Talk:COVID-19 pandemic

RfC on map of infected cases

Which is better, a map of Greater China or a map of Mainland China?--Jabo-er (talk) 01:07, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Per discussions above (#Image of Map and #Greater China map), I have replaced the map of "Greater China" with one of Mainland China, and my edit got reverted. Let me explain why I think a Mainland China map is more appropriate here:

• "Mainland China" is a clearly defined and commonly used term, while "Greater China" is a vaguely defined and a less commonly used one, and not without disputes.
• "Mainland China" is itself in the table of confirmed cases, so a Mainland China map can be seen as a breakdown by first-level administrative divisions. "Greater China", as its articles suggests, is an informal term used to refer a geographic area that shares commercial and cultural ties dominated by Han Chinese. A commercial and cultural concept is not quite relevant to an article concerning a epidemic.
• If the rationale to use "Greater China" over "Mainland China" is because Taiwan is infected too, then there is no reason to exclude South Korea, Thailand and Vietnam since those countries report confirmed cases too. It would be good to have a map that shows the first-level administrative divisions of the respective countries so that we are comparing apples to apples, i.e. Incheon, South Korea: 2 compared with to Hubei, China: 1096.

User:Ratherous kept reverting my edit without ANY explanation, so I am requesting a Request for comment to avoid embroiling myself in an unwanted edit war. IMHO a Mainland China map is clearly more relevant to the ongoing epidemic outbreak.

• 
• 

--Jabo-er (talk) 00:49, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Jabo-er, you were editing without any consensus. That discussion was originally started by a sockpuppet account which was then banned, so not many people took it seriously to begin with however you did not attempt to reach any consensus whatsoever. These reasons that you are giving would be a lot more appropriate for the original discussion section rather than here. Plus I’m not sure why you keep saying i was reverting without explanation as I clearly have a very specific explanation as to why your edits were reverted. Stop edit warring to POV push and reach consensus. --Ratherous (talk) 00:55, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Maybe you can try to give your arguments rather than attacking a blocked sockpuppet. That would be more productive to the discussion. --Jabo-er (talk) 01:06, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Please note that your second map has already violated NPOV as stated in #Image of Map: Indian controlled disputed land is in exactly the color of India in that map while PRC-administrated disputed land are in a different shaded color, thus unbalanced.

For the issue you mentioned, Greater China has no such ambiguity - few people (I've never heard any) would call South Korea a part of Greater China. Please give some source about the ambiguity you mentioned. --173.68.165.114 (talk) 10:55, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree with you on the Indian controlled dispute land - the updated map is neutral on this part now. Thank you for pointing it out. On the other hand, since "Mainland China" is in the table of confirmed cases, readers can refer to a Mainland China map for a breakdown by provinces in Mainland China, where most cases are reported. A map of Mainland China + Macau + Hong Kong + Taiwan does not serve a clear purpose here, because "Greater China" is a coined term that serves economic and cultural purposes. If a map of all infected areas is expected, then a map of East Asia ( Mainland China + Macau + Hong Kong + Taiwan + Thailand + Vietnam + South Korea + Nepal) would be preferred over one excluding some countries. --Jabo-er (talk) 16:34, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

No one can explain why a map of Mainland China + Macau + Hong Kong + Taiwan (but not + Thailand + Nepal + Vietnam) makes sense. It is only here because no one else has produced a more proper one.

Sadly, I have also removed File:2019-nCoV Confirmed Cases Animated Map of China.gif, which is itself a very good animation, for violating NPOV as it depicts Taiwan as part of China rather than a claimed territory. On the other hand, counting the cases by province in Mainland but by the whole country of Taiwan is an inappropriate comparison - only the infected Taiwanese cities (Taipei, Kaohsiung; first-level administrative division in Taiwan) should be coloured.

• 

--Jabo-er (talk) 00:52, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

• FYI the reason why Mainland China + HK + Macau + TW makes more sense than Thailand + Nepal + Vietnam is the former four all claims to be China themselves, and all countries (including the UN) in the world recognize one of the four as a representative of all the four, which is part of the definition of a sovereign nation in international law. While Thailand + Nepal + Vietnam don't have that property. If you are so enthusiastic, you can actually make a map of Novorossiya + Northern Cyprus + Islamic State + Saharawi + Somaliland, but it simply doesn't make sense. --173.68.165.114 (talk) 09:56, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

• • That is only true about TW. Macau and HK do not claim to be all China, only Taiwan does. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jabo-er (talk • contribs)
    • Macau and HK do claim to be China. They don't necessarily claim to be the only part of China or the representative of China. They just claim to be China. For instance, you claim to be human doesn't mean you claim to be the entire human race. --173.68.165.114 (talk) 03:58, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
• How about a map of "East Asia", including the subdivisions of Chinese provinces (or other national subdivisions) depending on the data available? This would bypass the territorial NPOV issue. A viral epidemic doesn't care much about territorial claims: it's enough for one carrier to pass a border and propagate the infection. Boud (talk) 06:36, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

• Replace map I would go for either a map of China broken down by province and a map of East Asia or just a map of China broken down by province. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 06:57, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

• The animated map in question does not even mention China, it is merely a colored version of an existing Wikimedia Commons map (standard/latest go-to blank province map of China) and has been restored. It took a lot of work to produce and does not make any political suggestions. prat (talk) 09:26, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Please be advised that the original map had Taiwan drawn in a different outline color. This was not visible under the previous coloring. With the new coloring (see image talk page) as requested, it is more visible. I believe this matter can now be fully put to rest. prat (talk) 11:18, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
    • Dear prat, I really appreciate the great effort that you have made in creating and updating the animation and taking actions in response to feedbacks — despite the inappropriately threatening tone in the message you left on my talk page. I hope more Wikipedians can work to resolve disputes like what you did. That said, I still propose a map of Mainland China by province or a map of East Asia would be more relevant and NPOV choices that bypass the irrelevant territorial disputes, as User:Boud suggested above, and look forward to a community consensus on this issue. --Jabo-er (talk) 14:53, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

• Replace map Including Taiwan violates NPOV. Ythlev (talk) 15:14, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

• Replace map remove File:2019-nCoV Confirmed Cases Animated Map of China.webm as it is POV (like why does the PRC map also show Taiwan without any explanation?) It also doesn't serve a purpose as the grouping is arbitrary. For statistical purposes, mainland China is represented separately with provincial level number. I prefer having one map of mainland China (divided by provinces) and another map of the standard world/territories with numbers in each.--DreamLinker (talk) 05:05, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

• The problem is: Mainland China + HK + Macau + TW all claims to be China themselves, and all countries (including the UN) in the world recognize one of the four as a representative of all the four, which is part of the definition of a sovereign nation in international law. --173.68.165.114 (talk) 10:08, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

• Thats wrong in so many different ways... At this point your contributions are starting to feel more tendentious than here to build an encyclopedia. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 12:12, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

• Would you please point out in which way is that wrong? It is just a routine universal practice applied by the international communities, such as sovereign states, international organizations, etc. --173.68.165.114 (talk) 12:42, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
• Your practice, by separating all provinces of China, sounds also good. But that needs major works to be done. However, separating all provinces sounds a bit China centered, as the only other practice I've found is maps published in the US which separated all US states by treating them equal as sovereign states. --173.68.165.114 (talk) 12:46, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

• Mainland China is relevant as it has the highest cases and is the origin. For the rest, a world map with country/territory is sufficient. On Wikipedia, we follow how major news reports are reporting it (like maps at [1]). The term Greater China is a political term like Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere. It's not useful for defining geographical boundaries.--DreamLinker (talk) 16:38, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

• @DreamLinker: All "major media" you quoted are from the western bloc, which has the tradition that media can draw their map against their governmental stance, thus doesn't reflect the fact that all governments, such as the Holy See, considers these four area the same state. Also, please kindly show any reliable source for your claim "the term Greater China is a political term like Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere". --173.68.165.114 (talk) 03:53, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

• Mainland China is probably more relevant as long as this is mainly in PRC and Taiwan is de-facto governed separately. But I don't think either way is a big issue, if there is a better map (up to date, graphics) with or without Taiwan with a license, then inclusion or exclusion of Taiwan is a minor issue in relation to the map being up to date. I also suspect a China specific won't be relevant for long as this is spreading world wide and fast.--Eostrix (talk) 08:53, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

• I wonder what the detailed Wikipedia policy about de facto governance: is Northern Cyprus included in a Greater Cyprus map? Is Islamic State drawn differently from Syria? Could you please quote the corresponding Wikipedia policy concerning this issue? --173.68.165.114 (talk) 10:08, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

• I don't know if there is. But even if there is policy for geopolitical issues, I don't think it is relevant for health and epidemics. Viruses don't respect borders. We should be illustrating on a map according to what demonstrates the epidemic best. If Taiwan is part of the epidemic and illustrates the point, it should be in. But the same is true for North or South Korea. Xizang (Tibet) so far has been so far not so affected, so inclusion on the map is not so important. This is about health and people, not politics.--Eostrix (talk) 13:20, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

• @Eostrix: If you really considered geopolitical issues are irrelevant, you wouldn't ask for a mainland China map instead of a greater China map, as virus doesn't care the geographic borders what's the point to exclude Taiwan from it? For North and South Korea it's a totally different issue, as both side recognize the other side to be a UN member on Sept. 17, 1991. Before that date, they were one country as recognized by the world, as all states in the world recognized one and only one of them to be the representative of Korea, until 1991. --173.68.165.114 (talk) 03:53, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

• Replace with map of East Asia divided down to top-level administrative regions – the underlying locus of this dispute is the political bias that is brought by the choice to use Greater China rather than Mainland China, which could imply endorsement of the PRC's territorial claims over Taiwan. Using a map of East Asia would not require that much of a zoom-out and would retain the benefit of also knowing what's happening in Taiwan. Jancarcu (talk) 20:05, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

• This whole discussion is nonsense. First, if the concern is Taiwan NPOV, then fix the reference map I reached for when creating the visualization on commons instead of hassling people who are contributing to current articles with high levels of effort. Second, it appears there is already a consensus in that design to render Taiwan differently, a difference which is visible on the current version of the animation after the colors were enhanced. Third, the map doesn't say anything about being China, it's just a square-looking area around the epicenter. The frame of reference is the caption, which currently reads "... in China" but did not yesterday. That is a quick fix. prat (talk) 20:41, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

  Can you post the map you used as a reference? Its entirely possible you just started with a bad map. You have to be careful with images on commons as they aren’t required to meet high standards of accuracy or verifiability. On a side note given that the map's title is "2019-nCoV Confirmed Cases Animated Map of China” saying that the only place "being China" is mentioned is in the caption is disingenuous. The description also states "Animated map of confirmed 2019-nCoV cases spreading across China from 2020-01-25.” Wouldn’t you have written both those things yourself? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 20:57, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

  I am sure Dear prat, a long-contributing Wikipedian and an administrator, will understand the discussion here serves the purpose of improving the article in respect of the Neutral Point of View policy. Nothing in the discussion so far is intended to undermine the contribution of you and other fellow Wikipedians either here or on Commons. First, File:China blank province map.svg is not a bad map. It's useful when showing administrative divisions in PRC's point of view with its claimed territories shown differently, but in an article of the epidemic, an NPOV and more relevant approach would be to show a map of Mainland China broken down by province, as "Mainland China" is a statistical unit of the infected cases. Second, it would be helpful if you could provide the link of such a consensus either here or on Commons for us to refer to, as the folks commenting here appear to provide some useful thoughts that can contribute to the consensus. Third, the filename "2019-nCoV Confirmed Cases Animated Map of China" is implicative, so is the fact that it's a square-looking area around the epicenter that excludes many countries. --Jabo-er (talk) 07:27, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

  Replace with map of East Asia divided down to top-level administrative regions Absolutely Agreed. Please also note that all daily statistics released by the Chinese Health commission ( http://www.nhc.gov.cn/xcs/yqtb/list_gzbd.shtm ) also include Taiwan and those Taiwanese figures need to be excised from the China overall total which is released daily at that location. First we need a proper map though. Wikimucker (talk) 09:16, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

• Replace map. Replace with: Mainland China excluding Taiwan; or replace with a map of South-East Asia, including other countries in the region. -Mardus /talk 10:17, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

• Replace map Replace or relabel the map as East Asia. This prevents any unnecessary political rhetoric warring on Wikipedia. Additionally this virus has now spread well beyond China at this point with notable cases in Thailand, Vietnam, etc. Krazytea(talk) 17:23, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

• Replace map with map of mainland China or broader region (i.e. East Asia). There is no such country as "Greater China" and the coupling of Taiwan with the PRC seems to be POV-pushing. Citobun (talk) 00:24, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

• Replace map with map of mainland China as current map does not respect npov (for Taiwan) and is even non-POLA (for colored parts in India claimed by China). Fleet ch (talk) 09:43, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
  • The India part is rendered with lighter colours to show disputed territories. Being widely accepted by the Wikipedia community (see China. India, Ukraine, and Russia), it should be nowhere surprising and doesn't violate WP:POLA. Akira CA (talk) 13:03, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Keep the map with Taiwan. Taiwan is recognized as part of China by the United Nations. And apparently, Wikipedia treated Crimea as part of Ukraine in all maps, despite the fact that Crimea is not under Ukrainian control, as did in the cases of Moldova/Transnistria and Georgia/Abkhazia. We should not have double-standard here. Taekhosong (talk) 00:34, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

• UPDATE. Someone has removed the map. This is ridiculous. I have asked for the commons file to be renamed without the word 'China'. The open source code that generates the map now uses the term 'greater china regions' instead of 'province'. Can we put this political crap to bed now, please. prat (talk) 02:13, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
  • I have removed the 'China' mention in the caption, and in the description on both the GIF and WEBM versions of the media, and restored the animation. prat (talk)

Still has Taiwan as part of the PRC though. If you want to insist on using this map just take Taiwan out and the political crap ends immediately. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 02:36, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree. The reason why a map of PRC should be included is that it has 98.50% of current cases. If Taiwan's 0.11% of world cases should be included, it may as well be a world map.50.237.218.250 (talk) 19:01, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Incorrect. There is currently no mention of the PRC, China or any toponym whatsoever. I have again reverted someone else's caption change to yet again remove the word China. This does not assert anything and is therefore NPOV. prat (talk) 02:52, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

I’m sorry but thats ridiculous, this would be *extremely* confusing to viewers. I note that there is clear consensus to make it a map of East Asia and/or a map of China, this map is neither. What is it a map of? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 05:22, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

You just intentionally side-stepped Pratyeka's argument, with nakedly bad faith that is characteristic of your "discussion" style. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 18:35, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Statue of Chiang Kai-shek on Daqiu in Wuqiu, Kinmen with a map of China

I think it's time to assume good faith. Horse Eye Jack's argument is defensible because even though the map does not mention the word "China" and has undergone stylistic adjustments to increase neutrality, the map's overall shape still looks like the chicken-shaped territory claimed by the PRC, complete with Taiwan as the second drumstick. Jancarcu (talk) 21:30, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Greater China includes the Outer Mongolia region, hence I have added a mention that the map excludes Mongolia to this page. cf. the picture of Chiang Kai-shek and his map on Wuqiu Island in Kinmen on the Greater China page. Geographyinitiative (talk) 08:53, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Without even mentioning the case of Taiwan, it is, to say the least, "surprising" to see, on this map, coloured regions on the territory of India... It's totally non-npov. Fleet ch (talk) 09:33, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Singapore is considered part of Greater China by some as well, hence it could be a valid candidate for inclusion in this map.

some analysts see the Greater China concept as a way to summarise ‘the linkages among the fair-flung international Chinese community’, thereby incorporating Singapore and overseas Chinese communities in their usage of the term (Harding 1993, 660; also see Wang 1993).[2]

Geographyinitiative (talk) 09:48, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Geographyinitiative Your statement is divorced from reality. Singapore is not considered by any reliable metric a part of the Sinosphere, let alone a part of the geographically contiguous "Greater China" bloc, which strictly refers to territories historically under the fold of the Chinese imperial state and its later republics. If Singapore is a part of the Sinosphere, then so are Malaysia and Indonesia by virtue of having large ethnic Chinese populations. Your insistence on pushing ethnonationalistic agendas on other articles has been a cause for concern with other editors, and this statement of yours does not inspire confidence in your ability to remain an NPOV editor on Wikipedia. Tiger7253 (talk) 19:06, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Replace the map with one of the People's Republic of China, showing the territory they actually control. There is no country called Greater China, and it is incredibly annoying seeing the stupid "disputed" tag on the map for more than a week. If the current map is used, "... in the People's Republic of China, Hong Kong SAR, Macau SAR and Taiwan" is a neutral discription. But an article about a disease is not the place for disputes about the political status of the island of Taiwan, neither is it the place to try to force through terminology that noone uses IRL. Wikipedia is made for its readers, not its editors. And the man on the street will refer to these areas as the PRC, Hong Kong, Macau and Taiwan. Valentinian ^{T / C} 16:11, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

