Talk:SARS-related coronavirus

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

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.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Hong Kong Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hong Kong, a project to coordinate efforts in improving all Hong Kong-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other Hong Kong-related articles, you are invited to join this project.Hong KongWikipedia:WikiProject Hong KongTemplate:WikiProject Hong KongHong Kong

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Hong Kong To-do:

Attention needed (60)

...needing expert attention (4) • ...without infoboxes (33)

Collaboration needed

Recommend topic

Improvement needed

GA-Class articles (60) • B-Class articles (298)

Cleanup needed

C-Class articles (1,068)

Image needed (347)

Destub needed

Start-Class articles (5,533) • Stub-Class articles (6,675)

Deorphan needed

...orphans

Page creation needed

Requested articles

Miscellaneous tasks

...maintain popularity • ...assess the un-Class (380) • ...assess the un-Importance (1,343)

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

China

	China portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles 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.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

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 (article contribs).

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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:

Draft:Severe acute respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus (species)
Draft:SARS-CoV-1 (2003 strain)

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Support Per above.--Officer781 (talk) 02:15, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

Support reasonable proposal — 89.206.114.184 (talk) 14:23, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Great work on the drafts - Ben was here 000 (talk) 14:39, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Concur with the others that those are great drafts, Kudos. Sleath56 (talk) 04:17, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Very strong support You can just performed split eventually. The drafts are great too.

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[reply]