Talk:COVID-19 pandemic

New to contributing?

Welcome to Wikipedia; we're glad you're here! Please feel free to join discussions on this talk page, but be aware that, due to the volume of edits at this page, it is one of the more difficult places to jump in for newcomers. You may find it easier to edit a different COVID-19-related article (such as the one for your home country) or to help out with other tasks on Wikipedia.

Highlighted open discussions

NOTE: It is recommended to link to this list in your edit summary when reverting, as:
[[Talk:COVID-19 pandemic#Current consensus|current consensus]] item [n]
To ensure you are viewing the current list, you may wish to .

01. Superseded by #9

The first few sentences of the lead's second paragraph should state The virus is typically spread during close contact and via respiratory droplets produced when people cough or sneeze. Respiratory droplets may be produced during breathing but the virus is not considered airborne. It may also spread when one touches a contaminated surface and then their face. It is most contagious when people are symptomatic, although spread may be possible before symptoms appear. (RfC March 2020)

02. Superseded by #7

The infobox should feature a per capita count map most prominently, and a total count by country map secondarily. (RfC March 2020)

03. Obsolete

The article should not use {{Current}} at the top. (March 2020)

04. Do not include a sentence in the lead section noting comparisons to World War II. (March 2020)

05. Cancelled

Include subsections covering the domestic responses of Italy, China, Iran, the United States, and South Korea. Do not include individual subsections for France, Germany, the Netherlands, Australia and Japan. (RfC March 2020) Include a short subsection on Sweden focusing on the policy controversy. (May 2020)

Subsequently overturned by editing and recognized as obsolete. (July 2024)

06. Obsolete

There is a 30 day moratorium on move requests until 26 April 2020. (March 2020)

07. There is no consensus that the infobox should feature a confirmed cases count map most prominently, and a deaths count map secondarily. (May 2020)

08. Superseded by #16

The clause on xenophobia in the lead section should read ...and there have been incidents of xenophobia and discrimination against Chinese people and against those perceived as being Chinese or as being from areas with high infection rates. (RfC April 2020)

09. Cancelled

Supersedes #1. The first several sentences of the lead section's second paragraph should state The virus is mainly spread during close contact and by small droplets produced when those infected cough, sneeze or talk. These droplets may also be produced during breathing; however, they rapidly fall to the ground or surfaces and are not generally spread through the air over large distances. People may also become infected by touching a contaminated surface and then their face. The virus can survive on surfaces for up to 72 hours. Coronavirus is most contagious during the first three days after onset of symptoms, although spread may be possible before symptoms appear and in later stages of the disease. (April 2020)

Notes

On 17:16, 6 April 2020, these first several sentences were replaced with an extracted fragment from the coronavirus disease 2019 article, which at the time was last edited at 17:11.

010. The article title is COVID-19 pandemic. The title of related pages should follow this scheme as well. (RM April 2020, RM August 2020)

011. The lead section should use Wuhan, China to describe the virus's origin, without mentioning Hubei or otherwise further describing Wuhan. (April 2020)

012. Superseded by #19

The lead section's second sentence should be phrased using the words first identified and December 2019. (May 2020)

013. Superseded by #15

File:President Donald Trump suggests measures to treat COVID-19 during Coronavirus Task Force press briefing.webm should be used as the visual element of the misinformation section, with the caption U.S. president Donald Trump suggested at a press briefing on 23 April that disinfectant injections or exposure to ultraviolet light might help treat COVID-19. There is no evidence that either could be a viable method. (1:05 min) (May 2020, June 2020)

014. Overturned

Do not mention the theory that the virus was accidentally leaked from a laboratory in the article. (RfC May 2020) This result was overturned at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard, as there is consensus that there is no consensus to include or exclude the lab leak theory. (RfC May 2024)

015. Supersedes #13. File:President Donald Trump suggests measures to treat COVID-19 during Coronavirus Task Force press briefing.webm should not be used as the visual element of the misinformation section. (RfC November 2020)

