Langbahn Team – Weltmeisterschaft

Talk:Coronavirus: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
SineBot (talk | contribs)
Bots
2,555,848 edits
m Signing comment by 92.244.64.132 - "→Semi-protected edit request on 9 March 2020: new section"
LuK3 (talk | contribs)
Oversighters, Administrators
94,920 edits
Reverted to revision 944698557 by Esowteric (talk): Rvv (TW)
Tag: Undo
Line 305: Line 305:
Please add {{wikiquotes}} to links... [[User:Will-SeymoreIII|Will-SeymoreIII]] ([[User talk:Will-SeymoreIII|talk]]) 22:26, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
Please add {{wikiquotes}} to links... [[User:Will-SeymoreIII|Will-SeymoreIII]] ([[User talk:Will-SeymoreIII|talk]]) 22:26, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
:[[File:Red question icon with gradient background.svg|20px|link=|alt=]] '''Not done:''' it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources|reliable source]] if appropriate.<!-- Template:ESp --> [[User talk:Melmann|Melmann]] 23:22, 8 March 2020 (UTC) one more simtom is turnig green
:[[File:Red question icon with gradient background.svg|20px|link=|alt=]] '''Not done:''' it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources|reliable source]] if appropriate.<!-- Template:ESp --> [[User talk:Melmann|Melmann]] 23:22, 8 March 2020 (UTC) one more simtom is turnig green

== Semi-protected edit request on 9 March 2020 ==

Jooooooo sub to GizmoGamer on YT. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/92.244.64.132|92.244.64.132]] ([[User talk:92.244.64.132#top|talk]]) 12:23, 9 March 2020 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

Revision as of 14:11, 9 March 2020

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 January 2020 and 10 May 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Iamqtpi (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Meliboo21.

Template:Older med refs

Semi-protected edit request on 6 February 2020

Please add the following official mortality estimates after the paragraph ending "The virus has a 96% percent similarity to a bat coronavirus, so an origin in bats is widely suspected.[50][51]": 

Preliminary research has yielded mortality rates of 2.9% and 14.6%.[1][2] The WHO has suggested that the case fatality rate is approximately 3%.[3]

References

  1. ^ "Wuhan Coronavirus Death Rate - Worldometer". www.worldometers.info. Archived from the original on 31 January 2020. Retrieved 2020-02-02.
  2. ^ Wang, Chen; Horby, Peter W; Hayden, Frederick G; Gao, George F (2020-01-24). "A novel coronavirus outbreak of global health concern". The Lancet: S0140673620301859. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30185-9. PMID 31986257. Archived from the original on 2 February 2020. Retrieved 2 February 2020.
  3. ^ "WHOが"致死率３％程度" 専門家「今後 注意が必要」". NHK. 24 January 2020. Archived from the original on 26 January 2020. Retrieved 3 February 2020.

Thank you. 31.4.130.12 (talk) 16:47, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done This seems to be outdated information. Current mortality rate estimates are closer to 2%. Ruslik_Zero 20:19, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What is your source for 2% mortality rate? If it is a reliable source, we could cite that. (But your 2% sounds outdated to me - about 600 people have died and 1200 have recovered, so mortality could theoretically be as high as 33 percent). 31.4.159.113 (talk) 20:35, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. World Health Organization's latest situation report supports the 2% figure. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:22, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have just read your WHO link. It does not contain any mortality estimate, much less a 2% mortality rate. You must have confused links - please provide the correct source. As for my source, it is The Lancet, "It is among the world's oldest, most prestigious, and best known general medical journals" (Wikipedia). 31.4.130.55 (talk) 21:36, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Lancet is a RS, certainly. That doesn't mean every Lancet article is automatically acceptable. It's even more important here where you have misread the article. It refers to a 2.9% mortality in one defined cohort that the authors studied. As to the WHO report, just look at the table of confirmed cases and confirmed deaths. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:37, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You write "As to the WHO report, just look at the table of confirmed cases and confirmed deaths." I have looked. No mortality rate. (I sincerely hope you are not implying that you would simply divide the number deaths by the number of confirmed cases to arrive at a mortality rate. Or are you implying exactly that?). What is wrong with citing the Lancet cohort? Their mortality value has now been confirmed just a few hours ago in another WHO report.31.4.131.66 (talk) 20:08, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please, do not reinstate the template. You request has been answered. You may be blocked if you continue to do this. Ruslik_Zero 12:48, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ruslik, your unqualified criticism against The Lancet is morally irresponsible given that hundreds of people have died and are now dying because of the state-sponosored suppression of medical expertise in Wuhan in January. You should be blocked until you mend your ways. 31.4.128.50 (talk) 13:37, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deaths

