Talk:SARS-related coronavirus/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Comments

who is the founder of SARS and his history — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.1.250.36 (talk • contribs) 10:37, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

That should be Prof. Malik Peiris - meaningless (talk) 14:44, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Delay before identification of virus

I remember that late in the SARS near-pandemic, the medias were still unsure on the exact cause of SARS; conflicting hypothesis were published in the newspapers, including co-infection with Chlamydophila pneumoniae and an unindentified virus. This was very confusing and stressful because people didn't know how to protect themselves. Even though the virus was formally identified on March 24 2003, it seems that the newspapers took a long time to properly inform the public. There was also a public inquiry in Canada because of the slow reaction by health officials.

Look at this reference: http://www.pulmonaryreviews.com/may03/pr_may03_causeSARS.html

And this one: http://www.sarscommission.ca/

And lastly: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,443226-2,00.html

Hugo Dufort (talk) 01:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikified

I've wikified the part of the article with the template, I'm leaving it up in case anyone can improve upon me. Cheers!

Neuro√Logic 12:53, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Section on Viral replication

As far as I can see this article's highly technical section Viral replication is generic for coronaviruses and just repeats information that is (or should be) presented at Coronavirus#Replication. I think this article should focus on SARS-CoV specific aspects.  --Lambiam 06:04, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

What's it with the dogs in the beginning of the article? i don't quite get it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.4.60.52 (talk) 14:11, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Evolution

This section need a review, as stated in Betacoronavirus#seqence, the synonyms are α-(group 1), β-(group 2), γ-(group 3), and δ-(group 4) CoV. As SARS-CoV is a Betacoronavirus, it if fact is a group 2 CoV. so what about the mentioned differences to group2 viruses??? --Ernsts (talk) 04:57, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Merge proposal

Discussion is being had at the move proposal on Talk:2019 novel coronavirus#Merge_proposal Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:46, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Update - the proposal is now closed, see full discussion at link above.Mvolz (talk) 09:28, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Proposed split

At present, this article mixes information about SARS-CoV-1 (the 2003 strain) and SARS-CoV species (the species of coronavirus widely found in bats and some other mammals, which has twice made a leap into humans). Now that the nCoV-2019 has been declared SARS-CoV-2, this doesn't seem tenable any more. I've created drafts of how the split articles might look:

Input and edits on these are welcome. Smurrayinchester 11:37, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

I support this split, for many of the same reasons why the 2019 novel coronavirus merge proposal was rejected. I have one reservation. It involves the choice of name, SARS-CoV-1. Are there sources supporting this choice of name? Of course, it seems reasonable, what with SARS-CoV-2 being "-2". However, it is not up to us to determine this. It's possible that the academic community has decided that "SARS-CoV" referrs unambiguously to the 2003 strain. Or maybe "SARS-CoV-A". Of course, I find these unlikely, but it is worthwhile finding a notable source using the term "SARS-CoV-1" before a wikipedia article is made with that as a title. 3fishes (talk) 16:43, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
This is a good point - re-reading the coronavirus group report they don't give the original SARS strain a different name. I can't see that lasting, but until then, perhaps the title will need to be Severe acute respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus (2003 strain) or similar instead. Smurrayinchester 09:10, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
Edit: We should be careful with consistency in naming as well, between "Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 1" and "Severe acute respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus 1". This now highly-cited preprint suggests that we should leave out the "-related" when referring to a particular strain. I hope that is simply an oversight on the part of the authors... (Amazing work on the drafts of the split, by the way) 3fishes (talk) 17:24, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Per above.--Officer781 (talk) 02:15, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support - I made a generic comment on the three major epidemic pages (outbreak, virus and disease) emphasizing my preference for official names to be used throughout the title names, hence I believe this should also use the official name as the title. The information specific to only the SARS-CoV-1 and SARS-CoV-2 should be moved to the respective articles, but some information that is valuable to the reader, including blurbs, should remain here. e.g. This SARS-CoV page should remain as a collective article about the multiple viruses, but two new articles for SARS-CoV-1 and SARS-CoV-2 should be created to cover more specific information. (If there is any slight difference in the official naming of SARS-CoV-1, for example it is just called SARS-CoV, then I will support the official naming disregarding the spelling I have used here). Tsukide (talk) 09:34, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Great work on the drafts - Ben was here 000 (talk) 14:39, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Concur with the others that those are great drafts, Kudos. Sleath56 (talk) 04:17, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support but I think the name of SARS-CoV-1 should be SARS-CoV (strain) or Severe acute respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus (strain), since I don't see anyone used SARS-CoV-1.--Njzjz (talk) 19:19, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Very strong support You can just performed split eventually. The drafts are great too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.137.126.17 (talk) 23:00, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support with comment Those are good drafts. However, the naming for the strain of virus should be rectified per WP:NCMED. In the preprint, the name of the virus (not the species) is given as "severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus" (SARS-CoV). There is no "-related" and neither is there a "1". The abbreviation is also not "SARS-CoV-1". The name of the virus should also not be italicised. On the other hand, the name of the species must not be spelled in an abbreviated form. Therefore, the name of the species should be "Severe acute respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus" (with no abbreviation), while the name of the virus should be either "Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus" or "SARS-CoV". LightKeyDarkBlade (talk) 17:35, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support, but evidence is still required. I just feel like someone won't agree with us, so we need to verify it. –hueman1 (talk) 21:19, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Split implemented Thanks everyone for the feedback. I've split the articles out, using LightKeyDarkBlade's title suggestions. Note that SARS-CoV is now a disambiguation page, but in the vast majority of cases, the correct new target will be the Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus page. Smurrayinchester 10:22, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Editing the Evolution and Morphology

