Talk:ChAdOx1

Medicine Low‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Viruses Low‑importance

	Viruses portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Viruses, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of viruses on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.VirusesWikipedia:WikiProject VirusesTemplate:WikiProject Virusesvirus articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This page was nominated for retargeting on 23 November 2020. The result of the discussion was accept draft.

ChAdOx2

@Alexcalamaro, Mazca, BDD, and Rich Farmbrough: As the same researchers who created ChAdOx1 have also created ChAdOx2 (see [1]), should this be included in the article (which would require a move). I'm not starting a formal RfM, because the title's sufficient for what is in the article at the moment. --Ted Edwards 18:11, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is way out of my subject expertise! Are there similar articles that cover multiple vectors? What would the title be? --BDD (talk) 18:40, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@TedEdwards:On a brief look it doesn't look like there's a huge amount of coverage of ChAdOx2 compared to ChAdOx1, there's basically that single proof-of-concept paper and a few other small bits. And while being a simian adenovirus vector from the same group, it doesn't seem to be directly developed from ChAdOx1, so I think it comes down to a few options:

Does ChAdOx2 deserve its own page, or does it maybe just deserve a mention at Adenoviridae#Vaccines?
If both are notable and there aren't any other related ones, is it best to rework this page into one perhaps just called ChAdOx and cover both?
or would a new page at Simian adenovirus vectors or similar to cover the general topic be better?

It's a strange area to decide on, because we don't actually have pages as yet on the more general terms, like chimpanzee adenovirus or adenovirus vector. I'd suggest work out exactly how much encyclopedic content you can actually pull out about ChAdOx2 and go from there. If it's a one sentence kind of thing, it can probably go in several places. ~ mazca ^talk 18:56, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd think leave it, unless and until there is sufficient material to establish notability (though it is significant enough to mention in a number of places). I share the preference for some information on ChAd itself, we have a goal of covering all known viruses. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 19:40, 9 December 2020 (UTC).[reply]

I agree that is a tough question. Maybe, ChAdOx2 don't have enough notability yet. A search in Google scholar for the title just give one result for ChAdOx2 v.s. around 40 for the ChAdOx1. So maybe, is no need to worry about the ChAdOx2 right now. Alexcalamaro (talk) 20:42, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]