016. Supersedes #8. Incidents of xenophobia and discrimination are considered WP:UNDUE for a full sentence in the lead. (RfC January 2021)

017. Only include one photograph in the infobox. There is no clear consensus that File:COVID-19 Nurse (cropped).jpg should be that one photograph. (May 2021)

018. Superseded by #19

The first sentence is The COVID-19 pandemic, also known as the coronavirus pandemic, is a global pandemic of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). (August 2021, RfC October 2023)

019. Supersedes #12 and #18. The first sentence is The global COVID-19 pandemic (also known as the coronavirus pandemic), caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), began with an outbreak in Wuhan, China, in December 2019. (June 2024)

Mitigation outcomes

I think this (paraphrased) is worth adding, maybe in the management section:

In the absence of policy actions, we estimate that early infections of COVID-19 exhibit exponential growth rates of roughly 38% per day. We find that anti-contagion policies have significantly and substantially slowed this growth. Some policies have different impacts on different populations, but we obtain consistent evidence that the policy packages now deployed are achieving large, beneficial, and measurable health outcomes. We estimate that across these six countries, interventions prevented or delayed on the order of 62 million confirmed cases, corresponding to averting roughly 530 million total infections.

— The effect of large-scale anti-contagion policies on the COVID-19 pandemic

References

RfC: Misinformation visual

What visual element should be used for the information dissemination section (which consists primarily of the misinformation subsection) for this article?

Option 1

• Option 1 (status quo): The video (right) of Donald Trump suggesting that disinfectant injections or exposure to ultraviolet light might help treat COVID-19, with the caption (previously affirmed as consensus) U.S. president Donald Trump suggested at a press briefing on 23 April that disinfectant injections or exposure to ultraviolet light might help treat COVID-19. There is no evidence that either could be a viable method. (1:05 min)
• Option 2: Some other photo or video, or combination of photos/videos (previous options discussed here and elsewhere)
• Option 3: Have no visual element for the section

References

{{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 17:02, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Survey

• Option 1. The Trump press conference is a clear example of misinformation, despite the protestations of POV-pushers who have been campaigning to remove it ever since it was added by consensus. Trump is certainly not the only leader who has been spreading misinformation, but when we considered a variety of visuals options a month and a half ago, none of the proposed alternatives were nearly as good. Given Trump's prominence on the world stage, using this video seems perfectly suitable. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 17:02, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

  One other note: I am very much saddened that, despite two previous well-attended discussions, we are having to devote yet more energy to this matter, rather than being able to spend it on the more general improvement/maintenance of an article who's overall quality is literally a matter of life or death. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 17:02, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

• Option 3. Strong Oppose to any visual element. Continually reopening this topic only leads to more argument and disagreement. I don't think a visual aid is necessary for the misinformation section. The Trump clip adds no significant value nor great gains in understanding the misinformation issue with COVID 19 and simply works to polarize the article further, and open it to (unsubstantiated) claims of a political agenda, or feed conspiracy theorists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Porcelain katana (talk • contribs) 18:27, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

• VETO again, Sdkb is manipulating the poles system again to create a false range of option with no respect or effort to listen to others comments. Here is my opinion again, I don't mind the picture as long as the comment depict the situation correctly. Trump was suggesting more researches, not immediate use for Americans. The media DID reported that he directly suggested the usage of disinfectant and I'd be fine with that statement. IF and only IF we can't reach a consensus for the caption, i'm fine with ending the drama with option 3, this picture is not crucial. Iluvalar (talk) 18:38, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

  See my reply to Hzh in the discussion section. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 23:38, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

  And see my reply there as well. Barkeep49 (talk) 04:41, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

• Option 1. I'm glad the RfC bot is working and a handful non-involved editors can weigh in.

