Talk:MERS-related coronavirus

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the MERS-related coronavirus article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL

Archives: 1: 12 months

Viruses High‑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
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Medicine: Pulmonology High‑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
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Pulmonology task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Saudi Arabia High‑importance

	Saudi Arabia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Saudi Arabia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Saudi Arabia 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.Saudi ArabiaWikipedia:WikiProject Saudi ArabiaTemplate:WikiProject Saudi ArabiaSaudi Arabia
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Text and/or other creative content from HCoV-EMC was copied or moved into Novel coronavirus 2012 with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

Text and/or other creative content from Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus was copied or moved into Middle East respiratory syndrome with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

Text and/or other creative content from Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus was copied or moved into 2012 Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus outbreak with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

On 19 July 2022, it was proposed that this article be moved from MERS-CoV to MERS-related coronavirus. The result of the discussion was moved.

Virus hosts 'Swine' REFERENCE typo? (sb 37, not 36?)

Under 'Taxonomy', 'Virus hosts', 'Swine' is referenced as #36, but I see nothing at that reference about swine; reference #37, however, does mention swine.

2012-nCoV name was not used at the time (or now, hardly)

I removed the false statement that this was initially called 2012-nCov, as inserted by User 67.70.33.184, on 06:52, 26 January 2020. The 20XX-nCoV naming format should not be retrospectively applied, unsupported by references. The longer '2012 novel coronavirus' is also a subsequent invention.
For any further discussion, please use Talk:Novel_coronavirus#20XX-nCoV_naming_format. - Onanoff (talk) 15:49, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 2 July 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: Moved. Although there is only a weak consensus, the article should have the same punctuation as the other article. In future both should be discussed in the same RM. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 08:36, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Middle East respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus → Middle East respiratory syndrome–related coronavirus – Per MOS:SUFFIXDASH and the recent RM at Talk:Severe acute respiratory syndrome–related coronavirus (closed as "Consensus to move" on 19 June 2020. Also see the Chicago Manual of Style recommendation here. —BarrelProof (talk) 21:44, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note – this issue was recently decided in favor of the en dash, at Talk:Severe acute respiratory syndrome–related coronavirus#Requested move 5 June 2020. It might be good to review the arguments and result there. Dicklyon (talk) 04:33, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. WP:MOS does not mention how to deal with organisms that have hyphens or dashes in their names. This is a gray area where someone can impose their personal preference via loopholes. It is standard on Wikipedia to use hyphens in virus scientific names since that is what the ICTV does, so the article should be kept with a hyphen until the MOS is clarified. Velayinosu (talk) 00:37, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I will also add that the ICTV explicitly states on its website[1] that punctuation marks other than hyphens are prohibited in taxonomic names, i.e. hyphens are the only permitted form of punctuation in virus taxonomic names, i.e. dashes are prohibited. Velayinosu (talk) 04:39, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning oppose. So if I'm understanding this correctly, the official name of the virus appears to use a hyphen. And after reading over MOS:SUFFIXDASH I don't think that it strictly applies here, as this isn't a generic suffix that has been added by editors, as all the examples there seem to be, but rather a proper taxonomical name. Rreagan007 (talk) 01:14, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support – the en dash for a suffix on a multi-word compound is WP style. There should be no confusion what it indicates, or that other styles might render it as a hyphen. Dicklyon (talk) 03:29, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support – well, it was a 20th-century invention of Chicago MOS, and I don't mind it (though others might object). We adopted it at the behest of a US editor at WP:MOS. Velayinosu, the name of the organism has no dash or hyphen within it; that is why the en dash is pressed into service to link the compound spaced item with an external item. Tony (talk) 03:34, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

According to the ICTV, it has a hyphen it its name (both on the ICTV's website and in the species master list). Also according to the ICTV,[2] punctuation marks other than hyphens are prohibited in taxonomic names. Velayinosu (talk) 04:39, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has its own style guide that covers the usage of punctuation marks. It does not necessarily follow any particular external authority, and is intended for more broad readership than the specialist literature. Redirect pages can serve to link variations so that they lead to the same article. —BarrelProof (talk) 01:00, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MOS appears to have been changed in the past to accommodate viruses (see MOS:LIFE and MOS:ITAL), so it will beneficial to amend it to make sure that viruses' names are spelled correctly with regard to this topic. Velayinosu (talk) 01:31, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's about typography, not spelling; no special case or exception is needed for viruses, and what you're trying to do would just result in a style conflict that would impair readability, since in WP style we distinguish the grammatical roles of hyphens and dashes, whereas some other styles such as ICTV's do not. Dicklyon (talk) 16:11, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Using a dash reduces the accuracy of the article, so even if the article is moved to the dash, it will be necessary to to move it back to the hyphen in order to improve the quality of the article. And WP:MOS makes no mention of instances such as this, which is why it should be amended. Velayinosu (talk) 02:47, 12 July 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.

Natural reservoir section too long

I think the natural reservoir section is currently too long and verbose. It contains seven paragraphs which in my opinion can be trimmed so that essential facts remains, such as: what is the the natural reservoir species, how do scientists know that it is the reservoir (i.e. presence of antibodies in many camels sampled), and what are the main evolutionary relationships between MERS-CoV and MERSr-CoVs. Forich (talk) 05:47, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 00:35, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 19 July 2022

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: moved. As uncontested despite two relists. (closed by non-admin page mover) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 14:58, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MERS-CoV → MERS-related coronavirus – Please see the similar just-closed RM at Talk:SARS-related coronavirus#Requested move 9 July 2022. This article was recently renamed (from a title different from what I am suggesting here). However, I suggest that this proposed name would be more WP:RECOGNIZEable for most readers. I made this suggestion in the recent RM at Talk:SARS-CoV-2#Requested move 21 June 2022, but there was no reaction to my suggestion at the time, as the focus of that discussion was about whether to abbreviate MERS or not. I think the current title is now overly abbreviated to a degree that makes it difficult for readers to recognize. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 07:59, 19 July 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 04:22, 27 July 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 15:20, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support for consistency. Dekimasuよ! 13:16, 3 August 2022 (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.