Deaths should be updated because the infection count is much higher than what is displayed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dannelsluc (talk • contribs) 15:00, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 February 2020

50.237.188.174 (talk) 18:11, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Declined. The subject does not exist. Graham Beards (talk) 18:16, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Another merge proposal (sorry)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Mikael Häggström went ahead and WP:BOLDly performed the merge, so Orthocoronavirinae now redirects here. Thanks all for your comments. Sorry for the somewhat-disruptive series of discussions. Several participants had suggested revisiting this after the outbreak dies down and there's less attention on this article, so another discussion on article title may come eventually. Happy editing! Ajpolino (talk) 16:59, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not to be obnoxious, but here's a second merger proposal based on the closing comment above. I propose we merge this article into Coronavirus. They are both about the same topic (coronaviruses, which is what people call viruses in the subfamily Orthocoronavirinae). The page at coronavirus is better-developed and is probably by far the common name, so I suggest we use that as the title for the merged page. Regardless of the title though, these two pages seem to be about the exact same group of viruses. So having two pages seems unecessarily confusing. Thoughts? Ajpolino (talk) 23:41, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ajpolino: This has been proposed on the wrong talk page, as merger discussions are held on the merged to page, I have moved the discussion to Talk:Coronavirus Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:52, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. For those who missed it, background reading is at Talk:Orthocoronavirinae, where this was originally posted. Ajpolino (talk) 23:55, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have also added mergto and mergefrom templates to the respective pages, which will hopefully generate comments from people not party to the previous discussion. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:57, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest we wait until the outbreak is over and the world calms down. A merger discussion at this time will not be helpful. (I don't care where we have the discussion). Graham Beards (talk) 23:58, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Graham Beards: it's different from last time as the google SOS altert has caused traffic to this article to plunge to less than 200,000 daily views from nearly a million a day at its height. Once this issue is over the article won't have much traffic and there will be few people to participate in the discussion. Much name changing and splitting has gone on over at the 2019-nCoV and outbreak related articles despite it still going on, From your editing history and user page I get a sense that you have extensive expertise on viruses, can you formally state your reason of opposition to the merger on taxonomic grounds? Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:04, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that having discussions on where to put Wikipedia's content on this group of viruses with a very large group of people who are looking for medical information on a particular virus strain is going to generate elucidation. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:10, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The problem with merging Orthocoronavirinae into coronavirus is that the obvious place for the taxonomy (which is of no interest to the average reader hitting coronavirus right now) is up front. This would make it more difficult for the average reader to find the content that they are interested in. (For example I've noticed complaints on the talk page of the outbreak page about the difficulty of reading that article because of the reference citations at the end of sentences and also that the organisation of the page makes the interesting information hard to find.) Given the length of the main article, I don't see any reason in principle why we should not have several articles on the topic, as long as the scope of each remains clear, and they link to each other in ways that make navigation obvious. I also think now -- when the coronavirus article is receiving 150k to nearly a million daily hits and many daily edits -- is not a good time to perform any kind of merge. ETA I'd also state that moving the discussion after pinging a long list of people is bound to generate confusion! Additionally I don't think having merge discussion templates at the moment is a good idea. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:06, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • (edit conflict) I am in total agreement with Espresso. I didn't say I was opposed. Second, I don't oppose based on taxonomy. It's the timing I object to. Graham Beards (talk) 00:15, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree that the templates aren't helpful right now (the overwhelming majority of people coming to read this article right now don't care what we're doing with the Orthocoronavirinae page). And there's no reason to change the lead of Coronavirus to complete this "merge". Basically all the material in Orthocoronavirinae is already here at Coronavirus. We could just use the text in the lead of Orthocoronavirinae to improve the taxonomy section here, and then change Orthocoronavirinae to redirect here. Ajpolino (talk) 00:16, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Previously I had agreed to the merge, after looking deeper into the subject I don't believe now is the time. Flalf (talk) 00:33, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What is the purpose to our readers? I've seen several proposals on the talk page about adding a section on advice on avoiding infection, washing hands etc. This is stuff that is better left to the WHO and CDC websites and wholly not appropriate for an encyclopedia. This article primarily exists to technically describe Coronaviruses, their structure, mechanisms of infection and taxonomy. This article is currently on the second page of google search results for "Coronavirus" and the google snippet for this article no longer shows up, so the traffic has reduced 80% from peak. If people want to know how to avoid infection then they can read WHO, CDC or many news sources on the topic. As for the templates, they are necessary so that other people who weren't involved in the previous discussion participate, ideally we want at least two dozen contributors. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:21, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No you are wrong. Take a look at Rotavirus, which is a Featured Article and has been published in a peer reviewed journal. I say calm down. And where on earth have you got the idea that we need 24 contributors? Graham Beards (talk) 00:28, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And now you have started edit warring!! Graham Beards (talk) 00:32, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop removing and replacing the template. Pick one. Flalf (talk) 00:35, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I was wrong about the hygiene section, for which I apologise I actually think it's a good idea in retrospect. Rotavirus is a viral genus though, and there aren't any separate articles for individual species if that makes a difference. Is there specific advice about the stucture of a virus article differs based on taxonomic rank? Whether that be a species, genus sub/family etc.? 2019 novel coronavirus has no section discussing hygiene at all, perhaps @Dekimasu: can elaborate?. Two dozen was maybe a tad excessive, but I want contributions other than from those who were pinged from last time. I replaced the template as it only seemed to be Graham's opinion to remove it, and a Merge template is standard per WP:MERGE I see no reason to remove it without broad concensus of contributors. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:43, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It should be clear in no way am I trying to denigrate Dr. Beards, I have enormous respect for his expertise and contributions to Wikipedia on this topic, and I apologise if I have come off rude or aggressive. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:54, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No apology is necessary at all. I admire your passion. You have not been rude or aggressive; just standing your ground, which is admirable. Graham Beards (talk) 01:02, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Rotavirus is also a common name (as is coronavirus). Rotavirus is also the name of a genus which coronavirus isn't. It wasn't just my thinking that the template should go, but I was probably a little hasty in removing it. Now, the guys at WP:MED like to keep the "virus" and the diseases they cause as separate articles. Whereas virologists, like me, think that the diseases should be included in an article about the viruses. We have never resolved this but are happy to compromise where we can. This is how the article splitting you refer to has probably come to pass. I have deja vu. This all happened with MERS and SARS. It is impossible for us to resolve this problem in the height of an outbreak. Let's just stick with our separate articles for the time being, shake hands and be friends. Graham Beards (talk) 00:59, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, I hadn't really considered the distinction between virus and disease articles, upon reflection I agree with your position that the article on the disease and the virus should generally be one and the same, as they are so intimately linked as to be inseparable. My own reasons in favor of the merger comes from my experience of animal taxonomy, as it would be strange to to have separate articles on Birds and Class:Aves for instance, but I appreciate it might be different for viruses. I agree that that this discussion can be left to lie for now. I was wondering what the opionion would be of importing all of the known coronavirus species from the Orthocoronavirinae article into the Coronavirus article taxonomy section, as the current coverage of animal coronaviruses seems somewhat arbitrary. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:16, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