However, this video might be better. ;) It has WP:RS [2][3]. --David Tornheim (talk) 22:00, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

• Option 2, Pinocchio, seen here being iconic and not a real boy. We can rake him over the coals, not a shred of BLP guilt, even subconsciously. Barring that, nothing, use your words. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:01, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

• Option 1 per nom and previous discussions. -sche (talk) 03:10, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
• option 1 per nom--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:00, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

• Option 3 No visual illustration in the section given the opportunity to push a narrative that violates WP:NPOV, not to mention WP:UNDUE prominence. The image of the Iranian President there was also previously removed for this reason. Hzh (talk) 11:05, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

• Option 3. For reasons mentioned above. Tobby72 (talk) 16:44, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3 There's so much misinformation coming from various sources that singling out the orange buffoon seems hardly appropriate; and in any case I don't think the video is a particularly good use of audio-visuals: a more appropriate take would be some proper criticism of misinformation by reputable sources, but then there's probably no such option that is copyright-eligible so... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:03, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

  Any visual element for any general topic is always going to "single out" the example it depicts. We don't need to declare Trump the worst misinformation spreader on the planet to use the video; all we need to establish is that he's a representative example. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 06:24, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Adding only a single image there does in effect declare something special about what he said, and that is UNDUE and non-neutral, especially when there is uncertainty if he had intended to be ironic. There are far worse examples of misinformation that actually killed people, for example the misinformation that drinking strong alcohol can kill the virus resulted in hundreds of deaths in Iran and other countries -[4][5][6]. You are arguing here that the quality of this article is a matter of life and death, but strangely removed that misinformation had actually killed people in that section [7]. Why is that? Hzh (talk) 08:46, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Nah, it has nothing to do with his claim to be ironic (I don't think any reasonable source took that one seriously, and anyway Trump is known for "revising" statements he made earlier...); it's just that I don't think it helps illustrate the topic, and anyway this particular example lasted just a few news cycles as usual before being buried by something else. I don't think videos are a good idea here. Maybe a governement poster about misinformation could do the trick (maybe something like this, but from a proper non-copyrighted source)? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 11:04, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

• Adding on, the MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE guideline begins Images must be significant and relevant in the topic's context, not primarily decorative. They are often an important illustrative aid to understanding. The Trump video clearly meets that threshold of "significant and relevant" and clearly aids in understanding by providing a representative example of a high-profile figure spreading misinformation (the text in the section, by contrast, is very generalized). {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 08:38, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

• Considering the interesting selection of options listed above (or better stated, those NOT listed above who could be), the most neutral and sensible choice appears to be no image, Option 3. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:25, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

  

  Previous visual used

  If you have a solid alternative, please give us a link to the file and make your case for it so we can consider it. If you follow the linked discussion from option 2 in the question, you'll see that the best visual we were able to find (despite a fair amount of searching) before coming across the Trump video was this photo of a building belonging to a Chinese news agency. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 08:23, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

  I did not respond to this RFC without first following the link. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:52, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

  Plenty of valid, more neutral, options were suggested in the article. Sdkb personnaly reverted several of them. I don't know why he act as if he received no suggestions. Iluvalar (talk) 19:08, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

• Option 3 The less emphasis given to any misinformation the better. People come to this article for information, not misinformation. No matter how clearly we label any bit of misinformation, someone is going to think the opposite. This is especially true when it is in the form of a video, as someone might play it, and people who aren't even reading the article could hear. Additionally, having a video is grossly WP:UNDUE. Adoring nanny (talk) 01:56, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3 per HzH Forich (talk) 00:57, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 - it's neither the first, nor the last example, but one that has achieved worldwide well known coverage in the media. So it's a very suitable example. --Traut (talk) 06:53, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3 for neutrality reasons. There's no need to single out Trump when many other world leaders are spreading rampant misinformation - like the Madagascar herbal cure that many African nations have ordered. And an image/video contributes absolutely nothing to the discussion and does not inform people. It will simply serve people's confirmation biases, or turn people off from reading the article, therefore preventing us from providing quality information to people. Nmurali02 (talk) 12:58, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3 per Adoring nanny. — Tartan357  ^(Talk) 05:11, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 per Traut - Sure plenty of people have spread misinformation but Trumps misinformation has recieved worldwide attention and therefore IMHO should be the main imagery here, –Davey2010^Talk 13:46, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 as the example that has received by far the most coverage and which is therefore the most iconic. --Aquillion (talk) 04:04, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

