Talk:Coronavirus/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Replication cycle map

I draw a simplified map of coronavirus replication cycle. Inform me, if there are any mistakes or doubts. --Crenim (talk) 12:29, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

There are no references in the whole replication cycle paragraph. Where did you find the information that replicase is expressed, first? Also, I doubt that "replication" results in a polyprotein. You probably mean "translation". Lastly, the coronavirus proteins are not "attached to that polyprotein". The polyprotein is rather a long chain, carrying all the single coronavirus proteins. -- Patrick 2001:4CA0:2FFF:1:0:0:0:E3 (talk) 19:58, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Transmission

How are coronaviruses typically transmitted from organism to organism? -- Beland (talk) 19:49, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I couldn't find an answer but this says how to avoid it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.235.245.208 (talk) 17:34, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

New strain?

Today's news: "A new virus different from any previously found in humans kills two in Saudi Arabia and puts another man in hospital in the UK."

[Two Dead After Contracting 'Mystery Virus' http://news.sky.com/story/988835/two-dead-after-contracting-mystery-virus] 2.26.199.201 (talk) 12:36, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Taxonomy

Doesn't SARS coronavirus belong to this genus? Why is it not mentioned? --PICAWN (talk) 15:10, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

question?

Can you please confirm whether Novel coronavirus 2012 and hCoV-EMC are actually two different “species” of virus or not? Thanks.
(For now I have started “novel coronavirus” as a disambiguation page.)
Bwrs (talk) 15:34, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

The International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses decides on this, and they haven't yet. At present, they are considered to be strains of coronavirus, and not species. Graham Colm (talk) 18:37, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

But they are two different strains, and not just two different names for samples of the same virus (i.e., with identical genetic material), correct? (I was unable to determine this when I skimmed over the source identified as footnote #12; a specific (pagenumber) citation might be useful here.)

Bwrs (talk) 04:44, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Which components vary between strains

[How] Are the surface proteins different between strains ? - Rod57 (talk) 10:55, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Coronavirus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130909175152/http://coronavirus.org/ to http://www.coronavirus.org/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:20, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

First sentence

If you ask Google or Alexa "what is a coronavirus" she now says "Coronaviruses are viruses in the subfamily Coronavirinae in the family Coronaviridae, in the order Nidovirales. Coronaviruses are enveloped....." Before the the latest edit she said "Coronaviruses cause diseases in mammals and birds that include diarrhea in cows and pigs, and upper respiratory disease in chickens. In humans, the virus causes respiratory infections, often mild, but in rare cases potentially lethal. There are no vaccines or antiviral drugs that are approved for prevention or treatment." The latter is more informative IMHO. Graham Beards (talk) 11:55, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

It's pragmatic, I can't deny that. But this way of treating Wikipedia as a feeder of two sentences for unrelated products is disturbing and not academically or philosophically defensible, IMO. We see it at Wikiproject Med in other ways. Anyway, I "thanked" you for explaining the reason, and I'm not in the business of arguing on the internet. Outriggr (talk) 12:11, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your courtesy. I thought the sentence was too technical for an article using the common name for a virus. An example of a good compromise (please forgive my immodesty) is Rotavirus. And please don't get me started on Wikiproject Med. Graham Beards (talk) 12:23, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Graham Beards, even though the google-feeder aspect shouldn't be the primary reasoning. The first sentence in an article should give an accurate and relevant description for the average reader. It should include the most important aspects, which are: it causes disease in humans and animals, most notably pneumonia.--Spaced about (talk) 12:28, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Request to lock editing

Since this is currently an ongoing event, I think it would be a good idea to lock the page to prevent vandalism. XNanoWarriorx (talk) 05:47, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Half a million page views a day now. It's probably inevitable - some form of protection, I mean. Outriggr (talk) 11:41, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

There is already a request on the admins' noticeboard. It's really necessary. --Spaced about (talk) 14:35, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

I'll do it. Graham Beards (talk) 14:37, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you ^

XNanoWarriorx (talk) 15:28, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

link

should this be useful [1] didn't see it referenced--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:23, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Grammar: Spelling

Grammatically, Coronavirus should be 2 words, not 1: Corona Virus, like RNA Virus & Ebola Virus. Someone must have made a mistake by leaving out the space many years ago, it has become a scientific standard, & no one cared or dared enough to correct it.2600:1702:3790:1520:2D40:D0F0:9CE8:915B (talk) 20:03, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

No, the viruses were named "coronavirus" when they were discovered in the 1960s. "RNA virus" is not a name. We have "Ebola virus" because Ebola is the name of a river (and hence the uppercase E). Virus names are usually just one word like rotavirus, norovirus, enterovirus, reovirus, orbivirus and so on. Graham Beards (talk) 21:21, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Replication

It would appear that the following sentence in the Replication section is inaccurate on a couple of issues.

"Coronaviruses also have a protein known as a replicase encoded in its genome which allows the RNA viral genome to be transcribed into new RNA copies using the host cells machinery."

First I believe the word "transcribed" is specific to the creation of RNA from DNA and is inappropriate for describing the creation of RNA from RNA. Typically the words "synthesized" or "replicated" are used to describe the process of creating RNA from RNA. "Synthesized" would probably be the most accurate in this case as coronaviruses not only replicate their RNA but also synthesize subgenomic RNA from the replicated negative RNA strand.

Second, RNA viruses cannot use "the host cells machinery" to replicate their RNA since host cells do not contain the machinery required to replicate RNA from RNA. Oddly, this is actually stated in the beginning of the sentence. The virus RNA encodes an RNA dependent RNA polymerase which is used to replicate it's RNA and then to synthesize subgenomic RNA used to produce other viral proteins. The host cell's machinery is used to translate the resulting RNA into proteins but not to synthesize the actual RNA itself.

How about the following correction?

"Coronavirus genomes encode for proteins that form RNA depentent RNA polymerase which allow the replication of the viral genome and the synthesis of subgenomic RNA which utilize the host cell's translation machinery to create viral proteins."