[Edit conflict: response to Graham Beards] The medical project style and sourcing rules are so different from the rest of the encyclopedia, and in particular the tree of life articles, that it makes sense to keep disease and virus articles separate, in my opinion. There's a big problem where there are viruses that can cause human disease but more commonly infect non-human animals, see for example Nipah virus infection where a member of the medical project opposed adding "human" and "zoonosis" to the lead despite the fact that Nipah henipavirus redirects there. In the end the only answer I can see is to develop separate content in the hope of serving the different information needs of our readers. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:21, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. But take a look at Rotavirus and Rotaviral enteritis, which is a failed attempt at compromise in my view. Perhaps we can discuss this elsewhere? It needs to be resolved. Graham Beards (talk) 01:29, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Here isn't the place, I agree. I was planning to raise a query at the virus project talk page on the nipah virus question, but forgot. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:35, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe bring it up at Tree of Life. Having separate articles for a disease and its etiological agent(s) isn't unique to viruses; that also applies to fungal and bacterial pathogens and even animals (e.g. dracunculiasis/Dracunculus medinensis). If the concern is more about the anthropocentricity of articles claimed by WikiProject Medicine, that goes beyond diseases and into anatomy, behavior and other fields, and should certainly be discussed in a larger forum. Plantdrew (talk) 23:10, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry @Graham Beards and Espresso Addict: I'm not sure I follow the above conversation. I'm not proposing we merge a disease article with a virus article. It is my understanding that we currently have two articles on precisely the same topic at different locations. They are both about the virus. Coronavirus is the common name for Orthocoronavirinae. Right now Coronavirus seems like a decent article on coronaviruses, while Orthocoronavirinae seems like a list of sub-taxa that comprise coronaviruses. More-or-less the same list is already at Coronavirus#Taxonomy. So I'd suggest we just have one page title "Coronavirus" for the topic. Am I misunderstanding something? Ajpolino (talk) 01:44, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge to Orthocornavirinae and make coronavirus a disambiguation page? Not a great solution, and definitely driven by current events. But, the massive numbers of readers arriving here currently aren't looking for this article (some page view stats); I don't see that the small number of readers who do want this article would be especially inconvenienced by having the title as the current scientific name. Most of the incoming links to coronavirus come from navigational templates, but those which are direct links are mostly incorrect and should be changed to a more specific article; "coronavirus" is a title that will continue to attract bad links. It's telling that Google isn't displaying a knowledge graph for coronavirus; I assume there was one 6 weeks ago, and a decision was made to remove it because it didn't represent the topic that most people were searching for.
  • Wait on MergeThis current article, coronavirus, needs work. The current Orthocornavirinae is well sourced and free of much of the content in this article. This article here is reading more like a newspaper article. Graham Beards had the idea to wait on any merger proposal until after this current outbreak has settled. I think that is wise advice and believe it would be best at this time to follow it. When we do merge the two, moving this article over to Orthocornavirinae might be best.Bodding (talk) 00:50, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Orthocoronavirinae to Coronavirus. Coronavirus is the wp:Common name. A detailed taxonomy list can be found in Coronaviridae. Mikael Häggström (talk) 08:28, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Coronavirus into Orthocoronavirinae and prominently state, that Coronavirus is the common name for both Orthocoronavirinae subfamily and Coronaviridae family. Alternatively, have a disambiguation page for Coronavirus. Keeping two pages for the same taxonomic level is really confusing though. — 89.206.116.134 (talk) 13:03, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Latin???

