Talk:COVID-19 pandemic

New to contributing?

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

Highlighted open discussions

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

01. Superseded by #9

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

02. Superseded by #7

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

03. Obsolete

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

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

05. Cancelled

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

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

06. Obsolete

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

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

08. Superseded by #16

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

09. Cancelled

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

Notes

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

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

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

012. Superseded by #19

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

013. Superseded by #15

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

014. Overturned

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

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

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

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

018. Superseded by #19

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

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

Should we switch the lead infobox map from cases per capita to deaths per capita?

Per Metropolitan's arguments here, the death count is a better metric at this point of the severity of a pandemic in a given region than the case count, since the latter is highly dependent on the region's testing capacity. Accordingly, I propose that we switch to using the deaths per capita map as the top map in the infobox, with the others collapsed beneath. Sdkb (talk) 03:45, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Oppose. For months, we have focused on case counts. I see no compelling argument to change this right now. I understand that testing is not being evenly applied across regions but the case count (and cases per million) is the best number we have right now to measure the extent to which the pandemic has impacted each region. And testing volumes are increasing dramatically everywhere. Death rates are greatly influenced by each region's healthcare system quality and capacity. I'd oppose changing for now. - Wikmoz (talk) 05:51, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

One way to look at it might be that we want the map to reflect the fact that some countries' weaker healthcare systems are leading to higher death counts there. Sdkb (talk) 03:34, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Support. The current stage of the crisis is of a different nature than what it was in january, requiring us to change our perception on this. Some countries such as South Korea or Germany have tested at a very large scale, even people with very mild symptoms or no at all [1]. However, in many other countries such as Italy, Spain, France or the UK, healthcare systems are totally overwhelmed and the testing capacity is saturated. Testing is limited only to the most serious cases and healthcare workers [2]. As a result, the number of confirmed cases reported daily remains steady, not because we're nearing its peak but simply because there's no testing capacity to report more. Using this metric as the main one can easily lead to very fallacious conclusions about the maturity and intensity of the epidemics from a country to another. Obviously deaths count has its own bias as well [3], yet, very sadly, the number of deaths will never reach any saturation point like testing does. As such, reported deaths remain, despite its flaws, a much better metric to get an idea about the intensity of the epidemic in each country. Therefore, it would seem wiser to use the deaths metric as the ranking by default on Template:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data table. Metropolitan (talk) 11:02, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

I think these concerns can be fairly addressed with a footnote. We're already seeing death-to-case ratios vary by an order of magnitude from one country to the next so I really don't think counting deaths is a fair indicator of anything. Testing capacity limits are rapidly being resolved and cheaper and faster tests will come to market over the next few weeks. - Wikmoz (talk) 05:03, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose The first map is based off a recent consensus formed here. It's to early from that to change it in my opinion. — RealFakeKimT 14:17, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

  @RealFakeKim: When I formulated the question for that RfC, you'll notice that I referred only to "per capita" vs. "total", and left out the word "cases". That was a deliberate choice, since I anticipated we might at some point want to switch to using death counts instead. I'll leave it to others with more medical/statistical experience to decide what the best approach is at this point (I haven't been persuaded to wed myself to one or the other yet), but I don't think that that RfC should be used as an argument against switching. The other maps RfC might serve as a slightly better precedent, but it was a little muddled since it was asking about per capita vs. totals/cases vs. deaths/collapsed vs. uncollapsed all at the same time. Plus it was started over a week ago, which is meaningful given how rapidly the situation is evolving. Sdkb (talk) 19:40, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose: Death is not the only consequence of the disease, and the constant fixation on the fatality rate in the media can likely be of partial blame for the complacency seen among the general public (e.g. "It's no big deal, only 3.5% die!" or "Don't worry, only boomers and retirees die!"). There are plenty of infected patients that do not die, but end up in ICU and require emergency intervention, not to mention we don't fully understand the long-term chronic implications of the disease yet (e.g. lung tissue scarring, and whether or not patients are able to eventually regain most of their pre-infection lung capacity). The spotlight needs to be on infection, and not excessively on cases of death. --benlisquare_T•C•E 17:27, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

This is an incredibly important point. I'd also add that as treatment improves in coming weeks and months, the death rate will become a weaker and weaker indicator of the pandemic's reach. - Wikmoz (talk) 05:03, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

• Support Per capita confirmed cases were always dependant on testing capacity, and as the pandemic continues and countries like the US fail to increase testing capacity, the numbers quickly become misleading. Unfortunately, deaths are not subject to the same issues of testing capacity; we could test no one and the rate of reported deaths would remain the same. Given the known issues with testing capacity in many countries and the growing death toll, per capita deaths are a better representation of the extent of the pandemic. — Wug·a·po·des​ 19:10, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

• Wouldn't this depend on the country's (or local provincial) specific procedures? If there is little to no testing capability for cadavers, then if an untested patient dies, wouldn't the cause of death be recorded as unrelated pneumonia? If the local provincial/national policy was to cremate all pneumonia-case bodies, tested or untested, would they record all bodies as coronavirus cases? --benlisquare_T•C•E 02:30, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

• Not necessarily. The testing capacity required to have an accurate count of deaths is much lower than the testing capacity required to have an accurate count of infections. If we ballpark the death rate at 3%, you'd need 30 times more testing to identify 90% of confirmed case than you would need to identify every death (and that's assuming we never test someone without the disease). It also is more likely that in regions with limited testing capacity, tests will be limited to severe cases which are also the ones most likely to die, so cases that lead to death are more likely to be identified well before actual death. I find it unlikely that covid19 deaths will go misreported as pneumonia-related deaths since every doctor in the world is on the lookout for patients with pneumonia-like symptoms. Even if there are the occasional errors, the much greater error is using data we know represents testing capacity and not infection rates and then tell readers that it represents infection rates. — Wug·a·po·des​ 04:54, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

In some countries, the number of deaths counted depends on testing, so the whole point is moot. For example, in Iran, it is said that they classed the deaths as pneumonia or other causes if they had not been tested for the virus. Hzh (talk) 18:19, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

• Support As @Wugapodes: stated. The readers want to make sure these details are there for them to see. We cant have anymore misinfomation or missing detail on such heavily worked topic. Regice2020 (talk) 03:46, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. Death is only one of the possible symptoms of COVID-19. People who spend days in ICU and place a significant stain on the healthcare system are also to be accounted for. The main map should reflect the spread of COVID-19, not the number of respirators available to save people. Moreover, countries that under-report the number of cases often also under-report the number of death. Of course if the global consensus goes towards death per capita map, then we should follow it!Raphaël Dunant (talk) 10:34, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support Is the most object quantity (with least amount of uncertainty) Voorlandt (talk) 10:43, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
• oppose per Raphael Dunant--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:08, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
• Keep as is Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:24, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support. Death numbers are much more comparable between countries. For example Iceland and Norway have tested a large portion of the population, so the map gives impression of high, but very few died, which is a more reliable number. Also: We should always prioritize numbers per capita over absolute numbers.Tomastvivlaren (talk) 08:59, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose No good reason to change it, especially as the death rates appear to vary considerably between countries, over ten times the difference in some cases (e.g. very low in Germany but very high in Italy). Hzh (talk) 18:13, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

  The above is likely explained by Germans testing much more than Italians by now. The above is a reason to prioritize the death map, not because deaths are the only important thing, but because deaths are probably a better basis for an estimate of the real cases than the confirmed cases are; both confirmed deaths and confirmed cases are subject to incomplete testing, but deaths would seem less so. Ideally, show both per capita maps and drop the map with absolute numbers, and then it will be no longer so important which of the two maps is prioritized. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:48, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