Pchisarik (talk) 14:35, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Should there be a transitional sentence at the beginning of this paragraph that explains why Replication is such an important part of this virus' composition?Birnbryer20 (talk) 05:36, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Replication Section

Should the Replication section have an introductory transitional sentence that explains why Replication is such an important component of the virus? Birnbryer20 (talk) 05:33, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

It's pretty much common knowledge that viruses reproduce. Otherwise how would they spread?Graham Beards (talk) 06:38, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Coronavirus in China has reached an critical outbreak. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiman777777 (talk • contribs) 09:55, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 January 2020

Corona virus was more prominant in towns with a walkabout and weatherspoons where the two for a fiver offer was heavily promoted Markgledhill1980 (talk) 19:02, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. Huh? –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 21:52, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

This article was already semi-protected (lasts one month). CapnZapp (talk) 15:05, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 January 2020

103.99.12.118 (talk) 15:29, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you log in or create an account, your edits will be attributed to a user name, among other benefits.

You need to say what changes or additions you want. Graham Beards (talk) 15:38, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV)

Seafood market NOT the only origin

I suggest to add a paragraph about the statement from Daniel R. Lucey, an infectious disease specialist at Georgetown University. About a significant finding. About the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market is not the only origin of the virus. 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. Lucey also stated that “Now It seems clear that [the] seafood market is not the only origin of the virus”.

Francewhoa (talk) 21:56, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

This is the wrong article. I suggest you comment at 2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak. Graham Beards (talk) 11:19, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 February 2020

Treatment options

To date (01.Feb 2020) There is no specific antiviral treatment for 2019-nCoV infection . People infected with 2019-nCoV should receive supportive care to help relieve symptoms. For severe cases, treatment should include care to support vital organ functions. People who think they may have been exposed to 2019-nCoV should contact your healthcare provider immediately . Corona virus 2019-nCoV is part of a large family of corona virus strains of which many strains cause common cold symptoms . One possible effective treatment for common cold is Zinc in doses of 75-100mg/day (divided in smaller doses throughout a day) for the duration of infection. This was reported to shorten duration of infection in a meta-analysis for zinc acetate and zinc gluconate . One review concluded that three high-dose (>75 mg/day) zinc acetate randomised, placebo-controlled, and double-blind trials found a 40% reduction in the duration of colds . In addition, based on cell culture tests it is known that zinc inhibits the replication of SARS-coronavirus by interacting with the virus RNA-dependent RNA polymerase .

Preventive measures

Following recommendations can be made to prevent infection :
- Wash your hands often with soap and water for at least 20 seconds. Use an alcohol-based hand sanitizer that contains at least 60%
alcohol if soap and water are not available.
- Avoid touching your eyes, nose, and mouth with unwashed hands.
- Avoid close contact with people who are sick.
- Stay home when you are sick.
- Cover your cough or sneeze with a tissue, then throw the tissue in the trash.
- Clean and disinfect frequently touched objects and surfaces. Janno Herold (talk) 20:04, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

References

While well intentioned, This is an encyclopedic article on the viruses themselves, not a help guide to avoid infection, that is better left to the WHO and the CDC. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:15, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Alphabetical order

Alpha Beta Gamma Delta Andy42W (talk) 04:35, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

 DoneHemiauchenia (talk) 17:41, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 January 2020

I want the line, where it says that snakes were written off as not being a cause for the transmission of that strain of the corrona virus to say exactly what the article in wired states, quote it in fact! Because WIRED didnt provide any sources for their statements and the author of that paragraph did not either. Its disgusting, theres no argument for the satement made in the wikipedia page that "leading experts" have said it cant be snakes, if the study is sensational, say so in the wikipedia article, you are abstructing truth! This paragraph needs more ressearch.

In clearer terms, I want it changed to:

"There was a study made on the infection of this particular straine, especially on one of its probable causes, snakes, but the ressearch paper has been deamed sensational, according to a WIRED article."

These tech magazines and online platforms are steadily bought up by chinese firms and they follow Beijings rule, be aware!

Heres the original article, I think it was number 40 or 41:

https://www.wired.com/story/wuhan-coronavirus-snake-flu-theory/ 193.80.210.184 (talk) 21:28, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. For context, the exact quote is: It’s complete garbage. We don't add speculation based on internet gossip. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:58, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree that stating snakes is a possible possibility to not be fully factual especially when it is not proven by other articles. Most cases say that it comes from bats and in some minor cases swine but not snakes. Please find another source to prove the snake theory. Past that, this information brings up a good topic on how the virus transferred from animal to human. Voicesnow (talk) 01:21, 7 February 2020 (UTC)Voicesnow

Treatment section

Can the following information be added in the treatment section? Link: https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1232923/coronavirus-cure-china-virus-sars-nhs-hiv-protease-inhibitor-nelfinavir-spt -- Dr. Abhijeet Safai (talk) 03:55, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

The Daily Express is a notorious tabloid newspaper in the uk, definitely isn't a reliable or high-quality source for something like this, please read Wikipedia: Identifying reliable sources (medicine)

I note the article states "there are no vaccines or antiviral drugs that are approved for prevention or treatment." Where I live a vaccine exists to reduce shedding in calves Please remove my post if this violates any terms or conditions. another symptom Samessesii (talk) 22:38, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 February 2020

Please add the following official mortality estimates after the paragraph ending "The virus has a 96% percent similarity to a bat coronavirus, so an origin in bats is widely suspected.[50][51]":

Preliminary research has yielded mortality rates of 2.9% and 14.6%. The WHO has suggested that the case fatality rate is approximately 3%.

