Talk:Coronavirus

Wikipedia open wikipedia design.


Draft:Coronavirus_(Disambiguation)[edit]

As per earlier talk, I've created a draft disambiguation page. Please check & edit

Draft:Coronavirus_(Disambiguation)

What happens next? Robertpedley (talk) 18:40, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

It looks good, thanks, @Robertpedley. Is there a method to the ordering to the "2020 coronavirus outbreak ..." entries, or could these go in alphabetical order? Esowteric+Talk 19:41, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
It's way too long for a disambiguation page. It's more like a list of coronavirus-related articles. Having said that, where are SARS, MERS, Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus and Middle East respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus? What it does demonstrate is the confusion we have generated for our readers by having so many separate articles when we only need four: Coronavirus, which covers all the viruses and one for each of the diseases.Graham Beards (talk) 20:12, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
Are you sure you're not wanting to create an outline WP:OUTLINE or list of coronavirus topics? AngusWOOF (barksniff) 18:25, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Agree with Graham Beards and AngusWOOF above; it's too long and lacks focus. Thank you for the feedback. I've removed the list of outbreak pages which are not relevant to this topic. Subject to community agreement, I'll resubmit tomorrow. Robertpedley (talk) 18:46, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Can someone who is not actively involved in the editing of the disambiguation confirm that this would be useful to have? AngusWOOF (barksniff) 18:46, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
If you check the pageviews for this page and pages related to the COVID-19 outbreak [1], it becomes clear that this page should be a disambiguation or even a redirect to a COVID-19 article. People are looking for this term because of the outbreak, not because of interest in the taxonomy. It is a bit worrying that they are not getting the information they need. I have suggested this should be moved to something like Coronavirus (taxon) on the Portuguese Wikipedia as well, because of this. GoEThe (talk) 11:51, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
I disagree that it should point to COVID-19. The Template:About handles any confusion on that. Regarding the subject of creating a disambiguation page for the topic of coronavirus, that might be productive as it is a far and wide subject of confusion. I like the thought of creating a WP:OUTLINE page, also. P37307 (talk) 17:36, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
Yes, I'm sure this confuses a lot of people. Esowteric+Talk 12:03, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
GoEThe, are you saying that the main Coronavirus article should be the disambiguation page, or that there should be a (disambiguation) page? AngusWOOF (barksniff) 15:50, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
Both, I guess, at least temporarily. GoEThe (talk) 16:32, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
Absolutely agree this should be a disambiguation page. Almost no one searching for "coronavirus" is looking for information about the group of viruses in general. I think the new draft looks very good. Will(B) 18:23, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
To clarify: I think the disambiguation page should simply be Coronavirus, not Coronavirus (disambiguation). Will(B) 18:25, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Just in, by way of example: "I would love to see some information about how it has affected the world. With shutdowns and everything." Esowteric+Talk 20:15, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 March 2020[edit]

P=AGNESIRI (talk) 07:41, 6 March 2020 (UTC) 

kiran corona bhanu virus

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. CptViraj (📧) 09:54, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Purported Chinese rapid tests[edit]

Global Times (globaltimes.cn) is the first to have published the news for which "China's Nankai University has announced a breakthrough in developing a novel coronavirus rapid test kit that can identify infection among suspected patients within 15 minutes."

Global Times is a Chinese tabloid newspaper, but the same information is reported also by two more authoritative secondary sources:

  1. the Indian financial daily newspaper Mint on 9 February (China's Tianjin University claims of testing coronavirus in 15 minutes),
  2. the Khaleej Times (Coronavirus test report possible in 15 minutes, from Beijing, filed on February 9), which is daily English language newspaper published in Dubai.

The three aforementioned URLs don't cite any external source, and, more specifically, a video, an academic press agency or a scientific research paper by the Chinese Tianjin University. This is true even in the previous versions of the articles that can be found in the Internet Archive (ranging from January 23, 2020 to March 4, 2020 for their primary source).Micheledisaveriosp (talk) 08:58, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Caronavirus in india[edit]

I think we should have to think that already Corona virus speard in Italy and some other countries in 2012 then what should they done to prevent that I thought that one of the doctor among them can store the medical treatments and medicines in any records consider those and get a conclusion for this Gracon on the way (talk) 22:38, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Not done, this article is not about the Coronavirus outbreak. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:45, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 March 2020[edit]

Add "External links" section with the following content:

* Coronavirus and Cancer 

Subbame (talk) 06:50, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: The link doesn't present any information not already available in the article or other external links beyond one sentence about comorbitidy fatality rates. The rest is just general information. It doesn't really add anything to the article. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:01, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Prevention[edit]

Prevention is very hard! Doctors have said it is best to drink lots of water because if your thoart starts the enfection the water will sallow it down to your stomach and the Acid inside your stomach will kill it! vitamin C will help also, take it after you eat at any time. Try to go to a pharmacy and ask for a medicine to put with honey in the morning once you wake and you have to take it before eating breakfast! Hope this helped — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.38.97.18 (talk) 09:12, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Not done, this is more like health tips and is not sourced to anything. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 18:48, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 March 2020[edit]