No, since some countries don't count deaths they haven't tested, they simply attribute deaths to other causes like pneumonia, therefore death number would also be unreliable. Hzh (talk) 20:28, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose Too soon. There will come a time. But right now for a current event what is more of interest is the infections/infection rate. --Calthinus (talk) 22:16, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose The per capita map just needs its ranges tweaked or added to. It's far too homogeneous in colour to be helpful at conveying the data. Worse, it might be misleading, implying some countries have similar rates when it's anything but. If you're going to lead with that map you at least need to include the specific numbers in the following chart because, as it stands, it requires users to look all of the information up themselves and do the math.135.23.106.211 (talk) 23:18, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose The article should switch to using a harmonic mean of infection rates, hospitalization rates, intubation rates, and fatality rates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.163.111.74 (talk) 16:01, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support The deaths per capita, although comes with its own biases, is a better indicator of the effect on the region and is less affected by the saturated testing capacity in many regions.--17jiangz1 (talk) 20:23, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support, as per 17jiangz1 and others. The cases figure is known to be all over the place because of different approaches to testing from country to country. It could be off by more than an order of magnitude. Deaths, while still having some differences in recording, are much more comparable. Bondegezou (talk) 10:45, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
• Support. The reasons given above are strong and convincing. Cases are nowhere near as reliable a statistic as deaths. The only valid argument I see in opposition is that a pandemic is not characterised by deaths but by cases. While this is true, one could argue that the impact of a pandemic is indeed better characterised by deaths. I feel that argument ends up being a 50/50 about what is considered important, with equal validity to those who say deaths are more important and those who say cases are more important. With equality on that argument, and the reliability argument favouring heavily the use of deaths as a metric, I definitely support this change.Wikiditm (talk) 08:35, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
• Support as per others' comments. I don't see how "for months, we have focused on case counts, why should we switch now" is a good argument. If you have focused on the wrong thing for months, shouldn't that be an incentive to focus on the better measure immediately? Once cases become the better measure again, you can always switch back. Only tangentially related: in the "Deaths" section, can someone explain to me the difference between "death-to-case ratio" and case fatality rate? The section makes it seem like those are two distinct measures, but (and I am not an expert), to me they seem to be the same thing...? Felix.winter2010 (talk) 8:40, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
• Support - The cases map is certainly misleading, as it makes the most efficient countries like Germany and South Korea look like problem cases. Quite the opposite. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:41, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
• Support. Case count is largely meaningless as a means of comparing the epidemic in two countries, due to the huge discrepancy in testing regimes. It's comparing apples to oranges. The death count, although not completely consistent (some countries may be less likely to test for COVID in a postmortem than others, for example), is certainly much better than case count, because most deaths will be recorded unlike many stay-at-home-and-isolate cases which are not.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:57, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

  The argument simply doesn't make sense. Countries that don't test much, whether on the living or the dead, won't register deaths as being due to Covid-19. I'm not sure why people would also assume that post-mortem test is something even done in most countries (I would think most countries don't do it when even rich countries like Germany don't). This is in addition to countries that have been accused of deliberately downplaying the number of deaths. Hzh (talk) 19:25, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

  The countries that test less focus their small number of tests, and they focus them on people who are more likely to carry the disease; that's the idea. In such countries, covid-infected people are more likely to escape testing than covid-infected dying people (dying of covid or with covid.) --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:29, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

It's still the same problem - those who don't test won't assign the deaths to Covid-19, I have no idea why people assume that those who died would be automatically attributed to Covid-19. For example, in China people who died from flu for many years were attributed to other reasons, giving China an unusually low death count compared to other countries - [4]. Hzh (talk) 15:01, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

My post does not suggest that "those who died would be automatically attributed to Covid-19", nor is it concerned with "those who don't test" but rather with those who focus their tests, and the only non-focused tests would be random-sampled tests from general population with no pre-selection bias. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:07, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

• Both – because deaths lag cases by several weeks, but also they are arguably the more reliable statistic. Countries like S Korea and Germany have kept things under control by much more extensive testing which gives comparatively high case figures. I maintain the graphs of new cases and daily deaths on this page and lacking any better measure I use the weighted average of the two figures to pick the top 5 countries. If a statistician can suggest a better combination I'm open to it. Chris55 (talk) 07:36, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Having thought about it for a few minutes, it's probably better to use the geometric mean. Chris55 (talk) 08:23, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

It doesn't make sense to take the mean of two statistics which aren't independent.Wikiditm (talk) 09:17, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose The focus should be on infections/cases for now, since deaths lag the infection rates by weeks. There will be a time to include both deaths and cases, adjusted for population, but now is not the right time. Rwat128 (talk) 21:17, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Impact is better shown by case counts at the moment. We have deaths just below. --Gtoffoletto (talk) 09:41, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Death count is a lagging indicator. Moreover, death count has a very strong correlation with the age of those infected - South Korea and Germany both had to deal with younger patients than Italy or France. Yes, case count is a function of testing, but death count is a function of age and hospital capacity. Deaths can be under counted too - NYC and Wuhan have both revised death counts upwards weeks after deaths occur. Cases are a far better representation of outbreak severity. Nmurali02 (talk) 13:23, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
• Support Cases are too unreliable. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:47, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose We currently show both cases per-capita (first) and then deaths per-capita. This has been quite stable for weeks. It is also the order it is generally reported (e.g. World Health Organization). Maybe this is breaking news to some people, but figures for death counts also suffer from a lot of distortions: different reporting criteria for different countries, test capacity, protocols for post-mortem testing, etc. --MarioGom (talk) 12:23, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
• Support New studies are showing the case numbers to be extremely unreliable. While some countries like the UK are under reporting their COVID-19 deaths, it's still far more reliable and important. -- Jeandré, 2020-04-19t16:15z
• Support Case counts are mostly a reflection of how many people have been tested. Death is easier to track and more reliable. There’s also the idea that the best tracker is excess deaths,, but we’d need WP:MEDRS to use them. Benica11 (talk) 13:32, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Death counts are also a reflection of how many people get tested, they're not more reliable than case counts. Here for example the number of excess deaths in Ecuador suggests that the actual deaths from Covid-19 may be 15 times higher than the number of deaths reported in that country - [5]. Excess deaths would be more interesting, but there are not widely reported. Hzh (talk) 15:05, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Compromise: Default, show both maps and add a warning text

A suggestion for a compromize while waiting for people to agree here is to show both maps in the infobox - currently only the number of infected per capita is visible by default. The number of deaths per capita should also be visible immediately, as that is more reliable.

A second suggestion is to add a warning below maps of the number of infected people: "Numbers are not comparable as different countries have different testing strategies". 82.196.112.105 (talk) 09:20, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

I'd oppose showing both maps by default. The image panorama is quite good, and it shouldn't be pushed so far down that people need to scroll a bunch to see it. I'd support having some sort of caveat in the caption, as is done currently for the Europe map (we at least need to get consistent), although it might make more sense as an efn (footnote) than as direct text. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 04:16, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

I think that maybe putting the deaths chart in a collapsible may be the better way to do this for now. Swordman97 ^{talk to me}

References

The droplets quickly fall on objects or onto surfaces but with certain medical procedures can hang in the air for longer periods?

What does "certain medical procedures" signify? Seems rather ambiguous to me. MattSucci (talk) 04:13, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. I don't remember this being in the lead the last time I checked, so I think it was added recently. Possible vandalism? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 05:10, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

It's in an excerpt from coronavirus disease 2019, so checking there... {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 05:13, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

I would prefer the "current consensus" above but also prefer the wording User:Doc James and I agreed on "The virus is mainly spread between people during close contact, often via small droplets produced during coughing, sneezing or talking. While these droplets are produced during breathing out, they usually fall to the ground or surfaces rather than being infectious over large distances."

