Talk:SARS-CoV-2/Archive 4

Caption on the image
the image may be "very clearly a computer generated 3d render" to you, but as I mentioned here and at WP:ERRORS, the source of the image calls it an illustration, and does not provide further information on how it was produced. Unless you have a source saying the image was produced by a computer, we should stick with the verifiable facts. Thanks &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 14:55, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I really don't understand your point, It's like saying we shouldn't say a picture of the moon is of the moon unless it is explicitly stated by the source. Saying that we can't know how the image is produced is silly, and merely shows your ignorance of computer graphics. It is clearly a 3d model of the virus (I. e. a computer graphic), with lighting, shading and blur effects, which by definition makes it a render. This isn't something that could be produced by any other method. I think that calling it an illustration is clearer and I don't disagree with the change, but your logic that we can't know it's a render is off. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:14, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

While we're on the topic of the infobox and the treachery of images, I'm wondering if it's about time to remove the picture of China ("Wuhan, China, the epicenter of the only recorded outbreak"). It's true that Wuhan is still the epicenter of the outbreak, but the outbreak is also global at this point, and the map may be one of the factors that is prompting the insertion of too much information on the specific outbreak into this article on the virus. Still, I'm not sure, so would like to hear other opinions on this. Dekimasu よ! 15:22, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The outbreak is still largely confined to china and Hubei province, there isn't really significant human to human transmission outside China yet, so it should remain as is currently. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:28, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Hmm. Where the outbreak happens to be taking place is not really germane to a description of the virus, though, is it? Unless it is necessary context for discussing the natural reservoir. Dekimasu よ! 15:34, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Please consider adding some brief function descriptions for the various parts shown in the (2nd) cross-sectional image. It would be great if those functions could also be linked to relevant wikipages. Jahibadkaret (talk) 16:55, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Need to be careful what "studies" we allow in the article
Before adding any research papers to the main article, please review and make sure the research is sound. Research, both solid and not so solid, is moving very fast. davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)  19:09, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I consider it very inappropriate to troll this otherwise relevant discussion so blatantly. A reminder to vet your sources from no less than BuzzFeed? Give me a break! 89.206.112.110 (talk) 11:51, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * It's actually a BuzzFeed News story not Buzzfeed. BuzzFeed News, unlikely BuzzFeed is an RS (WP:Perennial sources) so they should not be conflated. I would still urge great caution with them on science matters, however the general advice in this case seems sound and no one is proposing adding them to the article. Nil Einne (talk) 13:47, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I have not seen one reference to the pangolin story added here yet. On one hand, this is a positive development. On the other hand, I feel like it might be better to get ahead of any overconfident additions by adding a reference to the "intermediate host cannot be ruled out" sentence in the lede—that is, pointing out that the pangolin claims are from news stories and press releases, not the unpublished study that is supposed to have been referenced in them. Dekimasu よ! 15:46, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Another example is scientific correspondence. We have let a few of these through so far, but we need to be aware that something like this does not serve as evidence of ocular transmission, only suggests it as a topic for further study, and being sourced to The Lancet doesn't mean it gets a free pass as fact. Dekimasu よ! 03:09, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Another study, that I think we should relook at is the following line: "One mathematical model estimated the number of people infected in Wuhan alone at 75,815 as of 25 January 2020, at a time when confirmed infections were far lower." On the grounds that it was just one study at the time, there is no evidence that the study has any relevance or accuracy to the outbreak itself, and amongst todays case numbers, it just looks odd. Historical estimates seem like they belong on the main page, rather than this one. Gegu0284 (talk) 07:19, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Animation


People's thought on this? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:54, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * What information does it convey? Graham Beards (talk) 07:50, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I had the same question. Dekimasu よ! 08:03, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * This electron microscope image has also been added to the CDC site recently. Dekimasu よ! 08:08, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * That's an ultrathin section. Some readers might have difficulty understanding the image. (Not a reason in itself for not using it of course). Graham Beards (talk) 12:19, 10 February 2020 (UTC)


 * I'd say "no" on the animation unless it can be shown that the virus spins and moves as rapidly as in the animation. As other's asked "What information does it convey?" As it is, images such as File:2019-nCoV-CDC-23312 without background.png would be better if they included an explanation of what the various colored bits are and that the colors are only for display purposes. A virus is smaller than a wavelength of visible light and thus it, and its parts, do not have visible colors.   I like File:3D medical animation coronavirus structure.jpg as it shows what the pieces are though I would have preferred if it also included a ruler. --Marc Kupper&#124;talk 06:05, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * It clearly shows that it is round. But no strong feeling either way. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 06:10, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Would we like an animation? I can make one if we feel there is something specific we want to show. I did the File:3D medical animation coronavirus structure.jpg .  Can add the 125 nanometer dimension if it's required ? Gegu0284 (talk) 12:53, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * User:Gegu0284 We have an animation here already. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 17:28, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Favilavir, formerly known as Fapilavir
First antiviral drug approved to fight coronavirus: http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/a/202002/17/WS5e49efc2a310128217277fa3.html

Just granpa (talk) 08:59, 18 February 2020 (UTC)


 * This report was retracted. See here. Dekimasu よ! 17:02, 18 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Do they mean Favipiravir?

