Talk:2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Page move moratorium[edit]

I would like to propose that page move/name change discussions be prohibited for a 1 month time period. The past several discussions have been inconclusive and yielded no results due to disagreements. We should stop these discussions for a while and wait for it to become known what the "common name" and the extent of the virus will be. The constant requests for similar page moves/name changes are disruptive and are not solving any issues. NoahTalk 21:18, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm sympathetic to this argument, but it seems evident the name is problematic, especially as new reporting shows rising levels of xenophobia that can't be attributed to mere caution about the virus. My view is that if we were to recreate this article whole cloth knowing what we know today we would use it's official name, COVID-19, plus some variant of outbreak/epidemic. Being new here, I honestly didn't expect to see such detailed coverage about the epidemic to appear so quickly. So, maybe you could help me understand how Wikipedia normally handles covering emergent events? I'd welcome the discussion on my talk. PedanticLlama (talk) 21:43, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and not a newspaper. This is extremely key to understanding why we aren’t leaping upon WHO’s terminology (let’s be clear, there can be no “official name” for a disease, which is a process created by nature and not by a human organization), or changing the page title to reflect new developments that are coming every day. Even looking at the most recent move request, the scope of this article is the outbreak in Wuhan that has spread across China and around the world. The outbreak in Wuhan started in December 2019 and is only now (mid-February) being called a pandemic. There was no pandemic until now, nor “official name” until recently, so discussing a pandemic or an official name when describing the developing nature of the outbreak is honestly inappropriate. Once again, we are not a newspaper that focuses on what’s happening today and what may happen tomorrow, but what happened on all the days before tomorrow. This is still true in current events. 199.66.69.88 (talk) 00:01, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
I appreciate the response! I've read the NOTNEWS policy, and although I arrived at the opposite conclusion I understand your reasoning. Precisely because Wikipedia is not intended to be the news, I wonder why this article exists to the extent it does. However, since it does exist, it makes sense to weight sources based on confirmation of recent accuracy, if that makes sense. As an example, if there are 150 references citing an incorrect name and only a handful citing a new development that has been verified by experts, but happened recently, would it make sense to keep the old (incorrect) name? Especially given that the preponderance of new references use the new name.
And just to make sure I understand what's being asked: most people want to change the title to epidemic, right? I'm not aware of pandemic being suggested or cited anywhere as that would be a pretty major development (which consequently may be worthy of breaking this 30 day rule). PedanticLlama (talk) 00:41, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support one-month moratorium on pagemove discussions. This is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. We don't need to give in to these recentist fad-driven name changes and further contribute to our readers' confusion. Naming is not as important as those panic-prone commenters insisting that we immediately change the page name to reflect some advisory organization's whimsical decisions seem to believe. Improve the content of this page if you want to help inform people. 199.66.69.88 (talk) 22:37, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support for one month moratorium It feels to me like the reason this title is so contentious is because pro-China editors are trying to right a great wrong and save face. But the reality is that Wikipedia must wait until an alternate name becomes dominant enough to meet the requirements of WP:COMMONNAMES. Wikipedia is not censored and hosts great deal of. Experienced editors oppose them on policy grounds, breeding conflict and accusations of Sinophobia. Melmann 22:54, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support one month moratorium for pagemove because if this requested move happens everyday, it will confuse readers as it can be move to someone else. This moratorium needs to applied to 2019 novel coronavirus as well as all articles containing "Wuhan coronavirus outbreak" name. If multiple request move needed, this request must discuss on single talk-page, not multiple talk pages of their respective articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 36.76.229.147 (talk) 23:14, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
    • This is a great point. At some level we might want to talk about an RfC on general sanctions for this topic area. It’s become extremely disruptive to have all the discussion focused on naming and accusations of bias/sinophobia, especially against experienced editors whose views are essential to keeping this topic area in good shape. I guess on some level it might seem like an extreme escalation, but I see no better way to keep this topic area peaceful and collegial for what will likely be a controversial area for the next year. 199.66.69.88 (talk) 23:54, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
      • This article in brief period was included in post-1932 United States politics general sanctions because this article relate to the United States. But it removed because not related to that. 36.76.229.147 (talk) 00:22, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support, but restrict page moves requests until end of March 2020, require unregistered users to create a account to vote once the stable name is found, and preempt any consensus from overruling this temporarily restriction. We need a restriction on this page. Regice2020 (talk) 00:31, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
    • Why not give six-months moratorium request move instead at least? Because this 6-month moratorium need to use to give more information about that event. This event can be last until summer.36.76.229.147 (talk) 00:39, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose I don't think blocking a RM will be more productive.xinbenlv Talk, Remember to "ping" me 00:45, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
    Support, convinced by @Hurricane Noah: at Special:Diff/940855982 xinbenlv Talk, Remember to "ping" me 09:02, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose any moratorium on name change discussions. Weakly oppose a one week moratorium Neutral on a 5-day moratorium on actual formal move requests because they do require participation and there seems to be no chance at consensus without more careful consideration of options. - Wikmoz (talk) 01:47, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Strongly support - the common name in the media has stuck, and the TP is filling up with move req's and attempts to get around the RM process. Freeze it for a few weeks.50.111.33.78 (talk) 02:15, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose - Censorship is bad. If you don't like the discussion(s) don't participate. The guideline for page names says it is strongly waited for recent names. wp:namechanges Excerpt:
Sometimes the subject of an article will undergo a change of name. When this occurs, we give extra weight to reliable sources written after the name change.
Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 02:48, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose This is neither a formal RfC to be binding nor is it an appropriate proposal. RM will come and they will be speedy closed or entertained with discussion as the community sees fit, this is neither as big a deal as some make it out to be nor is restricting RM for a developing event that has been especially notable because of the name changes an appropriate measure. Sleath56 (talk) 03:09, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support even a 1 week pause would save effort! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:48, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Strongly Oppose - the page title is technically factually incorrect because this article isn't about the outbreak in Wuhan but rather a wider epidemic. I haven't come across any other article which has kept the original location in the title of the epidemic page. Tsukide (talk) 07:41, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
  • (crossposting to WP:AN; involved closer) Strong support as proposed. The primary issue is not that unregistered contributors are participating but the fact that this is an ongoing issue, the current proposal to have a one-month moratorium was greatly needed, I see all the closes after mine were speedily closed (there was one restarted on the same day!). The correct process to argue with any move you disagree with is to file a Wikipedia:Move review after you discuss it with the closer. You are supposed to debate whether the close was fair or not in reference to the consensus and then decide if such a request is required. Opening RMs again and again with the same or different title is pointless if you want to establish consensus, when there wasn't any in the first place. --qedk (t c) 10:31, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Strongly Oppose Things are moving fast. In that context, a one month moratorium is a ridiculously long time to ban discussion of something. Bondegezou (talk) 14:06, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose-1 month is long, but it is an epidemic, so how about a few weeks? After all, the month of February is 672 hours, and March is 72 hours longer — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.24.150.111 (talk) 16:24, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I would rather suggest that one new formal, properly prepared and advertised move discussion is initated which cannot speedily closed. Before it is initiated we should have a discussion on which new title we should propose. The new move discussion can than be held in a constructive manner and what ever result it brings we obey and then we impose a moratorium on new move request.Tvx1 17:13, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Strongly Oppose The disease page (2019-nCoV acute respiratory disease) is going to be renamed soon it seems. Once that is done, a renaming of this page to become consistent with the new name there will be needed. (The proper name for this page is 2019-20 XXX outbreak, where XXX is the disease name.) Afterwards, a moratorium like the one suggested here will be a good idea. EMS | Talk 19:24, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Stop it. This is ridiculous. If it turns out that this eventually is no longer used as the common name, the page can be moved to whatever the common name ends up being. There is no rush. Natureium (talk) 21:23, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
If it turns out that this eventually is no longer used as the common name... Your criteria for a move has been met. "Wuhan coronavirus" is no longer the common name by any measure. Regarding recognizability, "coronavirus" has a 50:1 advantage over "Wuhan coronavirus" and "COVID" has at least a 2:1 advantage based on Google Trends-. Wikmoz (talk) 17:49, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Strongly Oppose The current title of this page is clearly a divisive issue. Regardless of one’s opinion on the title, prohibiting further discussion would be to silence those with dissenting opinions and suppress open discussion as well as constructive criticisms. Ganymede94 (talk) 06:25, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Very few newspaper headlines are currently using "Wuhan", instead it's mostly "China" or occasionally "Global" Robertpedley 17:01, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Strongly Oppose We should not censor the discussions. There's nothing wrong or harmful with starting a new discussion. --Efly (talk) 22:58, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Move to table proposal until the reopened move review closes 20 February 2020. The move review already exerts a de-facto moratorium. Until then, I'm going to urge people to comment there instead of opening even more move requests. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 17:25, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose According to the latest Google Trends:Google Trends. Term COVID is four times more searched as compared to Wuhan CoronavirusTyr1118 (talk) 03:39, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