References

Thank you. 31.4.130.12 (talk) 16:47, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done This seems to be outdated information. Current mortality rate estimates are closer to 2%. Ruslik_Zero 20:19, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

What is your source for 2% mortality rate? If it is a reliable source, we could cite that. (But your 2% sounds outdated to me - about 600 people have died and 1200 have recovered, so mortality could theoretically be as high as 33 percent). 31.4.159.113 (talk) 20:35, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. World Health Organization's latest situation report supports the 2% figure. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:22, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

I have just read your WHO link. It does not contain any mortality estimate, much less a 2% mortality rate. You must have confused links - please provide the correct source. As for my source, it is The Lancet, "It is among the world's oldest, most prestigious, and best known general medical journals" (Wikipedia). 31.4.130.55 (talk) 21:36, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

The Lancet is a RS, certainly. That doesn't mean every Lancet article is automatically acceptable. It's even more important here where you have misread the article. It refers to a 2.9% mortality in one defined cohort that the authors studied. As to the WHO report, just look at the table of confirmed cases and confirmed deaths. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:37, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

You write "As to the WHO report, just look at the table of confirmed cases and confirmed deaths." I have looked. No mortality rate. (I sincerely hope you are not implying that you would simply divide the number deaths by the number of confirmed cases to arrive at a mortality rate. Or are you implying exactly that?). What is wrong with citing the Lancet cohort? Their mortality value has now been confirmed just a few hours ago in another WHO report.31.4.131.66 (talk) 20:08, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Please, do not reinstate the template. You request has been answered. You may be blocked if you continue to do this. Ruslik_Zero 12:48, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Ruslik, your unqualified criticism against The Lancet is morally irresponsible given that hundreds of people have died and are now dying because of the state-sponosored suppression of medical expertise in Wuhan in January. You should be blocked until you mend your ways. 31.4.128.50 (talk) 13:37, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Deaths

Deaths should be updated because the infection count is much higher than what is displayed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dannelsluc (talk • contribs) 15:00, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 February 2020

50.237.188.174 (talk) 18:11, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Declined. The subject does not exist. Graham Beards (talk) 18:16, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Another merge proposal (sorry)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Mikael Häggström went ahead and WP:BOLDly performed the merge, so Orthocoronavirinae now redirects here. Thanks all for your comments. Sorry for the somewhat-disruptive series of discussions. Several participants had suggested revisiting this after the outbreak dies down and there's less attention on this article, so another discussion on article title may come eventually. Happy editing! Ajpolino (talk) 16:59, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

---

Not to be obnoxious, but here's a second merger proposal based on the closing comment above. I propose we merge this article into Coronavirus. They are both about the same topic (coronaviruses, which is what people call viruses in the subfamily Orthocoronavirinae). The page at coronavirus is better-developed and is probably by far the common name, so I suggest we use that as the title for the merged page. Regardless of the title though, these two pages seem to be about the exact same group of viruses. So having two pages seems unecessarily confusing. Thoughts? Ajpolino (talk) 23:41, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

• pinging previous participants @NessieVL, Espresso Addict, UncleBubba, Graham Beards, Benica11, Hemiauchenia, Bodding, TadejM, Flalf, Neltharion, and Spaced about:. Sorry if I missed anyone. Also I didn't put a merge banner on the page to avoid, as EA put it above "an ugly mess at the top of a high-traffic page for no reason that the average reader will care about." Hopefully the pings suffice. Ajpolino (talk) 23:41, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

@Ajpolino: This has been proposed on the wrong talk page, as merger discussions are held on the merged to page, I have moved the discussion to Talk:Coronavirus Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:52, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. For those who missed it, background reading is at Talk:Orthocoronavirinae, where this was originally posted. Ajpolino (talk) 23:55, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

I have also added mergto and mergefrom templates to the respective pages, which will hopefully generate comments from people not party to the previous discussion. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:57, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

I suggest we wait until the outbreak is over and the world calms down. A merger discussion at this time will not be helpful. (I don't care where we have the discussion). Graham Beards (talk) 23:58, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

@Graham Beards: it's different from last time as the google SOS altert has caused traffic to this article to plunge to less than 200,000 daily views from nearly a million a day at its height. Once this issue is over the article won't have much traffic and there will be few people to participate in the discussion. Much name changing and splitting has gone on over at the 2019-nCoV and outbreak related articles despite it still going on, From your editing history and user page I get a sense that you have extensive expertise on viruses, can you formally state your reason of opposition to the merger on taxonomic grounds? Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:04, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

I don't think that having discussions on where to put Wikipedia's content on this group of viruses with a very large group of people who are looking for medical information on a particular virus strain is going to generate elucidation. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:10, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

• Comment. The problem with merging Orthocoronavirinae into coronavirus is that the obvious place for the taxonomy (which is of no interest to the average reader hitting coronavirus right now) is up front. This would make it more difficult for the average reader to find the content that they are interested in. (For example I've noticed complaints on the talk page of the outbreak page about the difficulty of reading that article because of the reference citations at the end of sentences and also that the organisation of the page makes the interesting information hard to find.) Given the length of the main article, I don't see any reason in principle why we should not have several articles on the topic, as long as the scope of each remains clear, and they link to each other in ways that make navigation obvious. I also think now -- when the coronavirus article is receiving 150k to nearly a million daily hits and many daily edits -- is not a good time to perform any kind of merge. ETA I'd also state that moving the discussion after pinging a long list of people is bound to generate confusion! Additionally I don't think having merge discussion templates at the moment is a good idea. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:06, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) I am in total agreement with Espresso. I didn't say I was opposed. Second, I don't oppose based on taxonomy. It's the timing I object to. Graham Beards (talk) 00:15, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
  • I agree that the templates aren't helpful right now (the overwhelming majority of people coming to read this article right now don't care what we're doing with the Orthocoronavirinae page). And there's no reason to change the lead of Coronavirus to complete this "merge". Basically all the material in Orthocoronavirinae is already here at Coronavirus. We could just use the text in the lead of Orthocoronavirinae to improve the taxonomy section here, and then change Orthocoronavirinae to redirect here. Ajpolino (talk) 00:16, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Previously I had agreed to the merge, after looking deeper into the subject I don't believe now is the time. Flalf (talk) 00:33, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