Just granpa (talk) 00:35, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

List of Experimental Antiviral Drugs
Formerly, the article had no information on this important topic. I obtained this list from a trade journal and from the National Library of Medicine, an authoritative source. This is important information and should not blithely be deleted. Part of what is important to readers is the identity of both the drug and the source. I have now repeated the NLM reference in the Anti-Viral Drugs sub-section. Any deletion should be regarded as vandalism of this important information. If you have a better source or can add more drugs to the list, please include it. Drugs that are no longer being tested in lab or clinic could be considered for deletion from the list. --Zeamays (talk) 10:27, 20 February 2020 (UTC) I also note the trade journal article (Clinical Trials Arena) and the NLM database are both being regularly updated with new information. The two sources complement each other as can easily be verified. --Zeamays (talk) 10:41, 20 February 2020 (UTC)--Zeamays (talk) 10:34, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * There was previously a section called "Treatment research" on this page, but it was moved to the disease page when that was split to what is now at Coronavirus disease 2019. While "antiviral drugs" do act on the virus, they are used only in treatment of disease, so they should be covered there. (Actually, it may make more sense to discuss whether the vaccine research should be also be moved to the other article at this point.) The information was not blithely removed: it still exists at that other page, and I left extensive edit summaries explaining my removal. There was previous consensus that the section should go there; of course that can be discussed further here to see if consensus has changed, but reverting your edits is not vandalism. I'll repeat some of my more specific concerns here: First, you have written the section as "treatment of the disease", but this article is not about the disease. Second, I wrote that the topic of "antiviral drugs" may still be applicable to this article, but not as written (without reliable sources, including ® symbols, with a particular emphasis on companies licensing them, etc.). You say that "part of what is important to readers is the identity of both the drug and the source," but a reader looking for information on the virus strain is probably not trying to find out about Johnson & Johnson's research and development. What you have added is still cited to a trade journal where companies can list things freely. You are an experienced editor, but please do review WP:MEDRS, MOS:TMRULES, etc.
 * Whether something should be included in an article is based upon what it tells us about the topic of the article. In this case, that's the virus strain, not the disease. The answer, as far as I can tell, is that research into antivirals is taking place, but no one knows which work on this strain. Again, trying to be generous, we can learn that some researchers believe some drugs may be effective. But since none of the drugs you mentioned have been proven effective so far, this is basically tangential to the subject of describing the virus. We do not need an entry that says "Remdesivir (GS-5734, Gilead Sciences): An Ebola drug developed by Gilead Sciences," because whether it is undergoing clinical testing or not, that tells us nothing about the virus. Likewise we do not need "Leronlimab (PRO 140, CytoDyn): A CCR5 antagonist, it is already being investigated in phase two clinical trials for HIV and has been awarded fast-track approval status by the FDA for HIV" or "Darunavir / Cobicistat Combination (Prezcobix®, Janssen Pharmaceutical): An approved drug for HIV is being studied" because they tell us nothing about this virus strain.
 * This is another case of removing someone's additions. I don't intend to own this article. But that doesn't mean that everything should go in, either. I hope that others will contribute to the discussion, but I suggest you take this to Coronavirus disease 2019 where treatments against disease are already being discussed. Dekimasu よ! 12:58, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Pinging editors who previously showed interest in this topic: Boud, Wikimucker, EvergreenFir. Dekimasu よ! 13:03, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Please remember WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. There can be strong disagreements between editors without accusing each other of bad faith. You can state that an argument is wrong or inconsistent with Wikipedia guidelines without calling it vandalism. I would suggest that you apologise to Dekimasu. was valid, and Dekimasu has explained in detail where the appropriate place is to consider integrating some of your proposed material. You should consider the discussion at Talk:Coronavirus disease 2019 regarding unpublished, un-peer-reviewed small-number clinical research by Chinese medical researchers that, at the moment (at least) is considered too weak to add to that article. Everybody (except maybe those in cults) is aware that the COVID-19 outbreak is lethal and on a world scale could potentially kill 140 million or so people, so information on treatments and vaccines is vital. But avoiding misinformation is also vital. WP:MEDRS is not written in stone, and the text itself seems to need interpretation beyond what it states literally; if you can convince other Wikipedians to interpret it differently or modify it or clarify it, then please propose that. Boud (talk) 13:18, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * My 2c on this matter is that EVERY proposed treatment is an OLD product and that notable real world failures such as that Gilead Ebola treatment are now being peddled as a solution for the coronavirus. It is safe to assume that every retroviral developed for HIV and/or Ebola ...and the rest.... is now back in the mix for this infection and that they are being trialled in isolation or in combination with other products right now. This makes it utterly impossible to maintain a good list to my mind.
 * Furthermore many of these "experimental" treatments are real, they are used to treat HIV for example. Therefore they are only fractionally experimental save for Remdesivir which is clinically proven NOT to work, in fact, see > https://www.nih.gov/news-events/nih-research-matters/two-drugs-reduce-risk-death-ebola.
 * While there are many trials ongoing no product/combination has been proven to be a magic bullet and it may well prove,albeit down the line,that some as yet untried combination of 4 or 5 existing products is the right solution.
 * I think that and  have been ultra careful over the past few weeks not to allow puffery from pharma companies, and also from medical researchers trying to make a quick name for themselves, from being given undue prominence in this set of interlinked articles and I would be inclined to let them continue their good work. I suppressed some typical nonsense apropos Gilead myself some weeks back and we all had a sweaty 24 hours before that Indian paper alleging HIV genomic overlaps was finally withdrawn.
 * This talk page is available for discussion at any time and all who are long involved with these NCOV articles are acutely aware of how much fast science is happening around this particular outbreak. It may well happen that a 'list' section is desirable in future. I am inclined to think it is not useful right now and that more trials are required first. I would ask you perhaps to ask yourself this question. "What do we _categorically_  know today that we did not know 3 weeks ago???  Wikimucker (talk) 14:17, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I see no reason to apologize using the word vandalism to describe the wholesale removal of a section with no justification. You have now provided a justification, thank you.  Trying to make a distinction between a virus and the disease it causes in the case of an anti-viral drug, and removing the experimental drugs from the article about the virus is unreasonable.  The list of drugs belongs in one place or the other.  Drugs to treat symptoms, that are not antivirals can arguably be placed in the disease article.  I will comply with your hard-nosed efforts to eliminate this information here, but I put it here in good faith.  It does the reader no good not to easily find this important information.  I included no "puffery" only facts, and I believe it is important information to know the origin / innovator of drugs, like any other invention.  Do I detect bias against pharma companies?  As I wrote earlier, the trade journal article and the database from NLM are complementary, so the weakness of the former is backstopped with information from the latter.  I am not suggesting the trade journal article stands on its own.  --Zeamays (talk) 14:26, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * (ec) I did leave substantial edit summaries when removing the section–basically the same things I wrote above. Anyone looking at the page history can see the justification that was given. Did you not look at the history of the page to see when and why the removal was performed? Also, the "database from NLM" was linked to the front page of clincialtrials.gov, which invites you to "Explore 330,686 research studies in all 50 states and in 209 countries." It is not specific citation information. And it is not a reliable source: "Information on ClinicalTrials.gov is provided by study sponsors and investigators, and they are responsible for ensuring that the studies follow all applicable laws and regulations. NLM staff do not verify the scientific validity or relevance of the submitted information beyond a limited quality control review for apparent errors, deficiencies, or inconsistencies." Dekimasu よ! 14:59, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * asked "Do I detect bias against pharma companies?" . I would say to you that if pharma companies were all perfect, in a perfect world. then we would no longer need clinical trials conducted by third parties. As well as that some news items are puffed by persons with short or long stock positions in particular pharma companies and who are looking to make a quick profit on their positions.   Wikimucker (talk) 15:11, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Vacccine and Anti-Viral Drug Research
If anti-viral drug research does not belong in this article, then neither does vaccine research, so I have removed it. I will be adding both to the article on the virus. Arguably vaccine research belongs even less in this article than anti-viral drugs, since vaccines are biologics that act on the human body, not directly on any virus. --Zeamays (talk) 14:40, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Broke several references there: "Cite error: The named reference Guardian_CEPI_16weeks was invoked but never defined." "Cite error: The named reference CBC_Saskatch_6_8_weeks_nonhuman was invoked but never defined." Please try to be attentive to what you're doing. Dekimasu よ! 15:19, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Those have been repaired. I encountered edit interference while fixing these, so maybe you beat me to it.  --Zeamays (talk) 17:42, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I think Dekimasu should stop deleting everything. If he had let me add my "coronavirus life-cycle" section to this article then it would have been possible to add an explanation of the expected target of each antiviral treatment. Obviously explaining what is the main protease of Sars-Cov-2 and how several drugs are expected to inhibit it (without killing the patient) and why there is any chance that it works is not the purpose of coronavirus_disease_2019. Reuns (talk) 10:11, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Generally, drug research goes in the disease article, but vaccine research can go in the virus and/or disease article. Bondegezou (talk) 10:32, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Chloroquine phosphate has shown apparent efficacy in treatment of COVID-19 associated pneumonia in clinical studies
 * 1) REDIRECT [] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Radud55 (talk • contribs) 19:58, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Name of virus
Check the name. It's NOT Corona virus 19 because of the year 2019, it's #19 of many other viruses that are like it. Again it's not a year 2019 virus. It is #19 on a list of like viruses Kingofallclergy (talk) 03:32, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Kingofallclergy, the name of the disease (not virus) is based upon the year, not a list. See this WHO situation report that states "Following WHO best practices for naming of new human infectious diseases, which were developed in consultation and collaboration with the World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), WHO has named the disease COVID-19, short for “coronavirus disease 2019." Dekimasu よ! 03:44, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Is it possible to develop a vaccine for a biphasic virus?