• Keep map, either with caption to state "across Mainland China, Hong Kong, Macau, and Taiwan", or none at all per Pratyeka. The definition of mainland China is not contested anywhere, and its usage is mandated by relevant naming conventions. The issues with South Tibet / Arunachal Pradesh that Fleet ch are tertiary to this discussion. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 18:35, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
  • As this is the current status, there is no need to do anything. I consider this issue resolved. prat (talk) 19:46, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Replace the map This map needs to be replaced. It’s absolutely taking the political position of the PRC, and implies that Taiwan is a province. If this were a political neutral map of “Greater China”, the map should include Singapore and the Republic of China’s administrative divisions, to make it uniform with the PRC’s provinces. Taiwan/ROC does not have provinces, but instead counties and major municipal divisions that should have been included on a non-political map. It needs to be clear that the Chinese government does not and cannot represent the people of Taiwan, like some might assume with this map. Eclipsed830 (talk) 20:40, 30 January 2020 (UTC) — Eclipsed830 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Replace map with map of mainland China. The reason there is a map for China next to the world map is the much higher density of cases in China, with 98.6% of all cases. The "China" concept that makes the most sense in that reasoning is the PRC-controlled "mainland China". The caption should say "mainland China"; Taiwan should be gray. (Note that China has 60 times the population of Taiwan and 1000 times as many 2019-nCoV cases.) Danstronger (talk) 00:35, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
• Replace map Current version is misleading. --Irony of prudent premise (talk) 10:31, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

• Replace map Misleading and violate NPOV to include Taiwan, as is using "Greater China" since it is not a country, introducing it would be an attempt to add an extra dimension to the article where it is not needed nor appropriate. Hzh (talk) 10:48, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Summary of discussion and actions to date

A concern was raised regarding NPOV because Taiwan was not visually distinct from China in the original map. This has been resolved by changing the map colors. Taiwan is now visually distinct, as with other disputed areas. Subsequently, in addition, the following actions have been taken: remove any mention of China from the caption, remove any mention of China from the file name, remove any mention of China from the file description, rename variables and files in the generating software from 'provinces' to 'greater-china-regions'. This has been a substantial effort. The current situation is that there is no suggestion, implied or otherwise, about Taiwan's relationship to China. The true reason it is included in the current animation is simply that the map I sought on Wikimedia Commons had it included (as with other disputed areas), and that the data source had it included. I am not going to put in any more effort to remove Taiwan, since it would (a) reduce the information conveyed; and (b) waste more time. I consider this discussion concluded. Please close the RFC. prat (talk) 21:45, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't understand why Arunachal Pradesh, an Indian region claimed by China, is colored in this map. It is not Mainland China, not Hong Kong, not Macau, and not Taiwan. Moreover, this light green colour does not correspond to anything in the legend. 165.225.95.70 (talk) 16:05, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure what was done to make Taiwan visually distinct. It still varies by shades of pink like other provinces of the PRC. --haha169 (talk) 16:55, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

The outline was made lighter; it's a somewhat subtle difference. Jancarcu (talk) 18:29, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out, it took me a minute to see it and I knew what I was looking for. Hard to imagine that a casual observer would catch on to the fact that there are multiple countries depicted on the map. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:34, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Which map are you talking about? I see the animated map in the lead and the China map next to the world map on the "areas affected" section. Both maps have Taiwan colored in the same scheme as Chinese provinces. I've cleared my cache. --haha169 (talk) 21:19, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

You’re gonna laugh when you see it, [3] zoom in on Taiwan and then look at the borders (you have to zoom in, its basically impossible to see otherwise)... Taiwan’s borders are medium gray and China’s borders are dark gray. Obviously it still implies a relationship even if the border is a different shade of gray, I’m kind of at a loss at to where prat is coming from. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 22:25, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Wow, thank you for pointing that out to me. But still, the fact that the island still flashes pink at times is ridiculous; besides, the island shouldn't even be in the map in the first place. I don't think any impartial observer would consider this map to address the concerns brought up in this RfC. --haha169 (talk) 00:27, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Replace map (I am talking about the static map, the above "Summary of discussion and actions to date" is a personal summary by user:Pratyeka): I count much more "replace" than "keep". I would support a new map, without Arunachal Pradesh in India and without Taiwan. These territories can well be depicted as "claimed by the PRC" but not colorized as if they were actually party of the PRC. The current map tries to promote a biased view, which I find truely unacceptable for an epidemiological map. I could create and upload the new map. --Furfur ^{⁂ Diskussion} 09:50, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree with the scoping that you laid out Furfur. Would you be able to make a map, that would be very helpful! --haha169 (talk) 19:41, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Replace map. Agreed with User:Furfur. Fleet ch (talk) 21:35, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Keep map. I don't think Mainland China, Hong Kong, Macau and Taiwan violates NPOV, since Mainland China is defined without controversy. Peterwu2019 (talk) 15:23, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Peter, your argument doesn't make any sense. Mainland China is defined without any controversy, so why does that mean Taiwan can be included in the map without controversy? The basics of the matter is, Taiwan is included in a map of the epicenter of the disease (China) without being a part of China or having any significantly more number of cases than other neighboring East Asian countries that would merit its inclusion --haha169 (talk) 16:13, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

"Mainland China" is also problematic because certain locations claimed by the PRC on the mainland, like Arunachal Pradesh and Aksai Chin, are actually controlled or claimed by India. Furthermore, the choice to include Taiwan could imply an important link between Taiwan and China to an inappropriate extent.Jancarcu (talk) 18:46, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, realistically the only way I can think of to make a map that fits NPOV is one that uses the boundaries of the actual controlled territories of the PRC. There are two maps that need to be changed. --haha169 (talk) 20:40, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

• Replace map Land area that is outside PRC control should be treated the same otherwise it is pushing a particular POV. Ozcloudwarrior (talk) 08:51, 4 February 2020 (UTC) — Ozcloudwarrior (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Number of 2019-nCoV cases

  0–9

  10–99

  100–499

  500–999

  1000–9999

  >10.000

I have uploaded a new map without Taiwan, Arunachal Pradesh and the small border areas in Himachal Pradesh, all claimed by the PRC. The map includes a new color scheme (with >10.000 cases). Please feel free to discuss it and to make suggestions for improvements. --Furfur ^{⁂ Diskussion} 22:48, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Alternative to the bar graph of confirmed cases

This was a barplot [replaced with line plot below] of data downloaded from the JHU page that might be preferred in place of the orange-colored horizontal barplot. It excludes Taiwan and Hong Kong (I could include them, whatever. I think there's some opposition to including Taiwan with mainland China). The orange chart includes Taiwan, hard to tell, there's no description and it hasn't been uploaded to wikimedia in the usual way. I think repeating exact numbers in tables isn't necessary. A line graph might be better, like on the right side of the JHU page. I could do that also. JuanTamad (talk) 04:25, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

• Confirmed cases have already topped 6,000, making the chart obsolete. Not to mention if we're including total infections it's worth it to include every country. Aqua817 (talk) 05:40, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
• Two thoughts, one on chart type, one one data. On chart type, I think that the current vertically oriented graph is counter-intuitive and very non-standard. Your column chart is an improvement. A line chart would probably be best, as this is a time series. On the data, I think following the JHU approach of "Mainland China" and "Other Locations" is good. Charting the total of all cases might even be better. Chris vLS (talk) 08:10, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
  • We would also need to endeavor to keep it up to date daily... perhaps we could load a common file for generating the chart every day as data are available. Chris vLS (talk) 08:12, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
  • The JHU do keep it up to date. The current bar chart also includes a problematic projection as well as claims on Taiwan, the NHC data includes Taiwan , eg todays version > http://www.nhc.gov.cn/xcs/yqtb/202001/1c259a68d81d40abb939a0781c1fe237.shtml (use Google Translate) Wikimucker

Confirmed and severe cases 2019-nCoV acute respiratory disease for mainland China (including Taiwan) and confirmed cases in all other countries.

I can update this line plot at noon China time everyday since I’m in Thailand. By the next morning in Europe and the Americas it will be showing that day’s date. This is mainland China and Taiwan from the same source as the JHU, a Chinese news site. The numbers for the rest of the world are still so low it almost work on the same plot. A more complex plot is going to difficult to maintain daily. It going to become obsolete at some point anyway.JuanTamad (talk) 10:01, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

wide version vs tall, which do you prefer? JuanTamad (talk) 03:28, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

the wide seems better to me now. I added severe cases as another line, same data source, noted in details. JuanTamad (talk) 07:06, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

The curve type "Severe" is not comparable with "China" and "Other countries". Moreover it is not clear if these are severe cases in China or severe cases worldwide. Anyway, one of "Severe in China" or "Severe worldwide" will lack. I don't see a simple way to integrate the "Severe" cases without at least renaming the categories to more cumbersome "Severe in China", "Confirmed in China", etc. Cheater no1 (talk) 20:25, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

read the caption: Confirmed and severe cases 2019-nCoV acute respiratory disease for mainland China (including Taiwan) and confirmed cases in all other countries. I can change the graph legend to severe cases in China, if that’s better. JuanTamad (talk) 21:14, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

the horizontal bars seem not at all in line with scientific graphing ideas, like here.

The horizontal chart had some projections on it that must have been original research (WP:NOV), but looks like they’re gone.JuanTamad (talk) 10:01, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Looks great! I think that having a graph of the total for all countries is ideal because 1) no politics, 2) is important. Doesn't hurt anything right now, because the numbers are so close, but that may change. A minor style point... I think your graph would look even better if it didn't have the minor gridlines. They don't help much and when the graph is small, they detract from its looks. Let me know if you ever need to skip some days an need someone to cover for you updating it! Thanks! Chris vLS (talk) 16:43, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

If you include other countries in the same line, you can't see them (if that's what you meant), the number is such a small fraction of those in China. This is like the JHU graph, showing other countries in a separate line. The minor gridlines are removed. I do this in R. If you know how to regenerate a graph in R after adding the additional data, you could also update. The information from the Chinese government is available here, so can use this data rather than the news websites. JuanTamad (talk) 03:37, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

SO now will have to propose replacing the horizontal thing.JuanTamad (talk) 03:44, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

At this stage, I would go with either a) your current graph with two lines, one for "Mainland China" and one for "ROW", or b) a graph with one line "Total cases". I have a slight preference for b. But both are an improvement over the current one. So, be bold and go for it! Chris vLS (talk) 23:11, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

@Chrisvls 1: the problem with b I think is that when you have such as disparity (China vs ROW) in number of cases, by combining you make it unclear that the disparity exists, i.e. you might give the impression that there are huge numbers of cases somewhere outside China. The totals are in the tables.JuanTamad (talk) 07:47, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

I added a comment above in the discussion about the semi-log, proposing that this standard line plot replace both the semi-log and the horizontal bars. I'll give it a while more for responses. The bar graph wasn't uploaded to wikimedia commons. I haven't tried to delete it yet. It might be protected. JuanTamad (talk) 00:58, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

True enough, and there will likely be more in other countries soon enough... go for it! The current one should really be replaced, it's not the correct selection for a time series, please save us from it! Chris vLS (talk) 08:41, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Ok.Could you give me an example of a link that you are not satisfied with, then give me another link that you are satisfied with,so I know your expectations and can provide good links. Thank you! Wuhan2019 (talk) 11:09, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

I guess this is kinda reliable source for death rate https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/coronavirus-death-rate/ Nickayane99 (talk) 22:31, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Another secondary source. They list several sources so it's unclear. JuanTamad (talk) 07:49, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Keep. Maybe change to Wuhan novel Corona virus for clarity of needed Hendra ibaraki1 (talk) 21:52, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Name change of the article to the official name by WHO

Dear Wikipedians,

Would it be possible for us to change the name of this article to novel-coronavirus-2019 outbreak? or other names without using city name or China.

As there is potential issue of negativeness to Chinese or Asian people regarding the current health issues, I saw the article previously that WHO now named the virus with an neutral point of view without city name or country name. (I saw that one of the newspaper in Australia named the virus as a China Virus: it could create potential negative influence in our society. examples : if we named the Virus as a Australia Virus, British Virus or U.S. Virus)

Please refer to the name of virus from WHO.

https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019

As you know well, Previously, WHO named the virus without consideration of the name of the city or country.

examples , Spain Flu, Middle East respiratory syndrome and others...

Goodtiming8871 (talk) 23:28, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

There now have discussion regarding this rename in Chinese and Korean Wikipedias. See link Chinese Wikipedia Korean Wikipedia, I think in their languages it is more like grammar issue in their name like whether in Chinese should be 2019年－2020年 or not. Why English named the range of years as 2019-20 not 2019-2020?

I agree with Goodtiming8871. I vote to change the name of the article to "2019-20 Novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) outbreak". FranciscoMMartins (talk) 23:44, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Please refer to the related article link from WHO below.

https://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/notes/2015/naming-new-diseases/en/

23:55, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

I would rather to support rename to "2019-2020 Novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) outbreak". This proposed was to more aligned with Chinese original name change (2019年－2020年 新型冠狀病毒肺炎事件) These change is more relevant in English title. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.137.171.220 (talk) 00:03, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

This needs to be done if desired with a proper move request section, not just a general Talk thread. Sleath56 (talk) 00:27, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Keep the name as is for now. This was already heavily discussed in the move to this title. And Wikipedia consensus was not to use that WHO name. Using "novel" also indicates that it is not a real permanent name, so we should just stick to the common name until a permanent official name becomes widely used. If we at risk of undiscussed changes in the title we can protect the article against moving. But since I have expressed a point of view, I should let someone else do this if required. A unilateral move happened once before when someone failed to notice a big discussion on this talk page. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:12, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

• Keep the name should remain for now until a more common or official name for the virus/outbreak is released. A reminder that Ebola is named after the Ebola River where that illness was first observed. Krazytea(talk) 19:36, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
• Keep. The common name should stay. We can include WHO's official name, when it become available. The logic for the renaming proposal is unsound, given that we have names like German measles or Spanish flu. Nerd271 (talk) 02:23, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
• Keep. The idea of "novel" or "new form" is not good because it's relative. There will be another 'new' virus soon enough. If they want a neutral and non-geographic name, then it should be something that is special about this virus. So far I know of no such characteristics. It's not any sort of moral judgement of Wuhan or Hubei, but just the historical fact of where it was first detected. However, if there are no other major outbreaks this year, then "2020 Coronavirus" would probably be my pick. Shanen (talk) 11:07, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Please vote in the discussion that is already underway on this page, here [4]. Goodtiming8871, Graeme Bartlett, Nerd271, Krazytea, Sleath56, please take a look. Thanks! Chris vLS (talk) 04:32, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Additions to Response section

@FobTown: Not sure what you're trying to do with transplanting information from other sections. Calling a section #Propaganda is not NPOV. As #Censorship is a government tactic being used, it's been placed under management for relevancy. You're welcome to suggest alternatives here, but as your first edit to create such a section was reverted, this needs to be established in Talk first. Sleath56 (talk) 01:33, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

@FobTown: I've undone your edits. While I appreciate that you've (potentially) noted my previous comment and took heed to organize your edits under the already established sections, you're encouraged to converse on Talk when these issues arise, not just read. The problem extends however with the specific entries you've tried to insert for the third time now. The particular sources you've used have both been questioned enough at RSP12 for them to be used them as the sole source for any authoritative statements. Beyond that, even by the standards of utilizing them to the merit of statements of opinions, they are far below the bar in satisfying WP:UNDUE to include them without other more mainline sources stating the same views. As I've said earlier, you're welcome to suggest proposals on how to extend those sections, or any others, but this must be done with interacting with discussions on Talk. Sleath56 (talk) 20:21, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

This content is of much interest, and can be worked on further with more mainstream sources. At the same time there is nothing wrong with these sources when reporting events that have happened. FobTown (talk) 21:30, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

If the content is of interest, then you're encouraged to find more RS that back up those statements such that they satisfy concerns of fringe as has been brought up above. The information you've added are not "reporting events," but statements of opinion. With those, they've been undone by me earlier because they do not satisfy WP:UNDUE, which is that "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, it does not belong on Wikipedia, regardless of whether it is true or you can prove it, except perhaps in some ancillary article." As has been said, you're welcome to suggest proposals, but do so through talk instead of attempting to re-enter the same edits. Sleath56 (talk) 01:54, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

@FobTown: It's been noticed that you've re-entered your entry 4 minutes after it's been undone, without even an edit summary comment. I've not sure what you're trying to do as you've already been previously invited to participate here. Establish your suggested proposals here, especially when they are being held as points of contention, which have already been cited above and are currently unanswered.Sleath56 (talk) 04:15, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Added citations from Wall Street Journal and Washington Post. As long as we are reporting events that happened and quoting experts with proper sources, it isn't controversial and is permitted to go into the article directly. BTW, saying "you're welcome to suggest proposals on how to extend those sections, or any others, but this must be done with interacting with discussions on Talk" can be construed as a stalling tactic or even censorship. FobTown (talk) 04:51, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

You can construe it what you like, "stalling tactic" or "censorship." I call it the peer review process of establishing WP:CONSENSUS. You’ve been warned for edit warring in the past, so the courtesy as has been reflected onto you throughout this discussion that would be to reciprocate AGF in kind should be clear.