2019–20 coronavirus outbreak[edit]

Hold your fire! I know this is a very contentious issue.

This is not a formal move request so there's no need to vote or participate. If you're annoyed that this is being discussed for the nth time this week, you can ignore this discussion as there's no risk of an adverse outcome. Please do feel free to chime in as well. I am very interested to get some general feedback on a possible interim name solution. I've read through all prior arguments on this topic's name and surveyed about 20 newspapers of record and government health agencies.

I think the above title could work as it does solve the immediate naming concern in an inoffensive manner. However, in the interest of WP:CONSENSUS, the name intentionally does not introduce "COVID-19" or "novel" or "disease" or "epidemic" or "pandemic" into the discussion. Nor does it propose any change to the "2019–20" date range.

This discussion may well lead to less move requests on the way to consensus. WP:CCC and please WP:CIVIL.

2019–20 coronavirus outbreak

- Wikmoz (talk) 02:10, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

  • Move to close this thread immediately: This is yet another attempt to reframe prior discussions in a manner different from those originally participating in those discussions, and to deride and portray as conspiracy theorists anyone who disagrees with renaming the article. This is more disruption and failure to stop the abuse of a deceased equid form. 199.66.69.88 (talk) 02:54, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
This is a new name idea that may address most previously-raised concerns and reduce move requests now and for a while. There were no prior RMs for a general title like this. "...portray as conspiracy theorists anyone who disagrees with renaming the article." I don't understand this at all. What conspiracy theory? "...reframe prior discussions in a manner different from those originally participating" The list applies to a different proposal than those previously discussed. - Wikmoz (talk) 03:17, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
I don’t expect you to admit to wrongdoing in making this thread. I’m just asking that an admin close it as disruptive. There is no intention to seek self-criticism here. 199.66.69.88 (talk) 03:22, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
Understood. While we may disagree, I certainly appreciate your perspective. Thank you for participating in the discussion. - Wikmoz (talk) 03:32, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
Hi @Wikmoz: I want to give kudos for starting this thread. The pros and cons are clear. I support this discussion. xinbenlv Talk, Remember to "ping" me 05:42, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
@Wikmoz: I have closed my other thread and will join this discussion you started. xinbenlv Talk, Remember to "ping" me 06:25, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support - I'm going to put my foot in here and say that there's no good reason to keep the "Wuhan" in the title. Using "2019-20 coronavirus outbreak" or "2019-20 coronavirus epidemic" is sufficient and would be understood by virtually everyone. The arguments against are turning into gatekeeping now. Tsukide (talk) 08:32, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete Again, this article intent really for people wanting mess with Wikipedia community. A water down version of the outbreak should be place in main virus page. Regice2020 (talk) 08:43, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
Hahaha @XavierItzm: xinbenlv Talk, Remember to "ping" me 19:00, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support and also Propose 2019-20 coronavirus outbreak (Covid-19), resolve one of the CONS as not very procise xinbenlv Talk, Remember to "ping" me 19:00, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support All pros and cons indicated by you are neutral and logical. The is no need to include Wuhan in the name of the article if the outbreak/epidemic has gone beyond Wuhan. I have a question... how may I confirm all the articles that redirect to 2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak? Thank you! FranciscoMMartins (talk) 19:17, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
    • [1] All the best: Rich Farmbrough (the apparently calm and reasonable) 19:29, 14 February 2020 (UTC).
  • Comment The outbreak is of the disease, not the virus! And what (in Wikipedia) to call the disease is being debated at the 2019-nCoV acute respiratory disease page. If you want a new name, then I will suggest 2019-20 coronavirus disease 2019 outbreak. But even that is pending the disease page being renamed to coronavirus disease 2019, which has not happened yet. EMS | Talk 19:40, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
Agreed, regarding the disease. The proposal is far from perfect but I was aiming to keep this to the simplest possible and most inoffensive change. As soon as "disease" is introduced to the discussion, it opens many new rabbit holes of possible debate. - Wikmoz (talk) 09:25, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
Further to the above, COVID-19 outbreak may not ever need to be renamed. Considering this is a novel disease, in the future, everyone will remember the first time it occurred, which is now. So COVID-19 outbreak, eventually, will become a page on the historical outbreak. There is no need to expand in the title on its initial location, geographical spread, or even the clinical syndrome (which is changing). This is the first time that there has ever been an outbreak of the virus causing COVID-19, therefore per WP:COMMONNAME, COVID-19 outbreak as a title would probably persist for at least a decade, as the commonest name, even if there are future outbreaks. --Almaty (talk) 04:38, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
Since the 'common name' in the media REMAINS "coranavirus" - how does your claim of WP:COMMONNAME apply for the WHO designation? - TeeCeeNT (talk) 04:13, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
@TeeCeeNT:, the WP:COMMONNAME policy applies because Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources.. Therefore, we need to use the commonest name that is also unambiguous. --Almaty (talk) 04:48, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
WP:CRYSTALBALL applies to your predictions whether future outbreaks of the COVID-19 disease might happen and how they would be remembered. So far the actual numbers of infected and dead people are far lower than for the ongoing flu season (influenza kills around half a million people every year). This outbreak needs a name that stays unique even if the next outbreak of this disease would kill a billion people. LoveToLondon (talk) 14:26, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
This is a good point. Recognising that it is a global outbreak if you look at the Ebola precedent however it is called "West African Ebola virus epidemic" - not the specific country or city where it was first located. I think that 2019-20 coronavirus outbreak remains ambiguous. Longer titles get unwieldy which is why I think COVID-19 outbreak is clearest (despite it being the disease rather than the virus) --Almaty (talk) 22:23, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
You're citing local outbreaks that were isolated to a specific region. In those cases, it's logical to specificy the location of the outbreak. Accordingly, if the outbreak hadn't spread or if this topic only covered what was happening in Wuhan, the title you suggested could work or I'd suggest (as would the WHO based on your cited PDF), 2019–20 COVID-19 outbreak in Wuhan to avoid confusion. However, the outbreak is global and the content of this article discusses that global outbreak. - Wikmoz (talk) 18:04, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
The current COVID-19 outbreak is so far not a global outbreak, the point of putting people into quarantine is to prevent a global outbreak. It is more like the Western African Ebola virus epidemic that also had cases imported to Europe and America, including a death in the US. in Wuhan would be misleading since not all cases are at the starting point of the outbreak, just like Ebola virus epidemic in Western African would be misleading since this epidemic also included people who got infected with Ebola in the US. LoveToLondon (talk) 19:14, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Trying to get the facts right as basis for consensus I did strike out incorrect information from the overview table at the top:
As explained above the cited WHO guidelines are only about disease naming, not outbreak naming as applies to this article. The article for the disease is COVID-19.
It is not true that coronavirus aligns with scientific name of the disease and virus. The scientific name of the disease is coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and the scientific name of the virus is severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). It would be correct to call it 2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus disease 2019 outbreak, but that sounds more confusing than anything else.