"The name "coronavirus" is derived from the Latin corona" it is not... "A corona (meaning 'crown' in Latin derived from Ancient Greek 'κορώνη' (korōnè, “garland, wreath”)) " So many people look at it but nobody cares about the misinformation. Please change it into Greek since it is (like so many more words) Latinized. It ultimately derives from (ancient) Greek. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Einserschüler (talk • contribs) 00:45, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is literally derived from Latin. "corona" is a Latin word. That it was in turn derived from Greek doesn't mean it didn't come from Latin. -- 65.94.171.6 (talk) 08:18, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So why not say it was French or German? Because it probably came from there before it became English. What you are saying makes no sense. It is a Greek word. It is borrowed, not stolen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A0A:A546:1130:0:647A:4305:861F:264C (talk) 21:20, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wow... it has been 17 days since the request and it is still not fixed... Wake up please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A0A:A546:8202:0:ADB9:A3C4:AC1E:61E (talk) 18:28, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Still??? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corona 2A0A:A546:A3CD:0:C4C2:AB17:D096:59FE (talk) 00:50, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you were to provide a reliable source more notice would be taken of your comment. And please do not tell Wikipedia volunteers to "wake up". They are not your servants.Graham Beards (talk) 08:12, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I did not say nor think they are my servants but if they do a job they should at least do it right and not spread misinformation (or in this case incomplete information). People editing chose to serve Wikipedia and thus the truth. As I see it they are serving everyone for free including themselves [in case they forget something they know where to look ;)]. In an article that is edited and viewed so often these days, even though the request is nothing major (Latin for large), it should have been corrected by now. The article was correct once (Revision as of 11:15, 9 February 2012) but was changed without statement by Platanoverde. So wikipedia itself is not a reliable source? Call it Swahili if you want. Here a hopefully "reliable" source for the ones accidently reading the talk page on the unreliable Wikipedia: https://www.dictionary.com/browse/corona.
Jeez, "from the Latin" is fine. Otherwise, where will it end? "from the Proto-Indo-European"? Esowteric+Talk 11:13, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You mean start... If it aims to be the most complete encyclopedia in the world, why not? Is it so difficult to create a subcategory called etymology like it has been done in so many other articles? Proto-Indo-European > Ancient Greek > Latin > English. <-Here you go, easy to copy paste.
Arrogance and pomposity are never helpful. Why haven't you edited the article yourself? Can't be arsed? It's taken you much longer to write this diatribe. No-one is going to act on your advice until to control your obnoxious attitude. And please remember to sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~) Graham Beards (talk) 10:09, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Graham it's an ip user, and the article is semi protected which is why they are confined to pedantic whinging in this thread, as well as why they aren't signing their name. As to the ip user, nobody reading this article cares about the precise etymology and derivation of the term corona, that's best left for Wiktionary another syemtom is turnig green
"nobody reading this article cares about the precise etymology and derivation of the term corona" Then why not remove it completely instead of leaving it partially correct? Ok that does it. Time to leave Wikipedia and put it in the pile of unreliable sources like Graham said.Einserschüler (talk) 08:02, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What does the attitude in the Talk section matter when the aim is to have neutral and correct data in the article?Einserschüler (talk) 08:02, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
. Hemiauchenia (talk) 10:19, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the heads up.Graham Beards (talk) 10:24, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 February 2020