Please add

to links... Will-SeymoreIII (talk) 22:26, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Melmann 23:22, 8 March 2020 (UTC) one more simtom is turnig green

Semi-protected edit request on 9 March 2020[edit]

Add a Structural Model of Coronavirus COVID-19. Victoramuse (talk) 20:38, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. If you know of any reliably-sourced models, Victoriamuse, please let us know. The best I could find is this, which has a TEM of the virus envelope and a model of the spike protein. No model of the entire virus is likely to make much sense. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) a minute ago

Clarify the presence of a membrane when discussing virion structure[edit]

The part of this article that addresses morphology discusses only proteins, and there is no concrete mention anywhere in this article of coronaviruses having a membrane composed of lipids. This is important information (it's why washing one's hands can prevent COVID-19 infection, for example). I'm not sure if all coronaviruses have a lipid membrane, but either way this should be discussed in the Name and Morphology section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aop4 (talkcontribs) 11:19, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

So, a "GU". Like Russia diplomacy for China.195.244.180.59 (talk) 12:28, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Passing mention of this Wikipedia article in press[edit]

---Another Believer (Talk) 20:07, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 March 2020[edit]

DONOVAN MITCHELL AND RUDY GOBERT HAVE THE CORONAVIRUS AND HAVE HENCEFORTH DIED. 63.248.194.114 (talk) 23:49, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate.

Also,  Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. To reply, copy and paste this: {{replyto|Can I Log In}}(Talk) 23:57, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 March 2020[edit]

Please change the number of deaths in 2019-20 from 4720 to 4947 so as to provide more accurate results to the people visiting this page. source: https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/685d0ace521648f8a5beeeee1b9125cd KirtiGyan (talk) 10:11, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

The numbers come from a template which various users keep up-to-date. I'm sure it will be updated soon. Esowteric+Talk 10:58, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Wrong link to another it.wikipedia.org article[edit]

This article doesn't point to the correspondent Italian page. Now it points to "Orthocoronavirinae", but it should point to "Coronavirus". Please, an extended auto-confirmed user should fix it. Fabio Maria De Francesco (talk) 14:10, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Coronavirus at the English wikipedia is about the family of coronaviruses, Orthocoronavirinae. And Orthocoronavirinae is the page linked to on the Italian site. Isn't that correct? Esowteric+Talk 14:15, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
Coronavirus are four genuses (Alpha, Beta, Delta, and Gammacoronavirus) of the sub-family Orthocoronavirinae. The last belongs to the family of Coronaviridae. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coronavirus should point to https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coronavirus.
For more information, please see talk.ictvonline.org/taxonomy and/or other virus taxonomy databases.
The English Wikipedia has not a correspondent article for Orthocoronavirinae, while Italian, Spanish and others do. Fabio Maria De Francesco (talk) 15:30, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
Ah, sorry! Esowteric+Talk 16:08, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
I think it's set in the wikidata (?) Have left a message on the discussion page there (as I'm not extended-autoconfirmed at wikidata) Esowteric+Talk 16:25, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
@Esowteric:
No more need to change the link. A few hours ago, in it.wikipedia.org the page Coronavirus has been moved/merged to Orthocoronavirinae [2] This seems pretty reasonable to me considered the arguments of the merge proposal that was discussed in the first section of this talk page. However, though en.wikipedia.org merged Orthocoronavirinae into Coronavirus, it.wikipedia.org have merged Coronavirus into Orthocoronavirinae. All considered, I think that the Italian move is more appropriate than the English one. Thanks again. Fabio Maria De Francesco (talk) 02:25, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. Esowteric+Talk 09:16, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

The coronavirus is now a pandemic, wow.. Thadthurmond365 (talk) 23:10, 14 March 2020 (UTC)Thadthurmond365

Jeremy Konyndyk[edit]

    Jeremy Konyndyk was on with Rachel, but she didn’t display it, just hinting at the multiplicity of those Ks and Ys. He’s on the Web; how about a mini bio with at least his affiliations & recent work, specialties, and credentials?
--JerzyA (talk) 02:15, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
Jeremy Konyndyk Senior Policy Fellow @JeremyKonyndyk Topics: US Agency for International Development (USAID), Aid Effectiveness, Global Health Security, Coronavirus Preparedness & Response, Migration, Displacement, and Humanitarian Policy, Humanitarian Assistance Expertise Humanitarian response, USAID policy reform, global outbreak preparedness

Bio Jeremy Konyndyk is a senior policy fellow at the Center for Global Development. His research focuses on humanitarian response, USAID policy reform, and global outbreak preparedness.

He previously served in the Obama Administration from 2013-2017 as the director of USAID’s Office of US Foreign Disaster Assistance (OFDA), where he led the US government’s response to international disasters. Konyndyk led a global team of nearly 600 humanitarian professionals, managed annual resources of more than $1.4 billion, and oversaw OFDA’s responses to an average of 70 disasters in 50 countries every year. He led major US government humanitarian responses to the Ebola outbreak in West Africa, the 2016 Ethiopia Drought, the complex emergency in Northern Nigeria, the Nepal earthquake, the Iraq crisis, Typhoon Haiyan in the Philippines, the conflict in South Sudan, and the ongoing war inside Syria, among other crises. He also led the Agency’s preparations for the 2016 World Humanitarian Summit.