In the concerns that I’ve brought up, that of WP:UNDUE, which is that "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, it does not belong on Wikipedia, regardless of whether it is true or you can prove it, except perhaps in some ancillary article”. that has not been satisfied. Furthermore, there are NPOV concerns of WP:IMPARTIAL that are unaddressed.

The point of Talk is to establish consensus when issues between editors are brought up. A point of contention brought against your edit doesn’t mean they cannot exist in the article, but that they require work through discussion. Your repeated attempts to re-enter the same desired phrasing when other editors have tried to adjust are not constructive to reaching that regard. Sleath56 (talk) 05:15, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

• Continued discussion carried from #Criticism section for continuity below
• ================ Sleath56 (talk) 00:12, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Instead of claiming wp:undue how about just letting it grow and move it to own page, and trim and summarize? Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 06:10, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Daniel.Cardenas: Which is precisely what has been done. The section has been trimmed and summarized once I determined the independent initiative for that regard was not present, with material more suitable for other sections moved accordingly. See #Reactions to Response. You're welcome to review it as it now compared to its state before: here and share your thoughts, as I believe only a WP:DRR/3 is going to resolve the matter. Sleath56 (talk) 22:32, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

See how big it grows, and we could consider this plan of action.

I noticed that Sleath56 is strategically deleting content regarding Xi Xinping's media directive even if citing by WSJ and NYT and Washington Post, while leaving in isolated media incidents, all without getting consensus for their removal. FobTown (talk) 19:53, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

@FobTown: It appears you missed my comment below, and if you are going to invoke someone's name, it's a common courtesy to ping them.

As I said, you can construe it what you like, "stalling tactic" or "censorship." I call it the peer review process of establishing WP:CONSENSUS, one of the WP:5P of this site. Wikipedia is not your personal essay, when you encounter objections to your entry, you are expected to participate in discussion on Talk, which is designed for constructive dialogue, not blithely snide remarks at your fellow editors with no suggestions of how to revise the entries per concerns. You’ve been warned for edit warring in the past, so the courtesy as has been reflected onto you throughout this discussion that would be to reciprocate AGF in kind should be clear.

The point of Talk is to establish consensus when issues between editors are brought up. A point of contention brought against your edit doesn’t mean they cannot exist in the article, but that they require work through discussion. The courtesy of editorial dialogue is to allow the individual editor to adjust their own entries as they know their source best. Contrary to your personal belief on being 'stalled,' I've trimmed your entries which still are extant after repeated requests for you to do so yourself were ignored. Your repeated attempts to re-enter the same desired phrasing when other editors have tried to adjust are not constructive to reaching that regard.

Sleath56 (talk) 05:15, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

• @FobTown: A conjecture by an adjunct professor is neither notable enough nor does it fit insertion into that passage and appears to be editorializing. If you contest the revision of "Willy Lam of the Chinese University of Hong Kong's Center for China Studies said "Li was selected for political reasons. If the situation deteriorated further, Li would have to take the blame. Compared to SARS, (then-President) Hu Jintao visited a few places severely affected by SARS, but Xi is now staying safely in Beijing.", you're welcome to offer your explanation as to why. Sleath56 (talk) 02:50, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

• Additionally, since you've reverted a trimming edit by another editor, you need to explain why your original entry follows guidelines. "Since then state media has been redirecting public anger of mishandling of the initial outbreak and concerns over the lockdown away from Xi Jinping and towards provincial-level authorities, and have been publishing "gushing reports on Beijing’s response" to the epidemic to counteract criticism" This is a duplication of the same allegations already in #Criticism of local response. Not to mention that the phrasing you've entered does not satisfy basic editorial NPOV: Avoid stating opinions as facts. Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc. For example, an article should not state that "genocide is an evil action", but it may state that "genocide has been described by John So-and-so as the epitome of human evil."
• Furthermore, "including extensive coverage of the new hospital under construction in Wuhan using images of another already-completed building." is not WP:PROPORTION to the other heavy handed measures by the central government. Unless the doctoring of photos to establish calm is a regular established government policy in handling this epidemic, one incident is not notable as a charge. Sleath56 (talk) 03:01, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Quite a few international sources have noticed a two-pronged strategy on part of Beijing, one is the censoring negative news, the other is highlighting Beijing's positive steps. The new hospital coverage is a good instance of the latter. I this belongs more in Censorship and Police Response rather than Criticism of Local Response.

International sources have also noted existing censorship controls in place back in December 2019 during the initial outbreak phase, so I preceded Xi Xinping's comments with such mention in Censorship and Police Response. FobTown (talk) 22:36, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

• @FobTown: For your reverts at: "Tsinghua University's Qiang also echoed this sentiment, pointing out that the Wuhan government did not have the power to act decisively because they were at the bottom of the chain of command, saying “everyone — from the central government to the local government to the bureaucracy to the party to the military — was waiting for orders from the ‘supreme leader’ [Xi Jinping] before acting”.[382]"

• You must have noticed that I've already incorporated it into the preceding paragraph on repetitious grounds. "Critics, such as Wu Qiang, a former professor at Tsinghua University and Steve Tsang, director of the China Institute at the University of London, have further argued this with the latter suggesting that it was also exacerbated through local officials being "apprehensive about taking sensible preventive measures without knowing what Xi and other top leaders wanted as they feared that any missteps would have serious political consequences" As other RS have said, these suggestions are only held by some "sections of the international media," so I'm not sure what your argument is in regards to WP:PROPORTION for expanding it to such a degree.

• This statement: "Steve Tsang, director of the China Institute at SOAS University of London, who argued that Xi's enhanced censorship and propaganda system contributed to the crisis, observed that the party's progapanda machinery went into "overdrive" to shape public opinion and protect Xi's reputation, noting that Xi's declaration coincided with the central government's ramped-up response that was widely publicized.[270][271][272]" has already been moved, which you seem to acquiesce since the moved portion has not been deleted. This is clearly duplicative entries, so I'm not sure what the point of order is that you hold for continually re-applying it. Sleath56 (talk) 07:09, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

I felt that Steve Tsang's original "overdrive" quote was significantly watered down in your revision, and the original version of his quote goes under the Censorship and Police Response section which is meant to cover the central government, as opposed to the Criticism of Local Response" that covers provincial and city authorities. There would be some duplication between the two sections, but Tsang should be mentioned in both. FobTown (talk) 22:36, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

@FobTown: Appreciate the response and noting the concerns of the other points made above. My view is this: (though I'm certainly open to suggestions in kind) which is that while I think he is notable enough to be expanded per your considerations, I feel it's not something that needs to be recycled in duplicate to other sections. I would support your suggestion of reorganizing the "Censorship and Police Response section" to hone in on central government tactics and reactions, as I also feel the two sections are getting messy in clarity of what goes where. Nonetheless, in any case, I've expanded his statement further to include: a sentiment that Tsang argued was difficult to avoid when "power is concentrated in the hands of one top leader who is punitive to those who make mistakes". Sleath56 (talk) 00:32, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 2 February 2020

2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak → 2019–20 novel coronavirus outbreak – As WHO has listed this outbreak as a global risk, the title should have a title that is potentially misleading changed - as the virus outbreak is no longer limited to Wuhan and/or China. Kirbanzo ^{(userpage - talk - contribs)} 02:33, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

• Edited to be "novel coronavirus outbreak" per emerging consensus. Kirbanzo ^{(userpage - talk - contribs)} 22:58, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

• Support The outbreak has so far affected every continent except for Africa. TheEpicGhosty (talk) 02:53, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
  • I would go with "2019 novel coronavirus outbreak". This is a specific coronavirus. And we should bring it in line with Talk:Novel_coronavirus_(2019-nCoV)#Requested_move_31_January_2020 Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:55, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

• Support for "2019–20 novel coronavirus outbreak" instead. Without or with the (2019-nCoV) addendum. Which would be the title as proposed in the above thread, which is better as it's the one WHO actually uses per here. This also brings the move request to fall in coordination with the page on the virus, Novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV). This brings into relevance to note the consensus established on that article's Talk against a move request there to 'Wuhan coronavirus' on the grounds of:

1) Opposition through the "multiple documented issues with over-enthusiastically naming diseases after places."

2) Support for the primacy of officially-designated names over common names if the latter are not "the common name."

Sleath56 (talk) 03:01, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

• WHO uses "Novel Coronavirus 2019" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:12, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

This may be a technically correct way to name the disease, but it doesn't really reflect the outbreak, which occured mostly in 2020 (so far). We could name it *"2019-20 outbreak of the Novel Coronavirus 2019", but that seems unnecessarily clumsy. Renerpho (talk) 03:28, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

That naming seems to be for the virus itself (hence 2019-nCoV), which could be brought as a point of order on the page for the virus, but 2019-20 is better as this article details the outbreak which, unfortunately, has carried over into 2020. Sleath56 (talk) 03:31, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Sure we can add the 20. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:03, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

• Support for Sleath's 2019–20 novel coronavirus outbreak as it moves us in the right direction. I think the lowercase approach is correct and "2019-20" clearly indicates which novel coronavirus is being referenced. - Wikmoz (talk) 21:51, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose as originally suggested, but support 2019–20 novel coronavirus outbreak. Renerpho (talk) 03:23, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

• Move to 2019–20 Novel coronavirus outbreak as many others suggested it to follow English grammar. But Novel needs to capitalised N. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.137.171.220 (talk) 03:37, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

  As with many disease names, the term 'novel coronavirus' is not a proper in of itself to require capitalization. For example: WHO in the page cited uses "On this website you can find information and guidance from WHO regarding the current outbreak of novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV)..." Sleath56 (talk) 03:50, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose as originally suggested, but support 2019–20 novel coronavirus outbreak. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 03:57, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

• Support for Any name without Wuhan or China. example (Option 1) "Move to 2019–20 coronavirus outbreak, or (Option 2) Move to Novel Coronavirus 2019 -20 outbreak. Description about (Option 2) it is consistent with the official name by WHO and additional description about year 2019 to 2020. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 03:59, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

• Move to

2019-20 Novel Coronavirus outbreak. The virus has spread to the world, and it doesn't only affect Wuhan. Peterwu2019 (talk) 04:01, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose keep the same name, as this is a perfectly good name, but putting "novel" in the name is clearly temporary. This was discussed quite recently. It does not matter that "Wuhan" is in the title as that is the origin and the most significantly affected place. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:16, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

• Supportive but concerned. In general, I really like the idea of removing Wuhan from the title and having all of these topics reference Novel coronavirus

However, the article currently is largely limited to discussing activity in China and we're already at 400 references. And there's another topic 2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak by country and territory tracking the international outbreak that is blowing up as well. On the talk page there, there's discussion of splitting that one by region (2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak in Europe)

Maybe a short term fix for this one is 2019–20 novel coronavirus outbreak in China? Not sure what the answer is. - Wikmoz (talk) 04:28, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

The correct procedure as I see it would be to propose a move request for that page as the same concerns brought up here would apply there as well. Sleath56 (talk) 04:37, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Changed to clearer suggestion below. - Wikmoz (talk) 13:56, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:RECENT, not convinced that the common used name has changed and we can't just make a unilateral change. It it turns out people are calling it something else in hindsight we can certainly change the name in the future. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 05:04, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

  Comment The assumption that "Wuhan coronavirus outbreak" is the common name is far from established. A Google search for "Novel coronavirus outbreak" returns 16,800,000 results. Whereas "Wuhan coronavirus outbreak" returns at 100k higher at 16,900,000 results. As such, it is far from the case that the current "Wuhan coronavirus" is the Common name and in fact that the proposed alternative stands very close in utility. Thus those parameters of WP:COMMONNAME are not applicable and in fact as the guidelines there state: " When there are multiple names for a subject, all of which are fairly common, and the most common has problems, it is perfectly reasonable to choose one of the others." Sleath56 (talk) 05:27, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

  I think it would be misleading to use the grand total of all results to find the WP:GHITS - this strain is not the only novel coronavirus. A much better test for the common name would be to use Google Trends which shows that Wuhan coronavirus is exponentially more common. Cheers,  Vanilla  Wizard  💙 09:44, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

  Thanks for the attempt to clarify, the Google Trends method is not ideal but serves more practicality. However, I believe there are faults in your method. Setting for international search (instead of just the United States as your result reflected) and using "" for exact terms within the last 30 days, the result comes out like this: the terms are much closer to parity and "Wuhan coronavirus" while still ahead is certainly not "exponentially more common" This result shows that the "Novel coronavirus" jumping to a mere 19% difference at present after the adoption of the term by the WHO and it indicates that the term "Wuhan coronavirus" while still trending above, especially at the onset of the outbreak, is nowhere near being definitively the WP:COMMONNAME. Sleath56 (talk) 17:27, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

  When I follow the provided link which specifies that the trends are worldwide and from the last 30 days, what I see is that the term "Wuhan coronavirus" is consistently being more widely used and by a rather large margin, and is the preferred term in nearly all countries. With all due respect, I think this certainly adds to the list of reasons to consider "Wuhan coronavirus" to be the WP:COMMONNAME.  Vanilla  Wizard  💙 23:14, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

  I think we can agree it's not, as you say, "exponentially more common". Indeed, as I've admitted, "Wuhan coronavirus" was the predominant term, and if we had this conversation days ago, I'd be forced to agree with the pure statistical imbalance no matter my views. However, since the WHO has adopted the term in popular use, though as an editor below has stated, its not the only officially used term, the gap between the two is very noticeably closing. Especially on the weekly window. I can respect a disagreement in opinion. I think the move request was a little premature, so undoubtedly we'll be repeating the same conversation a week from now. Hopefully, a proper term will be decided then, though my belief is that an official term is preferable so long as a common term is not the WP:COMMONNAME, and which I believe "Wuhan coronavirus" isn't, especially recently. Furthermore, this page must line up regardless of the outcome here with the page on the virus itself, which has already discarded the term "Wuhan coronavirus" in preference for a term in line with the RS/MC. Sleath56 (talk) 23:33, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

  At nearly all points on that graph, bar the three-hour-long spike of "novel coronavirus" on January 30th, the term "Wuhan coronavirus" has been between 1.5x and 2x as frequent as "novel coronavirus" and as of right now it's 1.6x as common. I do, however, agree with your belief that this move is premature. In my view, the best option is to close this move request as not moved, then wait (preferably for at least two or three weeks) to see if any name emerges as the obvious best choice. As of right now, I think it's too early to get a good consensus for any proposed title.  Vanilla  Wizard  💙 00:56, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

• Support 2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak its pretty basic and i am supporting it. We do not need anymore extra name in between.Regice2020 (talk) 05:41, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

  For clarity, please follow the procedure of citing 'Oppose' for opposition unless proposing an alternative name to keep vote tracking easier. That would be a position of 'Oppose,' is it not? Sleath56 (talk) 07:29, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

  I cancel my vote. This was obvious change it should went for "coronavirus outbreak" as the article title in the first place. Right now i am seeing back and forth. Have nice day. Regice2020 (talk) 07:55, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose because there are many types of coronavirus, this outbreak is of Wuhan coronavirus, not about the other types of coronavirus.Rafaelosornio (talk) 05:53, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

• Support - The current consensus in the medical field is against naming pathogens and events after people or human settlements. I'd suggest moving it to the new target and suggesting Wuhan Virus as an alternative name, thought there appear to be at least a dozen casual names floating around. Tsukide (talk) 08:33, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose the proposed title & weaker oppose on replacing "Wuhan" with "Novel." The current title is accurate, unambiguous, and the common name. Novel coronavirus would be better than just "coronavirus", but "Wuhan coronavirus" is both the common name & more specific than either proposal because the term "Wuhan coronavirus" refers specifically to the 2019-nCoV strain. I understand the concern that having "Wuhan" in the name makes it sound like the virus is limited only to Wuhan when it's clearly spread throughout the world, so I'm not strongly opposed to the alternative proposal, but when I read the title I assume it to mean "2019-20 outbreak of the Wuhan coronavirus" and not "2019-20 coronavirus outbreak in Wuhan" (if that explanation makes any sense).  Vanilla  Wizard  💙 09:44, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

• It looks increasingly likely that the virus will be moved to “2019 novel coronavirus” when the RM there is complete, so I would advise against being a stickler for “2019–20” lest the page end up at 2019–20 2019 novel coronavirus outbreak (sic). Dekimasuよ! 10:26, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

• Comment, From my understanding, "Novel Coronavirus 2019": It would meet the requirement of WP:NPV, Although one of the examples name below has "the greatest number of google search results" and I don't think that it is a proper name :Sydney Virus, Washington Virus, U.S.A Virus, London Virus or, British Virus as, I saw that one of the newspaper in Melbourne of Australia named the current virus as a China Virus: I believe that it could create potential negative influence in our society.

