Jump to content

Talk:SARS-related coronavirus

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by BarrelProof (talk | contribs) at 20:56, 25 April 2020 (→‎Requested move 24 April 2020: Closing as withdrawn). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 January 2020 and 20 March 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Damankh (article contribs).

Merge proposal

Discussion is being had at the move proposal on Talk:2019 novel coronavirus#Merge_proposal Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:46, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Update - the proposal is now closed, see full discussion at link above.Mvolz (talk) 09:28, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed split

At present, this article mixes information about SARS-CoV-1 (the 2003 strain) and SARS-CoV species (the species of coronavirus widely found in bats and some other mammals, which has twice made a leap into humans). Now that the nCoV-2019 has been declared SARS-CoV-2, this doesn't seem tenable any more. I've created drafts of how the split articles might look:

Input and edits on these are welcome. Smurrayinchester 11:37, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I support this split, for many of the same reasons why the 2019 novel coronavirus merge proposal was rejected. I have one reservation. It involves the choice of name, SARS-CoV-1. Are there sources supporting this choice of name? Of course, it seems reasonable, what with SARS-CoV-2 being "-2". However, it is not up to us to determine this. It's possible that the academic community has decided that "SARS-CoV" referrs unambiguously to the 2003 strain. Or maybe "SARS-CoV-A". Of course, I find these unlikely, but it is worthwhile finding a notable source using the term "SARS-CoV-1" before a wikipedia article is made with that as a title. 3fishes (talk) 16:43, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is a good point - re-reading the coronavirus group report they don't give the original SARS strain a different name. I can't see that lasting, but until then, perhaps the title will need to be Severe acute respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus (2003 strain) or similar instead. Smurrayinchester 09:10, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Edit: We should be careful with consistency in naming as well, between "Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 1" and "Severe acute respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus 1". This now highly-cited preprint suggests that we should leave out the "-related" when referring to a particular strain. I hope that is simply an oversight on the part of the authors... (Amazing work on the drafts of the split, by the way) 3fishes (talk) 17:24, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Per above.--Officer781 (talk) 02:15, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I made a generic comment on the three major epidemic pages (outbreak, virus and disease) emphasizing my preference for official names to be used throughout the title names, hence I believe this should also use the official name as the title. The information specific to only the SARS-CoV-1 and SARS-CoV-2 should be moved to the respective articles, but some information that is valuable to the reader, including blurbs, should remain here. e.g. This SARS-CoV page should remain as a collective article about the multiple viruses, but two new articles for SARS-CoV-1 and SARS-CoV-2 should be created to cover more specific information. (If there is any slight difference in the official naming of SARS-CoV-1, for example it is just called SARS-CoV, then I will support the official naming disregarding the spelling I have used here). Tsukide (talk) 09:34, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Split implemented Thanks everyone for the feedback. I've split the articles out, using LightKeyDarkBlade's title suggestions. Note that SARS-CoV is now a disambiguation page, but in the vast majority of cases, the correct new target will be the Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus page. Smurrayinchester 10:22, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Editing the Evolution and Morphology

Hello! I noticed that the sections for information about the morphology and evolution of the SARS-related coronavirus were lacking some information. I would like to update them with data from new studies. --Damankh (talk) 21:01, 13 February 2020 (UTC)Damankh[reply]

Hi. Welcome to wikipedia. Go ahead and update the relevant information. Just make sure to cite, at the end of the sentence or paragraph, the material that you add; and of course, do not plagiarize. Besides that you should be able to get help from your professor, whom you are paying big bucks, on how to get around. Lastly, follow wikipedia netiquette. --Guest2625 (talk) 07:09, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"NCoV (SARS)" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect NCoV (SARS). Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 16:46, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 24 April 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: Withdrawn. No support and 5 clearly opposed after more than 24 hours. It is clear which way the wind is blowing. —BarrelProof (talk) 20:56, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]


– More concise and more recognizable titles. Also, the current title of the first article contains an awkwardly located hyphen. —BarrelProof (talk) 18:48, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As for the strain: Here, we [the Coronaviridae Study Group of ICTV] present an assessment of the genetic relatedness of the newly identified human coronavirus (Wu et al, 2020), provisionally named 2019-nCoV, to known coronaviruses, and detail the basis for (re)naming this virus severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), which will be used hereafter. I will follow however consensus evolves regarding virus article titles in the absence of a common name, but I doubt it will lead to "SARS coronavirus 2".
I tire of these name discussions, first at NPOVN, now here. We have but a fraction of discussions on the rapidly accumulating literature on virus mechanisms and structure (which takes time and knowledge to comb through, neither of which we have in great supply) and how to integrate that into the articles. Compounded with meatspace happenings, I can't help but feel dispirited at our skewed priorities. Well, I guess sometimes, we don't get what we want. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 00:19, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would like to point out some things: 1) the name used for the title of that discussion is "SARS-CoV-2 naming convention", which uses the abbreviated name since it is a more common name, and 2) very few people participated in that discussion, and 3) most of the comments in that discussion also used an abbreviated name, because it is a more WP:COMMONNAME. —BarrelProof (talk) 19:43, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clarification: I simply request this discussion be closed. I'm not !voting at this time. What makes multiplying discussions more effective? Members of an active WikiProject are already working on this: Following the same reasoning we should ensure the full name is in the article title while SARS-CoV-2 is used everywhere else. --Gtoffoletto (talk) 19:21, 20 April 2020 (UTC) (emphasis mine). Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 19:55, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest that an RM is something much more visible to the Wikipedia community than the talk page of a disease-specific Wikiproject. I, for one, was not aware of that other discussion. —BarrelProof (talk) 20:03, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Now that you are aware, what's the benefit in splitting discussions and increasing visibility before we're ready with clear guidance? What's the harm in withdrawing now and returning later armed with more information? Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 21:38, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The benefit is that an RM discussion solicits input from the broad Wikipedia community, and an obscure Talk page conversation does not. —BarrelProof (talk) 22:20, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with speedy close. We are discussing adding the exact consensus item against this decision to avoid discussions like this one. The standard for viruses is to use the full name in the article title. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 22:05, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The standard for viruses can be found at WP:COMMONNAME, actually. I don't see anything in that policy that says that long hard-to-recognize names are better than ones that are more commonly used. I am surprised to find some people very eager to shut down this discussion quickly and prevent broad participation. I also suggest that this edit might appear to be WP:CANVASSING. —BarrelProof (talk) 22:28, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also check discussion on previous related move requests: 14 February, 15 March. --MarioGom (talk) 09:51, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:SARS-related_coronavirus&oldid=953129080"