 * Coronavirus infects woman in Japan for the second time, a first in the country
 * Is it possible to develop a vaccine for a biphasic virus? I thought vaccines just assisted in building a natural immunity... I think this question is very relevant to this article, plus the related outbreak article. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 09:56, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * There is no such thing as a biphasic virus. There are biphasic diseases of which there are many examples and efficacious vaccines.Graham Beards (talk) 10:09, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * OK. I was just quoting article: "I'm not certain that this is not bi-phasic, like anthrax,” [Philip Tierno Jr., professor of microbiology and pathology at NYU School of Medicine] said in regards to the disease being able to go away before reappearing." ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 10:22, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * It's not a reliable source, which is why we have WP:MEDRS.Graham Beards (talk) 10:55, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I wasn't adding it to the article, but thanks for your response. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 13:21, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is possible to develop the vaccine because people are capable to develop immunity to this virus, as a matter of fact. How good it will be is another question. There is an extremely important question about the rate of reinfection (obviously related to ability of humans to develop immunity to the virus). This question exists for all infectious diseases. Unfortunately, there are no reliable statistical data at this point. My very best wishes (talk) 16:33, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Proposal to rename page COVID-19 (Coronavirus disease)
Since this coronavirus disease has now been named COVID-19 (or, COVID-2019) by the WHO per: Perhaps we should rename this page: Enquire (talk) 00:06, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/technical-guidance/naming-the-coronavirus-disease-(covid-2019)-and-the-virus-that-causes-it
 * COVID-19 (Coronavirus disease)
 * This is probably the dumbest proposal that the talkpage has recieved so far. 1. This article is about the coronavirus, which is officially named "Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2" 2. the article for COVID 19 is already called "Coronavirus disease 2019" which is the long form of the name. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:10, 24 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose as this article uses the official virus name. Using the disease abbreviated name will just add confusion. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:22, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * ❌. This is the page on the virus strain, not the disease it causes. Coverage of the disease can be found at Coronavirus disease 2019. Dekimasu よ! 15:27, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Lab origin
Did the South China University of Technology say this came from wuhan virus lab, see Or this a continuation of a conspiracy theory that got pickup up in mainstream. Now that is mainstream WP:RS, we can at least cover the conspiracy theory on the article. Is Daily Mail RS? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 16:05, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:RSPSOURCES: "The Daily Mail was deprecated in the 2017 RfC, and the decision was reaffirmed in the 2019 RfC. There is consensus that the Daily Mail (including its online version, MailOnline) is generally unreliable, and its use as a reference is generally prohibited, especially when other more reliable sources exist. As a result, the Daily Mail should not be used for determining notability, nor should it be used as a source in articles." Dekimasu よ! 16:54, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks. Now understand it is not an RS. We do have coverage from multiple RS debunking the theory. Sufficient to cover it apparently. How are we treating debunking on other political articles? FT.com "Coronavirus was not genetically engineered in a Wuhan lab, says expert", nyt.com "Senator Tom Cotton Repeats Fringe Theory of Coronavirus Origins", foreignpolicy.com "The Wuhan Virus Is Not a Lab-Made Bioweapon", washingtontimes.com "Virus-hit Wuhan has two laboratories linked to Chinese bio-warfare program", washingtontimes.com "China denies lab link to coronavirus as questions over origin mount". Comments? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:35, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Per the same page I linked above, "There is consensus that The Washington Times is marginally reliable, and should be avoided when more reliable sources are available. The Washington Times is considered partisan for US politics, especially with regard to climate change and US race relations." WP:FRINGELEVEL says "Ideas that are of borderline or minimal notability may be mentioned in Wikipedia, but should not be given undue weight.... Fringe theories may be excluded from articles about scientific topics when the scientific community has ignored the ideas." I do not see any indication that scientists have treated this as a reasonable possibility, and the NYT article has "fringe" in its title. Per WP:UNDUE, "Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all.... For example, the article on the Earth does not directly mention modern support for the flat Earth concept, the view of a distinct (and minuscule) minority; to do so would give undue weight to it."
 * Given this, I believe the correct position at this time is not to include the conspiracy theory in the article at this time. Many people in many countries have said unfortunate things about the virus and disease, and it's possible that the US senator's statement would be suitable for inclusion in 2020 coronavirus outbreak in the United States or even Xenophobia and racism related to the 2019–20 coronavirus outbreak, but I do not believe this is a significant facet of actual discourse on this article's topic. Dekimasu よ! 05:49, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

There are many rumors and speculations here, including by serious people, but all we have now is rumors and speculation. Wikipedia should not help rumors spread, but wait until there is sufficient confirmation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pestilence Unchained (talk • contribs) 10:37, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

One or several zoonotic events
This article says the outbreak was "likely originating from a single infected animal." But 2019–20_coronavirus_outbreak says, "there was likely a continuous common source outbreak at the seafood market in December 2019, potentially from several zoonotic events." Should we alter both texts to show uncertainty in whether it was a single or multiple events? Or is there some more up-to-date scientific consensus on this? Bondegezou (talk) 10:27, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * There was only one source that I've seen (a study in China) that suggested multiple events, based upon modeling the number of infected and not based upon any genetic analysis. I don't think it is sufficient to override the previous consensus. In one of the adjacent articles I remember that it was written as though it were a fact, and I changed it to say that it was one theory, but I am not sure whether that text has been altered again. At any rate, I don't think changing the text here is necessary yet, although we could cite that study as the source of another theory. Dekimasu よ! 11:41, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Reservoir paper
This does a good job updating scenarios for likely source of the virus:

http://virological.org/t/the-proximal-origin-of-sars-cov-2/398 205.175.106.53 (talk) 02:21, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Discussion of a source.
Hello, on the article I quoted, it is said that:

The Xishuangbanna Tropical Botanical Garden of the Chinese Academy of Sciences told Red Star News at noon today (February 23) that the papers related to the research results have been submitted to the "pre-release" platform of scientific papers of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, but have not yet been published in official journals. The reason why the article is "pre-published" in advance is that the researchers believe that its content may play a role in finding the origin of the novel coronavirus and the epidemic situation for reference by the disease control and prevention department, and accept the exchange and discussion of experts and scholars.