As WHO uses "Novel Coronavirus 2019" as an official recommended name. Please refer to the related article link from WHO below.[[5]]and there are a few options of the names on this talk page.

Regarding "Requested move 2 February 2020"

Would it be possible for us to go for two steps.

Step 1: Decide whether we can change the name

Step 2: if we pass the step 1, select the best name for the current the title of this article. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 10:56, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose it is known in media as the wuhan virus. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 12:10, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose - The place of outbreak or the extent of its eventual distrubution should not change the pathogen's name. It's a usual procedure and rather commonplace to name emerging pathogens after the place of their first discovery.

Examples include:

• Norovirus: named after Norwalk, Ohio
• Ebola virus: named after Ebola River, DR Congo
• Marburg virus: named after Marburg, Germany
• West Nile virus: named after West Nile Province, Uganda
• Zika virus: named after Zika Forest, Uganda
• MERS virus (aka 2012-nCoV): named after the Middle East

A change in affected areas has no effect on the pathogen's name.

Thus the title 2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak doesn't refer to the place where the disease occurs (i.e. some "Wuhan outbreak" of any coronavirus), but to the fact that it's an outbreak of the specific Wuhan coronavirus regardless of its extent.

89.206.114.57 (talk) 12:44, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: In those cases as you've cited, a point of order which should be brought up that those names are also the officially designated ones used by WHO:

* Norovirus: named after Norwalk, Ohio Adopted by WHO

* Ebola virus: named after Ebola River, DR Congo Adopted by WHO

* Marburg virus: named after Marburg, Germany Adopted by WHO

* West Nile virus: named after West Nile Province, Uganda adopted by WHO

* Zika virus: named after Zika Forest, Uganda Adopted by WHO

* MERS virus (aka 2012-nCoV): Adopted by WHO

In all of those cases, the geographic name is also the official name as adopted by WHO. The point of order being brought up is not if geographic virus naming is always inapplicable but if a common name should be chosen over the official name. In this present case, the WHO has not adopted the term "Wuhan coronavirus" but instead "Novel coronavirus". It's not in my view that this current case is therefore comparable to those as the "Wuhan coronavirus" is a common name, not an official name, and also not the common name. Sleath56 (talk) 17:05, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

If you’re going to be pedantic I’m going to have to point out to you that the name the WHO uses is not “Novel coronavirus” as you have repeatedly stated. They have not actually designated *any* common or “official" name as you keep saying, what they did do was designate "2019-nCoV acute respiratory disease” (yes, the whole thing) as the preferred interim name. They have also designated "2019-nCoV" as a less preferred but still acceptable interim name [6]. Please stop repeating things that aren't true. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:48, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

There was no explicit view that "2019-nCoV" was a less preferred" statement on that page, if you required that clarification.

This is what I said in my statement of position: "Support for "2019–20 novel coronavirus outbreak}}" instead. Without or with the (2019-nCoV) addendum." One, I don't view the WHO's statement as wholly contrary to that at the moment when the titling of the very page you cited is itself "Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV)" Second, Novel coronavirus being seen as an acceptable alternative to nCoV, which is the abbreviation, is already finding discussion on the virus page. Sleath56 (talk) 18:09, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Don’t be an jerk. Both are proposed by WHO but only one is recommended by WHO, thats pretty darn explicit. Care for me to clarify further? Ps. The abbreviation is 2019-nCoV not nCoV and no it isn't "an acceptable alternative." Horse Eye Jack (talk) 04:34, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Note that WHO want to **brake the tradition** of naming diseases after locations for stigmatization and economic reasons (press conference on Feb 3, comments around 40min) Cheater no1 (talk) 15:20, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose - The virus is known as the "Wuhan" coronavirus and whether it has spread across the globe or it is restricted to Wuhan is irrelevant. See anon's comment above about Norovirus, Ebola, etc. --Kimon^talk 13:19, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

• Comment. I really like the idea of being consistent in referring to the virus as novel coronavirus across topic titles for now. However, this topic currently focuses in fine detail on the outbreak in China and international reaction to the outbreak in China with light details on its international spread. If changing the title to eliminate "Wuhan", then something like 2019–20 Novel coronavirus outbreak in China may be more immediately accurate. Don't know how we go international at this level of topic detail (we're already at 400 references). There's another topic 2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak by country and territory tracking the international outbreak that is blowing up as well. On the talk page there, there's discussion of splitting that one by region (2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak in Europe). Perhaps that topic could be renamed to something like 2019–20 novel coronavirus international spread in parallel so the two topics clearly complement each other? Still just a short-term fix. Core virus details would continue to be directed to Novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV). Unsure. Really tough with a news story of this magnitude being chronicled at this level of detail. - Wikmoz (talk) 13:56, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

• Move to 2019–20 novel coronavirus outbreak. The naming of Wuhan is misleading and contrary to recommended disease naming methods. Already a much more preferred name has been 2019-nCoV (by WHO, for example). The only reason I see not to use 2019-nCoV is that the resulting title "2019–20 2019-nCoV coronavirus outbreak" is excessively awkward in English. Rethliopuks (talk) 14:56, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

• Move to 2019–20 novel coronavirus outbreak per WP:NCMED. WP:NCMED should be clear enough, and keep the words lowercase. The interim names proposed by WHO are "2019-nCoV acute respiratory disease" and "2019-nCoV". The former cannot be found in sources so per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NCMED, it cannot be used. The latter is an acronym which translates to "2019 novel coronavirus" and since it needs to be unambiguous, recognizable and natural per WP:NAMINGCRITERIA, the acronym is not recommended. Even if "novel coronovirus" may be a temporary name (just like what happened with MERS-CoV when it was also called "novel coronavirus"), the current title needs to change as it needs to be the "scientific or recognised medical name" even though it's a provisional name. Also, take note that there is an ongoing discussion for "novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV)" to be moved, and both of these article names need to be in line. The rest of my arguments can also be found there. LightKeyDarkBlade (talk) 18:12, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Update. I believe I would have to retract my initial comment per WP:NCEVENTS, specifically WP:DESCRIPTOR under the "Health incidents and outbreaks" section. However, I would like to emphasise that the page is a guideline and not a policy. Even so, the guideline implies that the current title is acceptable, with "where and what", and year added for disambiguation. And only when we get a final name on the virus, we'll move it to "2019–20 Wuhan *final name of virus* outbreak", with the virus name italicised using Template:DISPLAYTITLE. This is in accordance with WP:NCEVENTS and WP:NCMED. All being said, the page about the virus itself (Novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV)) is not affected by WP:NCEVENTS but is affected by WP:NCMED. LightKeyDarkBlade (talk) 19:05, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose there is a long tradition in the English language of naming pathogens like this after the place of discovery, see Spanish Flu and then Hong Kong Flu and Russian Flu from the 1960s and 1970s. SARS was actually an outlier in this long series as it was not names after Guangdong where it originated. Wikimucker (talk) 18:56, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Comment Traditions can change; they are merely what (often) happened in times past and are not themselves binding. The current recommendation of the medical community and WHO is to avoid naming diseases with place or person names.Rethliopuks (talk) 10:41, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

• Move to 2019–20 novel coronavirus outbreak there are already chinese persons complaining about discrimination "Chineses queixam-se de discriminação por causa do coronavírus"["Chinese persons complain about discrimination due to the coronavirus"] due to the name "Wuhan" associated right next to the coronavirus. The virus has since its inicial outbreak expanded to other countries. I understand the reasoning of naming viruses as historically accurate (Spanish Flu, etc...) but we should be pragmatic and not create any further unecessary discrimination. FranciscoMMartins (talk) 19:35, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

• Another Comment. - I understand the historical precedent for naming a virus after its (usually more obscure) location of origin. However, please consider the current best practice published by the WHO in 2015: World Health Organization Best Practices for the Naming of New Human Infectious Diseases, May 2015 ...it's a quick read and explains why using location names are problematic. I'd support replacing Wuhan with novel to bring the topic in line with the corresponding Wikipedia virus entries (1 and 2) and the name currently used by WHO, NIH, and NHS. My only real concern as stated above is that we also need to consider how the current topic content aligns with the title. - Wikmoz (talk) 20:05, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose - Its fine if the medical term for the virus is located at the proper article. We need to keep in mind WP:RECOGNIZABILITY when it comes to a worldwide perspective for the outbreak. The average person is not going to instantly recognize what a novel coronavirus is. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:44, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

That's a fair point as "Wuhan coronavirus" is still the most popular term, though the term's relative popularity (7 day view) is dropping fast relative to novel coronavirus. That said, I think we also need to factor consider Precision and Consistency (Deciding on an article title). - Wikmoz (talk) 21:06, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose - The current title is more descriptive and identifies where the virus strain originated. Octoberwoodland (talk) 22:27, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

• Support Move - Coronavirus isn't localized to Wuhan. Possible issue of discrimination. WHO advise against associating virus names with city or people. 11 million people wouldn't like to be associated with a virus for everyone outside of China. Please have some sympathy and/or respect for these people. They have already suffered enough. A slight inconvenience for moving is greatly outweigh by the positives. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newslack (talk • contribs) 00:08, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose While the coronavirus isn't necessarily localized to Wuhan nearly every case can be connected to the Wuhan region based on recent history. I do understand that some may see this as becoming a pejorative, but the common name should remain until this coronavirus has been officially named or some other common name replaces it. The 2019 coronavirus is possible but an unlikely name, either way we should not be WP:CRYSTALBALL in this situation and remain with this name for this outbreak for now. Krazytea(talk) 04:09, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

• Support move - WP:CommonName is coming into play here, and with the WHO declaration, this isn't regional just to Wuhan, even if you are only seeing this as an issue only in China. Common sense also seems to dictate this should be moved. Also, Google hits for this and news hits are way higher than when you use the term Wuhan, and the WHO does not refer to it this way, per DocJames. Isingness (talk) 05:10, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

• Comment Perhaps a better possible name would be 2019-20 Wuhan coronavirus epidemic. --Charsum (talk) 06:08, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

• Wait. I think the name should be of the form "XXX outbreak", where "XXX" is replaced by the name of the disease, not of the virus. The WHO has recommended that the interim name of the disease causing the current outbreak be "2019-nCoV acute respiratory disease".[7] If we rename the page at all, that should replace the "XXX". Since this is a bit of a mouthful and the name is only temporary, let's wait till they come up with the definitive name. But if we must rename the page and "2019-nCoV acute respiratory disease outbreak" is too long, I prefer "2019-nCoV outbreak" over "2019–20 novel coronavirus outbreak". That shorter name is actually used by the WHO [8] and in the professional literature [9].  --Lambiam 07:51, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
• Support. It is becoming global, and there isn't another 2019-2020 coronavirus outbreak for this to be confused with.--Eostrix (talk) 07:57, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. Wuhan Virus or Wuhan Coronavirus is the common name of the media, and is unambiguous. Possible negative associations and views of China due to the name is irrelevant, lest we rename Spanish Flu, Ebola, West Nile Virus, MERS, etc.47.144.147.17 (talk) 07:57, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose, I think it won't be better to rename the page for the present Wuhan Coronavirus as the name is very specific, changing it may bring confusion.The Living love 10:45, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

• I personally don't believe moving it is a good thing, but I reluctantly support the move anyways based on WP:NCMED and the need to follow the MOS. WP:COMMONNAME does not apply here and in other cases when titling articles about diseases or conditions. The formal, official name, even if it's not the common name should be used in articles about diseases, such as myocardial infarction or bovine spongiform encephalopathy. Media organizations don't get any weight, "The article title should be the scientific or recognised medical name that is most commonly used in recent, high-quality, English-language medical sources." I believe the best name is one that's around 2019-2020 novel coronavirus outbreak or something that includes the actual, current, disease name. Also, talking about what the virus should be called is not an argument. The virus is called "2019 novel coronavirus" or "2019-nCoV". That's the official name and the official name is the ONLY one we should be considering according to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles. English language medical sources are the only ones we should be considering to determine the official name. Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 11:15, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

* Comment: Changing the name of the article subject in accordance with the WHO Recommendations From my understanding, according to international and ethical norms, it is not appropriate to follow an previous WHO rule of the virus name in Wikipedia, which previously followed a local or country name: examples: Spanish flu, Ebola virus Middle East respiratory syndrome and others...

I think it is appropriate to follow the current recommendations of the U.S. & United Kingdom Government: NIH, and NHS and the names recommended by the WHO. The reasons are as follows:

• The Social Role of Wikipedia: English Wikipedia has a strong social impact as an example: to be used in the program as a reference for Microsoft Word. Using it as a standard heading in Wikipedia can bring a huge social impact, and I believe that it is socially responsible as the world's largest encyclopedia and numerous readers all over the world every day access this article here.
• Complaining about the Chinese being discriminated against by the name of the new corona virus. Chinese persons complain about discrimination due to the corona virus [[10]] including Anti-China, in some cases, anti-Asian backlash and it would make racism worse in our global society. [[11]] Another example of discrimination: As I personally saw on social media, Koreans living in the United States, or Australia, were discriminated against for being Asian as they are the same skin color with Chinese.

As an one practical example, when a 10-year-old Korean girl goes to school, her co-students bulled her that she could be infected with a Chinese coronavirus so that a young girl refuses to go to school while crying at home. I could understand the painful heart of the mother of the young child.

• Although there have been many cases where WHO has created the names of viruses by region or country names, it is now WHO that established new regulations(or norms) in consideration of side effects that have occurred. In the future and for now WHO would no longer use virus names using local, or country.
• Considering the social role of Wikipedia which is the largest and influential encyclopedia in the world, I ask for your thoughtful and kind consideration in the Wikipedia editors so that the terminology of neutrality can be used instead of using discriminant terms as per WHO recommendation: link:[12] Goodtiming8871 (talk) 12:23, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Please refer to that I've removed my previous writing after reading the feedback from other Wikipedians.

From my understanding, my previous writing might be too emotional to other Wikipedia editors.

From my point of view, I want to see the issue of 2019–20 novel coronavirus outbreak resolved asap without undesirable side effects in our global society. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 23:23, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. Wikipedia should adopt the most common name in the world and it is Wuhan Coronavirus now. -- hoising (talk) 13:22, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose for two reasons: 1) Place of origin (or predominance) is a common means of naming diseases, e.g., Spanish flu. 2) "novel" is a poor replacement, because novel just means new, and there could be another new coronavirus at some point in the future, as well as continued outbreaks of the now-"old" one. --2601:444:380:8C00:9592:B507:7129:7D03 (talk) 16:58, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NCEVENTS#Conventions. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 16:59, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

• Wait. Right now, most people refer to this as the "Wuhan virus" or something similar. If Wikipedia was alive in 1918, we might have named the Spanish flu as the "Soldier's disease" (for a while until the Spanish flu became prevalent). The 1918 influenza pandemic is more technically correct but Spanish flu is the everyday name. We are not a medical organization like WHO, who must choose the names that it first applies carefully.