What is the purpose to our readers? I've seen several proposals on the talk page about adding a section on advice on avoiding infection, washing hands etc. This is stuff that is better left to the WHO and CDC websites and wholly not appropriate for an encyclopedia. This article primarily exists to technically describe Coronaviruses, their structure, mechanisms of infection and taxonomy. This article is currently on the second page of google search results for "Coronavirus" and the google snippet for this article no longer shows up, so the traffic has reduced 80% from peak. If people want to know how to avoid infection then they can read WHO, CDC or many news sources on the topic. As for the templates, they are necessary so that other people who weren't involved in the previous discussion participate, ideally we want at least two dozen contributors. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:21, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

No you are wrong. Take a look at Rotavirus, which is a Featured Article and has been published in a peer reviewed journal. I say calm down. And where on earth have you got the idea that we need 24 contributors? Graham Beards (talk) 00:28, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

And now you have started edit warring!! Graham Beards (talk) 00:32, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Please stop removing and replacing the template. Pick one. Flalf (talk) 00:35, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

I was wrong about the hygiene section, for which I apologise I actually think it's a good idea in retrospect. Rotavirus is a viral genus though, and there aren't any separate articles for individual species if that makes a difference. Is there specific advice about the stucture of a virus article differs based on taxonomic rank? Whether that be a species, genus sub/family etc.? 2019 novel coronavirus has no section discussing hygiene at all, perhaps @Dekimasu: can elaborate?. Two dozen was maybe a tad excessive, but I want contributions other than from those who were pinged from last time. I replaced the template as it only seemed to be Graham's opinion to remove it, and a Merge template is standard per WP:MERGE I see no reason to remove it without broad concensus of contributors. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:43, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

It should be clear in no way am I trying to denigrate Dr. Beards, I have enormous respect for his expertise and contributions to Wikipedia on this topic, and I apologise if I have come off rude or aggressive. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:54, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

No apology is necessary at all. I admire your passion. You have not been rude or aggressive; just standing your ground, which is admirable. Graham Beards (talk) 01:02, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Rotavirus is also a common name (as is coronavirus). Rotavirus is also the name of a genus which coronavirus isn't. It wasn't just my thinking that the template should go, but I was probably a little hasty in removing it. Now, the guys at WP:MED like to keep the "virus" and the diseases they cause as separate articles. Whereas virologists, like me, think that the diseases should be included in an article about the viruses. We have never resolved this but are happy to compromise where we can. This is how the article splitting you refer to has probably come to pass. I have deja vu. This all happened with MERS and SARS. It is impossible for us to resolve this problem in the height of an outbreak. Let's just stick with our separate articles for the time being, shake hands and be friends. Graham Beards (talk) 00:59, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree, I hadn't really considered the distinction between virus and disease articles, upon reflection I agree with your position that the article on the disease and the virus should generally be one and the same, as they are so intimately linked as to be inseparable. My own reasons in favor of the merger comes from my experience of animal taxonomy, as it would be strange to to have separate articles on Birds and Class:Aves for instance, but I appreciate it might be different for viruses. I agree that that this discussion can be left to lie for now. I was wondering what the opionion would be of importing all of the known coronavirus species from the Orthocoronavirinae article into the Coronavirus article taxonomy section, as the current coverage of animal coronaviruses seems somewhat arbitrary. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:16, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

[Edit conflict: response to Graham Beards] The medical project style and sourcing rules are so different from the rest of the encyclopedia, and in particular the tree of life articles, that it makes sense to keep disease and virus articles separate, in my opinion. There's a big problem where there are viruses that can cause human disease but more commonly infect non-human animals, see for example Nipah virus infection where a member of the medical project opposed adding "human" and "zoonosis" to the lead despite the fact that Nipah henipavirus redirects there. In the end the only answer I can see is to develop separate content in the hope of serving the different information needs of our readers. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:21, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree. But take a look at Rotavirus and Rotaviral enteritis, which is a failed attempt at compromise in my view. Perhaps we can discuss this elsewhere? It needs to be resolved. Graham Beards (talk) 01:29, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Here isn't the place, I agree. I was planning to raise a query at the virus project talk page on the nipah virus question, but forgot. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:35, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Maybe bring it up at Tree of Life. Having separate articles for a disease and its etiological agent(s) isn't unique to viruses; that also applies to fungal and bacterial pathogens and even animals (e.g. dracunculiasis/Dracunculus medinensis). If the concern is more about the anthropocentricity of articles claimed by WikiProject Medicine, that goes beyond diseases and into anatomy, behavior and other fields, and should certainly be discussed in a larger forum. Plantdrew (talk) 23:10, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

• Re the merge template, I think there are three people opposed to it (me, Graham & Ajpolino), one neutral (Flalf) and one in favour (Hemiauchenia). Espresso Addict (talk) 01:26, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Sorry @Graham Beards and Espresso Addict: I'm not sure I follow the above conversation. I'm not proposing we merge a disease article with a virus article. It is my understanding that we currently have two articles on precisely the same topic at different locations. They are both about the virus. Coronavirus is the common name for Orthocoronavirinae. Right now Coronavirus seems like a decent article on coronaviruses, while Orthocoronavirinae seems like a list of sub-taxa that comprise coronaviruses. More-or-less the same list is already at Coronavirus#Taxonomy. So I'd suggest we just have one page title "Coronavirus" for the topic. Am I misunderstanding something? Ajpolino (talk) 01:44, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

• Merge Orthocoronavirinae and Coronavirus - These are two articles on the same group of viruses. It does not serve readers to split the same topic into two articles. If an article is warranted for Coronovirus diseases then that could make sense. However, these articles primarily are on the clade and not the diseases. --Nessie (📥) 18:43, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

• Comment see Coronavirus disease — 89.206.116.134 (talk) 13:21, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

