Talk:COVID-19 recession

Name and Merging Articles

Hello my fine-looking wikipedia companions, I'm wondering on your thoughts of merging the 2020 Stock Market Crash with this article, considering we probably want to keep everything in one place in order to keep things concise. As well as that, should this article be changed from 'Coronavirus recession' to 'The Great Lockdown'? With a quick google search, it doesn't take much to see that every media outlet in existance is calling this now 'The Great Lockdown', with no mention of 'The Coronavirus Recession' in sight. As IMF is calling it this, and multiple media outlets have latched onto the term, I think it's now appropriate - or should we wait for the meme community to start making jokes about it?

We humans tend to romantacize specific extreme events, and 'financial impacts of the coronavirus pandemic' doesn't roll of the tongue as well. The IMF have given us a glorious name. Thanks to certified reports (IMF) we can officially say that we are indeed now in a recession, one that could well and truly last outside of this year. It's probably also good to consider that the virus isn't the only reason for recession! We were on path for one anyways, this just kinda, accelerated it. Let me know your thoughts. By the way IMF, thanks for the badass name. Foxterria (talk) 20:04, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

I feel that "the great lockdown" should be used to describe the quarantine measures that are being taken because of the coronavirus.Pancho507 (talk) 20:35, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

It's a play on words to reference the lockdown of Human Civilization during the pandemic and of the lockdown of the economy, the IMF and Reuter's have clearly stated it to be 'The Graet Lockdown', I do think this would be the best course of action to call it what the media and world is actually calling it. Foxterria (talk) 20:51, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

I think care should be taken when suggesting the usage of a neologism to describe an event. Let's wait a bit to see if this silly "lockdown" verbiage gets picked up. Zaathras (talk) 20:54, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Well to be honest, we seem to have done so liberally with the name 'coronavirus recession' - no one's calling it that, they're calling it the Great Lockdown. We should go by what the IMF and Reuter's are calling it. Foxterria (talk) 21:10, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

@Foxterria: Los Angeles Times[1], [BBC][2], New York Times[3], Foreign Affairs[4] and many others have used this title.--Seyyed(t-c) 05:22, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Support the use of "Great Lockdown". The term "Great Depression" was not named by the IMF or any such organization. Much like the "Great Lockdown", the most popular term should be used. Until I read this article today, I had not heard this financial crisis referred to as "Coronavirus Recession", from anyone other than some IMF officials. If we want to be super accurate with the name, then we should use the real official IMF name; Financial Crisis 2020. Additionally, the term "Coranavirus Recession" strongly implies that this is a financial crisis is a recession. The IMF defines what a recession is. There must be at least three quarters of loss/stagnant growth in the economy. PortugeeStud82 (talk) 05:38, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

• I'm thinking oppose on the merge of 2020 stock market crash to here. Although related, they are two separate topics—compare for example the distinct articles Wall Street Crash of 1929 and Great Depression. Mz7 (talk) 07:02, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose for above reasons. Keepcalmandchill (talk) 00:17, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 15 April 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: No consensus to move, consensus is leaning against. buidhe 04:16, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

---

Coronavirus recession → Great Lockdown – Due to the fact that no one is calling it the 'Coronavirus Recession', but instead 'The Great Lockdown' (google search should easily show this), I believe that this article should be renamed to accurately represent what's actually being stated across the world. There's probably now hundreds of sources that could back this up, as well as trusted sources by wikipedia. Foxterria (talk) 13:26, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. I'm not convinced that "Great Lockdown" refers to the recession itself or to people being ordered to stay at home and not work. The two are obviously related, but not the same thing. "Great Lockdown Recession" might be an appropriate title, but for now I think we should stick with the current title. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:49, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

  @Rreagan007: The IMF have made it clear that this is the name of the current recession. Practically zero sources are calling it the 'coronavirus recession', which means it isn't a common name. The common name being used for the recession is 'The Great Lockdown'. Foxterria (talk) 19:01, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

• Support "Great Lockdown": Like the Great Depression, this is commonly named through various reliable news outlets. "The" is not needed in the title. —Wei4Green (talk • contributions) 18:09, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

  @Wei4Green: I hadn't realized it but I agree that it should be that way, so I've edited the requested move to represent what'd be better for the article. Foxterria (talk) 18:20, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose A flavor-of-the-moment neologism, the sourcing is not there to support widespread adoption at this time. If the current title isn't ideal, moving it to a weak and silly name is less-than-ideal. Zaathras (talk) 20:14, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

  @Zaathras: It musn't be that 'weak and silly', considering it's what the IMF is calling it. And there's plenty of sourcing to support widespread adoption at this time.[5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35] - If this isn't enough for you, I don't know what will be. Foxterria (talk) 06:52, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

