Talk:HCoV-EMC

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Microbiology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Microbiology 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.MicrobiologyWikipedia:WikiProject MicrobiologyTemplate:WikiProject MicrobiologyMicrobiology articles

Viruses

This redirect 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

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.

Merger proposal

I propose that Novel coronavirus 2012 be merged into HCoV-EMC. This is the same virus, though there doesn't yet seem to be a clear concensus in the literature about what to call it. WHO, for example, just opt for 'Novel coronavirus (nCoV)' [1]. --11:54, 27 April 2013 (UTC)RobGo (talk)

Yes. The two articles should be merged. §everal⇒|Times 15:45, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with merge into single article; I'd mildly prefer Novel coronavirus 2012 until a more consistent name emerges in the literature as that mirrors what WHO is currently calling it. Espresso Addict (talk) 09:12, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agree - The news reports seem to have the two SARS events as the same. I agre to merge with the understanding that the timeline items must be merged completly. Geraldshields11 (talk) 14:41, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Consensues achieved, I started the merge of the text. Geraldshields11 (talk) 15:01, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes on reflection I should have suggested the merger the other way (in terms of the title at least). Perhaps just 'Novel Coronavirus' (without the 2012) should be the title, as this is what the WHO and CDC calls it (and it's obviously rumbling on beyond 2012).--RobGo (talk) 09:53, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agree - The two articles should be merged promptly to minimize confusion. Mashford (talk) 19:09, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I moved/merged the text to the novel coronavirus title as that is by far the more common way to refer to the virus. It might be fruitful to have a discussion about dropping the "2012" bit on that article's talk page. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:19, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]