Please note the WHO has updated its FAQ. Maybe they noticed us using their tweet instead of their FAQ to reach consensus and remove technical language? ;) Their FAQ now states People can catch COVID-19 from others who have the virus. The disease spreads primarily from person to person through small droplets from the nose or mouth, which are expelled when a person with COVID-19 coughs, sneezes, or speaks. These droplets are relatively heavy, do not travel far and quickly sink to the ground. People can catch COVID-19 if they breathe in these droplets from a person infected with the virus. This is why it is important to stay at least 1 metre (3 feet) away from others. These droplets can land on objects and surfaces around the person such as tables, doorknobs and handrails. People can become infected by touching these objects or surfaces, then touching their eyes, nose or mouth. This is why it is important to wash your hands regularly with soap and water or clean with alcohol-based hand rub. --Almaty (talk) 11:56, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Have restored per discussion here. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:13, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree with the restoration of the text but just wanted to answer MattSucci’s original question. But in healthcare facilities we make sure that healthcare workers use standard droplet precautions with the exception of when they are doing an aerosol-generating procedure and then we recommend airborne precautions p. 8. In that 16 March 2020 press conference, Dr van Kerkhove responded to a question about one (frustratingly unnamed) study about how long the virus remains in the air specifically for aerosolizing procedures in medical facilities. She emphasized that the WHO stands by standard droplet precautions for all other situations. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 22:37, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Have restored again. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:41, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

U.S. deaths

It looks like the US deaths are wrong? 535,625 is way too high. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aloftus2 (talk • contribs) 20:56, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Moved from #Highlighted open discussions. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 07:38, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Explanatory footnote removed

Hello, the explanatory footnote at the end of the first sentence was removed on 22 April by User:Brandmeister. The footnote stated "In summary, this article is about the coronavirus pandemic, which is caused by the disease COVID-19, which is caused by the virus SARS-CoV-2."

His reason for removing the footnote was "redundant, the title and links define the scope". I disagree with this; I originally added the footnote because when I first read the introductory sentence, I was confused by the wording and had to click on the disease and virus articles to understand the meaning. This may be confusing to others too, as I don't believe the actual full name of the virus (coronavirus disease 2019) or disease (severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2) is that well-known -- most news articles that I see with a coronavirus google search simply refer to it as "coronavirus" or "covid-19". I'd like to get consensus on this -- should we reinstate the explanatory footnote? sam1370 (talk) 23:57, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

• Yes - I definitely support reinstating the explanatory footnote as it provides a clear, concise, and correct explanation that quickly boosts reader comprehension.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 05:20, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

  Since this section doesn't seem to be getting many other comments, I think I'll reinstate the edit, if anyone objects here I'll remove it. Edit: nevermind. sam1370 (talk) 05:54, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

• I don't think we should be using a footnote to explain something as basic/important as this; we should make the language itself clear. The way I'd like to do that is by changing the current "ongoing pandemic of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS‑CoV‑2)" to "ongoing pandemic of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS‑CoV‑2) virus". But when I went to do that just now, some hidden text warned me not to use "the". Virus experts, would my proposal be non-grammatical? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 05:57, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

  @Sdkb: I mean, the language itself is clear and unambiguous, it is simply confusing to people who do not know the names for the viruses or the difference between a disease and a virus. I think including it in the language would give credit to Brandmeister's argument; doing so would be redundant if added in the lead itself instead of an explanatory footnote. By the way, thanks for rolling that edit back, sorry for that typo. sam1370 (talk) 06:02, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

  I think we shouldn't delve into excessive explanations just because some people may confuse something. It's Wikipedia's goal to explain things in plain language and clarify any ambiguities so that additional explanations become redundant. The lead IMO does a good job in distinguishing between pandemic and its cause, with wikilinks. Also, the article already has many notes and is too long for things like that. From what I see, there have been no complains at this talkpage about confusing language. If people have trouble, they can always post here so that their concerns may be addressed. Otherwise we shouldn't fix what is not broken. Brandmeister^talk 08:10, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

The problem with that argument is that the visitors who have trouble are the least likely to post a question on an article talk page. Keep in mind that the majority of Wikipedia users either don't know what a talk page is, or they have only a vague notion and they don't want to try to figure it out. We (including me) tend to assume that all Wikipedia visitors have about the same level of knowledge as we (I) do. Of course, you are probably thinking, "I don't make any such assumptions!" But that's only because I raised the issue. In our day-to-day Wikipedian goings on, we are not challenged to consider the average visitor's knowledge about Wikipedia, website functionality, Internet savvy, etc., and we operate on our default assumptions.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 10:52, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree; I may be wrong about this but I’m guessing most of the people visiting the page are IP addresses who don’t know much (if anything) about Wikipedia, how it works, tslk pages, etc. Either way, explanatory footnotes are footnotes for that reason — so they don’t clutter up the main sentence with content that may not be relevant to everyone. I can imagine someone being confused by the main sentence, seeing the [a] next to the sentence, and hovering over it and getting the info they need. sam1370 (talk) 11:41, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Another way to think about this controversy is to ask a question ... followed by a quick quiz!

Q: For whom do we write Wikipedia articles?

1. Other editors.
2. Ourselves, because it's so awesome to craft perfect prose.
3. Our high school English teachers.
4. People who visit Wikipedia because they want to learn.

  - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 12:31, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

If you don't like the explanatory footnote ...

Then we should copy edit the first paragraph to enhance comprehension for the average Wikipedia visitor. After all, it is our job to do everything we can to boost understanding; it is not the reader's job to decipher our meaning. (If it's the reader's job to decipher my writing, nhetuyo hsuodltnimdn edhpicngihits uljmbe. Don't you agree?)

Here's my suggested copy edit:

The 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic is a widespread epidemic of the respiratory disease COVID-19 (an acronym for “coronavirus disease 2019”). The scientific name for the coronavirus is "SARS-CoV-2" (an acronym for “severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2”). SARS-CoV-2 (the virus) causes COVID-19 (the disease), which began to infect humans in 2019, and reached pandemic proportions during 2020. The outbreak was identified in ....

  - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 12:28, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

I think we're risking WP:OVERSIMPLIFYing which WP:TECHNICAL explicitly discourages (e.g. it's clear that bracketed COVID-19 and SARS-CoV-2 are shorthands for their preceding respective terms, much in the same way as the USA standing for the United States of America). The encyclopedic tone by definition should not lapse into oversimplification as if the encyclopedia is for children. Our audience is mixed, including both knowledgeable and non-knowledgeable readers. I, for one, despite my humanities-oriented mind, don't have any problem with understanding the lead which is certainly more simple than the likes of Poincaré conjecture or Lambda calculus. Second-guessing of what readers might not understand is sometimes a treacherous path. But this case is not the hill I would die upon. Brandmeister^talk 15:20, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

To be clear, I prefer clarifying the terminology in an endnote (explanatory footnote), partly because I agree with you that we risk oversimplification for some visitors if we define terms in the first two or three sentences.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 19:07, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

@Brandmeister: Hey, have you changed your mind? I’d like to reach a consensus on this. sam1370 (talk) 02:16, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

I still think the note is rather redundant, but at least we moved it out of the lead. Perhaps this is as good as it gets. Brandmeister^talk 07:05, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

@Brandmeister: Of course it is redundant, but that's why it's in a footnote instead of the article text. To clarify, since I'm a bit confused on your tone here, would you be prepared to accept the footnote's reinstatement on the page? sam1370 (talk) 18:46, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

If you mean moving the footnote from the infobox to article's body - no (the footnote currently labeled "a"). Ideally I'm for removing it altogether and preserving the current lead opening sentence. There appears to be a trend for "dumbing down" the encyclopedic tone, which became a concern in the Arbcom case request. Brandmeister^talk 19:06, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

References

Strokes

I heard there's a correlation of strokes to infection.. is this true? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slinkyw (talk • contribs) 00:35, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Here is the ref https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32329044 Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:43, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

I have also read about this. I saw an article this morning in which a case of infection caused an unlikely stroke in a 44-year-old man, and moreover that when the surgeon opened him up to remove the clot, other clots immediately started forming around the removal site. So let's agree that the information is likely true. I think the real question is, "Should this information be included here?" (given that it is already mentioned on the main article for the disease) and, if so, "Where should it be included?" I do not know that the answer to the first question is "Yes." A loose necktie (talk) 20:43, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Reunion

Why was data for Reunion (France) deleted from the table of countries/territories? At last count, if I remember correctly, it had close to 500 cases and 1 death. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.67.13.101 (talk) 07:06, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

The numbers are now included in the French total, and the official French figures include it. This change happened after a discussion on Template talk:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data‎. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:25, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. I have no issues with the change, however Reunion should then be added to the list in the Note for France (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019%E2%80%9320_coronavirus_pandemic#cite_note-64). Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.67.13.101 (talk) 01:57, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Page has exceeded the template include size

The article is in Category:Pages where template include size is exceeded and many of the citations are thus no longer visible. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:27, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: Re-adding the lockdown template pushed it over, I think. I took it out and looks like we're back under now. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:01, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 26 April 2020

2019–20 coronavirus pandemic → COVID-19 pandemic – (The 30 day moratorium on page move discussion has now expired. It was well respected, but please do not use the notion that the name has been unchallenged for 30 days as justification for its retention.)

