Talk:coronavirus

Shortened forms, synonyms, etc
I'm going to list short and alt forms, synonyms, etc here as I come across them. One has enough citations in news media to "hotword": rona / 'rona (often with definite article as the rona, sometimes capitalized, but not always, e.g. one article mentions a list "of rona-related updates", another quotes a tweet about something happening "cos of rona"). Corvid-19/CORVID-19 is also found in some lower-quality press as a typo or misspelling. - -sche (discuss) 02:24, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Another misspelling/typo, again found in some marginal press (Dorchester Reporter, Chicago Defender): CONVID-19. - -sche (discuss) 14:44, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Etymology
Does this term come from the (now-obsolete) genus name Coronavirus, or is it the other way around? – Einstein2 (talk) 23:42, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, it came from this obsolete term --Grenadine (talk) 23:46, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think we know for sure. A genus name is not accepted as a genus name until it is accepted by the ICTV (founded in 1966). There is a proposal which has the name in it. There may be scholarly articles which use the name provisionally. Because so much of the literature in virology is written in English, it is quite possible that coronavirus is the origin of the taxonomic name. I couldn't find use in books before 1982, but I don't have access to scholarly literature except via Google Scholar, which does not go back very far. The first coronavirus, "avian infectious bronchitis virus" was discovered in 1937 and human coronavirus in 1965. Electron microscope images of viruses date from 1940, but I don't know when their power could have made the "corona" visible. I believe that virologists have historically usually had English names for new viruses that they are studying before they thought of ICTV names. DCDuring (talk) 14:27, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I was not sure either. Merriam-Webster says the term was introduced in the 1968 Nature article quoted in our entry. I added a short reference to the taxonomic name in the Etymology section until we are totally sure. Einstein2 (talk) 23:23, 2 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Just leaving a cross-link to where another aspect of the etymology has been discussed: Etymology_scriptorium/2020/April. - -sche (discuss) 14:27, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

RFD discussion: March–April 2020
Recent innovation; synecdochal. Would not have cites spanning a year. DTLHS (talk) 21:53, 6 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Put the hot word template on it? Equinox ◑ 21:56, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per Eq. Amidst all the stupid coronaviral entries of late, this is one of the few that we can be fairly certain has made its way into the lexicon. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 21:59, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep the general public widely understands coronawirus to mean the virus that causes Covid-19. Proxima Centauri (talk) 08:02, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete for nominator’s reason. If you look at a newspaper article from the UK, it is bound to refer to “the Queen”. Should there then be a definition “Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom”? I th ink not. Also, if this sense is allowed to remain, then why not any other coronovirus causing widespread outbreaks since the 1960s when the word was coined? — Cheers, Jack Lee –talk– 10:36, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * This is reminiscent of the discussion at . --Lambiam 11:38, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep of course. This sense has entered the lexicon on a global level, and will be easily cited in a couple of years. Also, we do include synecdoches AFAIK. ---&#62; Tooironic (talk) 04:41, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Abstain. But I would probably move it to a sub-sense as a more specific use of the general sense and slap a date on it. -Mike (talk) 22:30, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I've already voted. Moving it to a sub-sense looks like a good idea.  I don't know how to do this, perhaps Mike can. Proxima Centauri (talk) 09:36, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep, because SARS-CoV-2 is probably uniquely well-known. coronavirus is a technical term the general population would rarely need to know prior to the SARS-CoV-2 outbreak, and given it is an epidemic with far-reaching effects, it will surely be in the general lexicon for years to come. I don't think we can say the same for "queen" or "church". Ajfweb (talk) 21:48, 11 March 2020 (UTC)


 * So, should we have a sense at flu for "the Spanish flu"? There's no doubt uses of "flu" to mean "the Spanish flu" could be cited from the contemporary media coverage of that flu. Mehhh. I lean towards deletion on that basis. If it's kept, perhaps it should be a subsense, as suggested above. (The suggestion above that this virus will have more "far-reaching effects" or whatnot than the church / the Church is ... amusing.) - -sche (discuss) 04:05, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I think the difference is that it would have been called "the flu" as the most prominent type of flu at the time. In this case, "coronavirus" is often used without an article, indicating that people view it as a type of disease, not an allusion to a type of coronavirus. On this basis, I vote keep, though it could perhaps be relegated to a subsense. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 22:12, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep as separate sense. – Jberkel 23:04, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Keep, it's obvious the second sense is widely used in the media, moreso than any other synonym for the COVID-19. In fact, it seems like many are even unaware of the first sense --217.105.26.102 11:18, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 21:12, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep as a hot word. That it is a separate sense is clear from sentences like "Coronavirus started in Hubei and has spread around the world" or "There were no confirmed coronavirus cases in Africa before February 14"—the first sense doesn't work for these sentences, because the family Coronaviridae probably didn't originate in Hubei and there were cases of Coronaviridae infections in Africa before February 14. (I made these two examples up, but I've encountered lots of similar usage recently—if anyone doubts that this usage exists please ping me and I'll look for citations. Though technically that would be an RFV issue.) —Granger (talk · contribs) 18:48, 24 March 2020 (UTC)


 * RFD-kept per consensus. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:16, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Latin translation
Re [//en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=coronavirus&type=revision&diff=61128373&oldid=61042370 diff]: I spot uses of Corōnavīrus in Nuntii Latini and Posta Mundi. I see also has cites. Perhaps both exist. (Whether either one exists in sources WT:CFI would consider "durably archived" is another matter.) - -sche (discuss) 09:59, 16 July 2021 (UTC)