Saturday, March 21, 2020

Wikipedia in a Time of Coronavirus: the Talk page on the Coronavirus article

The following is what happens when the "gnoming" mentality runs into an actual major event -- the world COVID-19 outbreak. The major issue here is "disambiguation" - does the page fit into the old Coronavirus page or not? The copypasting begins below:

There is no doubt that the vast majority of people searching for the term "coronavirus" will be looking for an article directly related to the current pandemic. Very few people will be looking for information on the subfamily Orthocoronavirinae, so they should not be immediately directed to this article. I also wouldn't underestimate how easy it is for infrequent Wikipedia readers to miss the header directing them to other pages. To me, this move would pretty clearly be in our readers' best interests, though I'm curious what the rest of you think. Will(B) 15:25, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
One other thought—I realize that page views alone shouldn't be the determining factor here; however, I think there is a strong case that Orthocoronavirinae is no longer the primary topic of the term "coronavirus". The societal impact has been so large that I think it's fair to say the word "coronavirus" will forever be linked to the pandemic. However, there is obviously a lot of ambiguity in the word, which is why I'm proposing we make Coronavirus into a disambiguation page. Will(B) 15:35, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
  • I don't think this would be very helpful, since the article introduces all of the more specific topics that are on the disambiguation page. It is possible that a lot of people coming here are looking for the virus or the pandemic, but that is not really clear from the page views. Dekimasuよ! 16:44, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
Right or not, the word "coronavirus" is often used as shorthand to refer to the disease or the pandemic, not just the virus itself. Will(B) 15:04, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
Having the disambiguation page at the plain title is not helpful to any users. Dekimasuよ! 09:44, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Support: I know we know what the article is about, and we see the links at the top of the page. But I think we have to be pragmatic: people are coming here thinking it's about the outbreak, since that's what "coronavirus" means to them, some are not taking notice of the page top links, and some are editing and making edit requests about the outbreak. Esowteric+Talk 17:09, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
    • Yeah, the number of edit requests on this talk page alone are evidence that people are assuming it's for COVID-19 without noticing the links at the top of the page. Will(B) 17:24, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Support per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 17:27, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Speedy support For the sake of everyone the COVID-19 should be moved here, if people think "(group of viruses)" is a poor disambiguator then we can come up with a better name for this article in the future and move it then, (maybe "Orthocoronavirinae").★Trekker (talk) 17:38, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
    • Yeah I'm definitely open to other suggestions besides "(group of viruses)". Will(B) 17:41, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose I'm not convinced that this is accurate, helpful or necessary. We don't know that readers are missing the hat notes about the pandemic. They might be coming here seeking some background on coronaviruses in general. It would also be incorrect; if "coronavirus" is not a group of viruses, what is it? Graham Beards (talk) 17:53, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
    • It's true we don't really have any way to quantify how many readers are missing the note at the top, but as Esowteric mentioned, there is definitely evidence that some are. Though even if no one missed that note, I still think making this a disambiguation page would be the right move, because there's just no way the average person searching for "coronavirus" is looking for the broad group of viruses. And it's not incorrect to refer to the current virus strain as simply "the coronavirus", as that has quite clearly become the common name for it. (After all, we call it the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic, not the 2019–20 SARS-CoV-2 pandemic.) Will(B) 18:02, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
Your point about its becoming the common name is valid.Graham Beards (talk) 18:12, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
Although AIDS' common name was originally GRID, so with less than three months in the -english world, anything could happen. (talk)
Also, this is a clear example of a WP:BROADCONCEPT article. © Tbhotch (en-3). 20:02, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
I did think about that, but considering that this is a once-in-a-generation, maybe once-in-a-century pandemic, it's hard for me to imagine it won't be the primary topic of the word "coronavirus" for very many years. This is more than just "current events." Will(B) 20:30, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
See WP:BALL Graham Beards (talk) 20:53, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment More than one newspaper headline has spelled it "coronovirus". We should be thinking about how to deal with the redirect.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:07, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:CONCEPTDAB. The current DAB page is very thin; it's just this page, and the current outbreak, which is a directly correlated topic anyway. I don't think that is a more useful landing than this article, which isn't incorrect in any sense. Nohomersryan (talk) 21:48, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose: yes, this current event is massive, but cororonaviruses cause the cold among other things, the current outbreak and novel version is only one subset. This is WP:RECENTISM SITH (talk) 23:06, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Completely agree, even if this may be a temporary move while usage is stronger due to the pandemic. If common usage returns to its original sense once the pandemic passes, the article can move back. Not a chance all these views are for people wondering what other virus belong to Orthocoranavirinae. GoEThe (talk) 23:35, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, this proposal is (sort of understandably) getting a lot of pushback, but I think at the very least we should have a temporary big box at the top referring readers to other pages that they're more likely to be looking for. As I said, many casual readers are likely to miss the hatnote. Will(B) 15:03, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose as awkward and short-term thinking. -- Netoholic @ 02:32, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Support - too many people are getting the viral grouping and COVID-19 mixed up. 2601:548:8204:34B0:719B:DFD2:2B57:9B72 (talk) 04:26, 19 March 2020 (UTC) Neko
  • Oppose Per WP:RECENTISM and WP:SURPRISE.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 07:49, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose, it is very helpful for users to learn that the coronavirus causing the current outbreak is only one of a family. The rest is recentism. --MartinoK (talk) 09:48, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose - this is pure short-term thinking. What happens when the next coronavirus hits? Should it be changed again? --awkwafaba (📥) 13:58, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
    • To be clear, I'm not proposing we have "coronavirus" redirect to the novel virus or the pandemic; I'm proposing we simply make it a disambiguation page. So if there were a "next coronavirus", we would simply add it to the disambiguation page. However, I think it's unlikely there will be a "next coronavirus". Yes, I'm aware SARS was a coronavirus, and there will likely be future epidemics caused by coronaviruses; however, the big difference here is that only this coronavirus is referred to as "the coronavirus" as its common name. The "next coronavirus", if there is one, probably won't be referred to as simply "the coronavirus". Will(B) 15:25, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose Already a disambig header, people can navigate to the article they are looking for. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:21, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment After seeing "Cornavirus" in a headline and, when I typed that to make the red link appear so I could create a redirect, I found at least two articles aht had that spelling somewhere and corrected it. The redirect is to "Coronavirus", but should it be?— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 17:52, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
I've rcatted it as {{R from misspelling}}: but I would have left it red, it is actually allowable to let the search engine do its job when someone types something. I imagine you found the two misspellings from search engine results: but by creating the redirect, no other reader can do so as easily. So your question is basically "what would people expect to find when they typed "cornavirus"? The answer: what the search engine tells them. (talk) 01:43, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
I found the misspellings because that's how the newspaper web sites spelled the headlines.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 16:53, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose. We are an encyclopedia, not a journal of popular culture. Just as Apple is a fruit, not a computer company, so Coronavirus is a family of viruses of which COVID-19 and its resultant disease and pandemic are just one example, others being the viruses that caused the SARS and MERS outbreaks, which were also important topics. As a final point, all three articles related to the pandemic are linked from the top hatnote, so it's not as if having a disambiguation page would actually result in any fewer clicks or convenience for readers.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:25, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
  • OpposeWP:NOTNEWS. An enyclopaedia should help people find detailed information, and be more permanent than a mutating strain of a fairly common virus. (talk) 01:40, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
  •  Question: Is there a precedent set? Are there any other virus families that have received the "<term> leads to a disambiguation page" treatment already? --Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 02:16, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose, for the sake of scientific accuracy. BD2412 T 02:50, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Support I'd prioritise aiding readers reach what they are aiming for – and I'm supposing that's the current pandemic, at the moment, and as long as the situation will stay critical. I'd lean into defaulting Coronavirus → Coronavirus (disambiguation) and renaming the current page Coronaviruses, if that's not dead wrong, scientifically. I'd strongly suggest temporarily emphasising the in-page disambiguation paragraph (more than it is now), hoping that's possible within Wikipedia standards. I would also consider temporarily emphasising Covid-19 on the disambiguation page Pax.mtx (talk) 08:39, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
This isn't that helpful. Even on the disambiguation page, you'd still have to select a link to get to Covid-19, which is already covered by the hatnote on the current coronavirus page anyway. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:02, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose This accomplishes nothing, given that there is already a hatnote at the top of the page. * Pppery * it has begun... 18:40, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose does nothing except makes it harder to find the article the name is coronavirus not Covid 19 if people wrongly search Apple they get the fruit instead of the company it that is not changed to Apple (Fruit) --Cs california (talk) 02:27, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
  • oppose We need the Dab page. And, I ll reiterate, AIDS' common name was originally GRID, so with less than three months in the -english world, anything could happen. (talk) 02:41, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
Oppose. It's a subfamily, a taxonomic classification, not a "group of viruses". Plus, it's wrong application of disambiguation; there's no other "coronavirus". There's only one meaning of the word, and it's this. The brackets are redundant. · • SUM1 • · (talk) 15:36, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