1. An epidemic should be named for the disease, not the virus, and even less so for the large group of which the responsible virus is but one member.
2. Using COVID-19 rather than coronavirus 2019 seems to be in keeping with item 2 of the COVID-19 project's consensuses, replicated at the top of this talk page. It has the additional benefit of not repeating so obviously the 2019 if the years are to be included as a prefix.
3. I propose dropping the years prefix:

(a) because there will be disagreement as to whether it is accurate to talk of pandemic situation in 2019;

(b) because it is not absolutely clear that the pandemic will finish before 2020 does; and

(c) in the hope that whatever may happen with this virus in the future, it does not bring about a second full blown pandemic, and that such disambiguation would be redundant.

I would actually prefer to see three separate votes on these three issues (name for virus or disease/full or abbreviated name/with or without year(s) prefix), but RM just doesn't work that way, and parallel RfCs do not seem to be a good way to resolve issues in Wikipedia, but if there is a clear preference for that course of action, I would happily withdraw my RM. Kevin McE (talk) 12:35, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

• Move to Coronavirus pandemic per the nom but this title avoids the abbreviation which the full "coronavirus" is used in my experience more often than the abbriviated "COVID" so we can drop the date but not abbreviate. If there is another pandemic later we can move it back or to something like 2019–21 coronavirus pandemic if this one continues into 2021 and there is another one we need to disambiguate from later but thankfully it seems unlikely in the year future there will be another that is large enough to be a pandemic so we can probably use the more concise title. Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:52, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Coronaviruses are pandemic probably since dinosaurs, without date this article would have a whole different look. Iluvalar (talk) 17:51, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Unless it has a name specific to the current disease, rather than the family of viruses. Kevin McE (talk) 19:17, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

You're confusing diseases and viruses. We could in theory move the article to "SARS-CoV-2 pandemic" if you wanted to name it after a more specific virus than "Coronavirus pandemic" (although in practice we shouldn't, as pandemics are named for diseases, not viruses, and COVID-19 is the disease name). --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 19:37, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose The date is correct now, no reason to question when it will end (if it ends later, then the date can be changed, but not now), and no reason to think that this will be the one and only Covid-19 pandemic (some scientists in fact think that it will recur). We don't involve ourselves in crystal gazing. Undecided on changing to Covid-19, but leaning keep on coronavirus on grounds of common usage. Hzh (talk) 13:42, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

You are right, we should not involve ourselves in crystal ball gazing. In which case why are we currently claiming that there will be a finish to the event this year, and assuming that a disambiguation by year will be necessary? No-one can guarantee that a title will remain indefinitely, but one year that might be wrong is not less wrong than no year when one might subsequently be needed. Kevin McE (talk) 14:06, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

No one is claiming that it will end this year, only that the time period is correct as of now, a simple statement of fact. No assumption, no prediction, including any assumption that this will be the one and only Covid-19 pandemic. If the time period changes in the future, then it can be changed. There is also no point in keep changing the title, it is fine as it is. Hzh (talk) 14:27, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

When you say that the title is "fine as it is", is it your contention that it is correct and proper to name a pandemic after a loose group of viruses, rather than a disease? Kevin McE (talk) 14:51, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

I have already said that I'm undecided on Covid-19, but leaning keep. See above. Hzh (talk) 16:01, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

But if you are "leaning keep", you are stating that it is acceptable to name an epidemic after a group of viruses. I am not meaning to pursue you, but I really don't see what grounds anyone has for that. Are you willing to share yours? Kevin McE (talk) 16:38, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

The explanation is already given (on grounds of common usage), read it before badgering others for a difference of opinion. Hzh (talk) 17:02, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Do you accept that this common usage is a common error, or at least a common lack of precision? An encyclopaedia should not be content to fall in with popular misconceptions, or widespread failings to distinguish between concepts. (As I have already said, I'm not trying to harangue you, Hzh, but I do want to present the counterargument to what you have been the first one to say.) Kevin McE (talk) 17:34, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

I would not complained if you had shown that you actually read what I wrote (even after I ask you to read it) before you kept asking. You can say that the common usage is inaccurate, but using the virus to refer to the disease is so common that it can justifiably be used per WP:COMMONNAME. See for example the BBC coverage - their news items are listed under coronavirus pandemic, and coronavirus is similarly used worldwide in many other major news outlets to describe the pandemic or outbreak - [6][7][8][9][10][11] so I don't think its use would be in any way controversial. Note also that COVID-19 is an acronym, and Wikipedia prefers full name instead of acronym for title. Hzh (talk) 18:03, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for engaging. I really don't think that WP:COMMONNAME helps us, because there is no clear consensus in the media, and examples of 'COVID-19 pandemic' can be found in all of the sites you have referenced. But if we look to more informed sources, bmj.com has 'COVID-19 pandemic' in a 40:1 majority (and many of the exceptions are part of the phrase 'novel coronavirus'), 72:1 in the Irish Journal of Medical Science site, 24:1 in thelancet.com: there seems to be a clear preference among those that can be considered reliable in their medical expertise rather than those that are 'merely' reliable reporters of incident.

As to the acronym, I refer you to the consensus decision of the WikiProject that I mentioned in the opening post. Kevin McE (talk) 19:05, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I don't think leaving out the "2019-2020" is in any way predicting or assuming that there will be only one, just that there currently is only one. Generally, we don't disambiguate until after there's been more than one of something. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:53, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

• Support - I agree with all 3 points raised and the conclusion. I disagree with the suggestion that "Coronavirus pandemic" is acceptable or meets the arguments set out by Kevin McE as it refers to a family of viruses, not the disease, even though it may represent common terminology. |→ Spaully ^~talk~  13:47, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
• Support: The WP:NAMINGCRITERIA strongly favor the shorter, more natural, common and concise wording—wording that we will not have to revisit if the pandemic extends into 2021. I also agree with Kevin McE's and Spaully's reasons. —RCraig09 (talk) 15:57, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

— See the details of WP:NAMINGCRITERIA by Benica11, below. —RCraig09 (talk) 21:51, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