LoveToLondon (talk) 18:50, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
It's relevant to mention in regards to the suggestion of your second point, that it would not be a correct alternative because it's wholly inventive for WP compromise per WP:TITLECHANGES. RS that use COVID-19 do so at the behest of the WHO's explicit adoption of the term to prevent geographic association, thus no RS that adopt COVID-19 would also in titling include "Wuhan" in logic and have not per observance. Sleath56 (talk) 19:58, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
You are still confusing the naming of the disease (should not include location) with the naming of the outbreak (usually contains location). Logic tells that COVID-19 outbreak would be wrong since there might be many future outbreaks (similar to Ebola, which even had two separate outbreaks in Congo in 2018). LoveToLondon (talk) 21:40, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
It's quite clear and so is my response wherein your suggestion is WP:TITLECHANGES. It's rather explicit that the intent of the adoption was to prevent geographic association for transitive suggestions such to split a difference there. The potential for ambiguity is easily resolvable with the inclusion of "2019-20" at the front in my view Sleath56 (talk) 02:19, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
Understood. I've revised the original point to clarify that it only supports the WHO naming guidelines to the extent that people interpret "Wuhan" in the title to reference the disease/virus name rather than the location. - Wikmoz (talk) 20:20, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. I've added more of my points in cursive to the table for review. LoveToLondon (talk) 23:02, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
Thanks! I will review them tonight and offer feedback, if any. For now, I've just removed these COMMONNAME examples as they're all from BEFORE the official name was announced. Per WP:NAMECHANGE and WP:COMMONNAME, we'd look for current usage. None of these publishers continue to use "Wuhan coronavirus": NYT (Wuhan coronavirus outbreak), South China Morning Post (Wuhan coronavirus outbreak), Reuters (Wuhan coronavirus outbreak), MarketWatch (Wuhan coronavirus outbreak), SkyNews (Wuhan coronavirus outbreak), Vox (Wuhan coronavirus outbreak), Aljazeera (Wuhan coronavirus outbreak) - Wikmoz (talk) 23:29, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
I took a quick pass and included most of your arguments. Just organized and condensed a bit but let me know if the reworded form misrepresents your position. - Wikmoz (talk) 23:47, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support 2019–20 coronavirus outbreak. Wikmoz provides ample evidence that this is the current common name. And I think we should change this title ASAP to something, anything, that doesn't include Wuhan. Reason: this title can be read as if the name of the disease is "Wuhan coronavirus”. But WHO made a huge point that “We had to find a name that did not refer to a geographical location, an animal, or an individual or group of people” to avoid stigma.[2][3][4] Based on how we have handled other such cases, we have used the full title of the disease in the main article about the disease, and the abbreviated title for the outbreak. Example: Severe acute respiratory syndrome vs. Timeline of the SARS outbreak. That would suggest a change to this title to 2019-20 COVID-19 outbreak. But I'm also fine with the proposed title here, "2019–20 coronavirus outbreak." I don’t really care what we change it to, as long as we change it to SOMETHING. Right now this is even listed on the WP front page, under In the News, as “Wuhan coronavirus outbreak.” That's wrong. We need to fix that. Soon. (BTW I strongly disagree with proposals for a "moratorium" on discussing the name, or demands for a speedy close of such discussions. This issue is only being discussed so heavily because so many people realize that the current name is unfortunate.) -- MelanieN (talk) 21:01, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
Your SARS example shows how naming was done in 2003 when Wikipedia was new and had no established rules. The primary source makes it clear that the huge point of the WHO applies only to the naming of the disease, not the naming of the outbreak. More recent examples how we and the WHO handle such cases are:
Note how both Wikipedia and WHO are using Kivu in naming of the current outbreak that is a Public Health Emergency of International Concern like the 2019-2020 Wuhan COVID-19 outbreak. LoveToLondon (talk) 22:09, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
A majority of arguments made for "Wuhan" over the past two weeks have been that "Wuhan coronavirus" is the common disease name and won't be confused as specifying the outbreak location. You seem to be for "Wuhan" by making the opposite argument that "Wuhan" indicates the location and won't be confused for the disease name. Both are valid but seemingly contradictory arguments. Maybe there’s some nuance in there that it's specifying the origin location?
The cases you cite were of a named virus "Ebola" isolated to a specific region. I think in those cases, it's logical to specify the region of the outbreak. If the argument is that the current outbreak is not global and localized to China, then you should be equally against "Wuhan" as incorrect and presumably in favor of renaming the topic to "2019–20 China coronavirus outbreak". But again, I can see the exception where you're recommending inclusion of the original location as a reference.
Since those outbreaks were of Ebola, I think it's safer to assume that most people would read it as a location to your point. However, to remove ambiguity, I'd argue that those topic titles should be updated to "2018–2020 Ebola epidemic in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Uganda" (per your PDF, "2017 Ebola virus outbreak in Democratic Republic of the Congo", and "2018 Ebola outbreak in Équateur province". - Wikmoz (talk) 23:22, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
Would you also argue that Western African Ebola virus epidemic should be updated to 2013–2016 Ebola epidemic in Western Africa, Europe and the United States? LoveToLondon (talk) 00:02, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
It's a good question. In this case, there was one death and 7 infections outside of West Africa. Perhaps that doesn't cross the line of a global outbreak. I don't know. It would align with the naming of topics like 2013–2014 Zika virus outbreaks in Oceania, where there were isolated cases outside of the region. I could see a couple factors come into play in the decision including that the specified region is half a continent and there's also a named virus in the title so the odds of confusion (i.e. that there's a disease named West African Ebola) are much lower but still there. All said, "2013–2016 Ebola epidemic in West Africa" may be the clearest title. If the international impact was more substantial then perhaps just "2013–2016 Ebola epidemic" would work provided there were no other regional Ebola epidemics in that timeframe, like 2009 flu pandemic. - Wikmoz (talk) 19:33, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support. I don't want to say this but some people view Wikipedia as a reliable source. Many people say we should wait for a common name, but we cannot ignore the fact that the common name itself might be influenced by what the current Wikipedia name is. As such, I believe it is good to adopt a neutral interim name like 2019–20 coronavirus outbreak. --Efly (talk) 22:53, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment: half-baked WP:PRECISION mumbles:
  • I don't know if "2019–20" in the title has precedence. Spanish flu has "1918 influenza pandemic" bolded in the lede despite lasting into 1920. Its sister H1N1 outbreak lasted into 2010 but goes by 2009 flu pandemic. SARS outbreak redirects to Timeline of the SARS outbreak, whose title does not even mention the years. We've dubbed a fellow ongoing coronavirus outbreak 2012 Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus outbreak.
  • which is not adequately described by "coronavirus" because it's a family of viruses. It'd be like saying "2009 orthomyxovirus outbreak". "2019–20 coronavirus outbreak" makes it sound like an article discussing all notable coronavirus outbreaks during that time period. As a reader, I'd expect to then find more specific articles about MERS and COVID-19, which isn't what's happening here.
  • I'd expect an article titled "2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus oubreak" to be something like 2015 Middle East respiratory syndrome outbreak in South Korea. This article's scope exceeds what happened in Wuhan or Hubei province or even China.

