Talk:Corona

This disambiguation page is within the scope of WikiProject Disambiguation, an attempt to structure and organize all disambiguation pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, you can edit the page attached to this talk page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.DisambiguationWikipedia:WikiProject DisambiguationTemplate:WikiProject DisambiguationDisambiguation articles

Requested move 29 March 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 as proposed, but

WP:NATURAL title, and no one particularly rejected the claim that it would be a better title. (non-admin closure) Red Slash 23:13, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Corona (disambiguation) → Corona

Corona → Corona (physics)

– DAB from
Solar corona like on Commons. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:01, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Support. The term corona for the virus, though informal, is pretty common and probably here to stay, but even ignoring that meaning, I still don't see a primary topic. There are just too many things with the name, including other natural phenomena, and some are quite prominent. The usage statistics are also strongly indicative of an absence of a primary topic: for last year, one out of nine people who arrived at Corona clicked through to the dab page, which suggests that a large proportion, likely a majority, of those readers searching for the term (in contrast to those arriving via incoming links) are looking for the other topics. And a note about the proposed new title: if the article is moved we might as well choose something more strictly unambiguous: there are several other coronas in physics (Corona (optical phenomenon), the corona of Corona discharge, and probably some of the others listed at Corona (disambiguation)#Physics). – Uanfala (talk) 21:47, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed I'd support this move even without the virus, I nearly used Corona (solar) but even that would be ambiguous. Corona (star) is another possibility but that would be ambiguous to. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:56, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support. The term "corona" has multiple meanings. In this day, it's most prominently used to refer to the
talk) 22:24, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Support but I suggest Corona (Astronomy) or Solar Corona for the new name. Robertpedley (talk) 22:39, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't Stellar corona be more appropriate? The article is about the coronae of stars generally, not just of the Sun. – Uanfala (talk) 22:51, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. No clear primary topic (even before the virus). Move disambiguation page to basename. (Also, I think "
Corona (physics)".) Paintspot Infez (talk) 23:28, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Support While I do admit that this somewhat falls within
WP:RECENTISM, currently in day-to-day speech, "corona" has been colloquially used to refer to the 2019 coronavirus, likely because it's shorter and easier to say than "coronavirus", but also more memorable and impactful than "COVID-19". With this in mind, many readers will potentially want to search for the virus using this term. --benlisquare_T•C•E 02:33, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Support I was myself just thinking that Stellar corona is a much better title. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 07:43, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per long-term significance. The solar phenomenon is the original meaning of the term from ancient human times. Ancient peoples were in awe of the exotic nature of the solar corona visible only during total eclipses, and throughout history the word has been adopted in contexts which share similar qualities. Several places/company names on the DAB page are named for it either directly or second-hand. This makes it the primary topic regardless of page views. -- Netoholic @ 07:53, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes but I think there are so many other uses (including as noted others that have long-term significance) that there is overall no clear primary topic even if most (or all) derive from this. Especially with the virus I think readers are better served with a DAB. The beer could be moved to a longer name (namely
Corona Extra) but even ignoring that it seems that there is still no primary topic. Corona, California says that the name is Spanish for "crown" so its possible that that place doesn't derive from this meaning. Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:13, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Making any decision on this based on the virus is short-sighted and, frankly, ridiculous
WP:RECENTISM. Coronavirus is named for the "halo" of projections around it - or "corona" - a word which has its derivation through millennia of human language all stemming from the visible "halo" around the eclipsed sun. That phenomenon was seen as the sun's "crown", so yes, the California city certainly derives from this meaning - second-hand, but clearly traceable. Yes, many topics on the DAB are long-term significant... but this meaning is undeniably THE longest-term significant one. If our goal is to educate the world, then showing how terms are derived is key to that. -- Netoholic @ 11:17, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Etymology is not determinative of primary topic status (see the well-known example of Boston at
