2020-01-29.
  2. ^ Eschner, Kat (2020-01-28). "We're still not sure where the Wuhan coronavirus really came from". Popular Science. Archived from the original on 2020-01-29. Retrieved 2020-01-30.

Francewhoa (talk) 23:26, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What's his source other than just intuition? I think it should only be added if other sources collaborate the statement.Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:30, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Jon Cohen's recent article reads that the source is Daniel R. Lucey. Who is a senior scholar with the O’Neill Institute for National and Global Health Law and an adjunct professor of Medicine-Infectious Diseases at Georgetown University Medical Center. Francewhoa (talk) 00:28, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is a 2nd noble source published yesterday January 28th, 2020. An article by Kat Eschner in Popular Science.[1]. Francewhoa (talk) 00:46, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Popular science isn't a reliable source for stuff like this, we should be citing the peer-reviewed journal articles used in the article instead. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:35, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is clear that this is the judgment of one researcher, rather than an independent finding. The source is still used in the article as part of the uncertainty over when and where infection first took place, but it doesn't need to be taking over the section. In the case of the second addition, listed below, it was saying "Now it seems clear that [the] seafood market is not the only origin of the virus" before we had described in the rest of the reservoir section why focus was being placed on the role of the seafood market. In general we still have an issue in this article with frequent readdition or overemphasis on individual researchers and teams, which certainly have interest in making their work seem important. I'm not particularly stating that that's what's happening here, but we should make sure the emphasis continues to remain on the virus rather than on the institutions and experts who are naturally working on it. Dekimasuよ! 09:24, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reservoir: Seafood market NOT the only origin

I suggest to add a sentence about the statement from Daniel R. Lucey, an infectious disease specialist at Georgetown University. About a significant finding. About the seafood market is not the only origin. How about the draft paragraph below? With notable source.

Daniel Lucey, an infectious disease specialist at Georgetown University, stated that “Now it seems clear that [the] seafood market is not the only origin of the virus”.[2]

References

  1. ^ Eschner, Kat (2020-01-28). "We're still not sure where the Wuhan coronavirus really came from". Popular Science. Archived from the original on 2020-01-29. Retrieved 2020-01-30.
  2. ^ Cohen, Jon (2020-01-26). "Wuhan seafood market may not be source of novel virus spreading globally". ScienceMag American Association for the Advancement of Science. (AAAS). Archived from the original on 2020-01-27. Retrieved 2020-01-29.

Francewhoa (talk) 23:47, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure it serves any purpose while the story of the actual discovery during December 2019 is still very murky and unclear in itself. Furthermore there are a number of specialist in this paleo epidemic research field and another posits October 2019 or thereabouts. > https://www.statnews.com/2020/01/24/dna-sleuths-read-coronavirus-genome-tracing-origins-and-mutations/ . I am sure the paleo researchers will arrive at the truth, or agreement in time. Just not really sure if now is that time myself. I think that section of the page would have to be written by someone knowledgeable in that field and with attribution to a number of research strands. Wikimucker (talk) 14:25, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think we have to go on the conclusions of the cited papers, rather than people who aren't involved in the research Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:35, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This edit overwrote a full day's worth of changes in order to reinstate the two sentences objected to above (at least one of which, I think, was retained in some form). It used the edit summary "Added publisher name to source". Please do not perform edits like that without regard for what has come in the interim, and please do not use misleading edit summaries. Dekimasuよ! 00:47, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like it's worth noting here than Francewhoa has prior edits on his talk page for poor sourcing Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:47, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Typo that needs fixing...

In the 'Reservoir' section, there's mention of the Huanan Seafood Market, but then 4 sentences later it's misspelled as "Hunan". 165.225.50.174 (talk) 18:34, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 30 January 2020

The name of the virus should be changed to "2019-nCoV acute respiratory disease". And it should be clarified that the name is an interim name and the final decision on the official name of the virus will be made by the International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses.[7] 6V^X5 (talk) 21:56, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article isn't about the disease caused by the virus, but the virus itself, SARS and SARS coronavirus and MERS and MERS coronavirus are distinct and distinct from SARS outbreak Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:51, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
information Note: Marking this closed as  Not done per Hemiauchenia's response. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 23:13, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This was later added in a different from by another editor. I have made it clear that this is not a name for the virus ("On 30 January 30 2020, 2019-nCoV was designated a global health emergency by the World Health Organization (WHO).[citation needed] The WHO has coined the interim term '2019-nCoV acute respiratory disease' to describe the disease caused by the virus."), but transferred the information to the epidemiology section. Please feel free to remove if necessary. Dekimasuよ! 00:49, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Change image

Can you insert the file 2019-nCoV-CDC-23312_whitout_background.png instead of 2019-nCoV-CDC-23312.png Dixy52 (talk) 06:20, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be a request to use File:2019-nCoV-CDC-23312 whitout background.png (sic). Any thoughts on why this image would be better than the one we're using now? Dekimasuよ! 06:43, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Dekimasu: It's just an aesthetic issue... infoboxes do not have a white background, so the photo outline stands out. Using a photo without background does not present the problem. P.S.)Excuse me for mistakes, I'm using the translator --Dixy52 (talk) 12:19, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The file is around four megabytes as opposed to the 3.5 megabytes of the current image, on the other hand the red tinge that irritates me is also gone. The currently used image is transcluded as it is currently on the front page, overall I like the change and will implement it as a test Hemiauchenia (talk) 13:51, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The photo without background lost some details. --Kwangung (talk) 13:51, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Kwangtung: the photo's look identical in quality to me under close examination, what details are lost, other than a slight missing blurred portion at the top of the image?
Bottom left. If that's acceptable then carry on. --Kwangung (talk) 14:13, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, the missing parts in the bottom left are few. In that part I simply eliminated with the rubber the remaining white of the automatic selection. I can assure you that I was very careful to keep the entirety of the details by deleting most of the background --Dixy52 (talk) 14:42, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Fixed I fixed the file @Kwangung:

Details about the infection from the people perspective

Are there any details about duration of incubation period and progress of the symptom phase? Eg. how many days are the patients sick until they recover or which are the causes of lethality. Could anybody elaborate a bit about that? I think, it is quite important part which is missing in this article. Vks (talk) 07:14, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 31 January 2020

Please add Canada as location of outbreak - Toronto, ON has 3 confirmed cases thus far. 205.189.58.93 (talk) 13:33, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Thanks, but Canada is one of the "more than twenty other countries in Asia, Europe, North America, and Oceania" where there have been cases. The focus of this article is not on where the outbreak is taking place. For that, please see 2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak. Dekimasuよ! 14:18, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Caption on the image

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

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

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

The outbreak is still largely confined to china and Hubei province, there isn't really significant human to human transmission outside China yet, so it should remain as is currently. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:28, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. Where the outbreak happens to be taking place is not really germane to a description of the virus, though, is it? Unless it is necessary context for discussing the natural reservoir. Dekimasuよ! 15:34, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:SARS-CoV-2&oldid=938515974"