I prefer minimal surprising of casual readers, especially future ones. If WP:COMMONNAME won't do that mainly because WHO literally just named COVID-19; most sources precede the naming, well, we might have to break out the WP:IAR crowbar. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 05:01, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

  • Support - There hasn't been a WP:COMMONNAME established and Wikipedia is imposing the "Wuhan" name onto society by choosing it over official names or other names. The "2019-20 coronavirus outbreak" is clear to identify and less problematic politically. It's no longer the "Wuhan outbreak" but a "global outbreak". Tsukide (talk) 08:30, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

update lead REPLACE[edit]

Replace "the death toll had surpassed the SARS outbreak in 2003." WITH

the death toll had surpassed the SARS coronavirus (SARS CoV) outbreak in 2003.

This clarifies the ambiguity between the new COVID-19, which is a SARS and a coronavirus disease too, and SARS (of the 2002-2004 cases) which seems to be used interchangeably with the disease and the virus name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.115.204.102 (talk) 04:10, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: outbreaks refer to diseases, not viruses. The disease is SARS, the virus itself SARS-CoV. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 17:44, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Simple arithmetic? Or original research? Incubation time, mortality, and convalescence time[edit]

There is an elephant in the room. The deaths and recoveries are elaborately listed in the article, but nobody wants simply to divide one by the other to arrive at a mortality rate. I cannot imagine that it is "original research" to divide two numbers. Or, for the incubation period, to count the number of days between infection and diagnosis. Anybody disagree? If not, please add (as automatically updating functions in the tables):

Asymptomatics' mortality 0.3% based on 2 deaths among 592 cases outside China as of 14 Feb 2020. The third death outside China, the 80-year old Japanese lady, is excluded here as she has no known connection to the monitored cohort in Japan.

Symptomatics' mortality more than 2.2% and less than 20.5% (standard errors negligible) based firstly on 1380 deaths among 63859 symptomatic monitored cases within China, and secondly on 1380 deaths and 6723 recoveries as of 14 Feb 2020.

These rates fall within the range of previous coronavirus outbreaks (SARS in 2003 with 9% mortality, and MERS in 2012 with 30% mortality).

The incubation period is minimally 10 days (time from primary infection at the latest Jan 25, to seeking medical diagnosis on Feb 4, based on the Diamond Princess cohort) and maximally 16 days (time from primary infection at the earliest Jan 20, to seeking medical diagnosis on Feb 4, based on the Diamond Princess cohort). Based on the first 10 cases on the Diamond Princess. Update: after 13 days of incubation, a female taxi driver in the Okinawa islands (Japan) has fallen ill today (Feb 14) after the Diamond Princess visited the islands on Feb 1.

The convalescence period is longer than 9 days, based on the absence of recovered cases among the 10 first cases diagnosed on Feb 4 on the Diamond Princess. 31.49.197.109 (talk) 09:17, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