• Rename per nom. --Soumyabrata ^{stay at home 🏠} _{wash your hands} ^{to protect from COVID-19 😷} 17:34, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
• Support per Spaully. "Coronavirus" alone is a vague term, as it also includes SARS, MERS, and several strains of the common cold. CJK09 (talk) 20:07, 26 April 2020 (UTC) Neutral for now, leaning oppose. CJK09 (talk) 21:52, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
• Support (strongly) per nom and Spaully. More natural, more common, more specific, more concise, and more accurate. And if the pandemic extends past 2020, we won't need to keep changing the title every year (we wouldn't have to change the title ever again!). It'll also help the search box function, since most people aren't typing "2019–20" into their searches. (Secondly, on the topic of the abbreviation, "COVID-19" is more used and more recognizable than the long form of "Coronavirus disease 2019").
• Neutral For the first two conclusion, I Support per nom. But I disagree to move to Coronavirus pandemic because it will better become a disambiguation page. 114.125.232.1 (talk) 21:28, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose as disruptive with little benefit. Enthusiasts unnecessarily even change the name of images after the previous rename. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:28, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by that, nor what it has to do with the merits or demerits of the current proposal. Kevin McE (talk) 21:55, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose per other editors. It comes as more disruptive. 36.77.134.116 (talk) 21:47, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
• Support The nomination and supporters are more convincing than the opposition to this point. "COVID-19 pandemic" is more concise and precise than "2019-20 coronavirus pandemic". As for "disruption", both titles will lead to the same location and we can update internal links easily. That's not a good reason to not move the page and its associated pages. – Muboshgu (talk)`
• Support COVID by far the most searched term now.... well besides 3 misspelling of Coronavirus....lol.--Moxy 🍁 22:24, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
• Support Neutral - The proposed new title is indeed in some respects "more natural, more common, more specific, more concise, and more accurate." However, I am persuaded by other editors that the move (renaming) will open a hornet's nest of necessary (for consistency) moves/renaming requests, discussions, and attempts to reach consensus for each article with "2019–2020 coronavirus pandemic" in its title. Edit on 27 Apr 2020 @ 22:25 (UTC)   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 23:08, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Actually, there's already a consensus (in the section below) that if this page moves, all of the pages with it in the title will also be moved. There won't need to be a billion move requests or individual discussions. Also, pretty sure the batch of pages could easily be moved by bot. Paintspot Infez (talk) 13:20, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
• Support per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 23:25, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
• Support, the name is clear and unambiguous for now, WP:CRYSTAL. sam1370 (talk) 04:55, 27 April 2020 (UTC) Oppose I support your first two points, but not your third. I think we should change "Coronavirus" to "COVID-19" as it is more precise, and my ideal title would be "2019-20 COVID-19 pandemic". Other articles such as 2009 swine flu pandemic include the date, so if we rename this article "COVID-19 pandemic" we might as well rename that one "Swine flu pandemic". The date is an important characteristic of a pandemic, so I think we should keep that in. Counterarguments: "because there will be disagreement as to whether it is accurate to talk of pandemic situation in 2019" Wikipedia is all about disagreement, we should be bold and not mind if there is any argument; I think that in another rename discussion it was agreed that the pandemic classification classified the entire thing as a pandemic, not that it was a pandemic from March 2020 onwards. "because it is not absolutely clear that the pandemic will finish before 2020 does" We can always rename the title. "in the hope that whatever may happen with this virus in the future, it does not bring about a second full blown epidemic, and that such disambiguation would be redundant" If there is a second epidemic, having "COVID-19 pandemic" will cause a problem, as it will be unclear which pandemic it is referring to. Whereas if we keep the dates, we could, for example, have two separate articles for "2019-20 COVID-19 pandemic" and, for example, "2021-22 COVID-19 pandemic". sam1370 (talk) 00:10, 27 April 2020 (UTC)}}
• Support. Let’s look at WP:CRITERIA
  • Recognizability - works with either title
  • Naturalness - works with either title
  • Precision - COVID-19 is more precise, but I doubt anyone is going to mix up the two
  • Conciseness - This is why we don’t need a year. How many times have you heard of a coronavirus/COVID-19 outbreak before last December? I’d think about zero.
  • Consistency - As OP pointed out, the WikiProject seems to prefer COVID-19. Benica11 (talk) 03:16, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

@Beniica11: I agree with most of these things, however I think we should leave the date in. It gives the pandemic context within history -- in the future it will probably become less well-known so we'll want to have the date it happened in. See 2009 swine flu pandemic which I used for my example earlier, should we rename that "Swine flu pandemic"? sam1370 (talk) 03:54, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

@Sam1370: I guess the issue is that some similar articles don’t have a year like Spanish flu, and the -19 in COVID-19 is the year anyways. But we might want to add a full year eventually to give historical context if future generations begin to forget about this pandemic. Benica11 (talk) 04:50, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

@Beniica11: True, and after all WP:CRYSTAL applies, the name COVID-19 pandemic is clear and unambiguous for now. I'll change my stance. sam1370 (talk) 04:55, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

• Support per WP:CONCISE and WP:COMMONNAME. The current title is unwieldy and low on information. Also, if we want to get extremely pedantic, the pandemic is that of a disease, not a virus. Elizium23 (talk) 04:57, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Name is concise and makes sense were it is now. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:19, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

I am intrigued that as a doctor of medicine you consider it to "make sense" that a pandemic carry the name of a group of viruses, rather than the name of the disease. Are there precedents or reasons for this in the medical literature> Would this be normal practice in medical nomenclature? Kevin McE (talk) 08:54, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

The full name of the disease is "Coronavirus disease 2019" We added the "2019-20" to the front and we added pandemic after. We than dropped "disease" and "2019" as "2019-20 coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic" was too long. WHO uses "Coronavirus disease pandemic"[12] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:57, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

But do you accept that in changing from "coronavirus disease 2019" to "coronavirus", albeit for admirable motives of brevity and avoidance of duplication, you have changed what identifies this pandemic from the name of a disease (the principle applied by WHO) to that of a group of viruses? That is what is semantically untenable, although it is a mistake that Wikipedia has been far from alone in making. Do you also accept that the principles of brevity and avoidance of duplication are also met by the current proposal? And if you do, what is your objection to the current proposal? Kevin McE (talk) 14:15, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose, as many articles use "2019–20 coronavirus pandemic" in their title, and then we'll have to change those too. No way. >>BEANS X2t 09:05, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
  • If your only reason for opposing is the number of pages that would also need to be moved, they could very easily be done by bot. Paintspot Infez (talk) 13:20, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
  • This move request and discussion implicitly includes changing all relevant articles' titles. You haven't actually provided a reason for opposing. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)^[ᴛ] 22:39, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
• Support. COVID-19 has solidified as the common name. As for the need to update other articles, the retort would be that besides them being better off, we'll probably have to update them to 2019-2021 pandemic come next January, as it is likely there will be at least some spillover to 2021.--Eostrix (talk) 09:10, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose There would be too many pages to rename, and links could possibly be broken. Rarely do we allow abbreviations to be included in page titles. Also, the current name has been adopted to such an extent that it would be more difficult to adjust to a new naming convention. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 10:47, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
  • The pages that would need to be moved could very easily be done by bot. And if we keep the current title, we'd have to move them all again to "2019–2021..." if this continues into next year. This also solves the problem of putting "2019" in the title since it wasn't a pandemic in 2019. Paintspot Infez (talk) 13:20, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Not sure what 'adjust'ment on the part of editors would be required: there will be residual redirect links for your watched/contributions pages. Kevin McE (talk) 15:08, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose Per WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL, stating the year is important in case of future pandemics, upon which time it would have to be moved again back to the current title. "Coronavirus" is more descriptive than "COVID-19"._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 13:45, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

As stated, it is no less crystal balling to assume that it will end this year than to assume that year disambiguation will be needed. And it is Crystal balling to assume that year disambiguation is needed. Kevin McE (talk) 15:08, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

"Coronavirus" is less descriptive than "COVID-19" - the majority of us have suffered colds caused by coronaviruses, but most of us have not had COVID-19. Magic9mushroom (talk) 19:48, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

It is crystal balling to want to keep the newer name "in case of future pandemics". Let's use COVID-19 pandemic for now as it is concise. We can rename the page if there is another pandemic. sam1370 (talk) 02:09, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

• Support, The Spanish flu page is called Spanish flu, not 1918-19 flu pandemic. Nojus R (talk) 18:29, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
• Support, we can always rename it again in the future if there is a second COVID-19 pandemic (and the virus is similar enough that it's not called COVID-24 or whatever). Besides, it's difficult to get people to type "(2019–20)" instead of "(2019-20)". --Ahecht (TALK
  PAGE) 19:32, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
• Strong Support - Google results for "covid-19 pandemic" show 149,000,000 results to sites such as FAO.org, Unicef.org, Eui.eu, Unv.org, Time.com, MIT.edu, WHO.int, theGuardian.com. Conversely, "2019–20 coronavirus pandemic" has a mere 259,000 results from largely wiki based sites. Veritycheck✔️ (talk) 22:44, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Just a couple more Google search results - for me "covid-19 pandemic" (with quotes) gets 139,000,000 results, and "coronavirus pandemic" (again with quotes) gets 124,000,000 results. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:23, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

• Support. Per Veritycheck, it's more common and concise. Bluesatellite (talk) 07:22, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
• Support. "COVID-19 pandemic" is technically the correct name, and also in widespread usage already (although "coronavirus pandemic" is somewhat more common, but lacking the necessary precision). We don't actually need to specify the year because it is already implied by "COVID-19", so this is just adding unnecessary clutter to the title. If there will be another coronavirus disease in the future (unfortunately quite likely), it won't be named "COVID-19", so there is no problem with ambiguation. Also, changing the title to get rid of the abbreviated year range "2019–20" would improve compliance with our naming conventions per MOS, according to which "2019–2020" would be the preferred form - but this would likely end up as "2019–2021", anyway. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 11:43, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose coronavirus is more widely used than than COVID. Vpab15 (talk) 14:11, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

