Talk:COVID-19 pandemic

New to contributing?

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

Highlighted open discussions

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

01. Superseded by #9

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

02. Superseded by #7

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

03. Obsolete

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

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

05. Cancelled

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

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

06. Obsolete

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

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

08. Superseded by #16

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

09. Cancelled

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

Notes

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

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

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

012. Superseded by #19

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

013. Superseded by #15

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

014. Overturned

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

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

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

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

018. Superseded by #19

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Comment this discussion seems to have run its course, but !vote totals are pretty split. Can we have someone close this? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:38, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

References

Explanatory footnote removed

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Q: For whom do we write Wikipedia articles?

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

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

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

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

Here's my suggested copy edit:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ah okay, I was not aware of it being in the info box. This seems like an OK compromise, but like you, I would prefer it be in the first sentence. A compromise leaves all parties dissatisfied, haha. sam1370 (talk) 11:26, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

References

Requested move 26 April 2020

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

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

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

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

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

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

Survey (Requested move 26 April 2020)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Oppose per other editors. It comes as more disruptive. 36.77.134.116 (talk) 21:47, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
• Support The nomination and supporters are more convincing than the opposition to this point. "COVID-19 pandemic" is more concise and precise than "2019-20 coronavirus pandemic". As for "disruption", both titles will lead to the same location and we can update internal links easily. That's not a good reason to not move the page and its associated pages. – Muboshgu (talk)`
• Support COVID by far the most searched term now.... well besides 3 misspelling of Coronavirus....lol.--Moxy 🍁 22:24, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
• Support Neutral - The proposed new title is indeed in some respects "more natural, more common, more specific, more concise, and more accurate." However, I am persuaded by other editors that the move (renaming) will open a hornet's nest of necessary (for consistency) moves/renaming requests, discussions, and attempts to reach consensus for each article with "2019–2020 coronavirus pandemic" in its title. Edit on 27 Apr 2020 @ 22:25 (UTC)   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 23:08, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Actually, there's already a strong consensus building (based on your very astute comment in the section below) that if this page moves, all of the pages with it in the title will also be moved. There won't need to be a billion move requests or individual discussions. Also, pretty sure the batch of pages could easily be moved by bot. Paintspot Infez (talk) 13:20, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

@Paintspot: Ah, I did not know that could be done. I thought each article would have to undergo the renaming and moving process individually. Along those lines, I bet that a lot of editors are like me, i.e., they don't know about the possibility of a 'mass move (renaming)' [my term]. I'm thinking that a separate RM, which proposes "moving" (renaming) all the articles with "2019–2020 coronavirus pandemic" in the title—at the same time, en mass—is needed. But I defer to more knowledgeable editors on that point. ¶ Thank you for your kind words! :0) All the best   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 13:14, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

• Support per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 23:25, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
• Support, the name is clear and unambiguous for now, WP:CRYSTAL. sam1370 (talk) 04:55, 27 April 2020 (UTC) Oppose I support your first two points, but not your third. I think we should change "Coronavirus" to "COVID-19" as it is more precise, and my ideal title would be "2019-20 COVID-19 pandemic". Other articles such as 2009 swine flu pandemic include the date, so if we rename this article "COVID-19 pandemic" we might as well rename that one "Swine flu pandemic". The date is an important characteristic of a pandemic, so I think we should keep that in. Counterarguments: "because there will be disagreement as to whether it is accurate to talk of pandemic situation in 2019" Wikipedia is all about disagreement, we should be bold and not mind if there is any argument; I think that in another rename discussion it was agreed that the pandemic classification classified the entire thing as a pandemic, not that it was a pandemic from March 2020 onwards. "because it is not absolutely clear that the pandemic will finish before 2020 does" We can always rename the title. "in the hope that whatever may happen with this virus in the future, it does not bring about a second full blown epidemic, and that such disambiguation would be redundant" If there is a second epidemic, having "COVID-19 pandemic" will cause a problem, as it will be unclear which pandemic it is referring to. Whereas if we keep the dates, we could, for example, have two separate articles for "2019-20 COVID-19 pandemic" and, for example, "2021-22 COVID-19 pandemic". sam1370 (talk) 00:10, 27 April 2020 (UTC)}}
• Support. Let’s look at WP:CRITERIA
  • Recognizability - works with either title
  • Naturalness - works with either title
  • Precision - COVID-19 is more precise, but I doubt anyone is going to mix up the two
  • Conciseness - This is why we don’t need a year. How many times have you heard of a coronavirus/COVID-19 outbreak before last December? I’d think about zero.
  • Consistency - As OP pointed out, the WikiProject seems to prefer COVID-19. Benica11 (talk) 03:16, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