While there is a previous consensus on the inclusion of the picture, there is not a consensus on which caption should follow it. Benica11 (talk) 18:27, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

There was actually no consensus on the inclusion of the picture/video, which is why we have this RfC. Sdkb wrongly claimed that there was consensus on adding it after the RfC on caption and add it to the Current consensus section above. Hzh (talk) 22:06, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

• This is not the way to start a RfC. RfC needs to be neutral and brief per WP:RFCBRIEF, which this is not (particular your option 1). You claimed consensus on a previous discussion which you should not do - as someone who started the discussion, you need to wait for a non-involved editor to close that discussion, you are not at liberty to claim consensus yourself, especially when there were 7 who expressly opposed Option 1. That Option 1 by the way is about the caption of the video file, it is not about using the video as a visual element in the Misinformation section, therefore using the votes on caption to claim a consensus on using the video in the Current consensus is wrong. You have in effect made a false statement in the Current consensus section. Then you accuse those who pointed this out as POV-pushers. Given that you have started this RfC, you are also implicitly agreeing that your claim of consensus is wrong, so these so-called "POV-pushers" are right? Hzh (talk) 22:49, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

  The prior consensus to include the video was established here and solidified by its presence for over a month in this high-scrutiny article, and its inclusion was part of the current consensus list even before the discussion on the caption that affirmed the current caption. The inclusion consensus wasn't as strong as the caption consensus, which is why we're now having this RfC at your own behest. Some people complained at the caption discussion that discussing inclusion was out of scope, and now the same group is complaining here at the inclusion discussion that discussing the caption is out of scope, so sorry, I'm not going to give that weight. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 23:33, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

  Lies ! I was in "here". Also this : [8] in May 14, you cannot possibly ignore that this image is contested since the beginning. You're argument "solidified by its presence for over a month" is out of the scope of WP:FAITH. Iluvalar (talk) 00:23, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

  I have, in a role as an uninvolved administrator, struck the wording in the RfC that suggests the video is the status quo option. The May discussion which justifies its inclusion was inconclusive. Its inclusion was reverted and this inconclusive discussion was then used to justify a comment in the article text to attempt to dissuade others from removing or reverting it. It is my opinion as an uninvolved administrator that status quo would be no picture/video for the section. One is not required in this instance after all, but would be positive and appropriate if consensus can be found. Otherwise I see no issue with the framing of this RfC which does seem to present the full range of options. Barkeep49 (talk) 04:41, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: Thank you. I wonder if you can as uninvolved administrator remove or strike off item #13 in the current consensus pinned at the top. It does not make sense to have a RfC on using the video while claiming that there is already a consensus on using it (which there isn't). Sdkb added item #13 after the discussion on the caption. As mentioned in Talk:COVID-19 pandemic#Trump & Khamenei misinformation images/videos: NO consensus, there wasn't a clear consensus on the caption either. Hzh (talk) 10:54, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

• How about we delete the whole misinformation section? Seriously, the whole thing. Give people information. Don't confuse them. Adoring nanny (talk) 02:00, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Oppose. The thing about misinformation and their believers is their concept: if it is not said to be wrong, couldn't it be right? So I feel it is very important to step up against misinformation and to point it out here. If you want to reduce the size of the article, think about transmission, treatment etc. But any of this topics has already a wikipedia page of its own. All of those sections would have to be trimmed to a minimum, an even shorter abstract what to find on the linked pages. --Traut (talk) 06:51, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market photo request

Should File:Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market.png be included, maybe in the "Background" section? Or should the photo request be deleted? Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:29, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

in the absence of a better image...sure the 'background' (or other) section could benefit from it--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:13, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

I was aware of that image when I added the photo request; it's really not a great image (basically just a road), so I'm on the fence about whether including it is a net positive or not. I'd say maybe leave it out and leave the request up, and perhaps we'll get a better photo at some point. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 05:12, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes the problem is that its dated March, it would be better if we had one around the time the market was just closed but from searching on Commons we don't appear to. Unless we stated "in March" in the caption it might make readers think it was when it just closed. Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:52, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