According to the article, based on the patient's onset time records and the novel coronavirus population expansion time, it can prove the inference that the Huanan Seafood Market is not the source of the virus. The population expansion before January occurred on December 8. The results suggest that the virus may have started human-to-human transmission in early December or even late November, and then accelerated human-to-human transmission in the South China seafood market.

(Translation based on Google with some edit) It indicate it have been proven that the virus is not from the Huanan Seafood Market. C933103 (talk) 09:48, 25 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you for bringing this to talk. My Chinese is not good, as you can probably tell, but I have not seen any of the scientists making this claim: you have shown one article in Chinese and another in English that summarize the conclusions of the study. However, we also have the actual preprint article in English (link for other talk page readers), and the article in English doesn't say that it has been proven; and even if one study made this claim, I don't think we would be likely to simply state that it has been proven on the basis of a single preprint when we have other scientific sources that dispute the point. The preprint article, as I noted in my edit summary earlier, says "It is possible that SARS-CoV-2 in the Hua Nan market had been transmitted from other places or at least, that Hua Nan market did not host the original source of SARS-CoV-2." That is basically what we have in the article now: some form of "research has suggested that the virus may not have originated in the market." I do not see a benefit in altering the text to make the claim that the market has been excluded from consideration. Although the news sources are secondary sources and the preprint is a primary source, I think the preprint must be taken as more reliable in this case for the time being, where we are talking about a scientific context. Dekimasu よ! 10:46, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

The article should mention that the name Wuhan virus is discouraged by WHO
As seen in this official source, WHO discourages certain terms for naming diseases, such as geographic locations, as to avoid creating a stigma to that location. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.158.146.211 (talk) 10:34, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * This is in the first paragraph of the body of the article. Dekimasu よ! 03:00, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Update map caption
The map misleadingly states that Wuhan is the center of the only outbreak. Northern Italy and Iran (esp. Qom?) are also significant centers, and more are coming by all prognoses. --Haruo (talk) 02:56, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I suggested removing the map quite a long time ago, but that was opposed here. There were also a few geology-oriented editors adamant about changing the wording from "epicenter" to "center". While I didn't add "epicenter", I maintained that those words mean different things (one implies origin), and that "epicenter" was not substandard usage (it is used metaphorically to relate to disastrous events). I would still support removing the map entirely. As you can see in the section above, there are also editors around who are arguing that the origin was not Wuhan at all. Dekimasu よ! 03:04, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Request for Comment on table of coronavirus cases
Please participate in the RfC on a change to the table of coronavirus cases + deaths per country. Xenagoras (talk) 19:46, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

JHU page no longer tallying
I just updated the case numbers in the epidemiology section. However, the JHU source cited numbers do not match anymore with the main outbreak page. Total cases and deaths are less. Are we using different sources now for different pages ? Should we change the citation on this page? Gegu0284 (talk) 09:16, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for updating the numbers. It is still updating, and the numbers for China are the same, but it seems to be behind at the moment regarding Iran and South Korea (or maybe there is some double-counting going on that they have caught). I think we should keep doing what we are doing for now and see if this proves to be a significant issue. At the moment, I don't think it is. This page is more stable than the main page in most respects and I think that's something to be encouraged. Dekimasu よ! 14:29, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

New phylogenetic analysis out (COI)
https://www.imperial.ac.uk/mrc-global-infectious-disease-analysis/news--wuhan-coronavirus Report 5: Phylogenetic analysis of SARS-CoV-2 WHO Collaborating Centre for Infectious Disease Modelling MRC Centre for Global Infectious Disease Analysis Abdul Latif Jameel Institute for Disease and Emergency Analytics (J-IDEA) Imperial College London Erik Volz1, Marc Baguelin, Sangeeta Bhatia, Adhiratha Boonyasiri, Anne Cori, Zulma Cucunubá, Gina CuomoDannenburg, Christl A. Donnelly, Ilaria Dorigatti, Rich FitzJohn, Han Fu, Katy Gaythorpe, Azra Ghani, Arran Hamlet, Wes Hinsley, Natsuko Imai, Daniel Laydon, Gemma Nedjati-Gilani, Lucy Okell, Steven Riley, Sabine van Elsland, Haowei Wang, Yuanrong Wang, Xiaoyue Xi, Neil M. Ferguson https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial-college/medicine/sph/ide/gida-fellowships/Imperial-College---COVID-19---genetic-analysis-FINAL.pdf

COI - spouse is TFA, also I helped a tiny bit with figure 1 :)

Key points: Time of origin is early December ("We estimate the TMRCA to be on 5 December 2019 (95% CI: 6 November - 13 December 2019)"). Doubling time ~ 7 days, in line with several other previously published estimates. Estimates of the total number of infected from the limited data were still too unstable to be reliable. Mvolz (talk) 16:57, 15 February 2020 (UTC)


 * I think we are getting to the point where we are able to shift toward published sources rather than relying to a large extent on preprints. As far as the first key point, it is good that this is consistent with what we already have in the article. For the others, I'm not sure yet where they would be added, but are there plans for this to be published? Dekimasu よ! 06:12, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Coronavirus life cycle
Would anybody help for the redaction of a paragraph on the full life cycle of the virus ?

Reuns (talk) 03:36, 16 February 2020 (UTC)


 * A few comments: first, if any of this is to be added, it needs to be cited more precisely. And from what I can tell of the book that's being used to make the description, everything that's written applies to the older SARS-CoV strain. It's possible (or likely) that the new strain functions in the same way, but I don't think we can use this cite from years ago to explain the life cycle of the strain that was discovered recently. We need to avoid synthesizing information or adding original research. Maybe some of this would be more in place at the main Severe acute respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus article, after that is split, or at Coronavirus. Dekimasu よ! 08:09, 16 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I tried to follow your advice and I have rewritten everything, trying to remove all the Sars-specific stuffs and what I'm not sure about. It required a lot of work because it is far from being my specialty, since I was happy of the result I added it to the article. My goal was to introduce in simple words that highly mysterious part of the infection. Don't be afraid to correct what deserves to be. Also I think it would be worth adding a paragraph on the pathogenesis of such lung damaging coronavirus, the immune protection and response, what happens between two cells infection, how the infection evolves from one organ to the other, from the contagion to the viral clearance or death. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reuns (talk • contribs)

{{Quote frame|Updated version (refunded for discussion)

Coronavirus life cycle
Although the novel coronavirus appeared recently, its genome organization and life cycle is similar to Sars-Cov and other coronaviruses.