Konyndyk previously worked for Mercy Corps as director of Global Policy and Advocacy. From 2008-2013, he led the organization’s high-level strategic outreach to governments, donors, the United Nations, and other partners. From 2003-2008, he served as the American Refugee Committee’s country director in South Sudan, Uganda, and Guinea, designing and leading humanitarian responses in conflict and post-conflict settings. Konyndyk earlier worked with the US Department of State’s Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration, and for an NGO in the Balkans.

He is currently a member of the World Health Organization’s high level Independent Oversight and Advisory Committee, which oversees the agency’s Health Emergencies Programme. Previously, he served on the independent Advisory Group to the WHO Director General that helped to design the agency’s post-Ebola emergency response reforms. JerzyA (talk) 02:35, 15 March 2020 (UTC) Oh, sorry, i did create a heading, but got confused abt that.
--JerzyA (talk) 02:52, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Fixed formatting for you Jerzy P37307 (talk) 03:05, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
Here is his bio at WHO Mr Jeremy M. Konyndyk P37307 (talk) 03:01, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Edit Request[edit]

The article says RNA translation occurs INSIDE the Endoplasmic Reticulum, this should be changed to AT the Endoplasmic reticulum or at the surface of the Endoplasmic Reticulum, to be more correct, and according to th efigure shown. (The ribosome is outside the Endoplasmic Reticulum lumen) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SciencePolymerase (talkcontribs) 08:21, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Edit Request[edit]

I think there should be some clarification in the lede.. despite the header, I still think this may be confusing for a layperson, and this is likely the first article they'll read. I think there should be more references to COVID-19 since that's what most people will be looking for. Although this is accurate, I think it may be confusing for the lay population.

Coronaviruses are a group of related viruses that cause diseases in mammals and birds. In humans, coronaviruses cause respiratory tract infections that are typically mild, such as some cases of the common cold (among other possible causes, predominantly rhinoviruses),

I think that if someone reads this thinking that it's about COVID-19, the sentence minimizes the severity for the elderly and those with underlying conditions. This page is going to be the first place people turn during this global pandemic and if they think it's about COVID-19, the second sentence almost reads like "don't worry! it's not a big deal!" which could put people in danger. I really thing that the lede should clarify that and make it more clear that this is not about COVID-19. Chrisvacc (talk) 18:01, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

I would love to see some information about how it has affected the world. With shutdowns and everything. Aquakatze (talk) 20:06, 15 March 2020 (UTC) Aquakatze

This article is about the family of coronaviruses, not the COVID-19 outbreak. Esowteric+Talk 20:13, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
It says clearly at the top of the page "This article is about the group of viruses. For the specific strain causing the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic, see Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. For the disease caused by this strain, see Coronavirus disease 2019." Graham Beards (talk) 20:19, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 18 March 2020[edit]

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 not to move. While there was some support, the opposition to the move points to multiple specific policies to show why the articles should not be moved. (non-admin closure) EggRoll97 (talk) 16:29, 26 March 2020 (UTC)



There is no doubt that the vast majority of people searching for the term "coronavirus" will be looking for an article directly related to the current pandemic. Very few people will be looking for information on the subfamily Orthocoronavirinae, so they should not be immediately directed to this article. I also wouldn't underestimate how easy it is for infrequent Wikipedia readers to miss the header directing them to other pages. To me, this move would pretty clearly be in our readers' best interests, though I'm curious what the rest of you think. Will(B) 15:25, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