The first outbreak of the Coronavirus was detected in 2018, by the CDC studying the virus in perpetration of it arrival within the U.S.

Source: https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2020/p0121-novel-coronavirus-travel-case.html – Bobbybarz (talk) 23:22, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have fixed the formatting of your request. Welcome to Wikipedia!
 Not done. I do not see any mention of 2018 in that source. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:37, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 February 2020

I think I could edit this because I have insight that scientists have a averge wait time for a cure to the coronavirus in 18-17 months and are worldly investing and invertegating in the subjectIlinoisMilionares (talk) 23:48, 13 February 2020 (UTC)IlinoisMilionares IlinoisMilionares (talk) 23:48, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's not clear what edit you want made. You can suggest edits here on this talk page on the form "Please change X to Y" citing reliable sources. – Thjarkur (talk) 23:57, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 February 2020

Can you mention that the outbreak started in November 2019 when someone hunted for dog in rural China somewhere?47.16.99.72 (talk) 00:36, 15 February 2020 (UTC) Sorry,it was “add X”format I cannot find a Y though00:36, 15 February 2020 (UTC) 47.16.99.72 (talk) 00:36, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 00:41, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request

The "Overview of Outbreaks" table is wrong, the link to the MERS virus instead links to the disease article. Where the table links to MERS in the virus column, it should instead link to MERS-CoV, just as the SARS outbreak links to SARS-CoV under the virus column. -- 65.94.171.6 (talk) 05:29, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Someone updated the table -- 65.94.171.6 (talk) 07:46, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Update REPLACE protected

In 2019, an outbreak of the coronavirus began in Wuhan, China, IN THE leaed REPLACE with either In 2019, a human outbreak of a coronavirus began in Wuhan, China, OR In 2019, a human outbreak of the Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) coronavirus began in Wuhan, China, ALSO Lower down in the article the new name should be used and replaced as appropos — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.115.204.102 (talk) 01:57, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

First, there is no need to shout. Second, your suggestion is poor grammar. It should be "an outbreak in humans" but this is redundant. Outbreaks refer to human populations unless otherwise specified. Graham Beards (talk) 09:00, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request

[I apologize for not understanding how to properly suggest edits!] The article reads, "In 2019, an outbreak of the coronavirus began". I suggest avoiding "the coronavirus". It is a misapplication that seems to be widespread in news media (exception: Associated Press). I suggest the following replacement:

"In 2019, an outbreak of a new strain of coronavirus, SARS-CoV-2 (initially named 2019-nCoV) began" --Clutterslave (talk) 09:42, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 February 2020

Can you mention what the mortality rate is like how u did for ebola 2600:387:5:805:0:0:0:AC (talk) 18:14, 16 February 2020 (UTC) 2600:387:5:805:0:0:0:AC (talk) 18:14, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. This is the wrong article. You want 2019 novel coronavirus. Graham Beards (talk) 19:25, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can page protection be reduced please to semi protection?

I think it should be moved down as you said 30/500 protection is only used when semi protection does not work. How did vandalism continue here,but not on the 2019-20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak page?2600:387:5:805:0:0:0:AC (talk) 18:20, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adding preventative measures and treatment options

The addition of preventive measures, and treatment options sections would be beneficial to this page. Due to the recent outbreak, many people are worried, causing them to want to know how to avoid becoming sick. The CDC and WHO have stated basic outlines of what someone should do to avoid this virus, these additions would only help the article giving good information with the possibility of the information changing to be very low. As well, this article already states the symptoms of the Virus with no way for treating them. Even though information about the antivirus is still coming out there are medicines and actions know to help with treating the symptoms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamqtpi (talk • contribs) 05:23, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Iamqtpi has chosen this article for editing as part of a University Module for this semester Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/Richland College/English 1302 (Spring 2020). However this seems like a really inappropriate choice to me, as the Coronavirus article will have signifcant traffic and scrutiny for months due to the current outbreak, and edits already made to this article by the user have been reverted. It seems the obvious solution is that their article choice should be changed. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:49, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As an additonal note, the material that Graham Beards reverted is plagiarised, copyright infringing material that is essentially irrelevant for the articles scope. I know most wikipedia editors who have experienced editing as part of a course dislike student editors, and I have no trouble seeing why. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:04, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, we shouldn't be giving medical advice. Esowteric+Talk 21:31, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This seems a very odd choice for a University Course, especially an English course (is it for training prospective publishing house editors, copyeditors, or copyists?). So many regular editors are inundating this article that the students will constantly be disrupted, making any marking of this an adventuresome endeavour. Not that students don't disrupt articles wholesale by replacing all content therein in the normal course of a university assignment, thereby in this article, likely getting some sort of ban, which would not be conducive to handing in an assignment when they've been banned. -- 65.94.171.6 (talk) 06:00, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image for the information box

Hi Hemiauchenia. Great to be here to work with you on this article. I do agree with alot of things that you have said. I'll bring the conversation over to the talk page so everyone else can also participate. This discussion concerns the caption for the illustration in the infobox.