WP:DETERMINEPRIMARY), so what I'm adding now doesn't really contribute to the discussion, but the solar corona is definitely not the original meaning of the term from ancient human times (out article says as much in Corona#History), unless 1809 is counted as ancient times. Corona simply means "crown" in Latin and many other European languages, and that's the source of most meanings in English as well. – Uanfala (talk) 11:20, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
I am not approaching this from a perspective of base etymology - but rather that in conceptual terms, the solar phenomenon has lent its meaning to other visually similar concepts which took on the same term. Those other concepts are rightly separate encyclopedia topics, but it does not diminish the fact that they were called "corona" directly because of the solar phenomenon. -- Netoholic @ 17:46, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is bunk, sorry. Most entries on the dab page have nothing whatsoever to do with stellar coronae historically, etymologically or conceptually, but have independent origins from Latin (and thence Spanish, etc.) corona 'crown'. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 12:05, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support yes lots of meaning of this term. The physics one is not the first that pops to my mind. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:55, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support I don't believe that stellar coronae are the primary topic. Leaving aside coronavirus, I would bet that our readers are far more likely to associate the word with
WP:RECENTISM, but that's not the question being asked right now. Like others I prefer the natural disambiguation Stellar corona over any parenthetical disambiguation. — Wug·a·po·des 23:09, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Support. Even before COVID, the beer probably outranked the physics. Stellar corona appears more natural per Wugapodes.--Pestilence Unchained (talk) 05:56, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. However, my view is that, if the current page Corona is moved, it should be moved to something such as Corona (Astronomy), or possibly Corona (Sun) given that the article is mostly about the solar corona (not stellar coronae in general). TowardsTheLight (talk) 10:03, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Although I disagree with this argument (the article mainly treats the solar corona because it's the best-known and most familiar example, but as it stands, it is still about stellar coronae in general), even if I grant it for the sake of discussion, the natural disambiguation
solar corona is still preferrable. IMHO, Corona (Sun) is just plain ugly; I must also point out that the capitalisation in Corona (Astronomy) violates our rules. --Florian Blaschke (talk
)
While I proposed Stellar corona above, I'm having second thoughts now. The article is cast in a way that treats the solar corona as the locus of discussion throughout, and the topic of coronae in other stars is discussed only in the "Stellar coronae" section at the end. As currently written, the article could probably best do with "Solar corona" as its title. Corona (astronomy) spares us this dilemma, and it's not completely unsuitable given the clear primary topic in astronomy, but there are other articles in Corona (disambiguation)#Astronomy and space so it would be preferable to go for a title that's as unambiguous as possible. – Uanfala (talk) 13:29, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The organisation of the article is itself questionable. The section "Stellar coronae" should in any case be titled "Other stellar coronae" as the corona of the Sun is also a stellar corona. It would make more sense, IMHO, to have two main sections, "Solar corona" and "Other stellar coronae", at least unless the article is moved to
Solar corona or (less elegantly) Corona (Sun). --Florian Blaschke (talk) 14:41, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Oppose. Clear primary topic. Never seen coronavirus referred to as corona. The only other possible contender for primary topic is actually the beer, but I think the astronomical meaning has more long-term significance. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:11, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think that if I said the word "corona" to one of my friends before the pandemic, they would think of
talk) 16:07, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Yes simply put "Corona" into a Google search [4], it shows people calling it that (though informal). This seems similar to Trump and Thatcher where there are multiple significant meanings but one of those meaning (in this case the virus) is less likely for the single word big gets more views today so is strong enough to prevent the solar meaning from being primary. Indeed there are so many popular/important meanings here of which some have nothing to do with the solar meaning, yes we do take PT#2 seriously but PT#1 is usually more important. Its simply too likely readers will land on the wrong page and will have to loan an unwanted page and many hatnotes otherwise clutter the page (if we intend to add more). Although the US cities are usually referred to with the state included it seem like the city has a reasonable claim to at least for PT#2. As noted the pandemic is likely to become a level 4 vital article wile the solar meaning is only level 5 so I think the virus also has a reasonable claim to long-term significance. While the pandemic might not be that important in 1000 or even 100 years for the foreseeable future the virus is likely to be sought so we need to take into account what people want today to. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:32, 1 April 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.

