Talk:Orthocoronavirinae

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Coronavirinae. 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/20070309144307/http://www-micro.msb.le.ac.uk/3035/Coronaviruses.html to http://www-micro.msb.le.ac.uk/3035/Coronaviruses.html

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

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

Proposing merge from common name Coronavirus to current name Orthocoronavirinae
Merge - Coronavirus is a vague common name. The current ICTV name is Orthocoronavirinae. We don't need two articles. --Nessie (talk) 03:17, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose merge into Orthocoronavirinae. It makes sense to use the common name where it's widely understood. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:27, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * so you want two articles on the same topic? --Nessie (talk) 02:02, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I have no particular opinion on whether we need Orthocoronavirinae; if you wanted to merge it into the taxonomy section of coronavirus I would not object. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:11, 16 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose merging. When I last spoke of them—to my vet, believe it or not—his question was, "Is it a calicivirus or a coronavirus?", not "Is it Orthocoronavirinae or Caliciviridae?" I would say the same thing regarding other names, too. Being understandable is especially important when talking to the majority of people. Folks have asked me this week about the emission fluctuations of Betelgeuse, not of Alpha Orionis. We can be—indeed, we should be—accurate without becoming so arcane we're unintelligible. &mdash; UncleBubba ( T @ C ) 21:30, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree (although we are late arrivals). Coronavirus is also the common name as well as the genus. When we are not specifically writing about the genus it is just "coronavirus" with a lower-case "c". Graham Beards (talk) 21:53, 13 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment -  You all seem to be missing the point.  This is a merge discussion.  You seem to b oppose the merge and then quibble about the article name.  The title is secondary.  Your arguments seem unclear on how many articles you want.  If you want to "Merge to Coronavirus" then you say that, insead of "Oppose".  Also,  Coronavirus is NOT a genus.  It was abolished in 2009, eleven years ago.
 * There is no need to shout. I oppose the suggestion to merge and we should retain the article with the common name. Graham Beards (talk) 23:14, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
 * you mean you want to retain both? Because if you only want to retain one, that sounds like a merge. --Nessie (📥) 02:01, 14 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Merge to Coronavirus These articles appear to be on the same topic, and Coronavirus appears to be the common name. Benica11 (talk) 03:54, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Agree with above. Article should start with something like "Coronavirus is the common name for members of Orthocoronavirinae." Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:14, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose merging. Agree with Bodding (talk) 05:46, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * : Do you also disagree that Orthocoronavirinae should be merged into Coronavirus, (i.e. the reverse of what was originally proposed) as some of us are agreeing on?Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:39, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Yes, I disgree. Orthocoronavirinae can stand alone. Bodding (talk) 18:15, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Coronavirus is the common name. --TadejM my talk 19:41, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
 * No Merge - No Consensus, leave it as it is and move on. Proposed since January 2019, i mean come on, it's time to move on : ) --AGTepper (talk) 22:40, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Merge It just makes more sense to merge it. Flalf (talk) 22:52, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Agree - Merge and let's move on : ) --AGTepper (talk) 23:05, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * merge to which name? --Nessie (📥) 16:44, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * You can merge as you see fit, you seem to be an expert, though i suspect in absence of consensus, it probably wouldn't happen, where is the admin and how come this proposal been open for a year, it's time to move on : ) --AGTepper (talk) 18:00, 23 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose Keep the common name, hence Coronavirus.Neltharion (talk) 08:00, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * So you want two articles on the same topic? --Nessie (📥) 16:44, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * How are they the same? One of them is a subfamily while the other is a member of the family. I believe Coronavirus should have its own article.Neltharion (talk) 21:01, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * there are many members of the subfamily. Coronavirus could mean any of the dozens of species in subfamily Orthocoronavirinae.  Coronavirus does not mean a single specific species, it refers to any and all members of Orthocoronavirinae.  Coronavirus is not a member of Orthocoronavirinae, it is a common name for the subfamily. --Nessie (📥) 22:42, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I think you've completely borked the vote by suggesting the merger the wrong way round. Most people only seem to be disagreeing that the title should be Orthocoronavirinae rather than Coronavirus, as opposed to the issue of the articles being merged. It's the same reason why the article Woolly Mammoth is titled as opposed to Mammuthus primigenius. You should close this vote and repropose with Orthocoronavirinae being merged into Coronavirus. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:30, 24 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose If the info box is correct the articles are not on the same topic. Coronaviridae is the family, orthocoronavirinae is the subfamily. --Spaced about (talk) 18:53, 23 January 2020 (UTC)  Support --Spaced about (talk) 19:11, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * What do you support? Bodding (talk) 03:34, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The merge of the two articles that are on the same topic. --Spaced about (talk) 08:10, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * You don't see the rationale for subfamilies of a virus? Bodding (talk) 20:09, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Votes so far
It seems the margin of error is very high here, and I think we need those with unclear opinions to explain what they think a little more before the discussion is closed. --Nessie (📥) 18:45, 23 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Again the main issue here is that most people who oppose are largely against the name change, rather than the articles being merged, which is reasonable because Coronavirus is the well known common name. The vote should be ended with no consensus, and reproposed with Orthocoronavirinae-->Coronavirus, I think many more people would agree with the merge then. The merge is definitely necessary as there is no reason to have two articles that cover the same taxonomic topic as far as I am aware Coronavirus is simply the common name for members of Orthocoronavirinae. There is also some recent taxomic confusion as the subfamily name has was changed in 2018 from Coronavirinae to Orthocoronavirinae. This article explicity states that Coronaviriuses are members of Coronavirinae. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:41, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Leave as is. Orthocoronavirinae is a subfamily. Coronaviruses are too complex not to mention that article is already stuffed. More and more is being learned about coronoviruses and there are many recent discoveries. Too much is unknown. Leave the articles as is for now and allow the emerging viruses to get a good vetting. That takes time. There's not enough information to make a proper informed decision. There are dozens and dozens of scientific articles still pending publication with the emerging bat viruses alone. The topic is huge. Let's allow some of these threads to be sorted if only for clarity's sake. Bodding (talk) 03:42, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I am strongly opposed to merging coronavirus into Orthocoronavirinae, and have no idea how my name came to be added to that list. If the rest is as inaccurate, it should probaby be removed as a summary. For the record, I don't much care whether Orthocoronavirinae is merged into coronavirus or left as a separate article, though I'd prefer the latter. I'd also note I was not successfully pinged, and I doubt therefore whether anyone else was, either. ETA I'd also suggest that this merge discussion is closed and shelved until the current interest spike in the topic has faded. It's generating an ugly mess at the top of a high-traffic page for no reason that the average reader will care about. Espresso Addict (talk) 05:10, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Agree, I'd also suggest that this merge discussion is closed and shelved until the current interest spike in the topic has faded. It's generating an ugly mess at the top of a high-traffic page for no reason that the average reader will care about --AGTepper (talk) 09:39, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