I've now created Commons:Category:Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market which I've managed to add one other image to (a map) if anyone has anymore images, preferably around the time the market was just closed that would be good. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:26, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Crouch, Swale, be careful — the other image you added is one promoting a conspiracy theory about the virus's origin. It was added for a few days a while back until we noticed what it was depicting. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:39, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

@Sdkb: OK, I'll remove it. Crouch, Swale (talk) 07:27, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Edit request

Please add

Demand for dexamethasone surges after publication of the preprint. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1000:B060:19EC:7590:8C1E:E5:AE94 (talk) 05:33, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

The source is primary. DAVRONOVA.A. ✉ ⚑ 06:49, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

References

florida

• running away w/ it ~9000 cases/ one day[9],and the next day on 27 June [10] w/ 9,500 cases.... separate subsection in U.S. might be good idea(and Texas too) on 'virus resurgence'--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:37, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Better review for asymptomatic spread

[11] Can you please change this: "One estimate of the number of those infected who are asymptomatic is 40%." to: "A June 2020 review found the likelihood of those infected that are asymptomatic to be 40-45%." [12]

It started in November 2019 per the History section...

...so to me it is fairly obviously wrong to have the lede stating that it started in December. I am suggesting that the consensus that I understand was reached about December must be re-examined. I did what I could to tidy up the messy history section, then updated the lede to reflect what the History section says, and indeed already said. Uh-oh, can’t do that...my edit was reverted. So,

I propose that the lede be updated to read: "The outbreak was first identified in Wuhan, China, in November 2019." Boscaswell talk 10:34, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Define "It". COVID-19 started in 2019. November, december - or yet to find any proof, maybe october or earlier, we will see. But as a pandemic this was not before december. A global pandemic arrived in March 2020. But the 17 November source is named as "According to an unpublicised report from the Chinese government" - so there is not sufficient proof for this date, while the 1 December dates are very well referenced. --Traut (talk) 11:21, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 June 2020

Change number of recoveries in Sweden from "No data" to "10 176". Reference to number of recoveries for Sweden: https://platz.se/coronavirus/ Dmtcake (talk) 15:33, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

@Dmtcake:  Not done: There is a comment in Template:COVID-19 pandemic data that says "Do not use recoveries from platz.se, as the given source explains, there is no comprehensive and reliable source for it". GoingBatty (talk) 18:30, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

useless picture

File:COVID19_deceased_in_Hackensack_NJ_April_27.jpg is a useless picture and adds to the geographical bias on WP. It should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.100.139.52 (talk) 18:17, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

"Korona pandemic" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Korona pandemic. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 27#Korona pandemic until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Zoozaz1 20:55, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

"Draft:Corona Chasers" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Draft:Corona Chasers. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 27#Draft:Corona Chasers until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Zoozaz1 20:58, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

"Draft:Wuhan Coronavirus 2019" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Draft:Wuhan Coronavirus 2019. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 27#Draft:Wuhan Coronavirus 2019 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Zoozaz1 20:59, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

There is evidence the new virus was in Europe at least from March 2019, well before Chinese doctors announced it in December

https://www.ub.edu/web/ub/en/menu_eines/noticies/2020/06/042.html

38.121.86.157 (talk) 01:59, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

It is good that wikipedia settled on "first identified in Wuhan, China" then.