Corona epidemic pages moved to near the lead, reverted

I've moved the epidemic pages just under the lead, due to the mass interest and to the page view trend. This has been reverted , and I've reverted it back. Don't want to edit war but, common sense rather than alphabetical please. Given the rise in page views and the global interest this is a common sense and ignore all rules usage. As of now it seems stable with another editor making good formatting edits. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:33, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@
Corona (perianth), the rotifer thing, and Corona of glans penis) back under the Science header, since that's not the main interest right now?. I'm saying the COVID-19 pandemic-related stuff should be at the top but without a Biology header, and the other less-relevant Biology stuff can fit under the Science section (with an optional Biology header) below. Paintspot Infez (talk) 14:05, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Thanks, good editing, and apology for the revert. This section was originally written before your work, about a revert a few minutes before your edits. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:33, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think the lede is getting out of hand – Currently, it has eight entries, including for two constellations that can easily be seen as
Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, and the use by extension to the disease and then to the pandemic, can easily be accommodated on the same line as the virus. – Uanfala (talk) 12:06, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Normally I'd agree we don't need to list sub topics but in this case it seems like all 3-4 articles are reasonable targets and keeping it as is allows readers to easily select the article that they want. Compare Cambridge and Oxford for example the universities are also likely but a broad concept article (the cities themselves) just like Coronavirus makes sense but if they were DAB pages like Windsor then we can include other sub topics so that readers can go straight to the intended article. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:00, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that "coronavirus" isn't the primary meaning of "corona"—by Uanfala's reasoning, "it can easily be seen as not belonging in the dab page at all". I can accept the consensus opinion that it needs to be here and prominently displayed simply because readers might get confused. But giving it four lines before everything else—including long-established meanings with considerable long-term significance—is excessive, as is claiming that the two constellations—named long before coronavirus was discovered, or the solar corona was ever studied,—in fact before nearly every other use on the page—aren't principal uses of the word, and belong buried beneath sixty other entries, including sci-fi novels, Irish rock bands, fictional locations in Disney movies, video game consoles, a brand of soda and a brand of beer (twice). It's pretty much the definition of
WP:RECENTISM. Shoving historically significant meanings out of the way in order to make room for the topic of the day is much like confusing the lightning bug for the lightning. No matter how important coronavirus seems at this moment in our lives, long-term significance doesn't go away. P Aculeius (talk) 23:20, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
The two constellations are
partial title matches – aren't likely to be what readers who come to the dab page are looking for. – Uanfala (talk) 23:34, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Pretty sure "coronavirus" is also a partial title match—if you apply that criterion as suggested, it wouldn't be there either. But partial title matches clearly belong on this page, and the constellations are much more likely to be encountered in science or literature than most of the other matches combined—so they should be in the lead, not buried down near the bottom. P Aculeius (talk) 00:22, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Coronavirus is included in the dab because it's often referred to as just corona; it's because of this usage that it's not a partial title match. – Uanfala (talk)
"Corona" is the specific part of the term while "virus" is the generic part per
WP:PTM similar to "North" being the generic part of North Carolina wile "Carolina" is the specific part. In other words we can list the virus here but not at Virus (disambiguation) even though people might call it "the virus". Recentism tends to matter less for hatnotes and prominence on a DAB than page moves, nevertheless I'd be fine with moving the virus under the stellar and beer. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:04, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
I think you've inverted "generic" and "specific" here, at least from a taxonomic standpoint. While "North" by itself is much less helpful as an identifier, since lots of places are called "North", but only two "Carolina", it modifies "Carolina", not the other way around. In other words, "North" answers the question, "which Carolina?" "Carolina" doesn't answer "which North?"

But back to my original point: I'm not arguing that coronavirus shouldn't be here. I'm saying that it wouldn't be at the top of the page if you applied the same principle that was used to shove "Corona Borealis" and "Corona Australis" down near the bottom, underneath a heap of relatively trivial pop culture uses. Don't misunderstand me—I'm not saying that Star Trek isn't culturally significant; in fact I actually own a copy of Corona. But it's not nearly as significant as constellations named centuries ago—long before scientists could study the solar corona, or discovered and named coronaviruses—which anyone can see anywhere in the world on a clear night. P Aculeius (talk) 05:10, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@
Wikipedia:Organizing disambiguation pages by subject area. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:34, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
That's not quite true: whenever one topic is clearly—or at least arguably—primary for a term, it goes at the head of a disambiguation page for that term. In this case there are three or four topics that are either usually called just "corona" or include "corona" in the name, and which are more likely to be the search targets than nearly all of the other possible topics put together. It makes sense to have the most important ones grouped at the top, if it can be done without making the top unwieldy or confusing. I think it can accommodate three or four entries, given that there are sixty or so below that, particularly when the most important by long-term significance are buried down at the bottom.