This all constitutes original research because mortality rates are more complicated than the simple calculations you present. This is exactly why we have WP:OR rules! Bondegezou (talk) 09:32, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
To support your claim, could you please mention at least one "complication". My days as a virologist are long over, whereas you evidently are an expert. Thanks. 31.49.197.109 (talk) 09:42, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
If you divide deaths by recoveries, the result is not the mortality rate (particularly if number of deaths is relatively high compared to recoveries). For example, if there are 1000 deaths and 3000 recoveries then the mortality rate is 1/4 (not 1/3). 82.22.66.201 (talk) 00:04, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
There's the issue with the reliability of the reporting of numbers. It is far easier to count the number of people who died of the illness than to count the number of people who had the illness. A few days ago the number of cases jumped by 5,000 because of a change in the reporting methodology. Not forgetting that not everyone who gets the illness gets diagnosed. But even if that were fine, the policy of WP:OR still stands. Anywikiuser (talk) 11:41, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
Your first point is true, hence the necessity to provide minimal and maximal estimates. Over time these two boundaries will converge, and when the outbreak is over and everybody who will die has died, then we will know the final precise value. I have now been even more conservative and adjusted the minimal estimate. As to your second objection: the question is not whether we want to conduct original research on the data on Wikipedia (answer: we do not), but do we want to display the current data in such a way that people understand them easily, i.e. as percentages, as bar graphs, as semi-logarithmic plots, etc. 31.49.197.109 (talk) 12:07, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
There are far too many questions about the figures published at the moment to think about doing that (reliability, methodology, under-counting, etc.). See for example the weirdly low number of deaths from flu reported in China - 56 reported in 2016, 41 in 2017, 143 in 2019 compared to the many thousands annually in the US [5][6]. Estimates by scientists suggest far higher number of deaths for flu in China (annual mean of 88,100, 95% CI 84,200–92,000 in the years under study) compared to the official figures [7]. There are various estimates for COVID-19 floating around, we should only use those by published by professionals, rather than trying to do any calculations ourselves. It would be OR to do it ourselves. Hzh (talk) 12:51, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
Your point about potential influenza under-reporting is interesting but it would be speculative to transfer influenza figures to COVID-19 figures. We need to display the official figures that are available. That is all we have at the moment. In addition, I do not share your speculation of underreporting COVID-19 deaths: if the Chinese were indeed substantially under-reporting COVID-19 deaths (between 0.3 and 20 percent of cases as outlined above), then surely we would have seen a substantial proportion of the 218 cases die on the Diamond Princess in Japan? 31.49.197.109 (talk) 13:15, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
Surely the argument is the other way round. Why is the number of deaths so high in China percentage-wise compared to the rest of the world? One possibility is that the number of infections is far far higher, but many of those infected did not go a hospital, and only the ones who are more seriously ill would go to the hospitals, thereby inflating the death rate. (The figures for flu also suggest the under-reporting of infections, for example only around 600,000 cases reported in 2019 in China compared the many millions in the United States which has a significantly smaller population.) There may be other reasons, but all of these would only be speculations, and it would be OR to include them, as would creating figures out of the data ourselves. We can only report the conclusion of professionals. Hzh (talk) 13:34, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
You ask "Why is the number of deaths so high in China percentage-wise compared to the rest of the world?". Because the outbreak started in China several weeks before spreading elsewhere, so the patients in China have had more time to recover or die. We do not know the duration of the disease course with any certainty. But take the clear-cut Bavarian Webasto infection: infection on Jan 21, first four positive infection results on Jan 27, fourteen employees have tested positive meanwhile. Only today (Feb 14, that is after 18 days of disease) has the first Bavarian patient recovered. So how much longer for the other 13 Bavarians until recovery? And how many of those 13 might die? We do not know yet. The Chinese are several weeks ahead and therefore they have registered more final outcomes (whether death or recovery). 31.49.197.109 (talk) 15:50, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
A quick look at the number of recoveries vs deaths will tell you that your argument does not work. Far fewer recoveries percentage-wise inside China than outside China. Also try looking at the ratio of deaths vs recoveries (my quick calculation gives ~1:5 in China vs ~1:30 outside China, but you can try to get a more accurate count). Hzh (talk) 16:04, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
I make it 14.3% recoveries inside China versus 11.1% recoveries outside China (percentages relative to the confirmed cases). This modest difference may be due to the overwhelmed healthcare system inside China. As for the excess deaths inside China (deaths vs recoveries) - perhaps dying of the disease may take longer than recovering from it. Not sure. Let us leave the interpretation of the data to the insiders, and simply stick to the bland minimal and maximal statistics as I outlined above.31.49.197.109 (talk) 17:07, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
Huge thank you for the initiative and math work. Unfortunately, I agree that this would violate WP:OP. Regarding the incubation period, your analysis on the Diamond cohort may be correct but it's a very tough group since all of the subjects were in close confinement and would have been infected gradually as the virus jumped from person to person over time. Here are some of the incubation period estimates I've seen...
Based on 88 cases, a report from Eurosurveillance has the mean at 6.5 days.
Based on 10 cases, a paper in NEJM has the mean at 5.2 days.
Based on 1,099 cases, a paper on MedRxiv has the median at 3 days. Though this is PREPRINT.
Hope this helps - Wikmoz (talk) 20:33, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
I find it difficult to reconcile these three papers (incubation time of 3-6.5 days) with the 13 days of incubation time witnessed by the unfortunate female Japanese taxi driver 13 days after the Diamond Princess visited the Okinawa Islands. Her 13 days' incubation period falls outside the 95% confidence interval reported in the first two studies (the third study does not seem to report a confidence interval). Either the cruise ship is harbouring a "slower" virus variant, or the three papers are systematically underestimating the time point of infection. My hunch is that a cruise ship full of non-Chinese has a precisely defined history of contact and infection, whereas a land-based infection study in Wuhan (such as these three papers) needs to make complex and possibly inaccurate assumptions when their infections occurred. The first few of the 14 well-defined Bavarian Webasto infection cases also took 6 days of incubation period, so at the upper end of the three published estimates, and the remainder of the 14 Bavarian patients incubated at least 6 days if not longer (we are not told in media reports whether they infected each other rather than from the primary source - a Chinese visitor). Taken together, my hunch is that the three published studies have systematically underestimated the time point of infection, and thus their incubation times are somewhat too short. From a practical perspective, the 13-day case of the Okinawan taxi driver indicates that a quarantine period of 14 days may be insufficient. We cannot do original research on Wikipedia, but perhaps we can mention the recommended 14-day quarantine period in the same sentence as the Okinawan taxi driver...? That hint might save lives. 86.152.165.16 (talk) 07:43, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm puzzled about the death rate. How is that calculated? It seems to me that of the few cases cited, there are 10+ days between diagnosis and death, and so an accurate death rate would be to divide the total infected by the number of deaths ten days earlier. The total number of cases is increasing by thousands each day, so if we divide the current number of cases by the current number of deaths, we get a figure well below what it actually is, if we accept that the true death rate is the percentage of individuals who die after contracting the disease. --Pete (talk) 23:03, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

I have a different issue with arithmatic ... this time with the amount of time the virus can survive on surfaces outside of a host. I have was reading today in an effort to understand this and am confused by the seemingly conflicting information. I am not sure if I am reporting this correctly, haven't written on Wikipedia for many years, but thought I should let someone know. Under the Cause subheading it says "Coronavirus droplets only stay suspended in the air for a short time, but can stay viable and contagious on a metal, glass or plastic surface for up to nine days.[104]" and under the Prevention subheading it says "Coronaviruses can survive for a few hours on surfaces.[133] ". Can someone please validate and fix? Thanks. I-love-Adelaide (talk) 23:33, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

November '19 start date[edit]

According to Wendover Production's new video about coronavirus on February 11, 2020, it started in November 2019, so I think it should be changed. Also, add Wendover as the 564th source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.24.150.111 (talk) 16:32, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

The video (1) purports someone contracted it in November, but no sources that are in the description back this. You need to source your claims. TeeCeeNT (talk) 17:00, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
The first official case of an ill person was on December 1. Since there is an incubation period, that person must have been infected earlier, which was obviously in November. That's really a no-brainer.Tvx1 17:05, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
That does make sense, I was unaware that they back-identified a person that early. However, what is the user requesting here? That a sentence be included stating the virus was first contracted by humans probably in November? TeeCeeNT (talk) 17:20, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
We don't know when the first infection happened, so it's best to leave it out. One of the sources in the article says "the first human infections must have occurred in November 2019—if not earlier" - [8], meaning it can happen before November. All we know for sure is that it happened some time before December 1, 2019. The first person known to be infected does not mean that he or she is actually the first. Hzh (talk) 19:43, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
The onset of the first symptoms is more interested. We do not know when the first infection occurred exactly. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:47, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
YouTube videos are not RS. WP:YTREF holds especially true for a pop info channel like Wendover. Sleath56 (talk) 06:27, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
Ok,so did you watch the video,or just make up the source?I am only ok with it if you actually watched it.2600:387:5:807:0:0:0:1A (talk) 16:41, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
As Sleath56 wrote, YouTube videos are not RS. WP:YTREF. I started to watch the video and it's unacceptable as a source. 1) It claims "The Wuhan Coronavirus began, like all new viruses, with a remarkably ordinary moment." That's speculation and fiction. We have no idea how it started. 2) It then says "In late-November, 2019, someone—it is not yet known who—ate a wild animal that, by chance, carried the novel coronavirus, and days later, started to feel the symptoms of what initially seemed like a bad cold." That's also speculation and fiction. We have no idea if the source was a "wild animal." Researchers have not identified any persons infected prior to the initial group of 41 people. We don't know when infections in humans started other than the cluster that was observed in late December. One third of this initial cluster seemed to have no connection to the seafood market. We have no idea if early people had when seemed like a bad cold - keep in mind that diarrhoea is often present with COVID-19 which is atypical of a cold. I stopped watching at this point. --Marc Kupper|talk 05:23, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
Correction - I found the source for the Dec 1 patient.[9] "The symptom onset date of the first patient identified was Dec 1, 2019." This person had no known connection to the seafood market nor any of the other cases. --Marc Kupper|talk 07:02, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Infobox map colors[edit]