Cell receptor attachment and membrane fusion
The virus has a tiny lipid bilayer where the membrane (M), enveloppe (E) and spike (S) proteins are anchored. Inside there is the nucleocapsid, multiple copies of the (N) protein serving as a shell for the long one-strand (30000 nucleotides) RNA genome. The capsid, membrane and protein envelope make the virus resistant oustide and inside the body.

The main exposed active site is the (S) protein. Its receptor binding domain (RBD) recognizes and attaches to the ACE2 receptor (of lung epithelial cells). It is proposed that an interaction with the near TMPRSS2 protease does priming (cleavage and reorganization). The S proteins are now ready for membrane fusion, they insert a harpin into the cell lipid membrane and bending their spatial structure they achieve a merging of the viral and cell membrane. When overexpressed inside the infected cell the S protein may be secretored on the surface of the cell's membrane which will provoke a membrane fusion with the neighboring cells.

Release of the genome, recruitment of ribosome, translation of the replicase gene
The uncoated nucleocapsid passes into the cytoplasm where the viral genome is released. This genome is intepreted as a messenger RNA by the cell's ribosomes which effects in the translation of 2/3 of the genome into large overlapping polyproteins. They contain a few proteases which detach and cleave the polyproteins at various sites, obtaining about 15 proteins needed for cell hijacking and replication.

Replication
Among them there is the replicase complex containing various analogs of naturally occuring enzymes, among which there is a RNA polymerase which achieves from the full length genome (and the nucleotides dissolved in the cytosol) the synthesis of various size complementary (-)RNA followed by the transcription to the corresponding mRNAs. Occasionally the full-length negative then positive RNA strand is synthesized to become the genome of the new virions.

The various smaller mRNAs correspond to the last third of the virus genome and are translated (by ribosomes) mainly into the structural proteins that will become part of the numerous new virions.

Assembly of the virions inside the endoplasmic reticulum
Those transcriptions and protein expressions tend to be localized inside the endoplasmic reticulum. The proteins and the capsid move along the secretory pathway into the Golgi intermediate compartment. There, the M proteins direct most protein-protein interactions required for assembly of the virion.

Release of the virions through secretory vesicles exocytosis
}}


 * Hello Reuns, I appreciate your work on this and I want to point out that I do find it informative. I have been trying to figure out how to discuss things like the viral components in the article text, as opposed to simply mentioning them in figures. However, I still do not think this material is suitable for inclusion in the article at this time. It would be great if we had enough knowledge about this virus to be able to make clear statements about its life cycle with conviction, and I do agree with you that if we were able to do so it would be more than appropriate material for the article. However, this is still not cited to an extent that we can add it to the article. This is not because of any shortcomings in your writing or editing, but because no one has released reliable sources that specifically deal with the life cycle of this virus yet. In other words, it's not possible to verify that what you've written here is accurate, because the texts you're citing predate the advent of this virus. We can guess that the life cycle is the same as in other coronaviruses that were mentioned in those texts, but as I wrote above, we would be on more solid ground doing so in the article Coronavirus (or something similar) rather than here. We simply have to wait for the sources in order to add this type of information in order to avoid synthesizing things that aren't in the sources or engaging in our own original research. Dekimasu よ! 11:39, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Not just to Reuns, but to everyone: are there individual statements in research on SARS-CoV-2/2019-nCoV that can be used to support individual parts of the section? Dekimasu よ! 11:43, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Dekimasu Did you miss that my now main reference is treating coronaviruses all at once ? The only Sars-specific stuff is ACE2, TMPRSS2 and I sourced those parts. To be sure I'm not extrapolating anything you can take a look at the table 3 to 6 of supplementary material.pdf of this preprint which is merely telling (to experts) that in first approximation nCov is not different from Sars (which is why the phylogeny says nCov is in the Sars-related group and why they now chose the name Sars-Cov-2). The preprint is saying
 * In addition to these ORFs regions (ie. proteins) that are shared by all members of the subgenus Sarbecovirus, WHCV is similar to SARS-CoV in that it carries a predicted ORF8 gene (366 nt in length) located between the M and N ORF genes.
 * So I have a reference which is describing the life-cycle of every coronavirus, another one emphasizing what is Sars specific, and a preprint which is saying that nCov is similar to all other members of the Sars-related subgenus. Can you really expect to have more sources ? Reuns (talk) 12:41, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I see that you have added more sources. I can't go through the preprint at this moment. But as far as what you called the main reference above, it is from 2015. I still don't believe it is appropriate to be making precise statements about 2019-nCoV on the basis of sources from a time before it existed (there are clearly some differences between it and other coronaviruses, which is what makes it a different strain). In order to avoid synthesis, we need what's cited to be present explicitly in the cited texts. But as before, why not try to have something like this added at the article on Coronavirus rather than trying to make it apply to the more specific topic here? It's not that I expect you to find more sources in order to add this here, it is that I believe no adequate sources exist at this time because of the recency of the strain's emergence. (I think it would be helpful to hear from others on this topic.)
 * As a side matter, the individual statements in the addition would still need to be cited more precisely. I think the difficulty in doing so is one indication of the possibility that synthesis is still involved here.
 * I apologize if this response is inadequate, since I'm in a rush. I will try to write more or respond further later. Dekimasu よ! 14:07, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Well I can put it in another article (I'd say thisone, not coronavirus) but nobody will read it thus nobody will correct and improve it. Given it is a recent event we use the sources at disposal, and those that exist at this point indicate that the knowledge about coronavirus life-cycle applies to nCov (which is a coronavirus). I'm quite sure anyone reading the article knows that it is only a temporary synthesis about a recent event so that not everything is definitively reliable. Reuns (talk) 14:20, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry Reuns, I agree with Dekimasu. That "not everything is definitively reliable" is one reason why it cannot be added. And we cannot contravene our policies on WP:NOR and WP:SYNTH just because this is a newly emerged strain and there aren't many reliable sources. It might turn out to be true but at the moment it is speculation.Graham Beards (talk) 14:38, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * FWIW, Coronavirus has been viewed over 11 million times in the last month—much more than this article. Dekimasu よ! 15:59, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I see, you definitively don't understand the topic but you are willing to tell other people they cannot post their work.. What a pain for wikipedia ! THIS IS THE LIFE-CYCLE OF CORONAVIRUS, not of a specific virus strain, IT APPLIES TO EVERY CORONAVIRUS. Reuns (talk) 18:10, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * please there is no need to shout. Actually your text, which you have now posted on the SARS virus page, was riddled with errors which I have corrected there. It would not have lasted five minutes here. Please do not accuse other editors of ignorance. Graham Beards (talk) 19:37, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Information is generally posted to the page that most closely matches the scope of its applicability. Take Cat, for an example based upon life cycles. The information there is specific to cats. We do not explain the placental circulation system that applies to all mammals on the page for cats, even in the section on reproduction. If, as you have said, this "applies to every coronavirus", then it is not really within the scope of what needs to be covered in this particular article. Anyway, whether the description is a good synthesis or a bad synthesis, if it is synthesis, it is not suitable for inclusion. That is not my rule, but the community's policy. Dekimasu よ! 12:04, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * User talk:Graham Beards Glad to see you helped for improving. Not sure why you removed the harpin bending-structure explanation of membrane fusion, I have a reference for it. To me your "two polyproteins" in this edit is a mistake. As far as I understand, the full-length genome is translated directly into the replicase complex (two large polyproteins). Then the replicase complex (autocleaved by proteases) does the transcription, generating several copies of the full genome, plus several mRNA capped copies of pieces of the last 1/3 of the RNA (each mRNA comes from an identical minus strand, the book Coronaviruses has a detailed explanation of which of Cis-regulatory_element, pseudoknot, nucleic_acid_secondary_structure applies in the transcription of the RNA and the ribosomal frameshift, the quantities of each kind of strand, and if it is degraded by the cell's ribonuclease) mainly coding for the structural proteins of the progeny viruses. There are no "two polyproteins" in this step. Reuns (talk) 03:08, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, you are on the wrong page now I think. Graham Beards (talk) 12:03, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 14 February 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: page moved as proposed. – bradv  🍁  20:09, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