You are comparing apples with banans (incompletely spelled bananas) (group of viruses with incomplete name of one disease). The relevant comparison is "coronavirus pandemic" vs "COVID-19 pandemic". The error of naming the pandemic for the virus group is undoubtedly widespread, but that does not mean that we should fall prey to it: we should apply sound semantic principles in keeping with accurate professional (professional epidemiologists, not professional journalists)practice. WP:COMMONNAME does not give a clear answer, but when we are faced with a choice between correct and incorrect usage, Commonname is not the policy we should be looking to. Kevin McE (talk) 14:41, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

"Fruit" is more widely used than "Banana". Should we move that article to "Long yellow fruit"? --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 15:01, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME says we should "prefers the name that is most commonly used ". Right now coronavirus is more widely used than COVID-19 and is used to refer to the current pandemic and its effects, not to the family of viruses. Vpab15 (talk) 17:56, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

That is some rather selective quoting. It also says, "When there is no single, obvious name that is demonstrably the most frequently used for the topic by these sources, editors should reach a consensus as to which title is best by considering these criteria directly," and "Editors should also consider all five of the criteria for article titles outlined above," the five criteria referenced in each case being those with which Benica11 has dealt with very efficiently above. WP:COMMONNAME also says, "inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable source," which is the case here. Kevin McE (talk) 18:11, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

What data supports "coronavirus is more widely used than than COVID"? Is that based perhaps on your feeling or where you live? Google shows the follwing results: - "Coronavirus" about 2,380,000,000 results, while "covid-19" about 3,000,000,000. Veritycheck✔️ (talk) 19:48, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

You are right about google search results, which I found surprising. However, checking various news sites, it seems coronavirus is much preferred to COVID-19. Checking main page of various sites, no mention of COVID in [13]. For [14][15][16][17][18] use is mixed, but coronavirus is more common by a factor of 4 or more. I'd say the pandemic has affected many aspects of life and "coronavirus" is now used in a much wider sense than a virus or group of viruses. Vpab15 (talk) 20:46, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. FFS, the fact that the moratorium has expired does not mean we immediately start an RM. Generally when there's a moratorium of any length, we only consider subsequent changes if something major has cheaanged in real life. Anyway, if you really need a reason not to move this, then pick any of those above - (1) although "COVID-19" has come into the lexicon, the common name for the pandemic in the public consciousness and in reliable sources is still "coronavirus", and that word needs to be in the title; (2) even if the proposed name or others were marginally better, the time we've spent so far arguing over this is excessive. We picked a name in Feb after painstaking argument, and it's not productive to revisit that, that's why the moratorium was imposed.; (3) having the dates is useful.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:18, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

You got the moratorium you asked for, it was respected. Please respect the right to do now what there is no longer a moratorium against.

1) Common usage, as has been demonstrated in this discussion, is clearly split, but there is an inportant semantic principle at stake which you have presented no argument against. To include the phrase 'coronavirus pandemic' in the title is contrary to the consensus statement presented at the top of this page.

2) To persist with semantic error because we have been making that error for a coupe of months already is entirely contradictory to encyclopaedic purpose. We are talking about page titles that should be in place for many years to come, so let's not look uninformed forever for the sake of what has been the case for a couple of months.

3) What anyone considers 'useful' is an entirely objective opinion, others are at least equally entitled to consider it redundant. However, the dates are as yet unknown, the year of emergence of the disease is implied in the proposed title and I think we can be confident that most informed readers seeing the name COVID-19 will know what the 19 refers to, and there is no naming policy that requires dating of events in their page title (should Assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand be at 1914 Assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand?). Kevin McE (talk) 14:41, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

I'd like to add on to your third point: should Spanish flu be renamed to 1918 flu pandemic simply because having the date is useful? WP:COMMONNAME applies here, as "COVID-19 pandemic" is both common, accurate, and precise. sam1370 (talk) 18:43, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

• Support. Usage has already shifted from the generic to the specific term. Moving gives us now the advantage of getting rid of the prefix (and hope there will be no second pandemic of COVID-19) Agathoclea (talk) 14:54, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
• Support removing dates. They only cause confusion and make the article difficult to search for. As of now, this is the only COVID-19 pandemic in history. If there is a later pandemic of the same disease (as opposed to a second or third wave of this one), we can talk about dates then. Support "COVID-19 pandemic" rather than "Coronavirus 2019 pandemic" per nom (actually I am ambivalent about this – they both sem to be equally common). Scolaire (talk) 15:04, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
• Support, coronaviruses are a group of viruses, of which SARS-CoV-2 is one, which causes COVID-19. -- Jeandré, 2020-04-28t17:14z
• Oppose Everyone here speaks about corona, nobody does about some kind of covid with some kind of number (where some people even guessed it was the 19. kind of virus, instead of the year 2019). Please keep in mind that English is not only used in the US (where even "Wuhan flu" was suggested!?). Speaking for Europe, it's corona which is in the news. And nobody knows what COVID stands for (and that it must be upper case), while everyone knows the crown shape of the virus by now. --Traut (talk) 18:38, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Who is the everyone you are referring to? It’s certainly not me. Additionally, where is here. Wikipedia’s role isn’t to set standards, but rather to reflect what is in use elsewhere. Your nobody doesn’t include me or others who do know what COVID 19 stands for. Finally, not everyone knows that corona means crown. Sweeping generalisations don’t make for good arguments. Veritycheck✔️ (talk) 20:08, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

You ACTUALLY do know what COVID stands for? But you do not know that it is COVID-19, not COVID 19? I must admit, I did not know what COVID stands for. I looked it up. But then, why isn't it CoViD-19? WHO themselves sometimes name it COVID 2019! And if you want to be precise, SARS-CoV-2 would be even more precise! --Traut (talk) 20:39, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

I know about several European countries. You live in Italy? I checked some of the most important Italian newspapers. All name coronavirus on the main page, none COVID-19. Where is your here? --Traut (talk) 22:37, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

• Support per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:CONCISE. "COVID-19" seems to have taken hold as the more common name. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:56, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
• Support "COVID-19" and "Covid" seem to be more common now than coronavirus. Coronavirus is also a somewhat inaccurate name as this is one of a group of coronaviruses. COVID-19 is the more proper name so I think it is a good fit. Atlas50 (talk) 20:42, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
• oppose per Traut--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:14, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
• Support per reasons 1., 2., 3.(a), 3.(b) listed by Kevin McE. The possibility of another COVID-19 pandemic (3.(c)) is not a serious counterargument to the proposal. If SARS-CoV-2 evolves enough to be able to cause a new pandemic despite the immunity and vaccinations of the first pandemic, chances are the next pandemic would be given a new name, such as COVID-25, for example. It's more likely that the next pandemic will be from one of the other many suspected sources of Disease X (which might have to be renamed Disease Y if COVID-19 is officially defined as Disease X). Boud (talk) 21:24, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

I feel it's unfortunate that so much different aspects are merged for this move. I do not like the 2019-20 prefix myself. But I do not understand why you vote for "2" since no one suggests to name this "coronavirus 19". For me it's either to use "corona" vs. COVID-19. Or to drop the 2019-2020 prefix (who knows whether it will remain the 2019-21 or more?). Bit it's not about coronavirus 2019. --Traut (talk) 22:04, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

• Support Per WP:COMMONNAME, WP:CONCISE, WP:NAMINGCRITERIA and WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL. Davanvoorhis (talk) 21:48, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose and for the amount of articles that already reference this page, and also for ease of understanding (misinformation about this virus is rampant, and making this page as easy to understand as possible is important). An example of misinformation is there has been a misconception among some people that COVID-19 is so named because it is the "19th coronavirus" (when it is instead named for originating in 2019). I don't believe changing the name to COVID-19 is worth the hassle and worth potentially confusing misinformed people who come to this page. 2600:1700:8450:77F0:BD11:3A60:33C5:3793 (talk) 23:49, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose for consistency and to avoid confusion. Additionally, I have seen some people claim that COVID-19 is a more common way to refer to the virus than coronavirus nowadays. This has not been my personal experience; in my social circles as well as on my local news it is still almost exclusively referred to as coronavirus. Teddybearearth (talk) 00:08, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
• Support per above. Coronavirus lacks specificity, there are other Coronaviruses. Liam Skoda (talk) 00:16, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