I would kindly like to suggest that the coloring in the infobox map's colors be tweaked. At the moment, I feel like we're using to dark tones for relatively low number of cases. For instance the USA gets a really dark tone for just 16 cases among over 328 million inhabitants. Therefore I would suggest that we tweak which tone is applied to which range of cases. Currently the distribution is as follows (darkest tone on top):

  • 1000+
  • 100-999
  • 10-99
  • 5-9
  • 2-4
  • 1
  • none

I suggest to change this to:

  • 1000+
  • 100-999
  • 50-99
  • 10-49
  • 5-9
  • 1-4
  • none

An other possibility would be:

  • 1000+
  • 500-999
  • 100-499
  • 50-99
  • 10-49
  • 1-9
  • none

Any thoughts?Tvx1 17:29, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

I don’t have any particular feelings about color, just that we should be careful to follow MOS:CONTRAST with whatever is chosen. There’s already been a complaint about accessibility on a different chart on this page (see #Semi-protected edit request on 14 February 2020 above). 199.66.69.88 (talk) 18:32, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
@Tvx1: I'm the author of the map. It has initially been created on January 31st and the scale was determined according to what fitted best at the time. I agree it needs to be changed. The map is now displayed in 36 languages and as a result I feel a bit accountable to update it daily (which wasn't necessarily the initial plan). As told above, what's important is to keep a limited number of categories for contrast readability reasons. I agree with your first scale suggestion, it would fit better with the current situation. However, I need to adjust all frames of the animated GIF for this and I can't take the time immediately, I'll try doing this fast. Metropolitan (talk) 15:55, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for you reply. My proposal was exactly intended to update the shade distribution for the current situation. Do not worry to much about the time it takes to change. There is no deadline on Wikipedia. The most important thing is that the update is made.Tvx1 16:27, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
@Tvx1: Map has been updated. Metropolitan (talk) 06:20, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Problem in counting[edit]

Since you reference the "tested confirmed cases" as orange only, this does not meet the graphics. Orange bar has to be (and obviously is) only the active cases which are still open, meaning neither dead or recovered. This is, because you are keeping them in one diagram. So I would propose to either move them into a new diagram or name this organge bar "tested confirmed cases (undecided / active). Kleinelucy (talk) 23:01, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 February 2020[edit]

The name should be changed to 2019-2020 COVID-2019 outbreak. ArtistBookGirl (talk) 05:03, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

WHO seems to have made COVID-19 the official name. See https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-02-14/why-whos-official-name-for-the-coronavirus-matters/11964176 HiLo48 (talk) 05:19, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
I agree Wuhan should be removed from the title and use the official WHO title Ganymede94 (talk) 07:02, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
Just simply copy the text "Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) outbreak" from the WHO main page, which completely avoid original research. --Yejianfei (talk) 07:08, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 Not done: page move requests should be made at Wikipedia:Requested moves. Or rather Wikipedia:Move review. I advised you to review move history documented in this talk page's headers and consider it seriously before opening yet another move review request. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 07:32, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
Hello ArtistBookGirl and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your interest in this topic. Title changes require consensus among editors. The title of this topic has been the subject of many extended discussion for two weeks. Some discussions are ongoing on this talk page and others. Unfortunately, we haven't found any consensus yet but I think we're slowly making progress and am hopeful we can get there within a week or two. For now, please do not open a move request. - Wikmoz (talk) 07:36, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

The coronavirus did not start in Wuhan, it started somewhere 30km near it so the name should change to 2019-20 (town name) coronavirus outbreak so the name must change to that name. P.S. Can anyone research that town name near Wuhan? Remenber it is approx. 30km away. Wojciech 2020 (talk) 22:31, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 February 2020[edit]

Change "racism and xenophobia" to "accusations of racism and xenophobia". Claiming that dislike for Chinese culture is EQUAL to fear of what is different or claims of racial superiority is an unsubstantiated psychoanalysis and random accusation based on NOTHING. It is a broad sweeping claim on a group of people, those who dislike China which they are entitled to dislike, same as racism. It is NOT substantiated that people who dislike Chinese culture think all Chinese people are the same. AT ALL. JUST BECAUSE IT'S IN VOGUE TO JUMP TO THIS CONCLUSION DOESN'T MAKE IT A FACT. Rjenman123 (talk) 00:13, 16 February 2020 (UTC) Rjenman123 (talk) 00:13, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

 Partly done: to avoid synthesis and original research, I have browsed through the sources for the sentence in the intro and the small section in the body. (I have not clicked through to the article specifically about the xenophobia and racism.) In those sources, the words "racism" and "xenophobia" occur in the context of quoting or reporting thoughts of individuals of Chinese or Asian descent, or something like "reports of racism/xenophobia are on the rise". The body paragraph accurately summarizes what sources say, so I've left it alone. I have changed the intro from "xenophobia and racism" to "Reports of xenophobia and racism" (Special:Diff/941003057). I hope I've made the correct call in avoiding synthesis and original research. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 01:05, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Reporting "xenophobia " is not appropriate. Claiming the people who dislike China all just fear things that are different is based on nothing and is totally insane. Rjenman123 (talk) 00:17, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 00:42, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
I think Rotideypoc41352's phrasing is fine. The sources absolutely support characterizing those incidents as xenophobia and racism, and it must be remembered that the standard for inclusion is verifiability rather than strict correctness. If we were talking about specific instances of xenophobia or racism, it might be appropriate to qualify those reports as "claims" or "accusations" in order to avoid BLP issues, but that's not where we are. As to the complaint that, Claiming the people who dislike China all just fear things that are different is based on nothing and is totally insane., I don't see this in the current article (and that's what we're concerned with here). I understand that there may be a lot of oversimplification going on in the media, and you seem to be concerned with a conflation of opposing/questioning the PRC government with the same sentiment towards Chinese people. But even if that is the case, Wikipedia is not the place to right great wrongs. I hope that better addresses your concerns. 199.66.69.88 (talk) 18:54, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Graph question[edit]