If something major happens (say, Hong Kong becomes the major source, far exceeding Wuhan) and the majority of people start to use "Wuhan and Hong Kong virus", we might do the same. With redirects, it's not a big deal to change a title (except for these discussions). What do you say? Is it OK to leave the name as it is and then, in a year or two, revisit this discussion? --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 18:44, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose for now. Current title is commonly used and easily recognisable. It is entirely possible for the situation to change in a month or two, but at this point moving would be premature.--Staberinde (talk) 20:37, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose for now: Too soon to establish a definite and concrete change of WP:COMMONNAME. Wikipedia should not be a frontrunner in terminology change, no matter how noble the justification may be. Give it a month or so, and we can revisit this issue at a more sensible time. --benlisquare_T•C•E 00:23, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

• Wait. At some point in the near future the virus will be given a designation that describe symptoms (such as respiratory, spongiform, deficiency), groups affected (juvenile, pediatric, maternal), time course (acute, transient), severity, seasonality (winter, summer), and even arbitrary identifiers (Alpha, beta, a, b, I, II, III, 1, 2, 3). 2019-nCoV is just a temporary placeholder. Jtreyes (talk) 01:00, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

• Comment. Should we use the technically-correct, medically-approved name or the common, everyday name? 1918 influenza pandemic vs. Spanish flu. Or 2009 flu pandemic vs. Swine flu. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 01:29, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. Unfortunately Wuhan coronavirus will turn to be a epidemic, because speed of spread, or even worse, turn to be pandemic, therefore I preffer to wait to a more common name such as 2019 coronavirus epidemic than moving now to a new name. Would be unnecessary extra effort moving now, just wait. Carlosguitar ^{(Yes Executor?)} 02:32, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. The common name should stay. We can include WHO's official name, when it become available. The logic for the renaming proposal is unsound, given that we have names like German measles or Spanish flu. Nerd271 (talk) 02:36, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

• Summary We've blown past 5,000 words and the proposal changed mid-discussion making things a little confusing so I thought it may be helpful to summarize key points being repeated with respect to 2019–20 novel coronavirus outbreak. Feel free to suggest an edit if I missed a major argument. - Wikmoz (talk) 03:08, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Support

• WP:NCMED as it aligns with scientific naming by WHO, NIH, and NHS
• WP:CONSISTENT with Novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) and Novel coronavirus
• Conforms to WHO Best Practice Guidelines (2015), which advises against using location names
• WP:CAPITALIZATION as "novel" is descriptive and not a proper noun
• Virus is now global; including a location name may be confusing
• "Wuhan" may support anti-China discrimination seen on social media and opinion media
• MOS:LEADALT may be used to recognize common name

Oppose

• WP:RECOGNIZABILITY and WP:COMMONNAME based on Google Trends (30 day view)
• Location in name is consistent with historical precedent (e.g. MERS, Ebola, Spanish flu)
• WP:CONSISTENT with Timeline of the 2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak and 2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak by country and territory
• Novel is a temporary name and the topic will need to be renamed again
• Wuhan (can) suggest a China focus, which aligns with current article content

"Novel coronavirus" suggests the whole class of novel coronaviruses, which is misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cheater no1 (talk • contribs) 20:02, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

• Support move to 2019–20 Novel Coronavirus outbreak. To quote WP:NCMED: "The article title should be the scientific or recognised medical name that is most commonly used in recent, high-quality, English-language medical sources, rather than a lay term (unscientific or slang name) or a historical eponym that has been superseded." That seems quite clear. It also seems sensible, the practice of naming for cities or countries has past baggage and unfortunate side effects, so happy to follow the medical field's guidance on the topic -- which is the point of the WP:NCMED advice. It also protects against recentism, as the WHO label will likely stick for a while. Chris vLS (talk) 04:24, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

• Note that WP:NCMED is only part of a guideline. This is overridden by the policy at Wikipedia:Article titles. So some of the support arguments are not based on policy and should not be given as much weight as policy based arguments. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:06, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Very interesting. Is this clearly stated anywhere? I assumed direction in Wikipedia:Manual of Style was on almost equal footing as policy in terms of editing guidance but I'm probably wrong. I found relevant text on Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines, which states: "Policies are standards all users should normally follow, and guidelines are generally meant to be best practices for following those standards in specific contexts." and "Whether a policy or guideline is an accurate description of best practice is determined by the community through consensus." - Wikmoz (talk) 05:47, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

• Support: Although focused in Wuhan, the outbreak has reached outside mainland china. It should get it's own section in 2019-20 novel coronavirus outbreak simplified. Can I Log In (talk) 05:03, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. Wikipedia should adopt the most recognisable name in the world otherwise we are trying to influence the naming. Currently Wuhan is most associated with this virus, it identifies where the virus strain originated and it is the epicentre with the most cases and deaths. Ozcloudwarrior (talk) 08:57, 4 February 2020 (UTC)— Ozcloudwarrior (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Opposehelps understand where the outbreak began and mainly occurred; the virus originated in Wuhan province Salty1984 (talk) 10:39, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose, the name is a critical part of WP:RECOGNIZABILITY for our readers. Britishfinance (talk) 13:55, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
• Support move to 2019–20 Novel Coronavirus outbreak. Spanish Flu is not a comparative case. Simply because there was no intergovernmental authority like WHO to give an official name but there is today. It’s fine for press to use “Wuhan Coronavirus” or other similar names before an official name is given, or just to make a shorter headline writing. When both WHO and the originating country’s government choose “2019-2020 Novel Coronavirus” as the official name, it should be adopted by Wikipedia as well. Just because Google Trends shows “Wuhan Coronavirus” is more common than “Novel Coronavirus” at this moment doesn’t mean that it’s plausible to name this page “Wuhan Coronavirus”. Otherwise “China Coronavirus” should also be considered since it surpasses “Wuhan Coronavirus” on Google Trend by an even greater percentage. Victortarrantino (talk) 14:15, 4 February 2020 (UTC) — Victortarrantino (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Comment, I am neither opposed nor in support of the potential name change, however I think that if the name of the article is changed that the common name should be included within the article. To many, 2019 novel coronavirus is relatively meaningless, but Wuhan coronavirus is much more recognizable. Blaise170 (talk) 14:40, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
• Comment One thing is the Wuhan coronavirus (2019-nCoV) and another thing is the Wuhan coronavirus in Wuhan. Wuhan coronavirus (2019-nCoV) is worldwide. Wuhan coronavirus (2019-nCoV) is the name of this new virus. If you change the page will be confusing because it is not an outbreak of all family of coronavirus, this outbreak is only an outbreak of Wuhan coronavirus (2019-nCoV), it is not an outbreak of the other coronavirus.Rafaelosornio (talk) 15:06, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
• Support clearly have seen WHO, government agencies and later media have moved from using "Wuhan coronavirus" to "Novel coronavirus". xinbenlv ^{Talk, Remember to "ping" me} 19:18, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose/Wait While the proposed title is more scientifically correct, the designation 2019-nCoV is itself a placeholder. At some point in the future, this virus and its disease will become formally named by WHO. At that time, it will make more sense to rename this page. In the meantime, "2019-20 Novel Coronavirus outbreak" is a terrible title. The virus is the 2019 Novel Coronavirus, not the "2019-20 Novel Coronavirus". And if you are dating the outbreak as part of its description, then you end up with a name like "2019-20 2019 Novel Coronavirus outbreak". The current name is much preferable to that. Overall, I agree that this page needs to be renamed, but the proper new name is not yet obvious. EMS | Talk 19:31, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
• support to 2019–20 novel coronavirus outbreak. When I saw this title a few days (weeks?) ago, I thought it was about the outbreak in Wuhan/China; like "Australian bush fires". Opposers are basing on the basis of WP:CONSISTENCY with "Timeline of the 2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak", and "2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak by country and territory". All these articles should be moved too. We have to confront the truth that English Wikipedia is the trendsetter of Internet. This article is about the outbreak of a virus commonly known as "novel corona virus", believed to be originated in Wuhan. But now the virus has spread globally. The article will soon get its focus on other parts of the world as well. Regarding "novel" being a temporary name: well X ray was a remporary name too. But currently "novel corona virus" is common name. Also per all the support points mentioned in the table by Wikmoz. The article is about global outbreak of novel coronavirus, with a big chunk of coverage of the origin (Wuhan). It is logical to move it to "2019–20 novel coronavirus outbreak". —usernamekiran (talk) 20:43, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Philippines (First death outside China?)

According to bnonews.com, there's now a new case (a fatality), and technically the 2nd case, in the Philippines. This would constitute the first death outside China.

https://bnonews.com/index.php/2020/01/the-latest-coronavirus-cases/

https://twitter.com/WHOPhilippines/status/1223797298477424641

SpookiePuppy (talk) 03:00, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Absolutely major news, this should be added in lead if there are no other objections. The WHO's twitter is enough of a RS to make this note credible, but other more established RS should replace the citation later on as this news doubtlessly becomes more proliferated. Sleath56 (talk) 03:11, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Secretary Duque said there are mixed pathogens in the 44-year-old male including Streptococcus pneumoniae and Haemophilus influenza type b. https://twitter.com/WHOPhilippines/status/1223797298477424641 Nickayane99 (talk) 03:19, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

"The first death outside China was reported in the Philippines, when a 44-year old man confirmed to have contracted the virus passed away on 1 February."

This was the entry I've added to lead, but removed this because of this further comment by the WHO as well. I'd say to refrain from adding until the circumstance are further clarified whether the cause is principally attributable to the nCoV. Sleath56 (talk) 03:27, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Update: Further RS have now confirmed it. The entry has now been added. Sleath56 (talk) 05:30, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

I changed "passed away", added a hyphen and noted his two less-sexy and better-known infections. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:23, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

I cannot find any source mentioning that this man 'contracted the coronavirus, Streptococcus pneumoniae, and influenza B [...]' aside from a reply to the tweet linked above (https://twitter.com/WHOPhilippines/status/1223824965851480064).

It's in the CNN Philippines story attached to the entry in Wikipedia's news feed, February 2, citing the DOH secretary. It used to be in the CNBC piece from this lead, citing the WHO tweet, but was excised as "erroneous". WHOPhilippines' Twitter seems to say the error was only in calling influenza B (a virus) "Haemophilus influenza type B" (bacteria), which we don't here. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:36, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Recovered patient

Reference https://gisanddata.maps.arcgis.com/apps/opsdashboard/index.html#/bda7594740fd40299423467b48e9ecf6 and https://systems.jhu.edu/research/public-health/ncov/

Growth of infected percentage slows down

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.

---

COVID-19 cases in Mainland China  ()
     Deaths        Recoveries        Tested        Clinically diagnosed (C.D.)        Tested or C.D.

