Talk:SARS (disambiguation)

Removed intro material
I removed the spurious intro material about SARS (a.k.a SARS-1), which was unnecessary, confusing, and possibly no longer correct, IMO. Most of the same material already exists in the article severe acute respiratory syndrome. For reference, I've copied the deleted material below (with the citation disabled/converted to a comment):

- - - - - - -

SARS is severe acute respiratory syndrome, a viral respiratory disease of zoonotic origin caused by the SARS coronavirus (SARS-CoV). In 2017, Chinese scientists traced the virus through the intermediary of civets to cave-dwelling horseshoe bats in Yunnan province.

SARS became a concern in 2003 when an outbreak that began in China spread worldwide causing a global epidemic. The disease was contained and there have been no cases of SARS anywhere in the world since 2004.

Prevention
•Avoid touching your face.

•Wash your hands Before & After every meal.

•For a healthy person is there no need to wear a mask unless in a large gathering or visiting the infected.

•Infected people should wear a mask to prevent further spread of disease.

- - - - - -

Acwilson9 (talk) 18:44, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

MOSDAB
Before editing this dab, please see WP:MOSDAB, in particular: I restored the last good version, and attempted to reinsert the good edits since, then cleanup. Ping some of the editors User:Dekimasu User:Bagumba User:Acwilson9 Widefox ; talk 12:53, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
 * when to link using an acronym redirect and when not to:
 * for the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC - link using the acronym per MOS:PRIMARYTOPIC (see example "CIA") ✅
 * for the other (partially matching, but in this case useful entries) articles link using the acronym per MOS:DABREDIR
 * linking the article names ✅
 * Do not pipe entries per MOS:DABPIPE
 * Exception being for style ✅
 * Do not include other entries that are partial title matches
 * Exceptions being these currently included in the dab, which are entries are easily ambiguous and could easily have been named or thought of as SARS2 etc despite not actually being named as such, so technically fail WP:PTM ✅
 * As User:Dekimasu pointed out, the COVID-19 entry isn't known solely as "SARS" (per WP:PTM). Expanding on the (above) justification, however, it could easily have been called "SARS2" (following SARS-CoV -> SARS-CoV-2) and all these are ambiguous enough for inclusion anyhow, despite official naming COVID-19. There is ample precedent that follow up articles (film, film2, film3 etc) are included in dab "film" (usually as a subordinate entry). A second strain of the same species with a somewhat ambiguous name fits that precedent. We could subordinate it, not that that's much more useful in this case as it's not evolved from it. ✅
 * There is no risk of mistaking COVID-19 for "SARS", though. It isn't that it's not "solely known as 'SARS'", it's never known as SARS, or as the SARS2 title proposed here. It's not a partial title match, either: no words or parts of the acronym overlap. WP:PTM says not to add the entry to the page "where there is no significant risk of confusion", and that is the case for COVID-19. Dekimasu よ! 12:53, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
 * That argument seems to be binary. zero risk. (as an aside, nobody is proposing SARS2 as a title) Yes it fails the letter of inclusion per MOSDAB, which is why I justified it above.
 * Quite simply, the difference between the virus and the disease is ambiguous, which is why all these articles have hatnotes, and as all but one have similar names, they are even more ambiguous than HIV vs AIDS (note it's at HIV/AIDS).
 * The same absolute argument could be made about any of the viruses never being known solely as "SARS". To see what other editors consider in this area...SARS2 has a hatnote to the virus, SARS-2 redirects to the virus. It's clear from ICTV/WHO official naming of "COVID-19" that they actively promoting not using the term "SARS" even by not referring to the virus as "SARS-CoV-2" but instead “the virus responsible for COVID-19” or “the COVID-19 virus” . It is implicit from that avoidance of using the correct terms even from the body deciding on the name, that disambiguating "SARS" for readers is important.
 * In the same way as Snake flu is an incorrect name, these are useful ways for readers to navigate to the topic
 * Please see the above or MOSDAB, as not piping entries and relaxing the ambiguity to allow useful sub items  is common on dabs (although the latter isn't documented at MOSDAB).  Widefox ; talk 10:47, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I do know how WP:MOS-DAB works. In fact, I was helping run WP:DPL over 10 years ago. As you noted, rules don't have to be followed in all cases. It seems clear that we have different ideas about when and where they should be followed more closely. By the way, the WHO is not the body that decided on the name "SARS-CoV-2"; that is ICTV alone. They had already chosen the term "COVID-19" for the disease before the ICTV released their "SARS-CoV-2" determination, and ICTV does always use "SARS-CoV-2". One of the reasons I know that is because I wrote a good deal of the article on the virus, and was very involved in how it got its name and redirects, including on the day the names were chosen; and because I created the article now located at Coronavirus disease 2019. And before February 2020, there were many instances of the SARS-CoV virus simply being referred to as "SARS"; the SARSr-CoV article didn't exist then either, so there was little ambiguity involved. I highly doubt that anyone will get to this disambiguation page looking for COVID-19, but note that I did not bother to remove the link to COVID-19 when I commented here. Dekimasu よ! 02:32, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * That doesn't address the piping of entries or why having dab entries which are the same as hatnotes seem prudent to me (and the editors who put the hatnotes on). Helping users to navigate to, what I'm guessing is a highly read article right now, is in my opinion useful. Yes I agree in terms of actual navigation, users are likely to navigate via the primary topic anyhow, but that logic would remove all the related topics covered in the primary topic, which we don't normally do on dabs. I just don't see how it's useful for readers to remove probably the most read of those topics right now. That's a slight WP:RECENTISM argument but considering, I'm good with that. Would you really want to remove it currently? (WP:RELATED is a can of worms IMHO). An WP:SIA or List may be in order for the viruses, but that's outside my scope. Widefox ; talk 21:56, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with not piping the links—I should have revised the links in a better way when I came across the page a month ago, but my original goal was to avoid the accumulation of bad links using the string "SARS coronavirus 2". I never objected to the changes that removed link piping. Right now, the only thing I take issue with is the inclusion of COVID-19. Yes, I believe it should be removed currently. As above, I highly doubt that anyone will get to this disambiguation page looking for COVID-19. Even if it were a possibility, COVID-19 is already linked in the header of SARS, so anyone trying to get to that page should never end up at the dab. Dekimasu よ! 11:01, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Mers (disambiguation) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 21:48, 26 April 2020 (UTC)