2019 novel coronavirus → Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 – This is the official name given by the WHO, and "novel coronavirus" was just a placeholder name until an official name could be determined. Now that the official name has been decided upon as "severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2", the article should be moved. Lutein678 (talk) 01:05, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per official name. robertsky (talk) 01:18, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Strong support with comment this RM similar with my requested move which involve all article with "Wuhan coronavirus outbreak" name. But i support for only single move request because per official name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 36.76.229.147 (talk) 02:07, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment There is a ongoing discussion whether to split Severe acute respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus into a SARS-CoV-1 article. If that is done, this should be SARS-CoV-2 for reciprocity. Sleath56 (talk) 04:57, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Evidence is required, still. More than simple supports and opposes, what is needed if the page is to be moved is evidence that fits WP:NAMECHANGES and doesn't simply rely upon the idea that one or another title is official. We do not necessarily change page titles because official titles have changed. Instead, we reflect how common usage has adapted after the official name changes. Without any evidence of common usage, it is unlikely that this has enough policy/guideline support to pass. Please provide evidence of usage in reliable, secondary sources if you would like to see this move go through (not primary sources like the WHO). What is being used in stories from the BBC, The New York Times, the South China Morning Post, etc. since the WHO changed the name officially? We follow sources, not precede them. Dekimasu よ! 05:08, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Support With caveat that there's an article out as of yesterday about how there's disagreement over this name in the science community which makes me more hesitant: It's unfortunate we've had so much trouble over naming for this one. (Both this article, and the scientific community at large!) Mvolz (talk)
 * Strong Support - there are no WP:COMMONNAME because there are multiple names being used to casually refer to the epidemic. Wikipedia is imposing a title onto society by picking names from the causal ones, whereas the official name has been "imposed" onto society anyway. Tsukide (talk) 07:45, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Speedy close. There was the same discussion three days ago on this page, involving this and other related articles, with no-consensus outcome. One cannot propose the same move requests again and again until they are accepted. --Ritchie92 (talk) 08:22, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I disagree that this is the same request. The structure and timing of the previous request were both suboptimal, and it is possible that we can achieve consensus for a new title in this discussion. I would like to ask for a temporary moratorium on move requests if that does not take place. (Note that the previous close is also under Move review due to objections that it should not have been closed early. I would say we should let one more go all the way through and get a real close for the first time since the introduction of a new "official" name.) Dekimasu よ! 09:28, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * This proposal is very likely to affect the "main" COVID-19 pages move proposals, presently under a de facto moratorium, but differs because it deals with a very specific restricted topic and a single article. A discussion on one specific, well-defined narrow topic is more likely to converge than one on a wider more complex topic. The present content of this move proposal is an example: we're presently close to WP:SNOW. Boud (talk) 21:23, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: Boud, I am confused. It looks like you support this name change, so why are you invoking WP:SNOW?  And when I look at the comments on here, it looks much more like a consensus to make the requested move. Please clarify. - Inkwzitv (talk) 03:03, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:SNOW: Hope this clarifies. But I'm an involved person, so it's not for me to close. Boud (talk) 10:52, 18 February 2020 (UTC)


 * I tell you to Oppose renaming the article to Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 because WP:COMMONNAME is applied to this article.36.76.229.147 (talk) 08:31, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment "Novel coronavirus" literally means 'new coronavirus' and is intended to be a placeholder name until the WHO reached a consensus regarding the official name. Now that it has been officially determined, the article should be moved.Lutein678 (talk) 09:45, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment - I support this comment basically. The COMMONNAME is basically "novel coronavirus" or "new coronavirus" or just "coronavirus" which is very stupid for an encyclopedia. Tsukide (talk) 09:55, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Again, we do not rely simply upon WP:OFFICIAL names. The uptake of the official name is important. As far as the possibility that the common name is "coronavirus", that would lead us to a variety of ways of disambiguating the title for precision since there are also other things called "coronavirus". One natural disambiguation for "coronavirus" is the current title. But this conversation can all be avoided if evidence is provided that the new names are being used in reliable, independent secondary sources. Dekimasu よ! 10:11, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment @Dekimasu, as I wrote in more detail below (18 Feb), I think WP:COMMONNAME is not applicable because this is a medical article (WP:NCMED). But here are more sources using the new short name (SARS-CoV-2) that include MIT Tech Review, Virological forum, NY Times, European CDC, BMJ, The Lancet, NIAID (maybe considered a primary vice secondary source?), and others using the new long name include MSU (university), Eureka Alert, Daily Mail, AsiaOne via GLOBENEWSWIRE, Chemical and Engineering News (shows both preliminary and new name). - Inkwzitv (talk) 03:03, 18 February 2020 (UTC)


 * No No evidence of widespread use in sources. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 11:37, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment - the previous RM was closed with the suggestion not to start new RMs until 20 Feb at the earliest and, although it was a non-admin closure, that moratorium was sound and should be honoured. An uninvolved admin should close this now. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 11:45, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * To be fair, that close is at WP:MR. Dekimasu よ! 12:05, 14 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Support - That is the official name of the virus. TheGreatSG&#39;rean (talk) 11:52, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. This is now the official name, and there is no generally accepted WP:COMMONNAME to use as an alternative. -- The Anome (talk) 12:24, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * There is evidence provided above that the "official name" is not generally recognized yet either, however. To posit that the official name should be used in the absence of a generally accepted common name requires that we recognize the authority of one particular body to establish an official name. In practice we may do this sometimes, but in theory we don't, so another type of argument might be preferable. Dekimasu よ! 12:27, 14 February 2020 (UTC)