Hello! I noticed that the sections for information about the morphology and evolution of the SARS-related coronavirus were lacking some information. I would like to update them with data from new studies. --Damankh (talk) 21:01, 13 February 2020 (UTC)Damankh

Hi. Welcome to wikipedia. Go ahead and update the relevant information. Just make sure to cite, at the end of the sentence or paragraph, the material that you add; and of course, do not plagiarize. Besides that you should be able to get help from your professor, whom you are paying big bucks, on how to get around. Lastly, follow wikipedia netiquette. --Guest2625 (talk) 07:09, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

"NCoV (SARS)" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect NCoV (SARS). Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 16:46, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 24 April 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: Withdrawn. No support and 5 clearly opposed after more than 24 hours. It is clear which way the wind is blowing. —BarrelProof (talk) 20:56, 25 April 2020 (UTC)


– More concise and more recognizable titles. Also, the current title of the first article contains an awkwardly located hyphen. —BarrelProof (talk) 18:48, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

As for the strain: Here, we [the Coronaviridae Study Group of ICTV] present an assessment of the genetic relatedness of the newly identified human coronavirus (Wu et al, 2020), provisionally named 2019-nCoV, to known coronaviruses, and detail the basis for (re)naming this virus severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), which will be used hereafter. I will follow however consensus evolves regarding virus article titles in the absence of a common name, but I doubt it will lead to "SARS coronavirus 2".
I tire of these name discussions, first at NPOVN, now here. We have but a fraction of discussions on the rapidly accumulating literature on virus mechanisms and structure (which takes time and knowledge to comb through, neither of which we have in great supply) and how to integrate that into the articles. Compounded with meatspace happenings, I can't help but feel dispirited at our skewed priorities. Well, I guess sometimes, we don't get what we want. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 00:19, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
  • I would like to point out some things: 1) the name used for the title of that discussion is "SARS-CoV-2 naming convention", which uses the abbreviated name since it is a more common name, and 2) very few people participated in that discussion, and 3) most of the comments in that discussion also used an abbreviated name, because it is a more WP:COMMONNAME. —BarrelProof (talk) 19:43, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Clarification: I simply request this discussion be closed. I'm not !voting at this time. What makes multiplying discussions more effective? Members of an active WikiProject are already working on this: Following the same reasoning we should ensure the full name is in the article title while SARS-CoV-2 is used everywhere else. --Gtoffoletto (talk) 19:21, 20 April 2020 (UTC) (emphasis mine). Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 19:55, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
I suggest that an RM is something much more visible to the Wikipedia community than the talk page of a disease-specific Wikiproject. I, for one, was not aware of that other discussion. —BarrelProof (talk) 20:03, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Now that you are aware, what's the benefit in splitting discussions and increasing visibility before we're ready with clear guidance? What's the harm in withdrawing now and returning later armed with more information? Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 21:38, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
The benefit is that an RM discussion solicits input from the broad Wikipedia community, and an obscure Talk page conversation does not. —BarrelProof (talk) 22:20, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Agree with speedy close. We are discussing adding the exact consensus item against this decision to avoid discussions like this one. The standard for viruses is to use the full name in the article title. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 22:05, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
The standard for viruses can be found at WP:COMMONNAME, actually. I don't see anything in that policy that says that long hard-to-recognize names are better than ones that are more commonly used. I am surprised to find some people very eager to shut down this discussion quickly and prevent broad participation. I also suggest that this edit might appear to be WP:CANVASSING. —BarrelProof (talk) 22:28, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep the full name. Abbreviations go in brackets afterwards. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:12, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep the full name (see previous discussion). SARS coronavirus is not the most common abbreviation anyway. The preferred abbreviations would be SARS-CoV or SARSr-CoV. --MarioGom (talk) 09:45, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
Also check discussion on previous related move requests: 14 February, 15 March. --MarioGom (talk) 09:51, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move 5 June 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Consensus to move (non-admin closure) buidhe 01:00, 19 June 2020 (UTC)