• Merge to Orthocornavirinae and make coronavirus a disambiguation page? Not a great solution, and definitely driven by current events. But, the massive numbers of readers arriving here currently aren't looking for this article (some page view stats); I don't see that the small number of readers who do want this article would be especially inconvenienced by having the title as the current scientific name. Most of the incoming links to coronavirus come from navigational templates, but those which are direct links are mostly incorrect and should be changed to a more specific article; "coronavirus" is a title that will continue to attract bad links. It's telling that Google isn't displaying a knowledge graph for coronavirus; I assume there was one 6 weeks ago, and a decision was made to remove it because it didn't represent the topic that most people were searching for.
• Wait on MergeThis current article, coronavirus, needs work. The current Orthocornavirinae is well sourced and free of much of the content in this article. This article here is reading more like a newspaper article. Graham Beards had the idea to wait on any merger proposal until after this current outbreak has settled. I think that is wise advice and believe it would be best at this time to follow it. When we do merge the two, moving this article over to Orthocornavirinae might be best.Bodding (talk) 00:50, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
• Merge Orthocoronavirinae to Coronavirus. Coronavirus is the wp:Common name. A detailed taxonomy list can be found in Coronaviridae. Mikael Häggström (talk) 08:28, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
• Merge Coronavirus into Orthocoronavirinae and prominently state, that Coronavirus is the common name for both Orthocoronavirinae subfamily and Coronaviridae family. Alternatively, have a disambiguation page for Coronavirus. Keeping two pages for the same taxonomic level is really confusing though. — 89.206.116.134 (talk) 13:03, 13 February 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.

Latin???

"The name "coronavirus" is derived from the Latin corona" it is not... "A corona (meaning 'crown' in Latin derived from Ancient Greek 'κορώνη' (korōnè, “garland, wreath”)) " So many people look at it but nobody cares about the misinformation. Please change it into Greek since it is (like so many more words) Latinized. It ultimately derives from (ancient) Greek. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Einserschüler (talk • contribs) 00:45, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

It is literally derived from Latin. "corona" is a Latin word. That it was in turn derived from Greek doesn't mean it didn't come from Latin. -- 65.94.171.6 (talk) 08:18, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

So why not say it was French or German? Because it probably came from there before it became English. What you are saying makes no sense. It is a Greek word. It is borrowed, not stolen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A0A:A546:1130:0:647A:4305:861F:264C (talk) 21:20, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Wow... it has been 17 days since the request and it is still not fixed... Wake up please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A0A:A546:8202:0:ADB9:A3C4:AC1E:61E (talk) 18:28, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Still??? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corona 2A0A:A546:A3CD:0:C4C2:AB17:D096:59FE (talk) 00:50, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

If you were to provide a reliable source more notice would be taken of your comment. And please do not tell Wikipedia volunteers to "wake up". They are not your servants.Graham Beards (talk) 08:12, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

I did not say nor think they are my servants but if they do a job they should at least do it right and not spread misinformation (or in this case incomplete information). People editing chose to serve Wikipedia and thus the truth. As I see it they are serving everyone for free including themselves [in case they forget something they know where to look ;)]. In an article that is edited and viewed so often these days, even though the request is nothing major (Latin for large), it should have been corrected by now. The article was correct once (Revision as of 11:15, 9 February 2012) but was changed without statement by Platanoverde. So wikipedia itself is not a reliable source? Call it Swahili if you want. Here a hopefully "reliable" source for the ones accidently reading the talk page on the unreliable Wikipedia: https://www.dictionary.com/browse/corona.

Jeez, "from the Latin" is fine. Otherwise, where will it end? "from the Proto-Indo-European"? Esowteric+Talk 11:13, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

You mean start... If it aims to be the most complete encyclopedia in the world, why not? Is it so difficult to create a subcategory called etymology like it has been done in so many other articles? Proto-Indo-European > Ancient Greek > Latin > English. <-Here you go, easy to copy paste.

Arrogance and pomposity are never helpful. Why haven't you edited the article yourself? Can't be arsed? It's taken you much longer to write this diatribe. No-one is going to act on your advice until to control your obnoxious attitude. And please remember to sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~) Graham Beards (talk) 10:09, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Graham it's an ip user, and the article is semi protected which is why they are confined to pedantic whinging in this thread, as well as why they aren't signing their name. As to the ip user, nobody reading this article cares about the precise etymology and derivation of the term corona, that's best left for Wiktionary another syemtom is turnig green

"nobody reading this article cares about the precise etymology and derivation of the term corona" Then why not remove it completely instead of leaving it partially correct? Ok that does it. Time to leave Wikipedia and put it in the pile of unreliable sources like Graham said.Einserschüler (talk) 08:02, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

What does the attitude in the Talk section matter when the aim is to have neutral and correct data in the article?Einserschüler (talk) 08:02, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

. Hemiauchenia (talk) 10:19, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up.Graham Beards (talk) 10:24, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 February 2020

The first outbreak of the Coronavirus was detected in 2018, by the CDC studying the virus in perpetration of it arrival within the U.S.

Source: https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2020/p0121-novel-coronavirus-travel-case.html – Bobbybarz (talk) 23:22, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

I have fixed the formatting of your request. Welcome to Wikipedia!

 Not done. I do not see any mention of 2018 in that source. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:37, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 February 2020

I think I could edit this because I have insight that scientists have a averge wait time for a cure to the coronavirus in 18-17 months and are worldly investing and invertegating in the subjectIlinoisMilionares (talk) 23:48, 13 February 2020 (UTC)IlinoisMilionares IlinoisMilionares (talk) 23:48, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

It's not clear what edit you want made. You can suggest edits here on this talk page on the form "Please change X to Y" citing reliable sources. – Thjarkur (talk) 23:57, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 February 2020

Can you mention that the outbreak started in November 2019 when someone hunted for dog in rural China somewhere?47.16.99.72 (talk) 00:36, 15 February 2020 (UTC) Sorry,it was “add X”format I cannot find a Y though00:36, 15 February 2020 (UTC) 47.16.99.72 (talk) 00:36, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 00:41, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Update REPLACE protected

In 2019, an outbreak of the coronavirus began in Wuhan, China, IN THE leaed REPLACE with either In 2019, a human outbreak of a coronavirus began in Wuhan, China, OR In 2019, a human outbreak of the Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) coronavirus began in Wuhan, China, ALSO Lower down in the article the new name should be used and replaced as appropos — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.115.204.102 (talk) 01:57, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

First, there is no need to shout. Second, your suggestion is poor grammar. It should be "an outbreak in humans" but this is redundant. Outbreaks refer to human populations unless otherwise specified. Graham Beards (talk) 09:00, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Edit request

[I apologize for not understanding how to properly suggest edits!] The article reads, "In 2019, an outbreak of the coronavirus began". I suggest avoiding "the coronavirus". It is a misapplication that seems to be widespread in news media (exception: Associated Press). I suggest the following replacement:

"In 2019, an outbreak of a new strain of coronavirus, SARS-CoV-2 (initially named 2019-nCoV) began" --Clutterslave (talk) 09:42, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Can page protection be reduced please to semi protection?

