Talk:COVID-19 recession

Too Soon?

@Sa.vakilian:While I thank you in a way for creating the article, this particular article has a few setbacks. The first of which, it feels like it's just a copy and paste of Financial impact of the 2019-20 coronavirus pandemic, and hardly presents any new information. The second problem, the biggest one, is that this has been tried before. Another thing is that this feels like an essay/editorial you might find in the New York Times. An article about the upcoming recession certainly is notable, but I suspect that they will be knocking on the door soon, telling us to wait until next year. In the meantime, definitely find a discussion to get involved in, and perhaps we-work this article to look at the big picture in an encyclopedic way.

Thank you for your considerations, and if you have any questions, feel free to contact me at anytime, and I'll try to help.Britishfinance, do you have any input on this? Thanks, Sincerely, User:Zanygenius^chat For info on 1 Jul 20 move, see this. 16:54, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

I would avoid creating many different articles on the Financial Impact of the virus - It is very hard to keep even one major article properly up to date and well written, it won't happen if split over many articles. I would change this as a Redirect to the main Financial impact of the 2019-20 coronavirus pandemic. Britishfinance (talk) 16:56, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

@Britishfinance: Thank you for your fast response. I definitely feel like we could merge this all in to the Financial impact article. Perhaps somewhere down the line, like in June, or even later, like 2021, perhaps we could redirect all the articles to a name based on what ends up occurring? I agree that too many articles would be borderline impossible to maintain, and we aren't a directory. However, while "Financial impact" works very well, and fits with the quo of everything with the virus, what will we think about it in 20 years? For this reason, I say merge into Financial impact for now, and revisit later. Would you agree? Thanks, Sincerely, User:Zanygenius^chat For info on 1 Jul 20 move, see this. 17:09, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, create a new section in Financial impact of the 2019-20 coronavirus pandemic, titled "Global recession", and merge this into it. Then redirect this article to Financial impact of the 2019-20 coronavirus pandemic. Hope that makes sense. Britishfinance (talk) 17:21, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Britishfinance, I second this. I also think the normal 7 day waiting period should be bypassed since there doesn't seem to be in objection and in consideration of the urgency involved in having concise and accurate information surrounding this subject. Sulfurboy (talk) 05:22, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes it does, Thank you. :) Stay safe, Sincerely, User:Zanygenius^chat For info on 1 Jul 20 move, see this. 17:36, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

• Yes, this article definitely should be merged. We are currently in the midst of this pandemic and its economic impact is still being determined day-by-day. It will probably result in a recession but I don't think that has been declared yet. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:24, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

@Liz:, Thanks for the input, definitely a lot of unknowns regarding the virus. Where should we merge to? Sincerely, User:Zanygenius^chat For info on 1 Jul 20 move, see this. 02:43, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Section B

@Zanygenius and Liz: I disagree with merging this article in Financial impact. "The global economy will contract this year, International Monetary Fund managing director Kristalina Georgieva said in a statement after a call with G20 finance ministers and central bankers... the economic outlook for the world economy for 2020 is negative—a recession at least as bad as during the global financial crisis or worse. But we expect recovery in 2021". " [1] As IMF's statement describes the crisis may be even worse than a global financial crisis. You see, the real economy has been damaged severely and we can not merge the damage of economic sectors such as transportation and tourism in Financial impact of the 2019-20 coronavirus pandemic.--Seyyed(t-c) 06:43, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia is full of half-done articles that arose because one core topic was so broken up into many topics that they were all sub-standard/unfinished. It could happen that a larger "global recession" article might arise (which would still be a sub-section in the "financial impact" article, but with a "Main article" hat to the "global recession" article). However, my strong advice would be to create this inside the "financial impact" article first and let it progress from there. If this article is ever going to be really read it needs to be short and figures/table based (e.g. with the actual falls in GDP, and the new records those falls set). If it is just full of long paragraphs of well sources text on the "topic" of the global recession, it will be read by very few. Hence the benefit of keeping things consolidated until the real "encyclopedic-vale" factual GDP figures emerge. Britishfinance (talk) 09:29, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

It is not logical to merge a broader issue in one of its subsection!--Seyyed(t-c) 11:03, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

In all scenarios, the "2020 global economic recession" will appear as a sub-section in the "Financial impact of coronavirus" article. Whether there is also a standalone "2020 global economic recession" article is to be seen. I can tell you from experience, the thing readers will want from a "2020 global economic recession" article are the actual statistics and records of the recessions. However, most of those numbers will not be known for months. Hence, incubating the article inside "Financial impact" article will save editors of writing large bloated but well-referenced content on the daily chronicle of the emergence of global recession information, that will all be deleted in a 12-24 months time, in favour of a more reasonable slimmed-down article, with the actual tables of the GDP fall (and the associated economic records they will create), that readers want. Britishfinance (talk) 14:32, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Section C

@Britishfinance and Sa.vakilian: I do see where one day the impacts could be split up and have a large article on it's own, and in fact I tried to lay the groundwork for it earlier, but now I think we should draftify and wait. Sincerely, User:Zanygenius^chat For info on 1 Jul 20 move, see this. 14:14, 25 March 2020 (UTC) Actually scratch that. I want to ping a few dozen Wikipedians and achieve some consensus before moving on. We have policies contradicting other policies and everybody's best interest. As a new *ish* user, I officially retract my opinion. Sincerely, User:Zanygenius^chat For info on 1 Jul 20 move, see this. 14:25, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

"which is going to happen"

So Wikipedia can now have articles "predicting" things. How is this even allowed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.0.211.137 (talk) 03:36, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

@84.0.211.137:, Thank you for the question. Technically, Wikipedia has a rule against this kind of thing, however some notable and well sourced events may be accepted, such as the up-and-coming Olympics, in which case we have news already for this. Hope this helps, Sincerely, User:Zanygenius^chat For info on 1 Jul 20 move, see this. 03:41, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

As sources describe it is a certain prediction. The recession has begun. Please pay attention to IMF's statement.[2] --Seyyed(t-c) 06:33, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

It sounds like a dangerous thing for Wikipedia to do. Wikipedia is a go to source for tens or hundreds of millions of people. It should not serve as an amplifying platform for "certain predictions". Let the things happen first, and not codify analyses as if they were upcoming events.