• Support I'm in favor for this for two reason; the first reason is that comparing to Coronavirus recession and Great Lockdown the amount for the Great Lockdown is numbered by a 27x factor compared to the former. As for the second reason, the name Great Lockdown is rememberable for how short and impactful the title is compared to Coronavirus recession where while the name itself tells what caused it, let be honest when is the last time friends, family and other have honestly said Coronavirus recession without shortening it to Corona Recession or Great Lockdown. Overall I support this wholeheartedly for the Great Lockdown title. Bitsweet55 (talk) 21:52, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

• Support The IMF, generally considered the main authority on such topics, has referred to the recession as the Great Lockdown, and in accordance most of the news media has followed suit, as a quick Google search may indicate. Geekgecko (talk) 22:36, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

• Support Per IMF's usage. It's also worth noting that the most proximal cause of the recession is the lockdown, not the virus itself, so the name makes sense from that perspective.--DrCruse (talk) 23:55, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose The IMF has been refering to this as a Recession not a great lockdown. More media are calling this a recession, not the great lockdown.Efuture2 (talk) 02:50, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

  @Efuture2: Actually while the IMF has said that this situation is a Recession, the IMF itself actually uses the term Great Lockdown in their World Economic Outlook for April this year [36], when looking that this document the IMF does use the term Great Lockdown 14 times in this report, hell even the term itself is the name within this report, if that not enough the IMF exclaims ″The Great Lockdown, as one might call it, is projected to shrink global growth dramatically.″ at page 6 of the report and in this news report [37] ″ ′The Great Lockdown is the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression, and far worse than the Global Financial Crisis [of 2008],′ International Monetary Fund (IMF) Chief Economist Gita Gopinath said on Tuesday.″ by the chief economist of IMF herself; so the tl;dr version is that you are half right with the title as a recession but half wrong that the word Great Lockdown has never been used by the IMF Bitsweet55 (talk) 04:20, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

  @Efuture2: The IMF calls it on the front page of their World Economic Outlook 'The Great Lockdown', you can see it by dowloading the full text of the outlook on the sourced page.[38] They also state in their blogpost on the economic downturn by call it: "The Great Lockdown: Worst Economic Downturn Since the Great Depression", source here too.[39] Foxterria (talk) 06:52, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

• Support IMF has used the term to refer to the recession, and it is generally being used to refer to the recession by some news outlets. BanditTheManedWolf (talk) 06:44, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose for now The term is very fresh. Maybe it will pick up, maybe it won't. Wait a few weeks to see if it does. Keepcalmandchill (talk) 08:38, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Only the media calls it the great lockdown. Most people just call it the coronavirus recession. And even if they don't call it that now, i'm pretty sure they will call it that in a few years, since the recession was caused by the coronavirus. And the name the great lockdown would mostly be appropiate for describing the quaratine measures taken due to the coronavirus. Just look at the definition of lockdown. I belive that it should be left as it is right now, as a redirect and mention "the great lockdown" on the article. Pancho507 (talk) 16:09, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose for now until the term 'Great Lockdown' becomes widely used, I think it would be better to retain the article's current title. Vida0007 (talk) 23:43, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
• Support The term "Second Great Depression" should also redirect to that page. J4lambert (talk) 15:39, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

  @J4lambert: Where are you seeing the term 'Second Great Depression' in any common, journalistic, or academic use? --DrCruse (talk) 21:04, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose The usage of the term "Great Lockdown" implies that this article is about the lockdown efforts, not the economic downturn. --Tiiliskivi (talk) 16:04, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose as the term lockdown is not at all the same thing as a recession. Axedel (talk) 21:24, 17 April 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.

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Lines in Australia at Centrelink during the Great Lockdown.webp

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:22, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

DYK Nom

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: rejected by Yoninah (talk) 20:53, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
After 15 weeks at WP:DYKN, the article still has close paraphrasing in addition to a merge tag. Closing as unsuccessful.

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that due to the coronavirus recession, almost 80 countries have asked the IMF for help before May 2020? [40] Source: "You are strongly encouraged to quote the source text supporting each hook" (and [link] the source, or cite it briefly without using citation templates)
  • ALT1:... that ...? Source: "You are strongly encouraged to quote the source text supporting each hook" (and [link] the source, or cite it briefly without using citation templates)

Created by Sa.vakilian (talk). Self-nominated at 11:13, 29 March 2020 (UTC).

• Date and length fine. However there are several problems with the article. It has several citation needed tags and tags on the header. There is also the big problem of the merger proposal which means @Sa.vakilian: it cannot proceed until all tags have been removed. Once the merge debate is ended and the citing is fixed (the citations are a bit messy too I'll add), then ping me and I'll have another look. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 15:32, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

• The article's title has not been established by reliable sources. As of now, I could not see this article passing. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 23:40, 31 March 2020Seyyed(t-c) 04:18, 1 May 2020 (UTC) (UTC)

@The C of E: All of the tags exept one of them has been removed. Can you please check it again. Of course, we can find a better DYK.--Seyyed(t-c) 03:54, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