One other thought—I realize that page views alone shouldn't be the determining factor here; however, I think there is a strong case that Orthocoronavirinae is no longer the primary topic of the term "coronavirus". The societal impact has been so large that I think it's fair to say the word "coronavirus" will forever be linked to the pandemic. However, there is obviously a lot of ambiguity in the word, which is why I'm proposing we make Coronavirus into a disambiguation page. Will(B) 15:35, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
  • I don't think this would be very helpful, since the article introduces all of the more specific topics that are on the disambiguation page. It is possible that a lot of people coming here are looking for the virus or the pandemic, but that is not really clear from the page views. Dekimasuよ! 16:44, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
Right or not, the word "coronavirus" is often used as shorthand to refer to the disease or the pandemic, not just the virus itself. Will(B) 15:04, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
Having the disambiguation page at the plain title is not helpful to any users. Dekimasuよ! 09:44, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Support: I know we know what the article is about, and we see the links at the top of the page. But I think we have to be pragmatic: people are coming here thinking it's about the outbreak, since that's what "coronavirus" means to them, some are not taking notice of the page top links, and some are editing and making edit requests about the outbreak. Esowteric+Talk 17:09, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
    • Yeah, the number of edit requests on this talk page alone are evidence that people are assuming it's for COVID-19 without noticing the links at the top of the page. Will(B) 17:24, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Support per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 17:27, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Speedy support For the sake of everyone the COVID-19 should be moved here, if people think "(group of viruses)" is a poor disambiguator then we can come up with a better name for this article in the future and move it then, (maybe "Orthocoronavirinae").★Trekker (talk) 17:38, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
    • Yeah I'm definitely open to other suggestions besides "(group of viruses)". Will(B) 17:41, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose I'm not convinced that this is accurate, helpful or necessary. We don't know that readers are missing the hat notes about the pandemic. They might be coming here seeking some background on coronaviruses in general. It would also be incorrect; if "coronavirus" is not a group of viruses, what is it? Graham Beards (talk) 17:53, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
    • It's true we don't really have any way to quantify how many readers are missing the note at the top, but as Esowteric mentioned, there is definitely evidence that some are. Though even if no one missed that note, I still think making this a disambiguation page would be the right move, because there's just no way the average person searching for "coronavirus" is looking for the broad group of viruses. And it's not incorrect to refer to the current virus strain as simply "the coronavirus", as that has quite clearly become the common name for it. (After all, we call it the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic, not the 2019–20 SARS-CoV-2 pandemic.) Will(B) 18:02, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
Your point about its becoming the common name is valid.Graham Beards (talk) 18:12, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
Although AIDS' common name was originally GRID, so with less than three months in the -english world, anything could happen. 86.8.202.58 (talk)
Also, this is a clear example of a WP:BROADCONCEPT article. © Tbhotch (en-3). 20:02, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
I did think about that, but considering that this is a once-in-a-generation, maybe once-in-a-century pandemic, it's hard for me to imagine it won't be the primary topic of the word "coronavirus" for very many years. This is more than just "current events." Will(B) 20:30, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
See WP:BALL Graham Beards (talk) 20:53, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment More than one newspaper headline has spelled it "coronovirus". We should be thinking about how to deal with the redirect.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:07, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:CONCEPTDAB. The current DAB page is very thin; it's just this page, and the current outbreak, which is a directly correlated topic anyway. I don't think that is a more useful landing than this article, which isn't incorrect in any sense. Nohomersryan (talk) 21:48, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose: yes, this current event is massive, but cororonaviruses cause the cold among other things, the current outbreak and novel version is only one subset. This is WP:RECENTISM SITH (talk) 23:06, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Completely agree, even if this may be a temporary move while usage is stronger due to the pandemic. If common usage returns to its original sense once the pandemic passes, the article can move back. Not a chance all these views are for people wondering what other virus belong to Orthocoranavirinae. GoEThe (talk) 23:35, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, this proposal is (sort of understandably) getting a lot of pushback, but I think at the very least we should have a temporary big box at the top referring readers to other pages that they're more likely to be looking for. As I said, many casual readers are likely to miss the hatnote. Will(B) 15:03, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose as awkward and short-term thinking. -- Netoholic @ 02:32, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Support - too many people are getting the viral grouping and COVID-19 mixed up. 2601:548:8204:34B0:719B:DFD2:2B57:9B72 (talk) 04:26, 19 March 2020 (UTC) Neko
  • Oppose Per WP:RECENTISM and WP:SURPRISE.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 07:49, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose, it is very helpful for users to learn that the coronavirus causing the current outbreak is only one of a family. The rest is recentism. --MartinoK (talk) 09:48, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose - this is pure short-term thinking. What happens when the next coronavirus hits? Should it be changed again? --awkwafaba (📥) 13:58, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
    • To be clear, I'm not proposing we have "coronavirus" redirect to the novel virus or the pandemic; I'm proposing we simply make it a disambiguation page. So if there were a "next coronavirus", we would simply add it to the disambiguation page. However, I think it's unlikely there will be a "next coronavirus". Yes, I'm aware SARS was a coronavirus, and there will likely be future epidemics caused by coronaviruses; however, the big difference here is that only this coronavirus is referred to as "the coronavirus" as its common name. The "next coronavirus", if there is one, probably won't be referred to as simply "the coronavirus". Will(B) 15:25, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose Already a disambig header, people can navigate to the article they are looking for. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:21, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment After seeing "Cornavirus" in a headline and, when I typed that to make the red link appear so I could create a redirect, I found at least two articles aht had that spelling somewhere and corrected it. The redirect is to "Coronavirus", but should it be?— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 17:52, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