It might be better to combine the multiple coronavirus targets into a single entry with multiple links, but that would have to be an exception to normal disambiguation page policy. I believe that consensus would justify making such an exception in the name of brevity. Perhaps something like: "[[Coronavirus]], a class of virus named for its resemblance to a crown under a photomicrograph; especially [[COVID-19]], the coronavirus responsible for the [[2020 global coronavirus pandemic]]." By the same token, it would make sense for a single entry to combine the constellations: "[[Corona Borealis]], a crown-shaped constellation near Boötes in the northern celestial hemisphere, or [[Corona Australis]], its southern counterpart." Decluttering a lengthy page would be worth making logical and reasonable exceptions, IMO. P Aculeius (talk) 02:16, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There appears to be still some disagreement about how many, and in what form, of the virus-related entries should be included. First off, could we agree that this is a disambiguation page which lists topics that are referred to – formally or informally – as "corona"? This can't attempt to duplicate the navigational structure of a whole topic area (see for example
Covid 19. "Corona" doesn't refer to any other virus, so including an entry for the whole class of coronaviruses is just wrong. There's no need to link to the article about the pandemic, because the pandemic per se is not referred to as "corona". If a reader has ended up here but somehow wanted to get to that article instead, then they can click through any of the two virus-related links, and either article will then have links to the pandemic from its lede. – Uanfala (talk) 16:21, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
OK, so I've removed the entry for coronavirus as factually incorrect, keeping three separate entries for the current virus, the disease and the pandemic. I guess this is a baseline from which we can work. I still argue that the link to the pandemic can't be there – there might be some uses (there are google hits for phrases like "when corona is over") but I haven't seen any in actual publications, so promoting this use to the top of the page will be a bit of a stretch. I still think it's better for the virus and the disease to be described in a single entry as they're clearly related and doing so will avoid complicating the formatting – dab pages need to be very simply structured and without any sort of clutter at the top. – Uanfala (talk) 15:32, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why the
Coronavirus disease 2019 its self is often called just "coronavirus", both articles seem likely for someone searching under this term along with the more specific pandemic article that while we shouldn't usually include, its likely many readers do want to specifically read about that. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:12, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
The first line of the dab page is Corona may refer to:, and if there's a line immediately following (or for that matter, anywhere else in the body of the dab page), which begins with Coronavirus then the dab page is making the statement that "corona" may refer to coronavirus. This is what is factually incorrect. "Corona" is an informal term for the virus currently gripping the world, not the class of coronaviruses generally. – Uanfala (talk) 20:47, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Could you provide a citation for "corona" being used to refer to "coronavirus", please? I have never seen that usage, and I have been following the national news in Canada where I would expect such a usage to appear if it was being used at all. --Rob Kelk 14:58, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
[5], [6], [7] [8], and really, just google "corona" and try finding anything that's not pandemic-related. – Uanfala (talk) 15:24, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Protection level

Maybe this page needs some edit protections..? There seems to have been a fair amount of vandalism is the last few days. MaxwellMolecule (talk) 20:46, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'l make a request at RFPP and probably like 911v AD 911 we can remove protection from Stellar corona. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:04, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense, thanks! MaxwellMolecule (talk) 21:47, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Slang

Is the CoVid being used as "corona" slang? Bernspeed (talk) 17:17, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I believe it's slang, and my view is that this disambiguation page should state that. TowardsTheLight (talk) 17:45, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's informal, but not slang, and it's used in reputable news publications. The topic was discussed at some length in the sections above. – Uanfala (talk) 17:48, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 31 May 2020

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
‹ The template Edit semi-protected is being considered for merging. ›

Corona (from the Latin for 'crown') to Corona (from the Latin for 'the upper portion or crown of a part, as of the head'.) HamzaRampur (talk) 13:07, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:45, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Corona&oldid=1180687741"