Recognise theres a log one but what do we think of this, being easily editable, for the China daily case rate? But I was hoping to make a graph "cumulative daily reported case fatality rate" based on the daily reports of the cumulative number of cases and the cumulative number of deaths for China as a whole. If I do a division of the two numbers is there a WP:SYN issue? --Almaty (talk) 05:23, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Please note this graph is from February 1 to 16, for the China daily new reported case rate (I need help with the axis titles) --Almaty (talk) 05:29, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Have updated what do we think of this graph? -—06:28, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Please see my sandbox as to where I would put it. --Almaty (talk) 13:28, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
[EDITED] It looks good, BUT using or even presenting the case fatality rate (CFR) during an outbreak is extremelly deceiving! I'm annoyed by how the WHO keeps using this silly statistic to downplay the severity of the virus! The D/(D+R) is a much better approximation to the final CFR and is, thus, much more useful. If you intend to make a timeline for the CFR, you must make one for the D/(D+R) (ideally in one figure to show how they eventually converge) and mention that the latter is more reliable. Otherwise, it's better to have nothing, since it would be deceiving people with WHO's malefic politics. Alexiscoutinho (talk) 16:16, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
Agree, data manufactured by the CCP is false. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 17:22, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
I agree, this graph has to be removed, as it misleads the general public. The graph is mixing (dividing) the number of people infected e.g. 30 days ago and diagnosed 20 days ago (-30 days from today infected, -30+10 days incubation = -20 days diagnosed, 0=today dying) with the people diagnosed today, that is about 10 days ago infected). Even D/(D+R) is not the best approximation, as I can imagine the infection to death time interval can be significantly shorter (or different) than infection to recovery time interval. It will be nice to dig out from the WHO/Chinese data the average time for diagnose to death time interval and diagnose to recovery time interval. This can be used for calculating of better estimate of the mortality by improving D/(D+R) formula. Vladimir.Smutny 12:15, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
Agree, the true death chance/mortality at each stage/day of the outbreak should be a bit lower than stock D/(D+R). However, if we try to improve it by considering those delays you mentioned we would likely get framed for WP:OR as we would be adding a degree of subjectivity to the data. I think there would be no problem if we used a professional research that did your suggestion (why isn't the WHO doing it? money involved?). Alternatively, we could comment that the true mortality as of each day (during the outbreak) is a bit lower than the D/(D+R) and much higher than the CFR. Alexiscoutinho (talk) 13:13, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 February 2020[edit]

Request: in lead, please remove misinformation/racism and replace with initial denial of outbreak

In the lead, please remove the final paragraph

Misinformation spread primarily online about the coronavirus which ....  fear and hostility occurring in several countries.

and replace it with this

Early warnings of the outbreak by local Chinese doctors including Li Wenliang in December 2019 were initially censored and suppressed by provincial authorities before the central Chinese government implemented a more transparent policy.[10]

Reason: In the article body, the misinformation and xenophobia sections are quite short and based only on anecdotal sources (not on opinion polls, much less on academic/sociological studies), so should not feature prominently in the lead. The initial provincial suppression policy however has a long section in the article, is of general interest to avoid similar mistakes in other countries (Indonesia) and this should be briefly mentioned in the lead. 31.49.112.219 (talk) 07:22, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: Both topics requested for removal are relevant to the lead because of their overwhelming coverage in RS. In case of the latter, the notability of which has been repeatedly discussed and affirmed on the Talk for that article. A current deficit in Wikipedia coverage and not RS coverage isn't grounds for removal. Sleath56 (talk) 08:26, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
I do not follow your logic and request a second opinion by someone else. On Wikipedia, the lead is supposed to reflect the current article. The article is mainly about the outbreak and its handling by Chinese authorities. If, as you say, there is a different Wikipedia article which deals with misinformation and xenophobia, then it is not the job of the lead to summarise that other article. Secondly, you have not commented on my request to mention the original mishandling of the outbreak, and the currently more professional handling by the Chinese government. 31.49.112.219 (talk) 09:20, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
You're welcome to a second opinion but I don't see how your point contests the relevancy of those two entries as pertaining to the outbreak. As your request pertains changes in the lead, the requirement is that you'll address the point made above which are that those entries satisfy MOS:LEAD. The second point was not added because the requirement for addition requires you to provide citations of RS on the assertion of "initially censored and suppressed by provincial authorities before the central Chinese government implemented a more transparent policy" Sleath56 (talk) 10:05, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Donations for victims[edit]

I saw a Wiki Folklore banner at the top of the page. Perhaps Wikipedia should display a banner leading to organisations soliciting monies for the victims?Axe Dude (talk) 15:01, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the page 2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak. If possible, please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned. If you cannot edit the article's talk page, you can instead make your request at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#Current requests for edits to a protected page. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 17:49, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

"Cumulative calculated case fatality rate in China by date" graph is incorrect[edit]

This graph cites the daily WHO situation reports as a source, but the cumulative case fatality rate does *not* match the numbers given in the reports. For example, the WHO sitrep for February 15 shows cumulative total cases in China is 66,576, cumulative deaths is 1,524; this gives a cumulative case fatality rate of approximately 2.3%. Global Cerebral Ischemia (talk) 15:20, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

I adjusted the graph to properly match the cited source data. Global Cerebral Ischemia (talk) 15:27, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for the correction. I think it was removed for some reason, I thought there was a comment pertaining to WHO politics when I checked on my mobile earlier today, perhaps I was mistaken. Please note that this is not an estimate of the severity of the disease but a commonly used easily understandable method during outbreak investigations. It is under the deaths section, because it pertains to deaths, not the severity. It will be changed and updated, that is why I made it in wiki code. No one brought up WP:SYN yet, which I need guidance on. I think it also gives another perspective to the main graph. I'll put it back in (kindly your version @Global Cerebral Ischemia: - I also received a thank for it, so we'll see if that version stays. Also note WP:MEDRS is happy with the WHO as a source. --Almaty (talk) 07:39, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
Well, with that disclaimer below the chart, it is much less deceiving (it still is if people don't read it). However, I still think that the D/(D+R) should be included (in some form) in the same chart, since it is much more meaningful. You even mentioned that the CFR doesn't portray the severity of the virus, so, then, let's show something that actually tries to, because everyone else seems to be trying to downplay the virus. By the way, I had moved my original comment to the Graph_question section. Alexiscoutinho (talk) 13:52, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Move Suggestion: 2019–20 coronavirus disease outbreak[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Please use the #2019–20 coronavirus outbreak section to discuss this Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:29, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

The first sentence of this article now starts with "The 2019–20 coronavirus disease outbreak ..." and that seems to be sticking. I kindly suggest that we have on that basis found the new name for this article, I suggest that poeple vote below over the next 24 hours, after which the thread should be closed (preferably by an admin). If there is general support for this proposal, then the closer should initiate a formal RM. I know that everyone is RM-shy after recent events, but I think the time has come.