I've rcatted it as {{R from misspelling}}: but I would have left it red, it is actually allowable to let the search engine do its job when someone types something. I imagine you found the two misspellings from search engine results: but by creating the redirect, no other reader can do so as easily. So your question is basically "what would people expect to find when they typed "cornavirus"? The answer: what the search engine tells them. 62.165.200.10 (talk) 01:43, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
I found the misspellings because that's how the newspaper web sites spelled the headlines.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 16:53, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose. We are an encyclopedia, not a journal of popular culture. Just as Apple is a fruit, not a computer company, so Coronavirus is a family of viruses of which COVID-19 and its resultant disease and pandemic are just one example, others being the viruses that caused the SARS and MERS outbreaks, which were also important topics. As a final point, all three articles related to the pandemic are linked from the top hatnote, so it's not as if having a disambiguation page would actually result in any fewer clicks or convenience for readers.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:25, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose. WP:NOTNEWS. An enyclopaedia should help people find detailed information, and be more permanent than a mutating strain of a fairly common virus. 62.165.200.10 (talk) 01:40, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Is there a precedent set? Are there any other virus families that have received the "<term> leads to a disambiguation page" treatment already? --Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬📝) 02:16, 20 March 2020 (UTC) If there hasn't been a precedent set for it, I am going to change my vote to oppose. Temporarily moving the page before moving it back to here sounds disorienting. --Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬📝) 05:02, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
    Not that I know of. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 02:21, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose, for the sake of scientific accuracy. BD2412 T 02:50, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Support I'd prioritise aiding readers reach what they are aiming for – and I'm supposing that's the current pandemic, at the moment, and as long as the situation will stay critical. I'd lean into defaulting CoronavirusCoronavirus (disambiguation) and renaming the current page Coronaviruses, if that's not dead wrong, scientifically. I'd strongly suggest temporarily emphasising the in-page disambiguation paragraph (more than it is now), hoping that's possible within Wikipedia standards. I would also consider temporarily emphasising Covid-19 on the disambiguation page Pax.mtx (talk) 08:39, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
This isn't that helpful. Even on the disambiguation page, you'd still have to select a link to get to Covid-19, which is already covered by the hatnote on the current coronavirus page anyway. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 19:02, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose This accomplishes nothing, given that there is already a hatnote at the top of the page. * Pppery * it has begun... 18:40, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose does nothing except makes it harder to find the article the name is coronavirus not Covid 19 if people wrongly search Apple they get the fruit instead of the company it that is not changed to Apple (Fruit) --Cs california (talk) 02:27, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
  • oppose We need the Dab page. And, I ll reiterate, AIDS' common name was originally GRID, so with less than three months in the -english world, anything could happen.86.8.202.58 (talk) 02:41, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose. It's a subfamily, a taxonomic classification, not a "group of viruses". Plus, it's a wrong application of disambiguation; there's no other "coronavirus". There's only one meaning of the word, and it's this. The brackets are redundant. · • SUM1 • · (talk) 15:36, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above. This article can help educate readers arriving here that there is more than just one coronavirus strain. In addition, I'm doubtful about the usefulness of the dab page: it is not linked from anywhere in mainspace, and the information found there can be gleaned from a cursory glance of the Coronavirus article (especially the hatnote itself). It also seems disingenuous that SARS and MERS are relegated to a "See also" section, even though they are as much caused by coronaviruses as COVID-19, regardless of the current pandemic. The special treatment here seems like WP:RECENTISM. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 02:21, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Support:Many will be looking for COVID-19, so it is better to avoid confusion. If left as it is, this page may not be accurate in terms of specifics for each coronavirus, and some may be mislead. Me (talk) 10:06, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
  • 'Oppose This is by far the most common usage in WP:MEDRS sources.--Jasper Deng (talk) 11:21, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Support/comment I agree that the coronavirus articles should be reworked somewhat, but I'm not fully sure that this is the right way (although I agree with the rationale behind it). Fact is the common use of "coronavirus" now refers to SARS-CoV-2 specifically and wikipedia should probably reflect that. I would support either moving this page to something like "Coronavirus (family)" or at the very least put a stronger explanation in the article lede and not rely on a banner that isn't even part of the article text proper. BlackholeWA (talk) 22:19, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose as fear-driven recentism. People use Wikipedia to learn, and one important thing one might learn is that coronaviruses also cause some common colds. When this encyclopedia's principles are abandoned out of concern that new users are going to need to click one more time to find an article, we are looking at a serious problem. What's the worst that could happen, that someone learn something?~TPW 02:08, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose The term "coronavirus" has a precise and clear meaning. It is part of our mission to educate the reader on this. The "for the article on x, see y" blurb at the front is more than sufficient. A discerning reader who is looking for the pandemic can click that link. BrxBrx(talk)(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}}) 02:34, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Perhaps for a less well defined word I would support; however, the term coronavirus is and has been well defined, and we have specific names for both the virus and disease. I believe that it is well understood that the current pandemic coronavirus is one of many cronaviruses in the public, just as a particularly critical influenza virus is one of many influenza viruses, yet the Influenza article is not named Influenza (group of viruses)—and the Influenza article has many more articles competing for disambiguation than this article does. – Amazing Matt (talk | cont.) 04:22, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose As per above. --Iztwoz (talk) 09:12, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The virus itself is the primary topic for the plain name "coronavirus". This is a case of WP:RECENTISM - by the nominator's logic, the articles would have to be moved back once the epidemic is over. JIP | Talk 11:04, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