I'm also a doctor of medicine (working in critical care), and incidentally, I've also worked on mathematical models of infectious disease. FWIW, I agree with you, it does not "make sense." It is not regular practice in the medical literature I've seen where the virus per se is alternatively referred to as SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 (despite the latter being technically incorrect). Here, the guidelines are clear and unambiguous per WP:COMMONNAME. Global Cerebral Ischemia (talk) 12:34, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

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

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

Not sure we should use the abbreviation rather than at least part of the full name. There are trade offs between the two. My position in one direction over the other however is not that strong. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:38, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

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

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

There would be broken links here and there, and there is a chance that templates would not transclude properly. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 03:15, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Let's not assume that this will be the only outbreak or pandemic that SARS-CoV-2 will be involved in. There would still be a need to disambiguate by placing 2020 or 2019–20 in page titles, but it would be quite unpleasant to the eye if the page titles began with 2020 COVID-19 or 2019–20 COVID-19, which, in the first place, results from how the WHO wanted to name the disease. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 03:15, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

• Support, The Spanish flu page is called Spanish flu, not 1918-19 flu pandemic. Nojus R (talk) 18:29, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
• Support: Nearly every business' website has a link to a "COVID-19 Update" or "COVID-19 Response" message, nearly every commercial email I get these days refers to "COVID-19", every local and national government website that I've used as a source when updating various chart templates on Wikipedia calls it "COVID-19". Calling it "coronavirus" is too casual and imprecise for an encyclopedia. Per WP:CRITERIA, "COVID-19" beats "2019–20 coronavirus" on precision" and "conciseness", is a tie on "recognizability" and "naturalness", and "consistency" is easy to fix. We can always rename it again in the future if there is a second COVID-19 pandemic (and the virus is similar enough that it's not called COVID-24 or whatever). Besides, it's difficult to get people to type "(2019–20)" instead of "(2019-20)". --Ahecht (TALK
  PAGE) 19:32, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
• Strong Support - Google results for "covid-19 pandemic" show 149,000,000 results to sites such as FAO.org, Unicef.org, Eui.eu, Unv.org, Time.com, MIT.edu, WHO.int, theGuardian.com. Conversely, "2019–20 coronavirus pandemic" has a mere 259,000 results from largely wiki based sites. Veritycheck✔️ (talk) 22:44, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is an interesting point. It made me question what was the exact name of the 9/11 page. It is "September 11 attacks" (even if "9/11" also redirects to it). It would be accurate and even more precise (mainly because every year has an eleventh day in the month of September), but I don't think we should rename it to "2001 September 11 attacks", nor "11 September 2001 attacks", nor "September 11, 2001, attacks", nor "2001-September-11 attacks", nor "Terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001", nor other similar combinations. So, I agree with Kevin McE and sam1370's justifications. If it ever occurs another series of attacks on the 11th day of September of another year, I promise that I will reconsider it. ACLNM (talk) 22:03, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

• Support. Usage has already shifted from the generic to the specific term. Moving gives us now the advantage of getting rid of the prefix (and hope there will be no second pandemic of COVID-19) Agathoclea (talk) 14:54, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
• Support removing dates. They only cause confusion and make the article difficult to search for. As of now, this is the only COVID-19 pandemic in history. If there is a later pandemic of the same disease (as opposed to a second or third wave of this one), we can talk about dates then. Scolaire (talk) 15:04, 28 April 2020 (UTC) [Edit] Support "COVID-19 pandemic" rather than "Coronavirus 2019 pandemic". The disease is commonly known as "COVID-19" or "the coronavirus", not as "Coronavirus 2019". It is officially known as "Coronavirus Disease 2019", so "Coronavirus 2019" fails here as well. Scolaire (talk) 13:42, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
• Support, coronaviruses are a group of viruses, of which SARS-CoV-2 is one, which causes COVID-19. -- Jeandré, 2020-04-28t17:14z
• Oppose Everyone here speaks about corona, nobody does about some kind of covid with some kind of number (where some people even guessed it was the 19. kind of virus, instead of the year 2019). Please keep in mind that English is not only used in the US (where even "Wuhan flu" was suggested!?). Speaking for Europe, it's corona which is in the news. And nobody knows what COVID stands for (and that it must be upper case), while everyone knows the crown shape of the virus by now. --Traut (talk) 18:38, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