Current caption:

An illustration of the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus. The club-shaped viral spike peplomers, coloured red, create the look of a corona surrounding the virion, when viewed electron microscopically.

You said as concerns the image for the information box:

1. it's not "a" coronavirus, there are many different cononaviruses, this article isn't about SARS-CoV-2, it's about Coronaviruses generally, therefore the image should be labelled. 2. Added an Image of MERS-CoV to taxobox, as previously stated an electron microscope image is standard for virus infoboxes. Stop edit warring

My comment:

As concerns point 1: I don't mind labeling the image a SARS-CoV-2 virus. My main concern, however, is that we do not know if that illustration is of a SARS-CoV-2. The full original caption from the CDC does not make that clear. The illustrator, unfortunately, did not have the opportunity to fully explain what they were depicting. For this reason, I propose using generic terminology for example "a" coronavirus (meaning: that of many types of coronaviruses) or terminology that incorporates "coronaviruses" (for example: from the original CDC caption they used ".. morphology exhibited by coronaviruses").
As concerns point 2: I don't mind having two illustrations in the infobox. My issue is more with the aesthetic appearance. The size of the two images takes up too much space. If there are going to be two or more images in the infobox, they collaged together should not take up more than the space of one standard image as is done in all other infoboxes on wikipedia. An example of collaging in infoboxes can be seen in the the World War II article, or a better example of how to model the illustration in the infobox would be the Pantherinae taxobox. Another template to use to model the image in this infobox would be that of the virus article.

Let me know what you think and if anyone else has any ideas that would be useful too. This is a scientific wikipedia article so there should no problem in us being collaborative and productive. Scientific articles are written daily in a group collaborative fashion and things get done fast. --Guest2625 (talk) 23:24, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1. The CDC website states that it depicts SARS-CoV 2, this is linked to from the image on commons.
2. concerns over image space can be alleviated by having only one caption for both images, using image2_caption as the parameter, without a caption between the images there will be minimal space between them, effectively the same as if the images were collaged, but with less effort. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:46, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have implemented my suggestion. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:50, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but it's not clear to me how you conclude that the original caption from CDC states that the illustration that they are depicting is specifically the SARS-CoV-2 rather than a general generic coronavirus. The full caption from the CDC is as follows:

This illustration, created at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), reveals ultrastructural morphology exhibited by coronaviruses. Note the spikes that adorn the outer surface of the virus, which impart the look of a corona surrounding the virion, when viewed electron microscopically. A novel coronavirus, named Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), was identified as the cause of an outbreak of respiratory illness first detected in Wuhan, China in 2019. The illness caused by this virus has been named coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).

From my reading of the caption it states that "This illustration, created at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), reveals ultrastructural morphology exhibited by coronaviruses. And therefore, the original caption does not say that it is specifically the SARS-CoV-2 virus. I think we should attempt to use generic language for this more general article on the Coronavirus. In the end, this disagreement can simply be resolved by using the full length original caption. --Guest2625 (talk) 12:41, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone ahead and fixed the caption problem. --Guest2625 (talk) 14:06, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 26 February 2020

I would like to edit this wiki for I have information Hackerslayercohen11 (talk) 23:35, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you can add your information here and please remember to include your reliable sources.Graham Beards (talk) 23:36, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation

Their are currently more than 20 pages whose title includes the word "coronavirus". A disambiguation page would be useful. Robertpedley (talk) 08:17, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unexplained terminology

Please could we have an explanation (or a link to one) of the terms "cis-acting" and "trans-acting"? Wikipedia articles should be readable without specialist knowledge.Gobbag (talk) 12:27, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You could have just linked both of them (cis-acting, trans-acting) which would have quicker than writing your comment. With regard to specialist knowledge, this is not the Simple Wikipedia; I regard our articles as the source of such knowledge.Graham Beards (talk) 14:11, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Coronavirus_(Disambiguation)

As per earlier talk, I've created a draft disambiguation page. Please check & edit