That's 8 for support, 25 for oppose. Is Wikipedia a democracy? Alex Devens (talk) 17:15, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

It is. On top of that, it's a direct democracy, unlike the frequently dysfunctional representative democracy of the real world. Brandmeistertalk 18:21, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
Actually it isn't. Wikipedia discussions are not determined solely by counting "votes", but instead based on the strength of arguments (based on policy). Sakura CarteletTalk 01:06, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
Yes, however the decision makers here have always been ordinary people, as opposed to politicians or statesmen, which is a direct democracy. Brandmeistertalk 08:31, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose The public needs to know that a coronavirus can refer to a whole subfamily, and not just the one causing the outbreak. As mentioned above. 24.150.196.3 (talk) 00:25, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose Suggested course of action would only make things more confusing, and is also a case of WP:RECENTISM. The hatnotes across the relevant articles already cover things pretty well. Googol30 (talk) 04:12, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Support "Coronavirus" is now a catch-all word for the 2019/20 Pandemic. The added detail in the title is therefore necessary. Mottezen (talk) 16:57, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment I feel my fellow users calling this move request a case of WP:RECENTISM fail to see the historical significance of this pandemic. The term "Coronavirus" is the popular name of the desease, much like "Justinian's plague", "Black death" and "Spanish flu" and all the outbreaks listed in Influenza Pandemic. Mottezen (talk) 17:05, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose An encyclopedia—even one that "lives" online—should not cater to the ignorance of the masses. As has been noted multiple times, a coronavirus is a whole subfamily. It's established fact. As an encyclopedia, the facts must be represented. Additionally, Wikipedia has long had its own style guide for presenting information, as well as tools to rapidly get people seeking information to what they are truly looking for. In particular, the disambiguation page and the About template, when well articulated, serve well to direct people to what they are looking for. I don't believe Wikipedia should be breaking its information presentation style guides for a pandemic, particularly when the tools are already in place to direct users to what they need. The current styling seems apt. At a max, I'd be OK with renaming this article to "Coronavirus (group of viruses)," having "Coronavirus" redirect to the prior, and update the current disambiguation "Coronavirus (disambiguation)" to reflect the change. Finally, ensure the current About template wording is sufficiently clear on any need to redirect. Lostraven (talk) 21:20, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose: On principle - this would be like moving Cancer to Cancer (group of diseases). I was tempted to support the move on the basis of Wikipedia:Ignore all rules, but agree with others' views on recentism. jamacfarlane (talk) 23:36, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now. I was going to vote support but after giving it more thought I see the problem with recentism and also Mottezen makes a good point with excellent examples. For now, at least, we are stuck with Coronavirus. I'm not sure if we did this to ourselves by leaving this as the title way back when. A good understanding of usage and meaning might have prevented this situation right now. But we are here now and for now, the traffic will come here whether we like it or not. Bodding (talk) 05:11, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Strongly Oppose: I was about to Support but then realized it's wrong just because I feel lazy to perform an additional click to land on the current pandemic page. The regular disambiguation marker is sufficient to make it clear to readers that there's a difference between the strain family and the 2019-2020 pandemic. Wikipedia shouldn't bend it's common practices just because people might be (or even will be) ignorant while seeking knowledge on a topic of such prime importance. Pras92 (talk) 11:54, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Okay folks, there's a pretty clear consensus not to move, so let's close this discussion. I had a feeling this would be the result when I proposed this, but I wanted to hear everyone's thoughts, and you all make very good points. And honestly, it probably is best to leave things as they are. However, I'm still concerned that a lot of users won't notice the hatnote at the top. I'd like to do something to make the disambiguation links a little more prominent, at least on a temporary basis. But that's a different discussion. Will(B) 13:27, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
  • It indeed looks like all the pages on the DAB page are already linked on the top, the question is if WP:DABCONCEPT works well or if readers are better off loading a quick DAB page? Crouch, Swale (talk) 22:00, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose This is an encyclopedic article, not an article published in a tabloid. The pandemic is going to be over sooner or later, so there's no reason to choose an inaccurate title for this page. Keivan.fTalk 22:44, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose, but I'm a-okay with the biggest, boldest, most colorful hatnote in Wikipedia history to live at the top for the next n months. —jameslucas ▄▄▄ ▄ ▄▄▄ ▄▄▄ ▄ 02:42, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose It is inaccurate and misleading to imply that the word coronavirus means severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Wikipedia's role is to educate and inform, not to promote or reinforce ignorance or misconceptions. However, during the current pandemic, it might be appropriate to add a much more prominent and explanatory disambiguation note at the top of the article. I (ironically?) discovered this proposal and discussion as I was writing an email complaining about a newspaper's incessant misuse of coronavirus to mean SARS-CoV-2.—Finell 02:49, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose COVID-19 is (thankfully) becoming more frequently used in media, making this redundant Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:43, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose the proposed title is redundant, as, in our own words in the very first sentence on the page Coronaviruses are a group of related viruses that cause diseases in mammals and birds. Our job is to inform readers, not bend over backwards to confusions they may have. A simple disambiguation note at the top of the page suffices. And yes I agree COVID-19 is becoming more commonly used in the media, and is even productive in forming new slang such as "covidiot" [[3]]. --Calthinus (talk) 14:48, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

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.

survival times on stainless steel[edit]

absurd\arcane detail. Anybody thinks this should stay should at least add some text and say what RH means. Gjxj (talk) 02:33, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

I think it should be removed. They used different viruses and it refers to primary studies that are not WP:MEDRS compliant.Graham Beards (talk) 08:14, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Edit Request (March 18th 2020)[edit]