I think it should be moved down as you said 30/500 protection is only used when semi protection does not work. How did vandalism continue here,but not on the 2019-20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak page?2600:387:5:805:0:0:0:AC (talk) 18:20, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 February 2020

Can you mention what the mortality rate is like how u did for ebola 2600:387:5:805:0:0:0:AC (talk) 18:14, 16 February 2020 (UTC) 2600:387:5:805:0:0:0:AC (talk) 18:14, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi. This is the wrong article. You want 2019 novel coronavirus. Graham Beards (talk) 19:25, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Edit request

The "Overview of Outbreaks" table is wrong, the link to the MERS virus instead links to the disease article. Where the table links to MERS in the virus column, it should instead link to MERS-CoV, just as the SARS outbreak links to SARS-CoV under the virus column. -- 65.94.171.6 (talk) 05:29, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Someone updated the table -- 65.94.171.6 (talk) 07:46, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Adding preventative measures and treatment options

The addition of preventive measures, and treatment options sections would be beneficial to this page. Due to the recent outbreak, many people are worried, causing them to want to know how to avoid becoming sick. The CDC and WHO have stated basic outlines of what someone should do to avoid this virus, these additions would only help the article giving good information with the possibility of the information changing to be very low. As well, this article already states the symptoms of the Virus with no way for treating them. Even though information about the antivirus is still coming out there are medicines and actions know to help with treating the symptoms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamqtpi (talk • contribs) 05:23, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Image for the information box

Hi Hemiauchenia. Great to be here to work with you on this article. I do agree with alot of things that you have said. I'll bring the conversation over to the talk page so everyone else can also participate. This discussion concerns the caption for the illustration in the infobox.

Current caption:

An illustration of the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus. The club-shaped viral spike peplomers, coloured red, create the look of a corona surrounding the virion, when viewed electron microscopically.

You said as concerns the image for the information box:

1. it's not "a" coronavirus, there are many different cononaviruses, this article isn't about SARS-CoV-2, it's about Coronaviruses generally, therefore the image should be labelled. 2. Added an Image of MERS-CoV to taxobox, as previously stated an electron microscope image is standard for virus infoboxes. Stop edit warring

My comment:

As concerns point 1: I don't mind labeling the image a SARS-CoV-2 virus. My main concern, however, is that we do not know if that illustration is of a SARS-CoV-2. The full original caption from the CDC does not make that clear. The illustrator, unfortunately, did not have the opportunity to fully explain what they were depicting. For this reason, I propose using generic terminology for example "a" coronavirus (meaning: that of many types of coronaviruses) or terminology that incorporates "coronaviruses" (for example: from the original CDC caption they used ".. morphology exhibited by coronaviruses").

As concerns point 2: I don't mind having two illustrations in the infobox. My issue is more with the aesthetic appearance. The size of the two images takes up too much space. If there are going to be two or more images in the infobox, they collaged together should not take up more than the space of one standard image as is done in all other infoboxes on wikipedia. An example of collaging in infoboxes can be seen in the the World War II article, or a better example of how to model the illustration in the infobox would be the Pantherinae taxobox. Another template to use to model the image in this infobox would be that of the virus article.

Let me know what you think and if anyone else has any ideas that would be useful too. This is a scientific wikipedia article so there should no problem in us being collaborative and productive. Scientific articles are written daily in a group collaborative fashion and things get done fast. --Guest2625 (talk) 23:24, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

1. The CDC website states that it depicts SARS-CoV 2, this is linked to from the image on commons.

2. concerns over image space can be alleviated by having only one caption for both images, using image2_caption as the parameter, without a caption between the images there will be minimal space between them, effectively the same as if the images were collaged, but with less effort. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:46, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

I have implemented my suggestion. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:50, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry but it's not clear to me how you conclude that the original caption from CDC states that the illustration that they are depicting is specifically the SARS-CoV-2 rather than a general generic coronavirus. The full caption from the CDC is as follows:

This illustration, created at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), reveals ultrastructural morphology exhibited by coronaviruses. Note the spikes that adorn the outer surface of the virus, which impart the look of a corona surrounding the virion, when viewed electron microscopically. A novel coronavirus, named Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), was identified as the cause of an outbreak of respiratory illness first detected in Wuhan, China in 2019. The illness caused by this virus has been named coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).

From my reading of the caption it states that "This illustration, created at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), reveals ultrastructural morphology exhibited by coronaviruses. And therefore, the original caption does not say that it is specifically the SARS-CoV-2 virus. I think we should attempt to use generic language for this more general article on the Coronavirus. In the end, this disagreement can simply be resolved by using the full length original caption. --Guest2625 (talk) 12:41, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and fixed the caption problem. --Guest2625 (talk) 14:06, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Student editor and the addition of copyright infringing material

Iamqtpi has chosen this article for editing as part of a University Module for this semester Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/Richland College/English 1302 (Spring 2020). However this seems like a really inappropriate choice to me, as the Coronavirus article will have signifcant traffic and scrutiny for months due to the current outbreak, and edits already made to this article by the user have been reverted. It seems the obvious solution is that their article choice should be changed. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:49, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