And here is the rest:

survival times on stainless steel[edit]

absurd\arcane detail. Anybody thinks this should stay should at least add some text and say what RH means. Gjxj (talk) 02:33, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
I think it should be removed. They used different viruses and it refers to primary studies that are not WP:MEDRS compliant.Graham Beards (talk) 08:14, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Edit Request (March 18th 2020)[edit]

The line "The most recent common ancestor (MRCA) of all coronaviruses has been placed at around 8000 BCE (Before the Common Era, or BC, or AD)" is incorrect - AD is not the same as BC or BCE, and should be removed. --Snowen (talk) 01:33, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
@Snowen:  Done. Removed the entire phrase in parentheses as BCE is already linked to the Common Era article. As a side note, please use the {{Edit extended-protected}} template to make edit requests on extended-protected pages so that admins can see it be added to Category:Wikipedia extended-confirmed-protected edit requests. --Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 05:33, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

political slant[edit]

This article is inaccurate in saying our President and his administration was denying the seriousness of the virus to mid March. The travel restriction was placed on China February 2, 2020. It is a shame to see politics over facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rcstephens (talk • contribs) 09:11, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
"This article is about the group of viruses. For the disease that has sparked the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic, see Coronavirus disease 2019. For the virus itself, see Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2." Where did you see such criticism of the handling of the COVID-19 pandemic in this article? Esowteric+Talk 09:28, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
Rcstephens, I think you're on the wrong page. Perhaps you're looking for 2019–20 coronavirus pandemicTenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 14:49, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 March 2020[edit]

the host organism and the spike protein attaches to its complementary host cell receptor. =>the host organism and the spike protein attaches to its complementary host cell receptor that in many cases is the angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2)Mike QFT (talk) 16:01, 21 March 2020 (UTC) Mike QFT (talk) 16:01, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
I have changed it to:
"Infection begins when the the viral spike (S) glycoprotein attaches to its complementary host cell receptor, which usually is the angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2)." Graham Beards (talk) 16:12, 21 March 2020 (UTC)