• The linked paper, https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.06.13.20129627v1, clearly states "This article is a preprint and has not been peer-reviewed". That means it can not be used as a source and we can not add content based on it. Until a reliable source (compliant with WP:MEDRS) says otherwise, Wikipedia will stick with the current academic consensus for the Wuhan origin. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:58, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

In which case the new virus was in Europe before it was in China, and China had very likely caught it from Europe, and China and the Chinese people are just being used as a scapegoat, especially by donald trump, who is an expert in twisting things including "George Floyd in heaven will like .....". If you watch the film Crocodile Dundee 2 (made circa 1990), then you will realise this is hardly surprising, as bats were eaten as a food by Australians in the film (nah, it needs garlic). So if this virus did originate in bats, then it would have been in Australia and Australians for years prior to this. The illness in Europe and UK could have been treated as MRSA or sepsis. It is best to leave the forensic work to the medical scientists to work out exactly what happened. As with HIV/AIDS, it could take decades of forensic work, by which time, donald trump will have died of old age. Time will tell. 2A00:23C5:C102:9E00:B92F:1AD2:BD6B:EBE4 (talk) 02:29, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

'Pandemic' or 'Global pandemic'

The word 'global' has recently been inserted into the first sentence of the article to describe the pandemic. Is this adjective necessary or not? It might be, given the contents of the Pandemic article, but maybe it isn't, given the WHO definition; [13]. Three of us have been discussing it here, and as you can see, there are conflicting views and references. I thought it best to come here for a quick resolution (hopefully by a !vote and consensus we can avoid wasting too much time on this matter). The issue is, perhaps, minor, but ideally we should have consistency throughout the COVID-related articles. At the moment there is no such consistency. I'll kick it off with this proposal:

A pandemic is, by definition, global, so the adjective is not needed:

• Support. The WHO reference, noted above, describes a pandemic as '...the worldwide spread of a new disease. '. We should adopt WHO usage. Arcturus (talk)
• Oppose removing adjective "global". At that discussion on my talk page, I provided substantial evidence that a pandemic is not by definition global - I did that by providing actual definitions, the majority of which say otherwise. And no, we should not simply adopt the WHO usage - both Wikipedia, and the English language itself, go by common usage. If consistency is the goal, we should consistently use the adjective "global". Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:13, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

  I'll just add that if there's a genuine ambiguity about a definition, I think Wikipedia should use the most informative presentation - we're pretty big on disambiguation here. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:25, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose removal - Whole heartedly agree with Boing! - Most if not ALL of the world has referred to this as a global pandemic and news sources too have referred to it as such[14], As per COMMONUSAGE we should label this a global pandemic irrespective of whether "pandemic" means global or not. –Davey2010^Talk 18:21, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
• Strong support: There is nothing such as a "regional pandemic", hence i find the prependation of 'global' redundant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leaderofthewave. (talk • contribs) 20:30, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

  Do you have a source to support that assertion? Here's a couple of sources from the list of definitions I have already provided...

  • Dictionary.com: "..a pandemic disease is an epidemic that has spread over a large area, that is, it’s “prevalent throughout an entire country, continent, or the whole world." By that definition you can have a country-wide pandemic, a continent-wide pandemic and a worldwide pandemic.
  • Cambridge Dictionary: "(of a disease) existing in almost all of an area or in almost all of a group of people, animals, or plants." It adds "In some parts of the world malaria is still pandemic", so it gives a specific example of a regional pandemic.

  Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:55, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

• mild oppose to change. It is coherent with our own definitions. Also nothing forbid us to do a pleonasm. Iluvalar (talk) 20:31, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
• Remove "global". It is redundant. If others in the world use "global", it is just excess embellishment to be accompanied with wild hand waving. We might as well say it is a "global pandemic that is everywhere high and low around the world spreading to all populations!" Beside that there is a map right next to the lead that shows where it has spread. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 21:31, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

When is the coronavirus going to end

The following discussion 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.

---

On June 29, 2020, the coronavirus was announced that it is going to end on November 30, 2020 because the scientist were able to make the cure for the outbreak by that time. They are still working on a vaccine so they could get them healed from the virus, so they could be peaceful and open all the stores back in once again.

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.

Urgent fix and at least in need for citation over ridiculous sentence

"On June 29, 2020, the coronavirus was announced that it is going to end on November 30, 2020 because the scientist were able to make the cure for the outbreak by that time."

What??? Source!!!!!— Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.210.177.104 (talk • contribs)

 Done. It was vandalism. It's been removed. Good catch! --McSly (talk) 22:37, 29 June 2020 (UTC)