As an additonal note, the material that Graham Beards reverted is plagiarised, copyright infringing material that is essentially irrelevant for the articles scope. I know most wikipedia editors who have experienced editing as part of a course dislike student editors, and I have no trouble seeing why. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:04, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

In addition, we shouldn't be giving medical advice. Esowteric+Talk 21:31, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

This seems a very odd choice for a University Course, especially an English course (is it for training prospective publishing house editors, copyeditors, or copyists?). So many regular editors are inundating this article that the students will constantly be disrupted, making any marking of this an adventuresome endeavour. Not that students don't disrupt articles wholesale by replacing all content therein in the normal course of a university assignment, thereby in this article, likely getting some sort of ban, which would not be conducive to handing in an assignment when they've been banned. -- 65.94.171.6 (talk) 06:00, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 February 2020

I would like to edit this wiki for I have information Hackerslayercohen11 (talk) 23:35, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi, you can add your information here and please remember to include your reliable sources.Graham Beards (talk) 23:36, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation

Their are currently more than 20 pages whose title includes the word "coronavirus". A disambiguation page would be useful. Robertpedley (talk) 08:17, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Unexplained terminology

Please could we have an explanation (or a link to one) of the terms "cis-acting" and "trans-acting"? Wikipedia articles should be readable without specialist knowledge.Gobbag (talk) 12:27, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

You could have just linked both of them (cis-acting, trans-acting) which would have quicker than writing your comment. With regard to specialist knowledge, this is not the Simple Wikipedia; I regard our articles as the source of such knowledge.Graham Beards (talk) 14:11, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Student editor

Why your hand sanitizer might not protect against the new ...www.advisory.com › daily-briefing › 2020/03/12 › hand-sanitizer Mar 12, 2020 - Reports of the new coronavirus first surfaced in early December 2019 ... use benzalkonium chloride as the active ingredient instead of alcohol. /donkey

Purported Chinese rapid tests

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)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 March 2020

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)

Caronavirus in india

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)

Prevention

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 (bark • sniff) 18:48, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 March 2020

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)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 March 2020

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

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

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 (talk • contribs) 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

• https://www.wired.co.uk/article/wikipedia-coronavirus

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 March 2020

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

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

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

    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

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 (talk • contribs) 08:21, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Coronavirus_(Disambiguation)

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

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 (bark • sniff) 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 (bark • sniff) 18:46, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

If you check the pageviews for this page and pages related to the COVID-19 outbreak [3], 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 (bark • sniff) 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)

Edit Request

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)

While it's clear that this is about the larger group of viruses, many people coming here will want to know about COVID-19. I split the second sentence into two, to clarify this. It now says this: "In humans, coronaviruses cause respiratory tract infections that can range from mild to lethal. Mild illnesses include some cases of the common cold (which has other possible causes, predominantly rhinoviruses), while more lethal varieties can cause SARS, MERS, and COVID-19."

survival times on stainless steel

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)

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)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 March 2020

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

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)

Culture

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)

External Link

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 Cartelet^Talk 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)

Human coronaviruses: six species and seven strains?

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

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)

Requested move 18 March 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 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)

---

• Coronavirus → Coronavirus (group of viruses)
• Coronavirus (disambiguation) → Coronavirus

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)

• Oppose per above. The other articles, with the lone exception of Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, should not be expected by anyone to be at the title "Coronavirus". Dekimasuよ! 06:31, 19 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)

    • Will-B, How does "(virus family)" sound? Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 02:03, 20 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)

• Oppose as a pure WP:RECENTISM nomination. © Tbhotch^™ (en-3). 19:59, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

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 Coronavirus → Coronavirus (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 (bark • sniff) 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. Brandmeister^talk 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 Cartelet^Talk 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. Brandmeister^talk 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.f^Talk 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" [[4]]. --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.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 March 2020

... 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)

Bats and COVID-19

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?

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

The post was [5]. It was removed a few hours later [6] 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

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)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 March 2020

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
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)

References

@Reuns:  Done. Thanks! --17jiangz1 (talk) 19:27, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

political slant

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 (talk • contribs) 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 26 March 2020

I believe SARS-CoV-2 should be removed from the list of Betacoronavirus species, because it is a strain of SARSr-CoV, 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. 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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 April 2020

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

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 (talk • contribs) 17:23, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

• Nope, we don't carry nonsense like that, only material supported by reliable medical sources - see WP:MEDRS. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:25, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
• (Section moved down from the top of the page. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:26, 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.

How big are they? (In micrometers or nano meters)

I want to know their physical size. I keep seeing masks for sale with claims like "filters out 50 µm particles," but I can't put that in context without knowing the size of the virus. I know that most viruses are much smaller than that, (0.02 µm or so), but I also know that Corona virus are among the largest. This information will be useful. —MiguelMunoz (talk) 02:20, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

The morphology section was expanded to have more detail on the size. The average size of coronaviruses is 120 nm (.12 µm). The dynamics of mask filtration and viruses is complicated. It does not just involve virus size and "filters out some-size µm particles". See the following reference. --Guest2625 (talk) 13:22, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 April 2020

SARS SARS1 SARS2 MERS COVID 19 are the known strains of coronavirus 71.254.10.233 (talk) 10:53, 7 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) 14:53, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

One word.

All pictures without "meter-scales".

176.59.199.172 (talk) 06:30, 9 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. --Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 03:07, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Epidemiology

Resolved

 – 03:34, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

In the table, Epidemiology section, there is a 'Sex ratio' parameter. It doesn't specify which is which (i.e. male:female or female:male). 107.15.157.44 (talk) 02:58, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that. I've gone ahead and clarified how it should be read. Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 03:26, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Covid-19

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.

---

People we are dying of this covid-19 Rendani ndou (talk) 18:45, 17 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.