The line "The most recent common ancestor (MRCA) of all coronaviruses has been placed at around 8000 BCE (Before the Common Era, or BC, or AD)" is incorrect - AD is not the same as BC or BCE, and should be removed. --Snowen (talk) 01:33, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

@Snowen:  Done. Removed the entire phrase in parentheses as BCE is already linked to the Common Era article. As a side note, please use the {{Edit extended-protected}} template to make edit requests on extended-protected pages so that admins can see it be added to Category:Wikipedia extended-confirmed-protected edit requests. --Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬📝) 05:33, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

political slant[edit]

This article is inaccurate in saying our President and his administration was denying the seriousness of the virus to mid March. The travel restriction was placed on China February 2, 2020. It is a shame to see politics over facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rcstephens (talkcontribs) 09:11, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

"This article is about the group of viruses. For the disease that has sparked the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic, see Coronavirus disease 2019. For the virus itself, see Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2." Where did you see such criticism of the handling of the COVID-19 pandemic in this article? Esowteric+Talk 09:28, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
Rcstephens, I think you're on the wrong page. Perhaps you're looking for 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic? Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬📝) 14:49, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
Excuse me, our President?? BrxBrx(talk)(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}}) 02:56, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
Rcstephens, are you aware that there is more than one country in the world? JIP | Talk 21:40, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 March 2020[edit]

the host organism and the spike protein attaches to its complementary host cell receptor. =>the host organism and the spike protein attaches to its complementary host cell receptor that in many cases is the angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2)Mike QFT (talk) 16:01, 21 March 2020 (UTC) Mike QFT (talk) 16:01, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

I have changed it to:
"Infection begins when the the viral spike (S) glycoprotein attaches to its complementary host cell receptor, which usually is the angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2)." Graham Beards (talk) 16:12, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Grammar/syntax Correction[edit]

Can someone make this edit? The last sentence of paragraph 1 under the "Replication" section should read as follows:

Depending on the host cell protease available, cleavage and activation allows cell entry by endocytosis or direct fusion of the viral envelope with the host membrane. Smithbh (talk) 23:02, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Yea word "entry" is dobuled!! IHaveBecauseOfLocks (talk) 17:11, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

External Link[edit]

Corona Virus (Covid-19) Precautions Nirajkacha0909 (talk) 11:40, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

This article is about Coronaviruses in general and not this specific strain. Sakura CarteletTalk 16:43, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
 Not done: per above. — MRD2014 (talk) 18:51, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
How does anybody classify the strain of a group of viruses attributed to the common cold, which varies from host to host? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:56A:726B:2800:A5DC:6B23:2AC5:D1F2 (talk) 05:31, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Culture[edit]

Many wikipedia articles have a section devoted to appearances that the subject makes in culture. In this case, the 2017 comic book Asterix and the Chariot Race has a character (the Roman charioteer who is favored to win the race) named "Coronavirus." In the midst of the quarantine, this might provide some welcome relief, and it complies with wikipedia practices (don't know about policy). Vagabond nanoda (talk) 01:01, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Human coronaviruses: six species and seven strains?[edit]

Wouldn't it be clearer, biologically, to say that there are six species of coronaviruses that affect humans, of which one species (SARS-rCoV) has two strains that are highly significant to humans (one in the recent past, one now; and with quite different lethality and contagiousness)? Saying that there are "seven strains" makes it sound like all seven are very closely related, whereas the reality (according to the present state of the Wikipedia pages) is that some are related at the genus level and all (?) are related to one another at the "family" level in the traditional biological clade hierarchy of phylum/order/family/genus/species, and two are both from a single species.. Boud (talk) 02:09, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 March 2020[edit]

Please change "At least 21,181" to "At least 22,058"

in the deaths section of 2019–2020 coronavirus pandemic

source https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/ Knackit (talk) 12:36, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

The data "at least ..." comes from a template, with gisanddata.maps.arcgis.com as the source, and the figures are frequently updated by various editors. The figure will be updated soon. Esowteric+Talk 12:45, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 March 2020[edit]

... 106.198.13.20 (talk) 09:27, 27 March 2020 (UTC)


Le coronavirus est pire qu'une simple Gripe pour éviter de l'attraper il faut beaucoup manger , ne voir personne ne pas faire d'embrassade , contrairement à ce que l'ont dit les plantes peuvent être un moyens de transmission . Faire attention aux courses faire un stock énorme de course pour ne pas revenir tout le temps prendre le nécessaire dont nourriture , papier toilette , et beaucoup d'eau car l'eau du robinet n'est à présent plus sur . Donc nous vous conseillons de prendre 40 à 60 litre d'eau C'est très important .