The difference between this and the suggestion above is the added word "disease". But once again, it is the disease that this is an outbreak of, not the virus EMS | Talk 15:31, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

  • Oppose - Do we really have to do this again? Really? Ok. I opose on ground of WP:COMMONNAMES with a dash of WP:RECENTISM concern, a sprinkle of WP:CRYSTAL. Coronavirus is ambiguous (which coronavirus?) and COVID-19 is not established as common name. Wuhan coronavirus is the right balance of common enough and specific enough. Furthermore, I do not consider Sinophobia concerns as valid arguments are Wikipedia's job is not to right great wrongs, and Anglophone culture does not recognise naming diseases as negative (see Alzheimer's disease or Spanish flu). Melmann 16:32, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support - The COVID-19 name is now being used to describe the outbreak. TheGreatSG'rean (talk) 17:12, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose - In fact, a big strong Oppose. Really, we don't need to start this discussion over and over again. Raysonho (talk) 17:28, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment I would support a formal RM submitted in two days time, on February 18, per the discussions held in the MRV. When that RM opens, the citation of 'RM repetition' is no longer relevant and I expect the quality of support and opposition to amount more than "I want this/I oppose this". The last RM devolved too much into WP:VOTE territory and participants of the February 18 RM should be reminded of WP:NOTDEM and expect to engage in points of order presented. Sleath56 (talk) 17:46, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
@Rotideypoc41352: If the view is that the new RM should procedurally start when the MRV closes, I'm sure @Sean Heron, as OP, may agree to close the request early, given as it was already closed and reopened at his request, yet he also expressed support for the 18th date in the discussion there. Sleath56 (talk) 18:06, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose at this time per User:Melmann. The claim that the current name is problematic has never been adequately substantiated in my view, and I have seen no reason to change that view. I further object to Sleath56's attempts to dictate the scope of discussion, particularly that we should expect to engage in points of order presented. I do not plan on chaining myself to however a first-mover structures the discussion, and I urge all other participants to approach the disucssion as they would any other on Wikipedia. There is nothing special going on here, and the idea that this needs to adhere to some special structure compared to other RMs is unsupported by any policy or practice on Wikipedia. 199.66.69.88 (talk) 18:47, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
"we should expect to engage in points of order presented." This is basic WP:CONSENSUS and WP:NOTDEM, not my personal 'dictation.' Consensus is established through addressing points made, not talking past one another. As stated, the previous RM devolved into WP:VOTE, which is not 'the norm,' and merits mention. The fact that there have been numerous protracted RM and that numerous discussion on this article's RMs have been opened on various noticeboards including on WP:AN/I: 1234 shows there is absolutely something 'special' in how irregular the RM process has been far from the standard "approach the disucssion as they would any other on Wikipedia." Through that, I don't see how the comment above which simply advocates the RM to be held with a constructive approach to consensus-building is inappropriate. I fail to see how your comment can be construed as anything more than an invitation to incite WP:IAR. Sleath56 (talk) 19:46, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Personal Closing Comments[edit]

  1. I have no objection to this closure. Had it not already happened I would be closing it myself due to lack of the desired consensus or any reasonable chance of obtaining it at this time.
  2. The suggestion of Sleath56 to not revisit this matter before 20 February is accepted and encouraged.
  3. Even so, "Wuhan" must be removed from the title and "disease" or a related term (like "syndrome") needs to be added.
  4. I am aware that any new name may need to be changed again in another month or two. However, the current title is quite stale, and any progress towards a more correct description of this outbreak in the title will be good (but this can also wait until after 20 February).

EMS | Talk 04:32, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

SG untracable cases steady; Japan local transmission growing exponentially[edit]

Singapore has had a stable number of about 7-9 untraced cases for nearly a week (presumably old cases find origins and new cases are untraced) while Japan's locally transmitted cases have been growing exponentially over three days. The SG case might be relevant for the lead here, since the SG PM brought attention to it. Or we can wait until WHO or another medical source decides that these are notable. Boud (talk) 16:28, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Please see WP:OR. Your observations may be correct, but Wikipedia exists to document the knowledge of others, not to create and disseminate novel knowledge. We must wait for an authoritative source to confirm your observations. EMS | Talk 04:37, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Hospitals[edit]

Classification of Chinese Hospitals article talks about a system of speciality hospitals - this is unclear if this "speciality" is in this system or is someone using the term wrongly in English - can someone who knows the chinese system check? AND then update the article appropriately - I put the same request on the first hospital listed's page.

This actually has a real world use in how people might prepare for such hispitals based on a working chinese model in other locations — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.115.204.102 (talk) 17:20, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Our Chinese article about the Classification of Hospitals in China (zh:中國醫院等級) notes at time of writing that 9862 hospitals have not yet been assigned a grade. This new hospital is surely among them. That said, the word "specialty" (專科) is in the full name of the hospital. Does that address your question? 97.115.240.136 (talk) 06:17, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

47 missing cases[edit]

47 cases were missing from Japan so the GIF map must be updated again with 47 exta people to Japan. Wojciech 2020 (talk) 17:37, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

I mentioned exta but it should be extra. Wojciech 2020 (talk) 17:38, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

@Wojciech 2020: Comments for updating the gif would probably best go at Commons:File talk:2019-nCoV-outbreak-timeline.gif. (Right now I see 56 for Japan for 15 Feb on the gif map; the official WHO data at Template:2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus data/Japan medical cases give 53 for Japan for 15 Feb; in any case, chyba lepiej na gif talk page.) Boud (talk) 20:16, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
Figures shown on the map are those officially published in WHO daily situation reports. Metropolitan (talk) 06:26, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Why has the link been removed? (Timeline of the 2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak in December 2019 – January 2020)[edit]

Has there been any discussion about the utility of the removal of the reference to the Timeline of the 2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak in December 2019 – January 2020 entry in this article? Because as of now, only the February article is referenced. I do not see a good reason to remove it from here.--Adûnâi (talk) 22:30, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Because, it is February ‘20, and it can get clogged. 2600:387:5:805:0:0:0:AC (talk) 23:12, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Please reword the lead[edit]

In ordinance with WP:AVOIDBOLD, Please change lead sentence of the article from:

to

And please change date of the beginning outbreak from 1 December 2019 to 8 December 2019 because the outbreak actually started in 8 December. 36.69.53.66 (talk) 23:33, 16 February 2020 (UTC).

Suggestion to remove the countries with recovered patients from the animated map[edit]

According to the animated map the disease is spreading while most countries with less than 5 patients now do not have any confirmed patients. So it is better to animate the map removing those countries gradually. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samanpress (talkcontribs) 04:31, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps we can change the colour to a paler pink to show former infection. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:22, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Incubation period[edit]

Up to 24 days! - https://nypost.com/2020/02/13/coronavirus-incubation-period-may-be-much-longer-than-once-thought/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.109.70.54 (talk) 11:16, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

It has not been peer reviewed. . . Dannelsluc (talk) 15:01, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

14 Infected Americans flown back to the U.S[edit]

Apparently at the last minute 14 infected Americans were let onboard for the evacuation effort in Tokyo. Does this add to the U.S infections in the infection/death/recovery chart? Link to article Dannelsluc (talk) 14:53, 17 February 2020 (UTC)