I may have contributed to some confusion by making (and then striking) a comment above that coronavirus is the family and orthocoronavirinae is the subfamily. That is not true which is why I struck it out. I misread and confused the family coronaviriDae and the subfamily coronaviriNae (Coronavirus). Coronavirus and Orthocoronavirinae, judging by the articles on WP and by the linked material from Hemiauchenia above, are one and the same thing, it's like calling "Robert" "Bob". --Spaced about (talk) 10:49, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I fully agree with Espresso Addict. This merger discussion is over one year old in any case. Graham Beards (talk) 12:35, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I get the feeling you know the two articles are on exactly the same subject and you still want to keep two separate articles - why? --Spaced about (talk) 12:43, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * ugly mess at the top of a high-traffic page is now gone, happy discussions : ) --AGTepper (talk) 12:55, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The two articles are not exactly the same. This article is a subfamily. I don't understand the sudden interest in deleting it now when this entire thing is over a year old and has only spiked interest now. Very odd and suggest move on for now, revisit it after the new outbreak is correctly identified and has been contained. Bodding (talk) 19:43, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * There is no deletion involved. You're right, this article is on a subfamily. The other article is also on a subfamily. It's the exact same subfamily. Check the infobox on the left hand side. --Spaced about (talk) 21:37, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Merge Coronavirus into Orthocoronavirinae

 * 89.206.116.134 (talk) 13:03, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * 89.206.116.134 (talk) 13:03, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * 89.206.116.134 (talk) 13:03, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * 89.206.116.134 (talk) 13:03, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Name discussion: orthocoronavirinae, coronavirus, and other options
The discussion about the name should be clearly separated from the merge-discussion as several users have stated above. Here are some options for naming the article: Coronavirus seems to be the common name for the genus (subfamily) that is the subject of this article (f. i. used in Encyclopaedia Britannica), but it can also be the common name for the group (family) of viruses, coronaviriDae. I would favor option 5 or maybe 4. What do other users think? --Spaced about (talk) 11:17, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) Coronavirus
 * 2) Orthocoronavirinae
 * 3) Coronavirinae
 * 4) Coronavirus (virus genus)
 * 5) Coronavirus (lat. orthocoronavirinae)
 * 6) Coronavirus (viral genus)
 * Options 3,4 and 5 are not accurate. Option 3 should be "Coronaviridae" (and there is already an article on this Coronaviridae. Option 4 should read "viral genus" and option 5 has nothing to do with Latin. So we are left with the merge discussion. Graham Beards (talk) 11:47, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Coronaviridae is the family (the group of viruses). It wouldn't be factually accurate to name the article coronaviridae. The nomenclature was only changed a couple of years ago, so this might be causing some confusion. I believe we can call "orthocoronavirinae" a Latin name, it follows the grammar rules of this language, even if the word as such didn't exist in Roman times.--Spaced about (talk) 12:21, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * We already have orthocoronavirinae. I know about ICTV classification. This discussion is not helpful. Let's stick with the merger discussion above please. Graham Beards (talk) 12:30, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with Graham Beards. This discussion is not helpful. Bodding (talk) 19:45, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Coronavirus which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 10:18, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Coronavirus which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 16:02, 23 December 2021 (UTC)