Corona virus

Why does this virus effects old people most??Azola Mlotywa (talk) 19:01, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Azola Mlotywa, this is not a forum. Please ask over at WP:RD/S. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:58, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

"Corona"

Moved

 – Corona is now a disambiguation page and its original content has been moved to Stellar corona. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 06:36, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

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)

3D animation

This 3D animation of the virus might be value addition to the article, File:2019-nCoV-coronavirus-3D-wuhan-hubei.webm. I kindly urge editors who are regularly working on the article to add it, if deemed fit. KCVelaga (talk) 15:02, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Coronavirus Misinformation

• Coronavirus (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Sorry if I'm doing this wrong, I just made a wikipedia account so I could address this: I'm really concerned that the coronavirus page has inaccurate scientific information that has serious implications. Since my account is new I can't edit the talk page, which is where I would have preferred to put this.

The page currently has the CFR of COVID-19 at 7.1, citing the JHU dashboard. This is a crude estimate of the CFR, and one likely to inflict more panic than appropriate. See the following articles for better information on epidemiologists estimating CFRs (in ways more comparable to SARS and MERS as would be appropriate for your table): . As you'll see, most estimates for the CFR are closer to 1-4%. I propose you remove the inaccurate and unbased 7% figure and replace it with a note that the CFR is an active field of research and the information is not yet available to say certainly what it is. Your table conveys far too much certainty and this is really dangerous.

NoozeEnvy (talk) 03:26, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

I copied this note by User:NoozeEnvy over from my own user talk, since due to the age of their account they can't yet post here, due to the semiprotection of the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 03:36, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

References

Semiprotection of talk

Per a request at WP:RFPP I have put a month of semiprotection on this talk page. It has recently suffered heavy vandalism and a number of edits have been revision-deleted. This will regrettably make it inconvenient for good-faith IP editors. But any anonymous editors who want to have their comments added to this page can leave a request on my talk or at WP:RFED. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 03:45, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Icosahedral shell?

The intro mentions an icosahedral protein shell surrounding the helical nucleocapsid, but the section on Structure does not mention it and the cross-sectional graphic does not show it. Which of the viral proteins form the shell? AxelBoldt (talk) 16:12, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

The source says this "The association of the nucleocapsid (N) protein with the genomic RNA forms the helical nucleocapsid that is surrounded by an icosahedral structure composed of the viral membrane (M) protein." Graham Beards (talk) 06:30, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

The statment about an icosahedral structure should be confirmed with another source, since the reviews I have read on coronaviruses do not mention an icosahedral structure. The two best sources on the structure of coronaviruses are "Supramolecular Architecture of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus Revealed by Electron Cryomicroscopy" and "A structural analysis of M protein in coronavirus assembly and morphology".

The "Supramolecular.." article states: "Flat-edged cores, three- and fivefold symmetry axes, and other hallmarks of icosahedral symmetry were not detected in the images of frozen-hydrated coronavirus particles." An older paper from 1996 does propose a possible icosahedral core "The Transmissible Gastroenteritis Coronavirus Contains a Spherical Core Shell Consisting of M and N Proteins".

I would remove the statment about the icosahedral shell from the article, since the Neumann articles, which are the best ones on coronavirus structure, do not confirm an icosahedral structure. --Guest2625 (talk) 14:20, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree. Graham Beards (talk) 14:29, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

NSP's packed into virion?

Our cross-sectional graphic does not show any nsp's in the virion, and the link viral nonstructural protein also describes nsp's as not being packaged in virions. However, figure 1 in this recent NEJM article shows nsp's inside the virion. Are they wrong or are we wrong? AxelBoldt (talk) 20:29, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

The cartoon is more of a concept than a description. By definition, non-structural proteins are only found in infected cells. I'm not sure what evidence base the NEJM figure has. If any.Graham Beards (talk) 21:05, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Coronavirus Template

Do you think there should be a coronavirus template, similar to Template:Flu. I believe so because it would be easy to switch from page to page quickly. I made a prototype here.Nojus R (talk) 03:15, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Note: The sandbox's content has changed since the comment above was made. Original revision can be found here. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 06:33, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 June 2020

People now fear that the george floyd protest will make the coronavirus cases go higher Sometimesyougottakilltherules (talk) 17:19, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

No specific change requested, and no source provided. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:21, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 June 2020

Memorialvillageer (talk) 06:48, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

• <blatant advertising redacted>

 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. --allthefoxes ^(Talk) 06:50, 12 June 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. TheImaCow (talk) 07:39, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Communication Between the Government and the Public

In regards to the government making decisions with the corona virus, they also have to maintain a certain level of communication to keep the citizens of the United States informed on decisions as well as how the virus is acting. First, the US has gone into lock down in response to the spread of the virus. Schools as well as stores and restaurants closed and are adjusting to the current situation. One step the government has taken on the state level is suspending public records. States such as Hawaii and New Jersey have suspended public records and this temporarily cuts the communication between the people and those governments. This line of communication has helped the US solve tough times such as war and the Great Depression. Without this communication, there is no way for the people to follow the pandemic they are living in. Communication has kept the US alive since they declared Independence. Because of the lack of education that the common people have on the corona virus, the government is responsible for informing the people on where and how to access resources to help prevent the spread of the virus and ultimately flattening the curve. Maintaining a strong line of communication is important to reduce the size of the pandemic and help with the process of developing a vaccine. Skelstein (talk) 03:54, 21 June 2020 (UTC) SK

References

A human coronavirus responsible for the 1889-90 flu pandemic

Some scientists contend a theory the first appearance of HCoV-OC43 (human coronavirus, one of 4 known in humans) originally from a bovine (cattle) source was the cause of the 1889-90 flu pandemic, not an influenza which is part of the scientific controversy, HCoV-OC43 is thought to first appeared in the late 19th century. 2605:E000:100D:C571:4C1D:EB7D:B365:D7B4 (talk) 03:58, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Another coronavirus theory is Sweating Sickness, esp. the "Picardy Sweat" endemic in northern France (Picardy and Artois, now the Nord Pas-de-Calais region), HCoV-NL63 was thought to first appeared in humans in the late 15th century (1450). The last reported case of the "Picardy Sweat" was before WWII (1900-14 period). 2605:E000:100D:C571:4C1D:EB7D:B365:D7B4 (talk) 04:07, 21 June 2020 (UTC)