RM sidebar (comments, extended discussion)

(Note: RM = Requested Move)'

We will need to move (rename) other articles for consistency

If we decide to make the move (rename the article), we should do the same for all the other articles that have "2019–20 coronavirus pandemic" in their titles.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 23:18, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

• Support uniform rename per WP:CONSISTENT Elizium23 (talk) 04:56, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
• Support per above. --Soumyabrata ^{stay at home 🏠} _{wash your hands 👋} ^{to protect from COVID-19 😷} 05:06, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
• Support per above. Paintspot Infez (talk) 13:20, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
• Support per above. Benica11 (talk) 14:45, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
• Support, and this is already mandated by the WikiProject COVID-19 consensus. Relieved to hear that it can be done by bot. Kevin McE (talk) 15:01, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
• Support per above. --Ahecht (TALK
  PAGE) 19:32, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
• Support per above. Veritycheck✔️ (talk) 22:47, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
• Support per above. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 11:43, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
• Support per above. Scolaire (talk) 15:44, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
• Support per above. § Agathoclea (talk) 16:56, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
• Support per nom. -- Jeandré, 2020-04-28t17:12z
• Support per above. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:58, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
• Support per above, however both commonly used names should be addressed in opening paragraph. --Mtaylor848 (talk) 21:22, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
• Support for consistency. Boud (talk) 21:24, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
• Support per above. 39cookies (talk) 22:02, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
• Support if this page is remained, consistency with the rest of Wikipedia will be of the utmost importance. Teddybearearth (talk) 00:08, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Pandemics are named after the disease, not the virus

Someone else (I can't remember who at the moment), educated me when he/she/they wrote, "Pandemics are named after the disease, not the virus." So, for example, if we followed the tradition of the present article, naming the pandemic after the virus, we would have an article titled something like, "2019 United States outbreak of measles morbillivirus wild-type D8 and B3", instead of the current title, "Measles resurgence in the United States".

Some references

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. "Measles (Rubeola) > Measles Cases and Outbreaks > Measles Cases in 2019." ("All measles cases were caused by measles wild-type D8 or B3.")

Organisation Mondiale de la Santé. "Mise à jour de la nomenclature relative à la description des caractéristiques génétiques des virus rougeoleux sauvages: nouveaux génotypes et souches de référence." Relevé épidémiologique hebdomadaire 78, non. 1 (2003): 229–240.

Paules, Catharine I., Hilary D. Marston, and Anthony S. Fauci. “Measles in 2019 — Going Backward.” New England Journal of Medicine 380 (6 June 2019): 2185–2187. doi:10.1056/NEJMp1905099

World Health Organization (WHO). "Update of the nomenclature for describing the genetic characteristics of wild-type measles viruses: new genotypes and reference strains." Weekly epidemiological record 78, no. 29 (2003): 229–240. https://www.who.int/wer/2003/en/wer7827.pdf

  - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 00:43, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

• See WP:COMMONNAME. Unlike the measles example above, this disease has a short and snappy name that’s getting widespread usage. Therefore, I don’t think the virus is the one common name that we can use, and we have to base the title off other areas of the article naming policy. Benica11 (talk) 03:22, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Benica11, that is a reasonable argument. :0)   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 11:08, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Nvm my mistake I assumed that the cases included suspected ones Username900122 (talk) 16:20, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

@Username900122:, would you like to move this comment to wherever it was meant to be: it clearly does not belong here. And although it is not normally good form to remove another editor's talk page comments, I would suggest you delete this comment of mine when yo do so. Kevin McE (talk) 15:15, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Add section: Impact on mental health

I'm surprised this hasn't been included yet. Many suicide hotlines are reporting massive upticks [19] [20] [21] [22] (the Disaster Distress helpline saw an 891% increase in calls in March 2020) in the amount of calls amid the pandemic and the necessary social distancing and quarantining, resulting from economic fears, virus fears and underlying depression and anxiety and feelings of isolation and separation.[23] This has also resulted in the rise of teletherapy.

The National Suicide Prevention Hotline has adjusted "#BeThe1To" to provide coping tips for individuals and loved ones amid the pandemic[24]. The CDC has provided similar tips as well.[25]

Individuals with anxiety disorders such as obsessive-compulsive disorder[26][27] and post-traumatic stress disorder[28] are of a greater concern. Ghoul flesh • talk 22:26, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Good idea. I suggest first contributing to Mental health during the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic, which needs some work, and then adding a sentence or two in the present article about psychological sequelae, with a hatnote to the main article on the subject.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 23:22, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

The Question of Origin

Given the volume of damning, albeit circumstantial evidence , a sentence or two about the possibility that the virus was accidentally leaked from a lab should be added to the origin section. Note that this is not a suggestion that the case be made for a bio-engingeering or bio-weapons origin. That seems highly implausible and is well suited for the misinformation page. Rather, an accidental leak from the Wuhan Institute of Virology is in perfect concordance with the present scientific consensus of a natural origin for the virus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:1540:4BD9:404C:895E:F375:6408 (talk) 00:12, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Absolutely no conspiracy theories will be added to this article as though they are plausible. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:22, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Me and Lenny ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) agree with Muboshgu:  No conspiracy theories allowed.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 00:51, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Apologies if the talk page isn't appropriate for this discussion (I'm new to the Wikipedia talk pages - happy to exchange emails and have the discussion elsewhere), but how is this origin more implausible/more of a conspiracy theory than the origin related to the wet market that is implied in the current iteration of the article? I see how any number of other conspiracy theories should be banned, including intentional leakage and bio weapons, but the amount of circumstantial evidence related to the Wuhan Institute of Virology certainly warrants a second look. If this is an issue of the reach of my conjecture exceeding the grasp of the available evidence, I totally understand. There have to be standards. But to simply dismiss this as a conspiracy theory like all of the other garbage out there strikes me as a bit hasty. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.15.121.202 (talk) 00:57, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia 98.15.121.202. I agree that we (me, you, and those other editors too) can dismiss arguments hastily without fully considering a claim's merits. At the same time, understanding the context is important. Wikipedians very frequently encounter spam, vandalism, hacking, lying, paid editing to boost a company's web presence, and a slew of conspiracy theories yearning for the legitimacy a Wikipedia article bestows on the movement. ¶ Given that reality, and because it is standard practice, the burden of persuasion falls on the editor(s) who want to add new information. If you wish to take on the challenge, I suspect many editors will seriously consider your argument, since you write well, display courtesy and tact, and come across as sincere. ¶ In terms of classical rhetorical strategies, you can enhance your ethos by learning Wikipedia's ways and wherefores. ¶ So ... Why not create an account and stay awhile? Wikipedia can use as many quality members as possible! Here are some pages that you might find helpful: *The five pillars of Wikipedia, *How to edit a page, *Help pages, *Tutorial, *How to write a great article, *Manual of Style. BONUS TIP! → sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions. All the best   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 11:41, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! I've made an account now and I'll look at the sources you provided. --Azahariev (talk) 20:37, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Additionally, let's note the section about accidental virus leakage on the COVID Misinformation page . Note specifically the final sentence: "Days later, multiple media outlets confirmed that U.S. intelligence officials were investigating the possibility that the virus started in the WIV" as of this writing (April 26, 9:22PM Eastern Standard Time). NBC, CNN, CBS, and the WSJ are all reporting this. I don't think it's reasonable to treat this merely as a conspiracy theory at this point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.15.121.202 (talk) 01:23, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Agree conspiracy theories belong on that other page. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:18, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