Draft:Coronavirus_(Disambiguation)

What happens next? Robertpedley (talk) 18:40, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It looks good, thanks, @Robertpedley. Is there a method to the ordering to the "2020 coronavirus outbreak ..." entries, or could these go in alphabetical order? Esowteric+Talk 19:41, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's way too long for a disambiguation page. It's more like a list of coronavirus-related articles. Having said that, where are SARS, MERS, Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus and Middle East respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus? What it does demonstrate is the confusion we have generated for our readers by having so many separate articles when we only need four: Coronavirus, which covers all the viruses and one for each of the diseases.Graham Beards (talk) 20:12, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure you're not wanting to create an outline WP:OUTLINE or list of coronavirus topics? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:25, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Graham Beards and AngusWOOF above; it's too long and lacks focus. Thank you for the feedback. I've removed the list of outbreak pages which are not relevant to this topic. Subject to community agreement, I'll resubmit tomorrow. Robertpedley (talk) 18:46, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone who is not actively involved in the editing of the disambiguation confirm that this would be useful to have? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:46, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you check the pageviews for this page and pages related to the COVID-19 outbreak [1], it becomes clear that this page should be a disambiguation or even a redirect to a COVID-19 article. People are looking for this term because of the outbreak, not because of interest in the taxonomy. It is a bit worrying that they are not getting the information they need. I have suggested this should be moved to something like Coronavirus (taxon) on the Portuguese Wikipedia as well, because of this. GoEThe (talk) 11:51, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'm sure this confuses a lot of people. Esowteric+Talk 12:03, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 6 March 2020

P=AGNESIRI (talk) 07:41, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

kiran corona bhanu virus

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. CptViraj (📧) 09:54, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Purpoted Chinese rapid tests

Global Times (globaltimes.cn) is the first to have published the news for which "China's Nankai University has announced a breakthrough in developing a novel coronavirus rapid test kit that can identify infection among suspected patients within 15 minutes."

Global Times is a Chinese tabloid newspaper, but the same information is reported also by two more authoritative secondary sources:

  1. the Indian financial daily newspaper Mint on 9 February (China's Tianjin University claims of testing coronavirus in 15 minutes),
  2. the Khaleej Times (Coronavirus test report possible in 15 minutes, from Beijing, filed on February 9), which is daily English language newspaper published in Dubai.

The three aforementioned URLs don't cite any external source, and, more specifically, a video, an academic press agency or a scientific research paper by the Chinese Tianjin University. This is true even in the previous versions of the articles that can be found in the Internet Archive (ranging from January 23, 2020 to March 4, 2020 for their primary source).Micheledisaveriosp (talk) 08:58, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Caronavirus in india

I think we should have to think that already Corona virus speard in Italy and some other countries in 2012 then what should they done to prevent that I thought that one of the doctor among them can store the medical treatments and medicines in any records consider those and get a conclusion for this Gracon on the way (talk) 22:38, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done, this article is not about the Coronavirus outbreak. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:45, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 7 March 2020

Add "External links" section with the following content: 

* Coronavirus and Cancer

Subbame (talk) 06:50, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done for now: The link doesn't present any information not already available in the article or other external links beyond one sentence about comorbitidy fatality rates. The rest is just general information. It doesn't really add anything to the article. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:01, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Prevention

Prevention is very hard! Doctors have said it is best to drink lots of water because if your thoart starts the enfection the water will sallow it down to your stomach and the Acid inside your stomach will kill it! vitamin C will help also, take it after you eat at any time. Try to go to a pharmacy and ask for a medicine to put with honey in the morning once you wake and you have to take it before eating breakfast! Hope this helped — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.38.97.18 (talk) 09:12, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done, this is more like health tips and is not sourced to anything. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:48, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 8 March 2020

Please add

to links... Will-SeymoreIII (talk) 22:26, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Melmann 23:22, 8 March 2020 (UTC) one more simtom is turnig green[reply]
Quelle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special%3ADiff%2F944714901