Not a request for a change. Please make requests for specific changes, in English only, supported by reliable sources (see WP:MEDRS). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:09, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 March 2020[edit]

Seven strains of human coronaviruses are known, of which four produce the generally mild symptoms of the common cold:

  1. Human coronavirus OC43 (HCoV-OC43), Betacoronavirus
  2. Human coronavirus HKU1, Betacoronavirus, its genome has 75% similarity to OC43[1]
  3. Human coronavirus 229E (HCoV-229E), Alphacoronavirus
  4. Human coronavirus NL63 (HCoV-NL63, New Haven coronavirus), Alphacoronavirus
Reuns (talk) 15:19, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
@Reuns:  Done. Thanks! --17jiangz1 (talk) 19:27, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Bats and COVID-19[edit]

The article says:

   The virus has a 96% similarity to a bat coronavirus, so it is widely suspected to originate from bats as well. 

Apparently, this should be changed to

   The virus has a 96% similarity to a bat coronavirus, so it is widely suspected that it, too, originates from bats. 

The former (as the text currently reads) seems to say that COVID-19 originates from bats, besides originating also from other sources.

The latter would be saying that it originates from bats, like bat coronavirus which is (obviously) itself bat-centric.

By all appearances, the intended meaning is the latter, not the former.

Toddcs (talk) 21:30, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Why was this post deleted on March 25 with no answer, or at least an explanation of why it was deleted?[edit]

02:55, 25 March 2020‎ Highfive99 talk Highfive99 (talk) 17:53, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

The post was [4]. It was removed a few hours later [5] by user: Graham Beards with the edit summary "See WP:NOTAFORUM". Your post was a clear not a forum violation, its removal was justified, and its removal was explained. Meters (talk) 18:02, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
"article talk pages exist solely to discuss how to improve articles" If you were proposing that we add your speculation to the article then see WP:OR and WP:RS. Meters (talk) 18:17, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Double standard categories of Ebola compared to Corona virus[edit]

Can someone please tell me why on our Ebola article, we are allowed to stigmatise Africa with categories like: Category:Health in Africa, Category:West African Ebola virus epidemic (with even its own article Western African Ebola virus epidemic and related articles, template and cats i.e Template:Filoviridae (see oubreaks nav section, which include UK and USA mind you, both under the parent cats: Category:West African Ebola virus epidemic and Category:Ebola), Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa timeline, Ebola virus epidemic in Guinea, Ebola virus epidemic in Sierra Leone, Ebola virus epidemic in Liberia, Ebola virus disease in Nigeria, Ebola virus disease in Mali, and 2014 Democratic Republic of the Congo Ebola virus outbreak), yet on our Coronavirus article, no controversial naming or categorisations are done? If we can minimise the "stigmatisation" of China/Asia by not naming/linking the COVID-19 to China (as per WHO'S guidelines), and understanably so, why do we feel we have the right not to apply the same rules for Africa?2A02:C7F:AC31:400:2095:84DC:9738:9510 (talk) 13:50, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

1. You're on the wrong article Coronaviruses are widespread across the world, and cause distinct diseases, COVID-19 is caused by a specific strain of coronavirus which has its own separate article and on the page for the virus Talk:Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 there is a serious discussion about whether the term "China virus" should be used for the virus, which I oppose. 2. COVID-19 has become a worldwide pandemic while Ebola is largely confined to Africa. 3. none of the names are offensive, they are simply factual. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:07, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

"Corona"[edit]

The usage of "Corona" is under discussion, see Talk:Corona (disambiguation)#Requested move 29 March 2020. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:07, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 March 2020[edit]

I believe SARS-CoV-2 should be removed from the list of Betacoronavirus species, because it is a strain of SARSr-CoV[1], and not its own species. 2601:5C2:104:1B50:E8E6:B8D0:4880:E3E1 (talk) 20:48, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

What is the percentage of RNA sequence homology? Graham Beards (talk) 21:36, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
I don't know for sure, but if you're asking for the percentage sequence homology between SARS-CoV and SARS-CoV-2, I believe it is very high[2]. I could be wrong, and I'm sure you could figure that out much more easily than I could. I was simply pointing out that SARS-CoV-2 should probably be removed from the list of Betacoronavirus species because it has apparently been classified as a SARSr-CoV strain, and not a species in itself. I am sure I am not even as close to as knowledgeable as you in this subject, but I believe that SARS-Cov-2 has already been classified as a strain and not a species. 2601:5C2:104:1B50:6051:3BE:30EA:50B2 (talk) 19:36, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Taxonomy Browser (Betacoronavirus)". NCBI. Retrieved 26 March 2020.
  2. ^ Bedford, Trevor. "Genetic diversity of betacoronaviruses including novel coronavirus (nCoV)". Nextstrain. Retrieved 30 March 2020.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 April 2020[edit]

Does Corona transmit through blood? Portgyaan (talk) 11:30, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:15, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Antidotes[edit]

The following discussion 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.

Antidotes (Concern: please post it on the main page)

1 Antioxidants
2 Gelatin
3 Vitamin C
4 Ginseng (and a lot if it)
5 High Fructose Corn Syrup
6 Baking Soda

Antidepressant

1 Nicotine
2 Tar
3 Tobacco
4 Lithium


— Preceding unsigned comment added by The Falcone (talkcontribs) 17:23, 1 April 2020 (UTC)


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.


This page is based on a Wikipedia article written by contributors (read/edit).
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.

  • Oriflame Üyelik
  • Destek