References

I'm not especially educated on the precise details, but I think that when a hypothesis is being taken seriously by at least one major national government it is somewhat ridiculous to categorically call it "misinformation". Claims of it being intentionally released as a bioweapon are obviously flawed and can safely be filed under the heading of "conspiracy theory", but when nobody's willing to rule out an accidental leak it frankly seems premature to dismiss it. I personally don't think it's likely, but I don't see the conclusive weight of evidence that would be needed to categorically mark it false - even the section on it in the "misinformation" article is really short on anyone categorically ruling it out, which would seem to be an RS issue in itself (i.e. we have no RS cited that it is misinformation). Magic9mushroom (talk) 19:33, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

And I don't know what kind of Wikipedia policies and policy exceptions could apply here, but it seems to me that the fact that the theory has been taken seriously enough to enter various media outlets is indicative of its worth being mentioned, if only to be subsequently dismissed as poorly founded and unconfirmed in the sentence directly following it. To some extent, we have a duty to our readers to show them what they may have heard about elsewhere from what seems like legitimate sources, even if that information is erroneous, so that they understand that yes, we are aware of this, and no, it probably isn't true, and here's why, so long as we provide links to those sources. Otherwise readers will be left wondering, "I guess none of the editors of Wikipedia has heard about this thing yet," which wouldn't be at all true. We and the reading public are better off and better informed if we say we know about it and it is bunk. But that attitude should probably only apply if the conspiracy theory has already had a significant independent public airing first (which this one seems to have had). A loose necktie (talk) 20:29, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Very well put, A loose necktie. I support inclusion in a single sentence, followed inmediately by a caveat of its speculative nature at this point.--Forich (talk) 23:14, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

It's a new strain of coronavirus, that's it. I really don't see why we'd need to involve a science lab. If it was super deadly or super infectious at least, we'd have somewhat of a base for a conspiracy. Iluvalar (talk) 02:25, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

As I said, I agree that hypotheses of deliberate release (i.e. conspiracy) are obviously flawed and definitely belong under the heading of "conspiracy theory". Accidental release is what's being taken relatively seriously as a possibility, and what I think WP is dismissing more categorically than is warranted (saying that it's speculative is entirely warranted, but outright dumping it under "misinformation" - i.e., confirmed wrong/implausible - is not). I support Forich's suggestion. Magic9mushroom (talk) 07:55, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

What source is being proposed to be used? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:51, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

As the accidental leakage theory is proposed by a serious source, i.e. the Washington Post's columnist Josh Rogin on April the 14th, and is followed up by multiple confirmations that U.S. intelligence officials are investigating the possibility, I think it would be appropriate to include one or two sentences here. If we would stamp it as misinformation beforehand, our neutrality would be at stake.Otto S. Knottnerus (talk) 21:15, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

I suggest we try these, in order of most reputable to less: 1) Nature; 2) The Lancet; 3) BBC News, Reuters, Interfax, Agence France-Presse, United Press International or the Associated Press; 3) Peer-reviewed journals; 4) Al Jazeera, The Atlantic, CNN, The Daily Telegraph, The Economist, Forbes, Fox News, The Guardian, The New York Times, Newsweek, Snopes, Time, Vox, The Washington Post and Wired. --Forich (talk) 21:21, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Nature, Lancet, Reuters, Interfax, AFP, UPI, and AP have not covered the story yet (as ar as I know). That leaves us with BBC News, as the most reputable source for this.--Forich (talk) 21:42, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Someone update the statistics for new Zealand it is showing cases from a week ago

New Zealands cases are way out of date Username900122 (talk) 15:31, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

At the moment, the list of countries and territories (in Template:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data) is using the NZ Ministry of Health's website for its source, and is up to date. Do you mean a figure for New Zealand elsewhere in this article? Capewearer (talk) 16:07, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Greetings Username900122. It would be really cool if you became a Wikipedian and went to work on that section to improve it. We need more good editors like you! The getting started page is very helpful.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 16:38, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

P.S. I have explained to other Wikipedians that I hold the rank of Major General in the World Federation of People Who Can Give Orders, but they think I'm joking. And even worse, when I issue commands to other editors, they rarely do what I say. Such recalcitrance among the troops is disgraceful! What's a 2-star to do? ...   Yes, this is my attempt at a little humor. My kids tell me I have an "esoteric" sense of humor, so my apologies in advance if it lands flat.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 16:46, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Those "kids" have quite a vocabulary! A loose necktie (talk) 20:11, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

someone update the map in the top right

the map is from a while ago, and it is probably outdated — Preceding unsigned comment added by Firestar9990 (talk • contribs) 18:16, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Firestar9990, that's gonna be a fact of life as time goes on. All these manually updated stats and facts and figures are going to lag behind the wherewithal of Wikipedians to update them, and they'll go stale. I don't think any numbers anywhere in the COVID-19 project should be trusted as current. Elizium23 (talk) 18:23, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

"Excluding the disputed Taiwan"

This phrase is used in the footnote regarding China.

I don't really think this is justified, insofar as Taiwan is no more or less disputed than any other part of China - the ROC and PRC both claim all of China, including the mainland and Taiwan.

I don't really understand why there is the insistence on saying "China excluding XYZ" instead of the equivalent "Mainland China" which needs fewer footnotes, but if we are going this route it should just be "excluding Taiwan". Magic9mushroom (talk) 19:19, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

• I agree. I see no point in emphasizing the disputed nature of Taiwan here, and the phrases "Mainland China" or "excluding Taiwan" both make better sense, though I have no real opinion on which ("Mainland China" feels more intuitive for me, though). A loose necktie (talk) 20:07, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia's naming policy, there are grounds for specifying "Mainland China" only to clarify that Hong Kong and Macao are excluded from the assertion being made. That is not the case in most occurrences of the phrase in this article, and that should be changed. Kevin McE (talk) 23:36, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

I should clarify that I'm talking about the statistics in the infobox, which are for "China" with footnotes saying "excluding Hong Kong and Macau" and "excluding the disputed Taiwan". That is equivalent to "mainland China", but saying "mainland China" would avoid the need for those footnotes. Magic9mushroom (talk) 08:02, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

There was a three month long debate on the mainland China vs China excluding... issue. The consensus was to standardise every country and territory by writing the country's name and including a footnote. Otherwise we would have had to write "mainland Denmark, mainland United Kingdom, mainland United States". A non-standardised approach was unanimously excluded so the option of only writing "mainland China" for China was removed. Several discussions were related to this issue but most are now closed (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=952281574#Removing_%22mainland%22_from_China). JMonkey2006 (talk) 10:32, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Its a weird phrase, to all non-Chinese audiences “China” already excludes Taiwan. MOS is clear, we use “China” only to refer to the People’s Republic of China, “mainland China” in the context of Wikipedia means the PRC minus the SARs. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 23:53, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Horse Eye Jack, agreed. The use of the adjective "disputed" is unnecessary and I think it should be removed. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:55, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

I removed "the disputed" in diff. (I suspect it was included at least in part as way to shoehorn in the link to the Political status of Taiwan article.) -sche (talk) 23:03, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Parallelism should be maintained with Crimea, which is recognized to have been illegally annexed by more UN members than the number of states that formally recognize the ROC on Taiwan. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 23:11, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Incidents of xenophobia and discrimination in the intro

I propose removing the mention of xenophobia and discrimination from the intro. I don't want to downplay the incidents, but there is already a section in the article. Right now it has the same weight in the intro as the recession caused by the virus, which in my opinion is much more relevant. Vpab15 (talk) 17:45, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, nope, that sentence has already been discussed at length (see current consensus item 8), and nothing significant has changed since the prior discussion. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 17:55, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Xenophobia section length

I am certainly not averse to covering the xenophobia that has arisen from the pandemic, but the length of the current section on it (which recently had a level 4 sub-heading added to it) strikes me as just too long. It's much longer than the comparable nearby sections on the environment and misinformation, and nearly as long as the culture section, which has a far bigger scope. The {{Very long section}} tag I added was recently removed by Pancho507. Do you all think the section needs some streamlining? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 18:01, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing that out. As for streamlining, now i think that it could be streamlined, however i don't wanna risk biasing that section, and i feel not much can be removed from that section anyway. Pancho507 (talk) 18:54, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Agree, it's far too long for the very slight notability. --Mtaylor848 (talk) 21:20, 28 April 2020 (UTC)