Talk:Variants of SARS-CoV-2

WHO citation "Tracking SARS-CoV-2 variants" [4]
In the main section of the article, citation 4 is listed as "failed verification" because its most recent listed accessed date is 2022 and the sentence citing the page lists a date in 2024. This WHO page (link) is updated frequently. At time of writing, the apparent most recent update was 15 April 2024, when an updated risk evaluation for JN.1 was added, and the page itself claims to be up to date as of 3 May 2024. What is the appropriate way to cite a single URL which updates frequently? 184.62.88.78 (talk) 20:24, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
 * will look--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:44, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Have a look at – which is a generic element with multiple versions. Currently it has two specific versions:
 * See cite Q for documentation on using cite Q. The generic Wikidata property should be added to the generic element such as Q127328768, and the property  should be added to the specific element representing a source of the page, such as Q127328911 or Q127328784. Boud (talk) 17:29, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * See cite Q for documentation on using cite Q. The generic Wikidata property should be added to the generic element such as Q127328768, and the property  should be added to the specific element representing a source of the page, such as Q127328911 or Q127328784. Boud (talk) 17:29, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * See cite Q for documentation on using cite Q. The generic Wikidata property should be added to the generic element such as Q127328768, and the property  should be added to the specific element representing a source of the page, such as Q127328911 or Q127328784. Boud (talk) 17:29, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

FLiRT
I'm somewhat reluctant to start a new section, but my source mentions this variant and doesn't say it began in 2023. If it didn't start in 2023, it must have started in 2024.— Vchimpanzee  •  talk  •  contributions  •  19:06, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * yes, 2024--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:14, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * This is in a 2024 section now. Dan Bloch (talk) 18:32, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Tang paper / Retraction watch
Retraction watch has flagged an erratum re the Tang paper. The authors write: "We now recognize that within the context of our study the term “aggressive” is misleading and should be replaced by a more precise term “a higher frequency”. In short, while we have shown that the two lineages naturally co-exist, we provided no evidence supporting any epidemiological conclusion regarding the virulence or pathogenicity of SARS-CoV-2..." My impression is that the elements of the retraction don't affect the words currently used in this article. Could this be checked by an expert? Yadsalohcin (talk) 08:44, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * thank you for post--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:13, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Omicron in lead section
The sentence in lead section "As of June 2024, only Omicron is designated as a circulating variant of concern by the World Health Organization." is incorrect. The website itself (updated on 5 June 2024) used as a source for this sentence doesn't list any circulating VoCs.

This WHO's statement from 16 March 2023 states "With these changes factored in, Alpha, Beta, Gamma, Delta as well as the Omicron parent lineage (B.1.1.529) are considered previously circulating VOCs."

Omicron's sublineages and their descendants were given separate labels such as VOI and VUM. KapSoule (talk) 11:33, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Boud (talk) 17:18, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Historical variant sections need re-factoring
As of the, we have three sections that are useful (especially since there is no point having all the descendants of Omicron listed in SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant, and nobody seems to be trying to add them there anyway), but don't quite make sense in terms of the overall structure of the article. They should be shifted to be either earlier or later than the three VOC, VOI, and VUM stand-alone sections, or be integrated into a single section: I'm not sure how these should be re-organised, but it seems to me that the main principle should be that we don't want a particular variant to be listed multiple times in detail in these sections - because then people won't know which entry is the main one to read or edit.
 * Variants of SARS-CoV-2
 * Variants of SARS-CoV-2 - which has a good table
 * Variants of SARS-CoV-2

My initial proposal is that integrating Variants of SARS-CoV-2 and Variants of SARS-CoV-2 into the three respective sections of Variants of SARS-CoV-2 would make the most sense, possibly addding one or two extra subsections e.g. for a table.

This is mainly a problem of lack of media attention to SARS-CoV-2 since 2021-ish: less media attention leads to less Wikipedia editing.

Please give any arguments for or against this proposal, or describe alternative proposals on how to reorganise these sections. Boud (talk) 18:33, 10 July 2024 (UTC)