20192019202020202021202120222022

DecDec

JanJanFebFebMarMarAprAprMayMayJunJunJulJulAugAugSepSepOctOctNovNovDecDec

JanJanFebFebMarMarAprAprMayMayJunJunJulJulAugAugSepSepOctOctNovNovDecDec

JanJan

Last 15 daysLast 15 days

Date			Number of cases (excluding C.D.)	Number of cases (including C.D.)
2019-12-31				27(n.a.)
⋮				27(=)
2020-01-03				44(+63%)
2020-01-04				44(=)
2020-01-05				59(+34%)
⋮				59(=)
2020-01-10			41(n.a.)
2020-01-11			41(=)
2020-01-12			41(=)
⋮			41(=)
2020-01-15			41(=)
2020-01-16			45(+9.8%)
2020-01-17			62(+38%)
2020-01-18			121(+95%)
2020-01-19			198(+64%)
2020-01-20			291(+47%)
2020-01-21			440(+51%)
2020-01-22			571(+30%)
2020-01-23			830(+45%)
2020-01-24			1,287(+55%)
2020-01-25			1,975(+53%)
2020-01-26			2,744(+39%)
2020-01-27			4,515(+65%)
2020-01-28			5,974(+32%)
2020-01-29			7,711(+29%)
2020-01-30			9,692(+26%)
2020-01-31			11,791(+22%)
2020-02-01			14,380(+22%)
2020-02-02			17,205(+20%)
2020-02-03			20,438(+19%)
2020-02-04			24,324(+19%)
2020-02-05			28,018(+15%)
2020-02-06			31,161(+11%)
2020-02-07			34,546(+11%)
2020-02-08			37,198(+7.7%)
2020-02-09			40,171(+8%)
2020-02-10			42,638(+6.1%)	48,315(n.a.)
2020-02-11			44,653(+4.7%)	55,220(+14%)
2020-02-12			46,472(+4.1%)	58,761(+6.4%)
2020-02-13			48,467(+4.3%)	63,851(+8.7%)
2020-02-14			49,970(+3.1%)	66,492(+4.1%)
2020-02-15			51,091(+2.2%)	68,500(+3.0%)
2020-02-16				70,548(+3.0%)
2020-02-17				72,436(+2.7%)
2020-02-18				74,185(+2.4%)
2020-02-19				75,002(+1.1%)
2020-02-20				75,891(+1.2%)
2020-02-21				76,288(+0.52%)
2020-02-22				76,936(+0.85%)
2020-02-23				77,150(+0.28%)
2020-02-24				77,658(+0.66%)
2020-02-25				78,064(+0.52%)
2020-02-26				78,497(+0.55%)
2020-02-27				78,824(+0.42%)
2020-02-28				79,251(+0.54%)
2020-02-29				79,824(+0.72%)
2020-03-01				80,026(+0.25%)
2020-03-02				80,151(+0.16%)
2020-03-03				80,270(+0.15%)
2020-03-04				80,409(+0.17%)
2020-03-05				80,552(+0.18%)
2020-03-06				80,651(+0.12%)
2020-03-07				80,695(+0.05%)
2020-03-08				80,735(+0.05%)
2020-03-09				80,754(+0.02%)
2020-03-10				80,778(+0.03%)
2020-03-11				80,793(+0.02%)
2020-03-12				80,813(+0.02%)
2020-03-13				80,824(+0.01%)
2020-03-14				80,844(+0.02%)
2020-03-15				80,860(+0.02%)
2020-03-16				80,881(+0.03%)
2020-03-17				80,894(+0.02%)
2020-03-18				80,928(+0.04%)
2020-03-19				80,967(+0.05%)
2020-03-20				81,008(+0.05%)
2020-03-21				81,054(+0.06%)
2020-03-22				81,093(+0.05%)
2020-03-23				81,171(+0.1%)
2020-03-24				81,218(+0.06%)
2020-03-25				81,285(+0.08%)
2020-03-26				81,340(+0.07%)
2020-03-27				81,394(+0.07%)
2020-03-28				81,439(+0.06%)
2020-03-29				81,470(+0.04%)
2020-03-30				81,518(+0.06%)
2020-03-31				81,554(+0.04%)
2020-04-01				81,589(+0.04%)
2020-04-02				81,620(+0.04%)
2020-04-03				81,639(+0.02%)
2020-04-04				81,669(+0.04%)
2020-04-05				81,708(+0.05%)
2020-04-06				81,740(+0.04%)
2020-04-07				81,802(+0.08%)
2020-04-08				81,865(+0.08%)
2020-04-09				81,907(+0.05%)
2020-04-10				81,953(+0.06%)
2020-04-11				82,052(+0.12%)
2020-04-12				82,160(+0.13%)
2020-04-13				82,249(+0.11%)
2020-04-14				82,295(+0.06%)
2020-04-15				82,341(+0.06%)
2020-04-16				82,692(+0.43%)
2020-04-17				82,719(+0.03%)
2020-04-18				82,735(+0.02%)
2020-04-19				82,747(+0.01%)
2020-04-20				82,758(+0.01%)
2020-04-21				82,788(+0.04%)
2020-04-22				82,798(+0.01%)
2020-04-23				82,804(+0.01%)
2020-04-24				82,816(+0.01%)
2020-04-25				82,827(+0.01%)
2020-04-26				82,830(=)
2020-04-27				82,836(+0.01%)
2020-04-28				82,858(+0.03%)
2020-04-29				82,862(=)
2020-04-30				82,874(+0.01%)
2020-05-01				82,875(=)
2020-05-02				82,877(=)
2020-05-03				82,880(=)
2020-05-04				82,881(=)
2020-05-05				82,883(=)
2020-05-06				82,885(=)
2020-05-07				82,886(=)
2020-05-08				82,887(=)
2020-05-09				82,901(+0.02%)
2020-05-10				82,918(+0.02%)
2020-05-11				82,919(=)
2020-05-12				82,926(+0.01%)
2020-05-13				82,929(=)
2020-05-14				82,933(=)
2020-05-15				82,941(+0.01%)
2020-05-16				82,947(+0.01%)
2020-05-17				82,954(+0.01%)
2020-05-18				82,960(+0.01%)
2020-05-19				82,965(+0.01%)
2020-05-20				82,967(=)
2020-05-21				82,971(=)
2020-05-22				82,971(=)
2020-05-23				82,974(=)
2020-05-24				82,985(+0.01%)
2020-05-25				82,992(+0.01%)
2020-05-26				82,993(=)
2020-05-27				82,995(=)
2020-05-28				82,995(=)
2020-05-29				82,999(=)
2020-05-30				83,001(=)
2020-05-31				83,017(+0.02%)
2020-06-01				83,022(+0.01%)
2020-06-02				83,021(=)
2020-06-03				83,022(=)
2020-06-04				83,027(+0.01%)
2020-06-05				83,030(=)
2020-06-06				83,036(+0.01%)
2020-06-07				83,040(=)
2020-06-08				83,043(=)
2020-06-09				83,046(=)
2020-06-10				83,057(+0.01%)
2020-06-11				83,064(+0.01%)
2020-06-12				83,075(+0.01%)
2020-06-13				83,132(+0.07%)
2020-06-14				83,181(+0.06%)
2020-06-15				83,221(+0.05%)
2020-06-16				83,265(+0.05%)
2020-06-17				83,293(+0.03%)
2020-06-18				83,325(+0.04%)
2020-06-19				83,352(+0.03%)
2020-06-20				83,378(+0.03%)
2020-06-21				83,396(+0.02%)
2020-06-22				83,418(+0.03%)
2020-06-23				83,430(+0.01%)
2020-06-24				83,449(+0.02%)
2020-06-25				83,462(+0.02%)
2020-06-26				83,483(+0.03%)
2020-06-27				83,500(+0.02%)
2020-06-28				83,512(+0.01%)
2020-06-29				83,531(+0.02%)
2020-06-30				83,534(=)
2020-07-01				83,537(=)
2020-07-02				83,542(+0.01%)
2020-07-03				83,545(=)
2020-07-04				83,553(+0.01%)
2020-07-05				83,557(=)
2020-07-06				83,565(+0.01%)
2020-07-07				83,572(+0.01%)
2020-07-08				83,581(+0.01%)
2020-07-09				83,585(=)
2020-07-10				83,587(=)
2020-07-11				83,594(+0.01%)
2020-07-12				83,602(+0.01%)
2020-07-13				83,605(=)
2020-07-14				83,611(+0.01%)
2020-07-15				83,612(=)
2020-07-16				83,622(+0.01%)
2020-07-17				83,644(+0.03%)
2020-07-18				83,660(+0.02%)
2020-07-19				83,682(+0.03%)
2020-07-20				83,693(+0.01%)
2020-07-21				83,707(+0.02%)
2020-07-22				83,729(+0.03%)
2020-07-23				83,750(+0.03%)
2020-07-24				83,784(+0.04%)
2020-07-25				83,830(+0.05%)
2020-07-26				83,891(+0.07%)
2020-07-27				83,959(+0.08%)
2020-07-28				84,060(+0.12%)
2020-07-29				84,165(+0.12%)
2020-07-30				84,292(+0.15%)
2020-07-31				84,337(+0.05%)
2020-08-01				84,385(+0.06%)
2020-08-02				84,428(+0.05%)
2020-08-03				84,464(+0.04%)
2020-08-04				84,491(+0.03%)
2020-08-05				84,528(+0.04%)
2020-08-06				84,565(+0.04%)
2020-08-07				84,596(+0.04%)
2020-08-08				84,619(+0.03%)
2020-08-09				84,668(+0.06%)
2020-08-10				84,712(+0.05%)
2020-08-11				84,737(+0.03%)
2020-08-12				84,756(+0.02%)
2020-08-13				84,786(+0.04%)
2020-08-14				84,808(+0.03%)
2020-08-15				84,827(+0.02%)
2020-08-16				84,849(+0.03%)
2020-08-17				84,871(+0.03%)
2020-08-18				84,888(+0.02%)
2020-08-19				84,895(+0.01%)
2020-08-20				84,917(+0.03%)
2020-08-21				84,939(+0.03%)
2020-08-22				84,951(+0.01%)
2020-08-23				84,967(+0.02%)
2020-08-24				84,981(+0.02%)
2020-08-25				84,996(+0.02%)
2020-08-26				85,004(+0.01%)
2020-08-27				85,013(+0.01%)
2020-08-28				85,022(+0.01%)
2020-08-29				85,031(+0.01%)
2020-08-30				85,048(+0.02%)
2020-08-31				85,058(+0.01%)
2020-09-01				85,066(+0.01%)
2020-09-02				85,077(+0.01%)
2020-09-03				85,102(+0.03%)
2020-09-04				85,112(+0.01%)
2020-09-05				85,122(+0.01%)
2020-09-06				85,134(+0.01%)
2020-09-07				85,144(+0.01%)
2020-09-08				85,146(=)
2020-09-09				85,153(+0.01%)
2020-09-10				85,168(+0.02%)
2020-09-11				85,174(+0.01%)
2020-09-12				85,184(+0.01%)
2020-09-13				85,194(+0.01%)
2020-09-14				85,202(+0.01%)
2020-09-15				85,214(+0.01%)
2020-09-16				85,223(+0.01%)
2020-09-17				85,255(+0.04%)
2020-09-18				85,269(+0.02%)
2020-09-19				85,279(+0.01%)
2020-09-20				85,291(+0.01%)
2020-09-21				85,297(+0.01%)
2020-09-22				85,307(+0.01%)
2020-09-23				85,314(+0.01%)
2020-09-24				85,322(+0.01%)
2020-09-25				85,337(+0.02%)
2020-09-26				85,351(+0.02%)
2020-09-27				85,372(+0.02%)
2020-09-28				85,384(+0.01%)
2020-09-29				85,403(+0.02%)
2020-09-30				85,414(+0.01%)
2020-10-01				85,424(+0.01%)
2020-10-02				85,434(+0.01%)
2020-10-03				85,450(+0.02%)
2020-10-04				85,470(+0.02%)
2020-10-05				85,482(+0.01%)
2020-10-06				85,489(+0.01%)
2020-10-07				85,500(+0.01%)
2020-10-08				85,521(+0.02%)
2020-10-09				85,536(+0.02%)
2020-10-10				85,557(+0.02%)
2020-10-11				85,578(+0.02%)
2020-10-12				85,591(+0.02%)
2020-10-13				85,611(+0.02%)
2020-10-14				85,622(+0.01%)
2020-10-15				85,646(+0.03%)
2020-10-16				85,659(+0.02%)
2020-10-17				85,672(+0.02%)
2020-10-18				85,685(+0.02%)
2020-10-19				85,704(+0.02%)
2020-10-20				85,715(+0.01%)
2020-10-21				85,729(+0.02%)
2020-10-22				85,747(+0.02%)
2020-10-23				85,775(+0.03%)
2020-10-24				85,790(+0.02%)
2020-10-25				85,810(+0.02%)
2020-10-26				85,826(+0.02%)
2020-10-27				85,868(+0.05%)
2020-10-28				85,915(+0.05%)
2020-10-29				85,940(+0.03%)
2020-10-30				85,973(+0.04%)
2020-10-31				85,997(+0.03%)
2020-11-01				86,021(+0.03%)
2020-11-02				86,070(+0.06%)
2020-11-03				86,087(+0.02%)
2020-11-04				86,115(+0.03%)
2020-11-05				86,151(+0.04%)
2020-11-06				86,184(+0.04%)
2020-11-07				86,212(+0.03%)
2020-11-08				86,245(+0.04%)
2020-11-09				86,267(+0.03%)
2020-11-10				86,284(+0.02%)
2020-11-11				86,299(+0.02%)
2020-11-12				86,307(+0.01%)
2020-11-13				86,325(+0.02%)
2020-11-14				86,338(+0.02%)
2020-11-15				86,346(+0.01%)
2020-11-16				86,361(+0.02%)
2020-11-17				86,369(+0.01%)
2020-11-18				86,381(+0.01%)
2020-11-19				86,398(+0.02%)
2020-11-20				86,414(+0.02%)
2020-11-21				86,431(+0.02%)
2020-11-22				86,442(+0.01%)
2020-11-23				86,464(+0.03%)
2020-11-24				86,469(+0.01%)
2020-11-25				86,490(+0.02%)
2020-11-26				86,495(+0.01%)
2020-11-27				86,501(+0.01%)
2020-11-28				86,512(+0.01%)
2020-11-29				86,530(+0.02%)
2020-11-30				86,542(+0.01%)
2020-12-01				86,551(+0.01%)
2020-12-02				86,567(+0.02%)
2020-12-03				86,584(+0.02%)
2020-12-04				86,601(+0.02%)
2020-12-05				86,619(+0.02%)
2020-12-06				86,634(+0.02%)
2020-12-07				86,646(+0.01%)
2020-12-08				86,661(+0.02%)
2020-12-09				86,673(+0.01%)
2020-12-10				86,688(+0.02%)
2020-12-11				86,701(+0.01%)
2020-12-12				86,725(+0.03%)
2020-12-13				86,741(+0.02%)
2020-12-14				86,758(+0.02%)
2020-12-15				86,770(+0.01%)
2020-12-16				86,777(+0.01%)
2020-12-17				86,789(+0.01%)
2020-12-18				86,806(+0.02%)
2020-12-19				86,829(+0.03%)
2020-12-20				86,852(+0.03%)
2020-12-21				86,867(+0.02%)
2020-12-22				86,882(+0.02%)
2020-12-23				86,899(+0.02%)
2020-12-24				86,913(+0.02%)
2020-12-25				86,933(+0.02%)
2020-12-26				86,955(+0.03%)
2020-12-27				86,976(+0.02%)
2020-12-28				87,003(+0.03%)
2020-12-29				87,027(+0.03%)
2020-12-30				87,052(+0.03%)
2020-12-31				87,071(+0.02%)
2021-01-01				87,093(+0.03%)
2021-01-02				87,117(+0.03%)
2021-01-03				87,150(+0.04%)
2021-01-04				87,183(+0.04%)
2021-01-05				87,215(+0.04%)
2021-01-06				87,278(+0.07%)
2021-01-07				87,331(+0.06%)
2021-01-08				87,364(+0.04%)
2021-01-09				87,433(+0.08%)
2021-01-10				87,536(+0.12%)
2021-01-11				87,591(+0.06%)
2021-01-12				87,706(+0.13%)
2021-01-13				87,844(+0.16%)
2021-01-14				87,988(+0.16%)
2021-01-15				88,118(+0.15%)
2021-01-16				88,227(+0.12%)
2021-01-17				88,336(+0.12%)
2021-01-18				88,454(+0.13%)
2021-01-19				88,557(+0.12%)
2021-01-20				88,701(+0.16%)
2021-01-21				88,804(+0.12%)
2021-01-22				88,911(+0.12%)
2021-01-23				88,991(+0.09%)
2021-01-24				89,115(+0.14%)
2021-01-25				89,197(+0.09%)
2021-01-26				89,272(+0.08%)
2021-01-27				89,326(+0.06%)
2021-01-28				89,378(+0.06%)
2021-01-29				89,430(+0.06%)
2021-01-30				89,522(+0.1%)
2021-01-31				89,564(+0.05%)
2021-02-01				89,594(+0.03%)
2021-02-02				89,619(+0.03%)
2021-02-03				89,649(+0.03%)
2021-02-04				89,669(+0.02%)
2021-02-05				89,681(+0.01%)
2021-02-06				89,692(+0.01%)
2021-02-07				89,706(+0.02%)
2021-02-08				89,720(+0.02%)
2021-02-09				89,734(+0.02%)
2021-02-10				89,736(=)
2021-02-11				89,748(+0.01%)
2021-02-12				89,756(+0.01%)
2021-02-13				89,763(+0.01%)
2021-02-14				89,772(+0.01%)
2021-02-15				89,788(+0.02%)
2021-02-16				89,795(+0.01%)
2021-02-17				89,806(+0.01%)
2021-02-18				89,816(+0.01%)
2021-02-19				89,824(+0.01%)
2021-02-20				89,831(+0.01%)
2021-02-21				89,842(+0.01%)
2021-02-22				89,852(+0.01%)
2021-02-23				89,864(+0.01%)
2021-02-24				89,871(+0.01%)
2021-02-25				89,877(+0.01%)
2021-02-26				89,887(+0.01%)
2021-02-27				89,893(+0.01%)
2021-02-28				89,912(+0.02%)
2021-03-01				89,923(+0.01%)
2021-03-02				89,933(+0.01%)
2021-03-03				89,943(+0.01%)
2021-03-04				89,952(+0.01%)
2021-03-05				89,962(+0.01%)
2021-03-06				89,975(+0.01%)
2021-03-07				89,994(+0.02%)
2021-03-08				90,002(+0.01%)
2021-03-09				90,007(+0.01%)
2021-03-10				90,018(+0.01%)
2021-03-11				90,027(+0.01%)
2021-03-12				90,034(+0.01%)
2021-03-13				90,044(+0.01%)
2021-03-14				90,049(+0.01%)
2021-03-15				90,062(+0.01%)
2021-03-16				90,066(=)
2021-03-17				90,072(+0.01%)
2021-03-18				90,083(+0.01%)
2021-03-19				90,087(=)
2021-03-20				90,099(+0.01%)
2021-03-21				90,106(+0.01%)
2021-03-22				90,115(+0.01%)
2021-03-23				90,125(+0.01%)
2021-03-24				90,136(+0.01%)
2021-03-25				90,147(+0.01%)
2021-03-26				90,159(+0.01%)
2021-03-27				90,167(+0.01%)
2021-03-28				90,182(+0.02%)
2021-03-29				90,190(+0.01%)
2021-03-30				90,201(+0.01%)
2021-03-31				90,217(+0.02%)
2021-04-01				90,226(+0.01%)
2021-04-02				90,252(+0.03%)
2021-04-03				90,273(+0.02%)
2021-04-04				90,305(+0.04%)
2021-04-05				90,329(+0.03%)
2021-04-06				90,341(+0.01%)
2021-04-07				90,365(+0.03%)
2021-04-08				90,386(+0.02%)
2021-04-09				90,400(+0.02%)
2021-04-10				90,410(+0.01%)
2021-04-11				90,426(+0.02%)
2021-04-12				90,435(+0.01%)
2021-04-13				90,447(+0.01%)
2021-04-14				90,457(+0.01%)
2021-04-15				90,468(+0.01%)
2021-04-16				90,483(+0.02%)
2021-04-17				90,499(+0.02%)
2021-04-18				90,510(+0.01%)
2021-04-19				90,520(+0.01%)
2021-04-20				90,541(+0.02%)
2021-04-21				90,547(+0.01%)
2021-04-22				90,566(+0.02%)
2021-04-23				90,575(+0.01%)
2021-04-24				90,588(+0.01%)
2021-04-25				90,599(+0.01%)
2021-04-26				90,610(+0.01%)
2021-04-27				90,622(+0.01%)
2021-04-28				90,642(+0.02%)
2021-04-29				90,655(+0.01%)
2021-04-30				90,671(+0.02%)
2021-05-01				90,686(+0.02%)
2021-05-02				90,697(+0.01%)
2021-05-03				90,714(+0.02%)
2021-05-04				90,721(+0.01%)
2021-05-05				90,726(+0.01%)
2021-05-06				90,739(+0.01%)
2021-05-07				90,746(+0.01%)
2021-05-08				90,758(+0.01%)
2021-05-09				90,769(+0.01%)
2021-05-10				90,783(+0.02%)
2021-05-11				90,799(+0.02%)
2021-05-12				90,808(+0.01%)
2021-05-13				90,815(+0.01%)
2021-05-14				90,829(+0.02%)
2021-05-15				90,847(+0.02%)
2021-05-16				90,872(+0.03%)
2021-05-17				90,894(+0.02%)
2021-05-18				90,908(+0.02%)
2021-05-19				90,920(+0.01%)
2021-05-20				90,944(+0.03%)
2021-05-21				90,954(+0.01%)
2021-05-22				90,973(+0.02%)
2021-05-23				90,991(+0.02%)
2021-05-24				91,006(+0.02%)
2021-05-25				91,019(+0.01%)
2021-05-26				91,038(+0.02%)
2021-05-27				91,045(+0.01%)
2021-05-28				91,061(+0.02%)
2021-05-29				91,072(+0.01%)
2021-05-30				91,099(+0.03%)
2021-05-31				91,122(+0.03%)
2021-06-01				91,146(+0.03%)
2021-06-02				91,170(+0.03%)
2021-06-03				91,194(+0.03%)
2021-06-04				91,218(+0.03%)
2021-06-05				91,248(+0.03%)
2021-06-06				91,267(+0.02%)
2021-06-07				91,300(+0.04%)
2021-06-08				91,316(+0.02%)
2021-06-09				91,337(+0.02%)
2021-06-10				91,359(+0.02%)
2021-06-11				91,394(+0.04%)
2021-06-12				91,428(+0.04%)
2021-06-13				91,451(+0.03%)
2021-06-14				91,471(+0.02%)
2021-06-15				91,492(+0.02%)
2021-06-16				91,511(+0.02%)
2021-06-17				91,534(+0.03%)
2021-06-18				91,564(+0.03%)
2021-06-19				91,587(+0.03%)
2021-06-20				91,604(+0.02%)
2021-06-21				91,629(+0.03%)
2021-06-22				91,653(+0.03%)
2021-06-23				91,669(+0.02%)
2021-06-24				91,693(+0.03%)
2021-06-25				91,718(+0.03%)
2021-06-26				91,732(+0.02%)
2021-06-27				91,753(+0.02%)
2021-06-28				91,771(+0.02%)
2021-06-29				91,780(+0.01%)
2021-06-30				91,792(+0.01%)
2021-07-01				91,810(+0.02%)
2021-07-02				91,833(+0.03%)
2021-07-03				91,847(+0.02%)
2021-07-04				91,869(+0.02%)
2021-07-05				91,892(+0.03%)
2021-07-06				91,949(+0.06%)
2021-07-07				91,966(+0.02%)
2021-07-08				91,989(+0.03%)
2021-07-09				92,015(+0.03%)
2021-07-10				92,039(+0.03%)
2021-07-11				92,066(+0.03%)
2021-07-12				92,095(+0.03%)
2021-07-13				92,119(+0.03%)
2021-07-14				92,147(+0.03%)
2021-07-15				92,183(+0.04%)
2021-07-16				92,213(+0.03%)
2021-07-17				92,246(+0.04%)
2021-07-18				92,277(+0.03%)
2021-07-19				92,342(+0.07%)
2021-07-20				92,364(+0.02%)
2021-07-21				92,414(+0.05%)
2021-07-22				92,462(+0.05%)
2021-07-23				92,497(+0.04%)
2021-07-24				92,529(+0.03%)
2021-07-25				92,605(+0.08%)
2021-07-26				92,676(+0.08%)
2021-07-27				92,762(+0.09%)
2021-07-28				92,811(+0.05%)
2021-07-29				92,875(+0.07%)
2021-07-30				92,930(+0.06%)
2021-07-31				93,005(+0.08%)
2021-08-01				93,103(+0.11%)
2021-08-02				93,193(+0.1%)
2021-08-03				93,289(+0.1%)
2021-08-04				93,374(+0.09%)
2021-08-05				93,498(+0.13%)
2021-08-06				93,605(+0.11%)
2021-08-07				93,701(+0.1%)
2021-08-08				93,826(+0.13%)
2021-08-09				93,969(+0.15%)
2021-08-10				94,080(+0.12%)
2021-08-11				94,161(+0.09%)
2021-08-12				94,260(+0.11%)
2021-08-13				94,326(+0.07%)
2021-08-14				94,379(+0.06%)
2021-08-15				94,430(+0.05%)
2021-08-16				94,472(+0.04%)
2021-08-17				94,500(+0.03%)
2021-08-18				94,546(+0.05%)
2021-08-19				94,579(+0.03%)
2021-08-20				94,599(+0.02%)
2021-08-21				94,631(+0.03%)
2021-08-22				94,652(+0.02%)
2021-08-23				94,687(+0.04%)
2021-08-24				94,707(+0.02%)
2021-08-25				94,733(+0.03%)
2021-08-26				94,765(+0.03%)
2021-08-27				94,786(+0.02%)
2021-08-28				94,819(+0.03%)
2021-08-29				94,842(+0.02%)
2021-08-30				94,879(+0.04%)
2021-08-31				94,898(+0.02%)
2021-09-01				94,926(+0.03%)
2021-09-02				94,954(+0.03%)
2021-09-03				94,982(+0.03%)
2021-09-04				95,010(+0.03%)
2021-09-05				95,028(+0.02%)
2021-09-06				95,064(+0.04%)
2021-09-07				95,083(+0.02%)
2021-09-08				95,111(+0.03%)
2021-09-09				95,128(+0.02%)
2021-09-10				95,153(+0.03%)
2021-09-11				95,199(+0.05%)
2021-09-12				95,248(+0.05%)
2021-09-13				95,340(+0.1%)
2021-09-14				95,413(+0.08%)
2021-09-15				95,493(+0.08%)
2021-09-16				95,577(+0.09%)
2021-09-17				95,623(+0.05%)
2021-09-18				95,689(+0.07%)
2021-09-19				95,738(+0.05%)
2021-09-20				95,810(+0.08%)
2021-09-21				95,851(+0.04%)
2021-09-22				95,894(+0.04%)
2021-09-23				95,948(+0.06%)
2021-09-24				95,986(+0.04%)
2021-09-25				96,015(+0.03%)
2021-09-26				96,050(+0.04%)
2021-09-27				96,081(+0.03%)
2021-09-28				96,106(+0.03%)
2021-09-29				96,128(+0.02%)
2021-09-30				96,162(+0.04%)
2021-10-01				96,203(+0.04%)
2021-10-02				96,231(+0.03%)
2021-10-03				96,258(+0.03%)
2021-10-04				96,284(+0.03%)
2021-10-05				96,310(+0.03%)
2021-10-06				96,335(+0.03%)
2021-10-07				96,357(+0.02%)
2021-10-08				96,374(+0.02%)
2021-10-09				96,398(+0.02%)
2021-10-10				96,423(+0.03%)
2021-10-11				96,435(+0.01%)
2021-10-12				96,457(+0.02%)
2021-10-13				96,478(+0.02%)
2021-10-14				96,488(+0.01%)
2021-10-15				96,502(+0.01%)
2021-10-16				96,522(+0.02%)
2021-10-17				96,546(+0.02%)
2021-10-18				96,571(+0.03%)
2021-10-19				96,601(+0.03%)
2021-10-20				96,622(+0.02%)
2021-10-21				96,665(+0.04%)
2021-10-22				96,715(+0.05%)
2021-10-23				96,758(+0.04%)
2021-10-24				96,797(+0.04%)
2021-10-25				96,840(+0.04%)
2021-10-26				96,899(+0.06%)
2021-10-27				96,938(+0.04%)
2021-10-28				97,002(+0.07%)
2021-10-29				97,080(+0.08%)
2021-10-30				97,151(+0.07%)
2021-10-31				97,243(+0.09%)
2021-11-01				97,314(+0.07%)
2021-11-02				97,423(+0.11%)
2021-11-03				97,527(+0.11%)
2021-11-04				97,605(+0.08%)
2021-11-05				97,660(+0.06%)
2021-11-06				97,734(+0.08%)
2021-11-07				97,823(+0.09%)
2021-11-08				97,885(+0.06%)
2021-11-09				97,939(+0.06%)
2021-11-10				98,001(+0.06%)
2021-11-11				98,099(+0.1%)
2021-11-12				98,174(+0.08%)
2021-11-13				98,263(+0.09%)
2021-11-14				98,315(+0.05%)
2021-11-15				98,337(+0.02%)
2021-11-16				98,368(+0.03%)
2021-11-17				98,403(+0.04%)
2021-11-18				98,427(+0.02%)
2021-11-19				98,450(+0.02%)
2021-11-20				98,467(+0.02%)
2021-11-21				98,505(+0.04%)
2021-11-22				98,524(+0.02%)
2021-11-23				98,546(+0.02%)
2021-11-24				98,570(+0.02%)
2021-11-25				98,583(+0.01%)
2021-11-26				98,608(+0.03%)
2021-11-27				98,631(+0.02%)
2021-11-28				98,672(+0.04%)
2021-11-29				98,711(+0.04%)
2021-11-30				98,824(+0.11%)
2021-12-01				98,897(+0.07%)
2021-12-02				98,993(+0.1%)
2021-12-03				99,083(+0.09%)
2021-12-04				99,142(+0.06%)
2021-12-05				99,203(+0.06%)
2021-12-06				99,297(+0.09%)
2021-12-07				99,371(+0.07%)
2021-12-08				99,454(+0.08%)
2021-12-09				99,517(+0.06%)
2021-12-10				99,604(+0.09%)
2021-12-11				99,679(+0.08%)
2021-12-12				99,780(+0.1%)
2021-12-13				99,856(+0.08%)
2021-12-14				99,923(+0.07%)
2021-12-15				100,000(+0.08%)
2021-12-16				100,076(+0.08%)
2021-12-17				100,201(+0.12%)
2021-12-18				100,284(+0.08%)
2021-12-19				100,386(+0.1%)
2021-12-20				100,467(+0.08%)
2021-12-21				100,544(+0.08%)
2021-12-22				100,644(+0.1%)
2021-12-23				100,731(+0.09%)
2021-12-24				100,871(+0.14%)
2021-12-25				101,077(+0.2%)
2021-12-26				101,277(+0.2%)
2021-12-27				101,486(+0.21%)
2021-12-28				101,683(+0.19%)
2021-12-29				101,890(+0.2%)
2021-12-30				102,083(+0.19%)
2021-12-31				102,314(+0.23%)
2022-01-01				102,505(+0.19%)
2022-01-02				102,666(+0.16%)
2022-01-03				102,841(+0.17%)
2022-01-04				102,932(+0.09%)
2022-01-05				103,121(+0.18%)
2022-01-06				103,295(+0.17%)
2022-01-07				103,454(+0.15%)
2022-01-08				103,619(+0.16%)
2022-01-09				103,776(+0.15%)
2022-01-10				103,968(+0.19%)
2022-01-11				104,189(+0.21%)
2022-01-12				104,379(+0.18%)
2022-01-13				104,580(+0.19%)
2022-01-14				104,745(+0.16%)
2022-01-15				104,864(+0.11%)
2022-01-16				105,087(+0.21%)
2022-01-17				105,258(+0.16%)
2022-01-18				105,345(+0.08%)
2022-01-19				105,411(+0.06%)
2022-01-20				105,484(+0.07%)
2022-01-21				105,547(+0.06%)
2022-01-22				105,603(+0.05%)
2022-01-23				105,660(+0.05%)
2022-01-24				105,705(+0.04%)
2022-01-25				105,749(+0.04%)
2022-01-26				105,811(+0.06%)
2022-01-27				105,875(+0.06%)
2022-01-28				105,934(+0.06%)
2022-01-29				106,015(+0.08%)
2022-01-30				106,073(+0.05%)
2022-01-31				106,139(+0.06%)
From 10 February 2020 onwards, the data includes the cases in Hubei that were not tested for the virus but clinically diagnosed based on medical imaging showing signs of pneumonia. The lab-tested data was also separately available for 10–15 February 2020. Data from 16 February 2020 onwards did not include a separate number of lab-tested cases. From 19 February 2020 onwards, only new lab-tested cases were counted towards the total (but clinically diagnosed cases counted earlier were not discarded). On 17 April 2020, following the Wuhan government's issuance of a report on accounting for COVID-19 deaths that occurred at home that went previously unreported, as well as the subtraction of deaths that were previously double-counted by different hospitals, the NHC revised their cumulative totals dating to 16 April, adding 325 cumulative cases and 1,290 deaths. Data sourced from NHC daily reports. (In another link before January 25, on Wuhan MHC website before January 10)