 * WARNING For all administrator and editors, this request move, even with official name recognized by many institution, need to reach consensus to all English Wikipedia community because there are many aspect that the official name does not widely accepted by English Wikipedia community despite being accepted on other languages community. For this request move, please find evidence from many source around the world, including non-english source that use the official names like (SARS-CoV-2) because this RM require whole consensus to be reached by Wikipedia community, not just only plenty editors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.137.191.96 (talk) 14:02, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * No need to shout. Naming on the English Wikipedia is based upon usage in English language sources. That's the first sentence of Article titles. Dekimasu よ! 16:00, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Comment Shouldn't the name be "Severe acute respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus 2" This name change is really confusing as the disease it causes isn't techically Severe acute respiratory syndrome, but Coronavirus disease 2019. Is COVID-19 a temporary name? Will the disease be renamed into another form of SARS? I'm not really sure. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:55, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * My understanding is that "related" is not used precisely because this strain is not related to the syndrome. The sources do not use "related". Basically, "severe acute respiratory syndrome" is being emptied of its original meaning and applied to this strain. Dekimasu よ! 16:02, 14 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Strong support. If we cannot rely on International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses (ICTV) to designate the name of the virus, then WHO? *Ba dum tsss* — Hasdi Bravo &bull; 16:24, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * "Based on phylogeny, taxonomy and established practice, the [Coronavirus Study Group (CSG) of ICTV] formally recognizes this virus as a sister to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronaviruses (SARS-CoVs) of the species Severe acute respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus and designates it as severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)."
 * Support - the original move to 2019 novel coronavirus was a mistake since it was clearly a temporary name. I would have preferred another more common name - Wuhan coronavirus is clearly the more popular option according to Google Trends, but keeping a name that is already obsolete is worse. Hzh (talk) 18:29, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose This is not its official name, or rather, there is more than one official name out there. The name announced by WHO is Covid-19.Disease caused by the novel coronavirus officially has a name: Covid-19 and that is the name that was reported in news sources. Per the same source, it had been known provisionally as 2019-nCoV, and we have redirects from that name to this article. We should absolutely not use this cumbersome title, which I have seen virtually nowhere, and we should not change this article's title until science and coverage determine a generally accepted name. Set up redirects until the situation is clear, and keep this name for now. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:33, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * You misunderstood the news source, Covid-19 is the disease (Covid stands for coronavirus disease), SARS-CoV-2 is the name of the virus -. Hzh (talk) 18:40, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Exactly! This article from Science Magazine explains the confusion: the name you are proposing is the name of the VIRUS, not the name of the disease. The name of the disease, assigned by WHO, is COVID-19 Or Covid-19. That is the proper name for this article, which should be about the disease, not the virus. And that is the name that is starting to be used, and will be used, by reliable sources and eventually by us. See New York Times -- MelanieN (talk) 18:44, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * This proposal is about renaming the article about the virus, not the disease. The disease article is in 2019-nCoV acute respiratory disease, a different discussion to move is in the talkpage there. I'm not sure what your point is. Hzh (talk) 18:50, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake. I was under the impression that this was about the disease and discovered my mistake just now while looking to see how Wiki handles the names of similar diseases. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:53, 14 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Strong Support since now everyone uses it.--Njzjz (talk) 19:16, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Support on the basis of the official recommendation that has come into sustained use in online sources over the last several days. Boud (talk) 21:16, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Boud, can you show some examples? Dekimasu よ! 02:38, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * はい. New England Journal of Medicine - title ; The Conversation - ; Straits Times - ; Live Science ; (mostly paywalled 'Scrip Informa Pharma Intelligence' - title: ; Nature - . Boud (talk) 03:18, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * ありがとうございます. Thanks, this is very helpful. Do you think it's being used in a preponderance of current sources? Dekimasu よ! 04:13, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Support and IAR to close early consensus is to move to the "official" names. Unlike the related move discussion/RfC, this one has clear consensus. --Almaty (talk) 03:47, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per my previous discussion comments. BlackholeWA (talk) 04:08, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Support; Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 is the official name for this virus--that's a strong enough reason to why this page should be renamed as above  Rebestalic  [dubious—discuss]  04:57, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment because there seems to clear consensus about this RM, this time to close this RM and move that article into the official name, unlike the 11 Feb RM, which has no consensus because that RM involve all articles with "Wuhan coronavirus outbreak" name. For all articles which contain "Wuhan coronavirus outbreak" name such as Timeline, misinformation, Evacuations related to xxxx, these RM should be requested at the single talk page on Wuhan coronavirus outbreak talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.137.126.17 (talk) 05:04, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * We do not usually determine consensus for a move request in one day. This is considered a controversial request and is supposed to go for a week. I understand wanting to go faster, but one day is probably not a good idea. Not everyone edits Wikipedia every day, new evidence can be presented over the course of a discussion, and most importantly it is not clear that the discussion has run its course. In particular, the discussion here is still primarily characterized by comments that refer to an official name, which is not how we choose titles, so a move request closer would discount comments based upon that reasoning. See WP:RMCI and WP:OFFICIAL. Dekimasu よ! 05:12, 15 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Ladies and Gentlemen: This virus has at least three official names, so let's use some WP common sense to be constructive:
 * 1) Use the FIRST one - which is the most commonly known at the moment - for this article.
 * 2) Add a NAMEING section to the article, giving the dates and citations for when each one was introduced.
 * 3) Add an AKA section underneith the first name including the others.
 * This should cross reference all possible searches without umpteen disambiguation pages, explain the confusion to anyone interested, and give a fair airing for everyone's choice - unless you all want to open a DISCUSSION page as well! (IMHO "SARS-2" is confusing.) Cheers! Shir-El too  06:27, 15 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Support per nom. The current title doesn't really meet WP:COMMONNAME. We're talking about going from the official temporary name to the official permanent name. Bondegezou (talk) 11:06, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. Per WP:CONSISTENT with Severe acute respiratory syndrome and nom. –Wefk423 (talk) 12:56, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Strong support The originally name was a temporary name. Correct names should be used. Garo (talk) 14:10, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Support renaming to Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 as per ICTV. All other names are provisional. --Nessie (📥) 14:23, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Support, as I had similarly proposed in the previous move discussion, per WP:CONSISTENT and WP:NCMED. We have articles like SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV which do not use the abbreviations as the article titles so per WP:CONSISTENT, this should follow likewise. Secondly, WP:NCMED as a guideline advocates a move. LightKeyDarkBlade (talk) 17:07, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Support I was in the "support but wait" group when a similar RM was made a few days ago. Given the technical content, I think WP:RECOGNIZABILITY is a lower concern. 