Severe acute respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus → Severe acute respiratory syndrome–related coronavirus – per MOS:SUFFIXDASH. —BarrelProof (talk) 01:35, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

  • Support, per MOS:SUFFIXDASH and, basically, per WP:CONSISTENT – if the rule is to use an en dash when one side of the compound is a complex construction, then do it for all such cases and don't make a strange one-off exception for this one. As long as any other-punctuation (and unpunctuated) variations redirect here, all is good. Even Severe-acute-respiratory-syndrome-related coronavirus should be a redir (while that looks atrocious, hyphenating every single part of a compound is a well-attested style found in several style books, so it is entirely plausible that various readers will try it).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:29, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:OFFICIALNAMES, WP:COMMONNAME, WP:CONSISTENT, and MOS:HYPHEN. The title of this article is not a preference over whether a hyphen or a dash should be used but is actually the official name of the species, which can be found here, so using a dash is essentially misspelling (mispunctuating?) the virus's name. The hyphenated spelling is also more common since dashes don't appear to be used much at all among experts, the only other common spelling being hyphenless (search PubMed). More broadly, there are currently 191 virus species that use a hyphen in their name and none that use a dash, so it is necessary to use the hyphen to be consistent in terms of viruses' scientific names (note that the related Middle East respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus also has a hyphen in its name). Also, even though scientific names are not specifically mentioned under MOS:HYPHEN, usage 1 listed states that personal names can use the hyphen and I imagine that the same logic used for that would apply for scientific names since both are official/correct. Velayinosu (talk) 01:09, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
    • I suspect that the medical literature also typically uses a hyphen for the Epstein–Barr virus and similar cases, but we have a consensus to use a dash for that on Wikipedia. Portfolio theory literature probably also typically uses a hyphen when discussing the Black–Scholes equation, and the locals probably also use a hyphen in the Dallas–Fort Worth metroplex area and in Minneapolis–Saint Paul. That is just the common practice among people who often don't notice the difference between the two characters or don't really care about small differences of that sort. Many people also don't know how to type an en dash, since it isn't on many keyboards. I remember when there were special rules about the capitalization of the common names of birds and butterflies on Wikipedia that were different from those about other topics, based on the idea that Wikipedia should follow specialist literature that tended more toward capital letters. This seems like a similar discussion. I don't know the history of the MOS:SUFFIXDASH guideline, but I tend to think that if we have a guideline, we should try to apply it consistently unless we have a pretty good rationale for a special circumstance. Redirects seem sufficient to avoid the difference becoming any real impediment. —BarrelProof (talk) 15:03, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
      • I stand by my oppose for the time being but I want to say that the Epstein-Barr virus may not be applicable in this discussion since that is a common name, not a species name. Epstein-Barr's scientific name is Human gammaherpesvirus 4. You also mention common names for birds and butterflies but this article's title is a scientific name. If there isn't clear guidance on how scientific names that include hyphens should be dealt with in article titles, then I think that that should be discussed before doing this move since it would affect many other articles as well (we can discuss this on the MOS talk page if you like). Also note that there are other types of hyphen usage for virus scientific names in addition to this one, like Escherichia virus KWBSE43-6, so multiple approaches might be used but that may cause consistency issues. Velayinosu (talk) 02:10, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong support, per all rules of grammar. The Chicago Manual of Style mentions this case specifically: "Chicago calls for an en dash rather than a hyphen to connect “related” to the four-word compound that precedes it in the species name."[1] The fact is not all formats use the en dash. For example, almost all newspapers simply use a hyphen. The reason: "The [Associated Press] has a tradition of avoiding computer functions that could garble when transmitted over a news wire, leaving the en dash out in the cold." [2] This rationale does not apply to other publications or to Wikipedia. All grammar authorities are in agreement that an en dash would be required here. While publications that do not use the hyphen may write "pre-World War II," that does not make it correct when an en dash is actually available. In fact, Wikipedia also specifically calls for its use: "pre–World War II." See Wikipedia:Manual of Style#MOS:PREFIXDASH. We should stay consistent (and correct). --Precision123 (talk) 18:52, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I have, probably temporarily, moved the page back to use a hyphen, because this fixed the taxobox error. The various moves of the SARS-related pages have messed up the taxoboxes. Please do not move pages without fixing the taxonomy templates; it causes taxobox errors. Articles should not be left with broken taxoboxes. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:33, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

I've asked at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Viruses#Names of SARS-related pages for someone who understands virus taxonomy better than I do to try to keep the article titles and the taxonomy templates in step. I just fix taxobox errors the best I can. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:40, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 January 2020 and 20 March 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Damankh.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 09:01, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:SARS-related_coronavirus/Archive_1&oldid=1186282948"