The infected cases growth slows down. It was infection doubled after 2 days and now is doubled after 3 days since this weekend. Where can such growth numbers be found in the article? It is good news the infection rate slows down. We will only have estimated 50000 infected by end of the week.92.117.230.38 (talk) 17:03, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Already discussed.

Serious alert was given around Jan. 21~23th, 8 days ago.

Asymptomatic incubation periode is believed to be about 6 days.

The Basic Reproduction Ratio is moving from a pre-alert walk free level BRR, to an alerted-public taking precautions BRR level. This BRR move (reduction) is very important, but clearly not enough. BRR must move under 1, which means, new cases now (2020.02.01: 14,380-11,791 =2589) should be equal or under new cases of today minus 6 days (2020.01.25: 1,975-1,287=688). It still isnt. Yug (talk) 20:18, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

 Done Daily growth rate added to the figure : {{2019-20 Wuhan coronavirus data/China medical cases (confirmed)}} Yug (talk) 13:14, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

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.

Smearing in Wikipedia

Could you just stop with nonsense such as this "The Far-right news site Zero Hedge claimed that a scientist..."? Far-right why? Does Zero Hedge claim to be far-right? Because if not you're just smearing like CNN and pals. Even in your own Zero Hedge article you state that Zero Hedge is Pro Russian biased, alt-right and libertarian. What kind of nonsense is that? You can't be all of those given Russia is anything but right wing or libertarian and much less far-right. Once again this just makes Wikipedia look an unreliable source of information. I don't even know Zero Hedge that well but I know for sure it's not far-right because left wingers claim that anything they don't like to be far-right. Unit73e (talk) 21:53, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood Wikipedia. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia (a tertiary source), like all encyclopedias it's not about truth, but about verifiability, reflecting what the facts are reported to be in the mainstream. If mainstream sources (such as the Washington Post) are saying that Zero Hedge is on the far right, that's what we will write on Wikipedia.

Don't get me wrong, maybe it's not far right at all, but it's not relevant because we're not arbiters of truth. It would be very inappropriate for a gang of editors to consider that a source that is widely considered reliable on Wikipedia would be wrong on a particular issue simply on the basis of our own personal views.

So unless you find another source deemed reliable on Wikipedia that claims that the political orientation of the site in question is not far-right I think the discussion is over. Have a good day/night. --RaphaelQS (talk) 22:34, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

See the Talk for Zero Hedge, which brings up this matter. The conclusion being to appeal to WP:RS/P if you believe the RS show otherwise. Sleath56 (talk) 22:37, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

As we're mentioning it in a bad science context, not a political one, seems irrelevant even if 110% true at its own article. It'd be like calling some honest scientist or health worker out by their marital status, or referring to The Washington Post as "capitalist". There's an appropriate time and place for pointy adjectives, disputed or not. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:07, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Someone has removed the "far right" descriptor. So nothing more is needed here. I agree that it was not required. and it added bloat to the page. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:47, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Well I added it back in since its a relevant description... If you want to call two words in an article this long bloat thats little out there. In addition “news site” unmodified is misleading, it would be an endorsement of them as an actual news site which is inappropriate to do in Wikipedia’s voice because they aren’t one. No policy based argument has yet been made for removing the language. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 23:46, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

"Right-wing" just conveys political orientation. If a leftist, Communist or Satanist outlet was said to have spread unfounded bullshit and been Twitter-banned for that, it'd be just as easy to understand it's the lying sort of news site. Are you sure you don't mostly want to make the right seem like xenophobic snakes by association? InedibleHulk (talk) 00:08, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

I will remind you to mind WP:PA, failure to do so will get you banned. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 11:01, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Not attempting to attack you. Just asking for clarification. If you're sure you're not doing this for political purposes, I'm sorry to even bring up the question. But if you are, I'd base my argument somewhere in WP:NPOV. Not calling anyone a snake, xenophobe, Satanist, Communist or leftist, if that's how it read. Only trying to see things from your perspective; maybe you're right (correct) and I just missed how, you know? InedibleHulk (talk) 16:38, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

I have removed that prefixing text. It is just adding bloat. This article is not about Zero Hedge, but about the bogus story therein. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:18, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Those two sentences are, that is. The article is about a novel coronavirus outbreak. Or so the "real" news spins it. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:41, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Coronavirus: scientists identify possible new mode of transmission in human faeces

"New coronavirus may be transmitted through the feces.  Now this issue should be taken very seriously, because the virus is found in the feces, and whether the feces are infected with the virus is highly vigilant.  In some places in Hubei and Jiangxi, there is indeed a habit of using toilet bowls, and they are still washed in fish ponds, which really needs to be brought to the attention of prevention and control."
Source: South Plus

https://news.qq.com/zt2020/page/feiyan.htm#news

https://amp.scmp.com/news/china/politics/article/3048611/coronavirus-scientists-identify-possible-new-mode-transmission

https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2020/02/02/asia-pacific/science-health-asia-pacific/coronavirus-feces-risk-of-spread/#.XjdI8mRX5kx

Nickayane99 (talk) 22:05, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

• I'd say this is probably a better fit for the article on the disease itself, but perhaps it could work in one of the sections? Kirbanzo ^{(userpage - talk - contribs)} 23:03, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

@Kirbanzo: If this disease spread through the feces we should add this to both articles Nickayane99 (talk) 00:07, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

2019-nCov is an article about the virus itself. I guess the question is do we need an article on the disease itself? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:36, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, i guess, but we need to add this information to virus spread section Nickayane99 (talk) 03:10, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Nickayane99 Thank you for bringing these sources to my attention. I am always leery of referencing news agencies for purported scientific/medical claims given the risk of misinformation. I looked up the manuscript referenced by these articles, and the authors state, "It is notable that we also detected 2019-nCoV RNA in a stool specimen collected on day 7 of the patient’s illness... However, extrapulmonary detection of viral RNA does not necessarily mean that infectious virus is present, and the clinical significance of the detection of viral RNA outside the respiratory tract is unknown at this time." I will update what's written in the section to be more precise. Moksha88 (talk) 04:12, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

As a rule of thumb : don't roll your face in anyone's faeces during a pandemic. Even "just to test". Yug (talk) 13:11, 3 February 2020 (UTC) XD

Even your own, even if you've tested negative, even if nobody is watching. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:53, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

We all have our opinions. Yug (talk) 14:14, 3 February 2020 (UTC) XD

What we have here is a very big "may be"...

Would wait for something more definitive. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:05, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 February 2020

I cannot find sources for the fifth paragraph of the "Misinformation" section claim that "some media, including Daily Mail and RT spread misinformation that the cause of the virus was people eating bats in Wuhan". I have found no support for such a claim on the website of either outlet.

The "Virology" section of the article furthermore states that "it is likely that the primary reservoir for the virus is bats.[53] Of 585 animal specimens taken from the market, 33 showed evidence of 2019-nCoV.[112]". This is also what seems to have been reported in the above mentioned oulets.

I would thus suggest to either:

1. replace the names of the two outlets by the names of the media which have actually been making the claim, 2. add the appropriate references to the claims made in the said outlets (which I might have missed), or 3. remove the first sentence altogether. 2A01:E0A:D5:D430:8007:9CA0:71D2:CCD2 (talk) 23:46, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. QueerFilmNerd^talk 02:57, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

I have cited (a slightly modified version of) the challenged statement.  --Lambiam 08:35, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm shocked it wasn't locked a week ago! 80.169.132.92 (talk) 13:52, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

No support in the cited sources for escalation in transmission rate... and it's complicated.

The first paragraph of the article contains this claim: "with its transmission rate escalating in mid-January 2020" The cited sources do not seem to mention any change in the transmission rate. This are is fraught, with some sources claiming that some increases in reported cases in January are due to increased reporting after case reporting had been previously suppressed. (See Laurie Garrett's discussion here:[13]) So I have removed the phrase. If there is another source for it, please restore and cite it and then let's discuss in light of the reporting controversy. Chris vLS (talk) 08:29, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

User:Chrisvls agree Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:33, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

References

Lockdown table redundancy

In 2019–20_Wuhan_coronavirus_outbreak#Quarantine_measures, should we remove the table of cities? A similar table appears in 2020_Hubei_lockdowns#Lockdown, so now we have 2 tables (current with different figures) to maintain? I propose we remove the table from the parent article if we're going to display the same table on the 2020 Hubei lockdowns article. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 13:11, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

@Another Believer: Merge in progress. Thank you for pointing this out ! Yug (talk) 14:16, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Yug, Can you clarify what you mean by "in progress"? I see the table is still present. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:36, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

@Another Believer: both tables have been moved to a template page {{2020_coronavirus_quarantines}}, and data has been merge. So there is no redubdancies anymore.