90% of non-medical readers are going to be looking for the content contained in the COVID-19 disease and outbreak topics. Those in the medical community will recognize SARS-CoV-2. We should keep the current name as an also known as in the lead. - Wikmoz (talk) 20:00, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. Why do we even have a discussion here? Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles clearly says that it should be named per WHO. $$\texttt{adamant}$$(talk/contribs) 19:16, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Strong support per nom and above. I don't see any reason to stick with its provisional name. I also invite everyone to participate with the discussion regarding the proposed split of Severe acute respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus into two more articles here. – hueman1 (talk)  21:10, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose We like official names. But proposed species name "SARS-CoV-2" has not been peer reviewed yet, and there is some dispute in the scientific literature on the species. Nor has the CDC yet recognized any non-provisional designation, and still refers to it as the "2019 novel coronavirus" in its most recent communications.  Renaming the widely-known "2019 novel coronavirus" to the tentative and incompletely adopted "Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2" will cause confusion.  Wikipedia should follow consensus from the rear, not set it. Wait for peer-review and consensus, then rename.— wing   gundam  22:12, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * (Also the Manual of Style (cited above) only defers to WHO or ICD-10 for disease names like COVID-19, not species names, as is this article.)— wing  gundam  22:12, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: Note that CDC has since taken on the new naming, as shown on the [above-cited page] as "Updated February 16, 2020" which says "this new virus (named SARS-CoV-2)". - Inkwzitv (talk) 01:09, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Strong Support Please read the full text of the CDC source you linked, not only the first line. The introduction explains the background of a novel (new) coronavirus that was first detected in Wuhan City, which is in the following text named SARS-COV2. The group responsible for naming it has named it Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 and everyone is in agreement that it is not considered the same species as Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus. LoveToLondon (talk) 23:27, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The string "2019 novel coronavirus" occurs only once in the present version of the US CDC link, and that's in the caption of the figure, not the main text; and the string "SARS-CoV2" (with the second hyphen missing) occurs four times. So the US CDC is switching to the formal name (it just didn't update the figure caption, and it missed the second hyphen). Boud (talk) 10:58, 16 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Support per above. Ythlev (talk) 03:49, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: an uninvolved admin should apply WP:SNOW - there is an overwhelming consensus here. Boud (talk) 10:58, 16 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Strong support Yes, per reasons stated TWICE. Do it. Do it naaawwwwwuuggghh!!! — Hasdi Bravo &bull; 15:06, 16 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Strong support Per others. Patriccck (talk) 17:58, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Support I was considering a snow close of this, but the instructions say I have a COI where previously I supported a future use of this name. So I will support use of the full name in this request. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:58, 17 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Support 2019 novel coronavirus is a placeholder name. We can't call it that forever, because at some point it won't be novel anymore. If we'll have to make the change at some point, why not do it now? YttriumShrew (talk) 8:29, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Strong support - Current name was a placeholder and moving to it was probably a mistake. We have a new name, the new name has caught in expert sources, and people referring to it shorthand as "coronavirus" in non-expert sources doesn't form a meaningful argument against (people refer to a lot of things that are the most newsworthy of their kind by such shorthand, e.g. "influenza" as "the flu" or "Donald Trump" as "Trump"). I'm not going to IAR myself, but I'd support it. Magic9mushroom (talk) 07:54, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Strong support - SARS-CoV-2 is the official name of the new virus. It must match the name given. TheGreatSG&#39;rean (talk) 09:11, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Strongly opposed - WHO is not a medical authority. First of all SARS-COV-2 is a teribble naming scheme for any scientific paper. Even within this comment section someone named it SARS-COV2, what is a coronavirus2? Wait for the medical community(phds releasing papers and the peer review process) before naming this. We have hardly any information outside of China as it is, let alone enough information to call it thi.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.164.174.47 (talk) 19:44, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment - Note that WHO did not name the virus; that was done by the Coronavirus Study Group (CSG) of the ICTV (as noted above). CSG is the international group that is "responsible for developing the official classification of viruses and taxa naming (taxonomy) of the Coronaviridae family". And Global Biodefense says: "For an outbreak of a new viral disease, there are three names to be decided: the disease, the virus and the species. The World Health Organization (WHO) is responsible for the first, expert virologists for the second, the ICTV for the third."  As also noted above, their paper naming SARS-CoV-2 hasn't been peer-reviewed, and I have no idea at what rate their chosen names make it through review. Other medical papers have no role in this naming function, to my understanding.- Inkwzitv (talk) 00:16, 18 February 2020 (UTC) You might also be interested to read the CSG article, which addresses why the name was chosen using "SARS" as a base but that they don't mean by that to indicate that this virus is connected to SARS at all.  That's a family name. It's way complicated.  And I await a better naming scheme from ICTV. - Inkwzitv (talk) 01:09, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Strong support - my reading of WP:NCMED is that WP:COMMONNAME doesn't apply, since this is a medically-related article. Since the organization tasked with choosing the name has chosen (CSG spoke) I don't think any of us gets a vote about it. (My only hesitation regards whether the CSG's paper's peer review will result in a change; I have no idea what their pass rate is. But even if it's changed, the scientific community for now seems to be taking on the new name without hesitation. I have not seen any scientific articles that dispute the name once CSG spoke on February 11, 2020. That's not to say I agree with the name but, as I said, I don't think we/I get to vote on the name, esp. since I'm not a virologist.) However, I am amused to note that ICTV is considering a change to "Binomial nomenclature for virus species", which might mean that all WP articles on viruses will be renamed in about a year, assuming their progress proceeds apace. Also (tho' this isn't the place to have this discussion) I wonder why the naming policy for articles with official names doesn't say such pages should start with a brief identification of alternative names, such as previous names, previous temporary names, common names, etc. - Inkwzitv (talk) 01:09, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * First, this is not an article on the disease (that's at 2019-nCoV acute respiratory disease), but an article on the virus, which arguably places it under the auspices of the Tree of Life project as much as under the Medicine project. Put another way, the top of WP:NCMED specifically says "This page delineates style guidelines for editing medical articles" but does not say how we should decide what articles are "medical". We don't move, say, Sesame to Sesamum indicum on this basis of some people being allergic to it. (Though a virus is neither fauna nor flora, I note WP:FAUNA: "Use the most common name when possible: Article titles are determined by the application of five criteria. The article title should usually consist of the name that is most common in English, following Article titles. For well known animals, this will normally be the vernacular name.") More to the point, WP:NCMED is a guideline and cannot supersede WP:AT, which is policy. I don't mean to demean WP:NCMED, but the only way in which WP:NCMED is material to this discussion is that reinforces the request in WP:AT that we use high-quality sources. To your last point, it's also dealt with at WP:AT: WP:OTHERNAMES, which (since this is about the text of the article, not the title itself) refers us to MOS:ALTNAME. Dekimasu よ! 03:19, 18 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment. Now that the SARS strain is at Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus, the WP:TITLECON criterion of WP:AT indicates that moving to the long form is probably warranted. It's possible that there is still a recognizability issue involved. Dekimasu よ! 04:11, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Redirects and a clear statement in the lead should be able to deal with that. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:32, 18 February 2020 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.