@Sa.vakilian: All tags need to be removed before this can proceed. I've also noticed after a recheck that the Coronavirus pandemic subsection under the Causes section is a complete copy and paste from 2019-20 Coronavirus pandemic's opening paragraph. That is not allowed under rule 1.b of DYK rules and will need to be reworded or deleted and also casts suspicion on the rest of the article. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 05:29, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

I have not checked all of it but I think most of it is not copy from the other articles.Seyyed(t-c) 15:10, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

You wrote it, how do you not know if you copied anything? It cannot include any copied work from other articles. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 16:02, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

@The C of E: I have written some part of it and I ask other participants to answer you here. Seyyed(t-c) 04:18, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

@Keepcalmandchill:@Capewearer: Hi, as major contributors in coronavirus recession, please participate in this discussion and help us to have DYK on the main page.Seyyed(t-c) 04:23, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

@user:Keepcalmandchill and @user:Capewearer Hi, as major contributors in coronavirus recession, please participate in this discussion and help us to have DYK on the main page.Seyyed(t-c) 08:07, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm aware of the nomination. Please don't keep pinging me about it. Capewearer (talk) 08:14, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

• While the merge proposal is ongoing, the nomination is temporarily on hold. If the article survives intact, then a new review will be needed: the nominator's only significant edit to the article was in creating a 2715 prose character article, which has since grown to 38951 prose characters. There doesn't seem to have been overlap between the articles in the initially created article—the Causes section was a later addition, so any direct copying within Wikipedia was after and beyond the minimum 1500 prose character creation. If there were copied sections, they ought to have been mentioned on the article talk page (I didn't see any mentions in the edit summaries), but running Duplication Detector, there aren't very many exact strings of words left between the two articles after two months of editing. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:50, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

• Listing at WT:DYK for a new review or follow-up. The move/merge discussion ended with this article staying where it is. Courtesy @The C of E: as per wishes listed above. Flibirigit (talk) 06:34, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook eligibility:

• Cited: - I can't find the hook in the article, but it is sourced to a reliable source.
• Interesting:
• Other problems:

QPQ: None required.

Overall: Launchballer 17:40, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

• IMO the hook is outdated. It would be better to use one or more examples from different countries to make an interesting hook. But this must be taken care of soon. This nomination has been sitting here for over 3 months and is no longer "new content".
• There is still close paraphrasing from the sources:
• Source: Property investment sales in Singapore fell 37 per cent to $3.02 billion in the first quarter of this year from the previous three months as the coronavirus outbreak took its toll on investor sentiment, a report from Cushman & Wakefield on Monday (April 13) showed.
• Article: Property investment sales in Singapore fell 37 per cent to $3.02 billion in the first quarter of this year from the previous three months as the pandemic took its toll on investor sentiment, a report from Cushman & Wakefield on 13 April showed.
• Source: The preliminary estimate of 1Q20 Italian GDP shows a 4.7% quarter on quarter fall (-4.8% YoY), a much steeper decline than in any quarter seen either during the financial crisis or the sovereign debt crisis.
• Article: The preliminary estimate of 1Q20 Italian GDP shows a 4.7% quarter on quarter fall (-4.8% YoY), a much steeper decline than in any quarter seen either during the financial crisis or the sovereign debt crisis.
• Source: Manufacturing sales in March fell to the lowest level since mid-2016 as sales of auto manufacturers and parts suppliers were both down over 30%.
• Article: Canadian manufacturing sales in March fell to the lowest level since mid-2016, as sales by auto manufacturers and parts suppliers plunged more than 30%.
• Source: Ali says annual inflation remained in negative territory in May (-1.7%) and is forecast to edge up to 1.0 percent by year-end.
• Article: Annual inflation remained in negative territory in May (-1.7%) and is forecast to edge up to 1.0 percent by year-end.
• Source: Dow futures tumbled more than 1,000 points and Standard & Poor's 500 futures dropped 5%, triggering an automatic shock absorber.
• Article: Dow futures tumbled more than 1,000 points and Standard & Poor's 500 futures dropped 5%, triggering a circuit breaker.
• There are also several "citation needed" tags that must be addressed. Yoninah (talk) 19:53, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

As it happens, this article has been nominated to be moved, so the nomination can't currently proceed anyway. @Keepcalmandchill:@Capewearer:@Sa.vakilian: - could you chime in?--Launchballer 07:24, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Considering the large number of issues still outstanding, and that as noted above there is no longer any new content, I feel it is time to close and reject the nomination. Flibirigit (talk) 02:12, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Transportation sector

Currently, the section talks only about aviation and ignores all other forms of transport.

Clearly the outbreak has had significant impact on other forms of public transport such as buses and trains. No doubt taxi companies have been hit as well. And then there's the impact on petrol stations, motorway services, road maintenance, etc. in more ways than one. Is anyone here up to the task of adding relevant info about these? — Smjg (talk) 13:28, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Restored from the archive as the issue is still unresolved. — Smjg (talk) 18:25, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

great lockdown/great shutdown

great lockdown/great shutdown should have its own article. it refers explicitly to government policies and their related effects on the population. that's very different than a recession or even socioeconomic effects.