Review of sources is still to do, in order to keep it all sourced with the minimal noise possible (fewer references). Yug (talk) 19:12, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Yug, But isn't displaying the table in both articles still redundant? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:20, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

@Another Believer: oh.... i didnt treated THAT redundancy. Yug (talk) 19:48, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Should trump statement reworded

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.

---

Hello, I found some of statement like this:

• US President Donald Trump thanked Chinese leader Xi Jinping "on behalf of the American People"

But because many English language source refer to Xi Jinping as president, any words regarding name Paramount leader or just leader would be confusing because word Paramount was unknown in many english-language media's except in literature. Can someone change description to:

• US President Donald Trump thanked Chinese President Xi Jinping "on behalf of the American People"

I believe this word reflects Common name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.137.171.220 (talk) 13:28, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Agreed and fixed. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:44, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

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.

Does bushfire season theory related to this article

I remove text about bushfire because it is hypothetical and unrelated to coronavirus outbreak: the text as follows:

• Bushfire effect. many people believe that Australian bushfire contribute to outbreak of coronavirus that spread around the world. Many Australian politicians also made assumption that many people around the world, including Wuhan experience the effects of bushfire. This assumption was supported by many newspapers. Many paranormals blame Australia for spreading coronavirus because its bushfire season.

I briefly added the statement before it was removed because it assumed that was unrelated. Does someone have opinion about this. 110.137.171.220 (talk) 14:16, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Too much "many", at least. If attributed to actual people, politicians, press and paranormals(?), it'd be easier to know if someone's actually lying here. As it was, vague enough to be useless (but technically undebunkable), should stay out. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:29, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

• This is not factual at all and should be left out. No reliable sources have suggested there being a link between the bushfires and the spread of the virus, and believing in such a link is a fringe, conspiracy position. If anything it should be included alongside the conspiracy that Coronavirus was made by the Chinese in List of conspiracy theories. Kirbanzo ^{(userpage - talk - contribs)} 20:44, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

It's not a conspiracy theory. It's just superstition about smoke. Fringe and kooky, definitely. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:54, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm sure it is a conspiracy theory. There are a lot of wacky conspiracy theories about both this virus and the Australian bushfires. Scott Morrison and the Australian government were under a great deal of domestic pressure due to the bushfires and the outbreak seems to have been a decent 'distraction' so in some ways it's not that hard to see how the conspiracy theory may come about, but it's still utter nonsense. As for adding it to an article, unless it's well known and documented in multiple sources, there's no reason. As I said, there are a lot of conspiracy theories surrounding both. We're only going to be adding those with sufficient sourcing. Nil Einne (talk) 08:02, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

At least as written above, nobody alleges any group secretly plotted to start the fires, release the virus or shift Australian attention away. If such a scenario is laid out elsewhere, it's likely a conspiracy theory. But if the smoke or heat from the fires is simply believed to cause respiratory distress in China, that's just classic poppycock/horsefeathers, like the sketchy wives' tales about toads causing warts, gays causing hurricanes or rap causing crime. The supposed "real enemy" is deemed guilty by its inherent otherness, regardless of lack of alleged intent. That's called scapegoating, where I'm from. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:56, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

• I haven't heard a single politician or Australian mention the bushfires and Wuhan coronavirus as being connected unless it relates to the economic impact that will be felt by two disasters so close to each other. I would be extremely interested in finding a link that shows "Many paranormals blame Australia for spreading coronavirus because its bushfire season". Considering every summer in Australia is technically a bushfire season, I am unsure how they can create pathogens in a market in Wuhan. Ozcloudwarrior (talk) 09:02, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Could this page be protected please?

This page keeps being vandalised, such as people changing the number of casualties to something ridiculous. A few days ago, somebody changed the picture to graphic anal sex. Could we please protect this page, at the very least to autoconfirmed users? Kirundist (talk) 16:07, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

@Kirundist: see Wikipedia:Requests for page protection – Reidgreg (talk) 19:48, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

@Kirundist: This page now again become semi-protected because high level of IP Vandalism after protection expired. It is my concern about many vandalism in this article. Why semi-protected for this article is not going indefinite? 110.137.171.220 (talk) 12:01, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Should this be added?

Should the articles about Thailand's cure be added? If yes where? See: Portal:Current events/2020 February 3 Elijahandskip (talk) 19:54, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

• It's potentially a very important development, so it would be warranted to at least mention it in the treatment efforts. Kirbanzo ^{(userpage - talk - contribs)} 20:04, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
• Yes, Elijahandskip. I believe such content should be added but: 1) there should me more sources for it if possible; and 2) is "cure" the right term to use? why not "possible treatment" or even better "possible treatment being studied". Because "cure" my be a little bit "click-baity" and may misinform the readers. What do you think, Elijahandskip and Kirbanzo? FranciscoMMartins (talk) 20:23, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

• Definitely sounds like more appropriate wording to me. Kirbanzo ^{(userpage - talk - contribs)} 20:26, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

See WP:RSMED - reliable sources for medical articles in Wikipedia. Boud (talk) 23:24, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Popular press is not sufficient to support the claim of a "cure". We should only include it when the CDC or WHO supports. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:57, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Change of source for "2019–20 nCoV outbreak by country" recommended

I strongly recommend to change the source for the table "2019–20 nCoV outbreak by country" to the WHO daily reports (https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/situation-reports). This is the most reliable and referenced source. The data is largely consistent with the now referenced BNO News, but the discrepancy for Germany (12 or 10 cases) already lead to unnecessary discussions within the German wikipedia. The difference might have been caused by two cases on the evacuation plane that did not show symptoms when leaving Wuhan, but were tested positive immediately after arriving in Germany. It should be up to the WHO where to count such difficult assignments. Thanks.--Lguenth1 (talk) 21:52, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

The WHO data just comes out once a day. People want to have this updated more often than daily. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:23, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Typo under 4.2 Virology (Cause section)

I believe there is a small typo in the "4.2 Virology" sub-section (3rd para: 2nd sentence), where the word "to" possibly needs to be added between the words "bias" and "refute". The sentence isn't straightforward, so apologies in advance if I have this wrong, but it reads:

"This claim has been widely disputed: some argued that the reservoir must be bats and the intermediate host, bird or mammal, not snakes (as snakes, unlike humans, are poikilotherms), while others used data on recombination and SARS/MERS codon usage bias refute the reasoning."

I haven't made this edit (even though it is very minor) because the subject matter is so complex, and the addition of the word "to" may not be what the authors intended. (For example, it is quite possible to say "these things (x & y) refute something (z)"). Having said that, it's worth noting the word "used" is in play, so I would suggest the word "to" is required. SpookiePuppy (talk) 22:42, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

 Done I added "to". Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:52, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

"100,000 probable cases" is inflammatory and not grounded in data

"Probable cases: near 100,000[4][6]" is a poorly sourced an highly inflammatory number coming immediately after the Government derived "Confirmed cases: 20,626[4]" in the summary table. The 100,000 number should be immedately removed. It derives from various speculative extrapolations and is not source to any data. Pwfen (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:33, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

The New York Times article does mention epidemiological models (but doesn't say which.) https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/02/health/coronavirus-pandemic-china.html This is the relevant paragraph from that article: "But various epidemiological models estimate that the real number of cases is 100,000 or even more. While that expansion is not as rapid as that of flu or measles, it is an enormous leap beyond what virologists saw when SARS and MERS emerged." SpookiePuppy (talk) 01:42, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

I read it. The NYT article is referencing Ferguson at Imperial College and another study at Lancaster U. Both are extrapolations from data making assumptions. There is simply no way those numbers should be sitting next to the reported CCDC numbers in the summary box. Pwfen (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:21, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

The Lancaster U. article: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.01.23.20018549v1.full.pdf. Pwfen (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:27, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. Thanks for sorting this out and keeping a watchful eye. An infobox really does need concrete, reliable material, it's often the first thing we read. SpookiePuppy (talk) 04:32, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

The Imperial College stuff is a bit more complex. There are multiple numbers floating around. 4000 cases on 18 January 2020, people thinking there are 100,000 cases, etc. https://www.tweaktown.com/news/70177/coronavirus-death-toll-rises-56-100-000-people-probably-infected/index.html There are other papers, new articles, etc. referencing Imperial College. None of the large numbers derived from those sources are data on the same footing as CCDC numbers. Pwfen (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:35, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Well maybe we can say some estimate the numbers are high in the lead. The rest of the estimates IMO should go in the body. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:20, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Copyright issue introduced here

User:Quasar1826 recently added a large section of text to the virus article that turned out to be copied directly from the papers cited, and it looks like he may have done that here as well, cut into four pieces with many other editors active in the interim. I have not had time to check the edits here carefully, but there may be a substantial copyright issue that needs to be cleaned up as soon as possible. I have done what needs to be done at the virus article, which was easier, but I am unable to do it here at this time (this is the last time I can post before being away from the keyboard). It would be helpful if someone could review the edits and/or call in the copyright squad or an administrator noticeboard if necessary. Pinging a few admins who may be in the area: User:Amakuru, User:Doc James. Dekimasuよ! 12:26, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

User:Dekimasu trimmed a bunch of it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:51, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Should local transmission in Singapore be added?

I saw this in the references for another page, and it seemed significant enough to add here, since it appears to be the largest incidence of local transmission thus far in the outbreak.Quonker (talk) 12:57, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

There's also a Malaysian citizen that was infected who hadn't been to China, but had been to Singapore for a week in mid-January. It seems likely they contracted the virus at a meeting with business delegates from Wuhan, but this appears to be a case of local transmission in Singapore, even if it turns out none of the infected individuals were Singapore citizens. Quonker (talk) 13:10, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

References

Someone needs to take down that "daily growth rate" graphic down in the name of transparency

Hi there. Along this whole crisis I've been watching efforts to wash this epidemic and one of the worse actions is that transmission rate graphic just below the total number. Every single epidemiologist is stating that the numbers are being kept artificially down and anything that is catering to that is just bad intel. And can we protect this article once and for all? Thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8A0:F446:F601:E54C:48F5:879E:D778 (talk) 14:52, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Every single epidemiologist is stating that the numbers are being kept artificially down Sources, or it did not happen. You may spare us of your nakedly racist conspiracy theories. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 15:00, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

"Nakedly racist"? 209.240.32.65 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:18, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

"Prof Neil Ferguson, a public health expert at Imperial College, said his “best guess” was that there were 100,000 affected by the virus even though there are only 2,000 confirmed cases so far, mostly in the city of Wuhan in China where the virus first appeared." This was over a fortnight ago.

So both the New York Times AND The Guardian, citing the highest epidemiological authorities in both the US and Europe, are spreading racist propaganda? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.50.168.130 (talk • contribs)

Claiming the numbers are being kept artificially down (which you have not provided any reliable sourcing for) is a far more extreme claim than this "best guess". CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 00:30, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Wrong number of annual face mask production

Wuhan_coronavirus_outbreak#Criticism_of_local_response second paragraph: the correct amount of face masks produced annually schould be 1.8 million. amount is correctly given in source 194.8.223.8 (talk) 15:27, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Add rate of change for deaths?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Growth_Chart_of_Confirmed_Cases_Coronavirus_Outbreak.jpg I think adding the deaths to this chart might be a good idea

Gerdolfo (talk) 16:05, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

These changes of daily groth rates are not reasonable this way because of delays and announcements. One should take at least 3-5 days into account and compare the number N(t) - N (t-5), and N(t-1) - N (t-6) to obtain resonable numbers wich are free from "meassurement noise". This first was mathematically meanful. Although it is interesting that the rate apperas stable the recent 5 days. But could also be a bad sign, namely that the measurement capacity of the hospitals there might be exceeded. Hardwareonkel (talk) 18:35, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

BMJ

might be helpful….--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:14, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 February 2020

In 8.4 Disinformation, insert a reference to the following RT article, which might be interpreted as making the claim: https://www.rt.com/news/478997-bat-soup-china-virus-wuhan/. I would insert it immediately after the mention of RT. 2A01:E0A:D5:D430:1984:FE15:997D:F5DA (talk) 20:36, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. We already have multiple reliable, secondary sources to back this up; we don't need anything primary here on top of that. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 00:39, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

This Chinese doctor tried to save lives, but was silenced. Now he has coronavirus

Regarding the section of Domestic responses, Can we add this article to the Domestic responses? as it would proves the significance about difficulties to cure of Novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV).
* This Chinese doctor tried to save lives, but was silenced. Now he has coronavirus [[14]] [[15]]
* Coronavirus ‘whistleblower’ tried to warn the world about virus before contracting it himself [[16]]
Goodtiming8871 (talk) 21:41, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

References

No mention of developing immunity or not to the virus?

What is know about that? This should be mentioned in this article, because it very much affects the dynamics of spreading.

If you find a source for information on it then we can add something. Wikipedia is not the place for original research. --Philipwhiuk (talk) 01:46, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Update for Feb 4

23,874 confirmed, 492 deaths https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/#repro — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaisersauce1 (talk • contribs) 22:46, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

About 10 people on a cruise ship anchored off the port of Yokohama are infected with the virus

Where do we suppose to put this information.

https://www3.nhk.or.jp/news/html/20200205/k10012273141000.html Nickayane99 (talk) 23:30, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

User:Nickayane99 that is fairly important. How many people on the ship? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:23, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Found it 3,700 people on the ship.[17] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:34, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Percent growth

Percentage Growth Chart of confirmed cases of Coronavirus Outbreak

We already include the growth in the "2019 coronavirus bar data" for China. As most cases are in China this will be no different than that and thus not needed IMO. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:35, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Also without confidence intervals it is not that useful. With small numbers early on numbers can swing widely. As more cases occur and the N increases numbers become more accurate. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:21, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Best and worst of Wikipedia... I suggest we push out some more sections into focused "sub-pages"

Hey everyone - I've been following the epidemic since about 2 weeks ago, and was thinking of making some additions (more on that in a separate section below), and thought I'd review the article as a whole first. Well! It definitely has both the best and worst of what Wikipedia has to offer: Lots of information collected in one spot (woo!), but also overall quite a mess of an article (boo!), but I see in the talk-page notices that some effort has been made in that regard to push out some parts into separate pages (yay!).

So my suggestion - as per the Section title - lets push out some more of the listy, very much in-detail info (eg details on evacuations from Wuhan/Hubei, list of airlines that have reduced airtraffic, etc). into extra pages? I'd be happy to be bold and get started on that, just thought asking for comment doesn't hurt!

Regards Sean Heron (talk) 00:45, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

P.S. Oh, and I think that the articles new name stinks, btw ... (and I don't think it was policy conform either - none of the papers I read call it "Wuhan coronavirus". But endless discussions on that kind of thing are part of the worst of Wikipedia as well...)

User:Sean Heron made one move. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:58, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 February 2020

Would it be possible to add the below image to this article?

File:The expanding footprint of coronavirus.png

The expanding footprint of coronavirus

Regards, Rradhak1 (talk) 01:08, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

No - it's not suitable. Individual charts are better split out separately and the aim of the page is not to advertise someone's blog. --Philipwhiuk (talk) 01:44, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Lancet article / projections of the epidemics spread

Hi all, in looking into the outbreak I stumbled over an article at the Lancet that models the outbreaks number of infections and spread amongst major Chinese cities. In a nutshell, their modelling suggests that a) there were already locally spreading epidemics in some of the largest of China's cities as of at least a week ago, and b) Unless you have a very drastic reduction of the average number of people that are newely infected through each existing case (whats refered to as R0), that is by half, then the Virus will continue to spread in those cities with the rate of infection peaking around summer.

Their interpretation of those results is that you will subsequently see the virus spread globally, and that it would therefore make sense to prepare and plan for that. (To be quite honest, that's also been my personal assesment from when I started looking into the outbreak).

I've not seen any news sites reporting on the article, ie no secondary sources (nor have I searched yet though!), but I was curious as to what other people here think about adding a section on modeling / projections for the epidemics growth? I personally would like to see that added, as I think it would be good to see people more aware of the fact that its more a question of "when" rather than "whether" the virus will continue to spread (and its not just the Lancet article that points in that direction - everything I've been reading so far has made indications to that end: for example, a report on the ECDC (European Center for disease control) points out that if the Outbreak can't be contained to Hubei province, then a global spread is inevitable. I'll list more if people are interested!

Here's the ECDC quote, btw: "The options for response might change when more epidemiological and clinical data become available. During the current phase, it is important for EU/EEA countries to focus on containment measures that prevent and/or limit secondary transmission in the community and healthcare settings. Should the epidemiological situation evolve to signal significant and sustained community transmission in locations outside of Hubei province, containment measures will become increasingly ineffective in limiting introduction of community transmission in EU/EEA countries, although such measures might delay local introductions by some days or weeks. "

Regards Sean Heron (talk) 01:50, 5 February 2020 (UTC)