Are these English newspapers? Anyhow if you look at English speaking countries will often use COVID. It sounds rather cool in an Australian accent. Agathoclea (talk) 13:00, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

@Traut, I'm also included in your "nobody" and I'm also in Europe, in a small country called Portugal. Here, within the limited range of possibilities, the media try to be as scientific as possible. Orally, they refer to the virus as "the/this coronavirus/virus", and call the disease by the correct term "COVID-19" or by "COVID" (incomplete, but easier to say 150 times in a 30-minute segment of news; when saying "19", they usually say it in the portuguese form "dezanove"); in titles and infographics, they usually use "COVID-19" and "coronavirus" (as in "Today's COVID-19 cases/numbers" and "Coronavirus Restrictions"). In the printing press, many articles try to introduce the different concepts in a way such as "This pandemic of the disease COVID-19, caused by the coronavirus SARS-CoV-2, a virus from the same family of the virus SARS-CoV, the virus that was responsible for the SARS outbreak in 2002" (here's an example from an article written by the secretary-general of ANMSP, the portuguese association of public health medical doctors). Outside the media, in everyday speech, people refer to the virus and the disease interchangingly, in the forms "the virus/coronavirus" and "the COVID/COVID-19" (both frequent), "the corona" (more informal and less frequent), and "the SARS-CoV-2" (the correct name of the virus; rarer but more frequently used by more literate people, i.e., health professionals and scientists). ACLNM (talk) 23:27, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I checked headlines on cmjornal.pt (CORONA VIRUS), destak.pt (COVID-19, COVID 19), record.pt (Coronavírus) and publico.pt (Coronavírus, naming Covid-19 and covid-19). If you drop the "-19", COVID becomes exactly as inspecific as corona virus itself - and people start dropping the number. That's ok, but if anyone speaks about corona, it's just the virus that we have for the very moment. It's up to the specialists to refer exactly to SARS-CoV-2 in order not to confuse it with any other virus. My vote would be for the "2020 corona pandemic" (as 2009 swine flu pandemic, the 1918 Spanish flu 1918 flu pandemic etc. --Traut (talk) 12:03, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

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

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

I offered in the OP to withdraw this if there were a preference for three RfCs, to discuss the three elements to the change, but in c50 replies you are the first to suggest any dissatisfaction with dealing with it all in one discussion. Kevin McE (talk) 08:06, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

• Support Per WP:COMMONNAME, WP:CONCISE, WP:NAMINGCRITERIA and WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL. Davanvoorhis (talk) 21:48, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose and for the amount of articles that already reference this page, and also for ease of understanding (misinformation about this virus is rampant, and making this page as easy to understand as possible is important). An example of misinformation is there has been a misconception among some people that COVID-19 is so named because it is the "19th coronavirus" (when it is instead named for originating in 2019). I don't believe changing the name to COVID-19 is worth the hassle and worth potentially confusing misinformed people who come to this page. 2600:1700:8450:77F0:BD11:3A60:33C5:3793 (talk) 23:49, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

And the article can explain clearly in its opening sentence where the name COVID-119 comes from so that there is no need for that error to persist. But explanation/education is dealt with in the articles, not in their titles. Kevin McE (talk) 08:06, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose for consistency and to avoid confusion. Additionally, I have seen some people claim that COVID-19 is a more common way to refer to the virus than coronavirus nowadays. This has not been my personal experience; in my social circles as well as on my local news it is still almost exclusively referred to as coronavirus. Teddybearearth (talk) 00:08, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

But nobody should be referring to the virus as COVID-19: that is a name for the disease. And if in your community the virus is (not incorrectly, but rather imprecisely) referred to as coronavirus, that is no justification for naming the pandemic after a virus rather than a disease. Kevin McE (talk) 08:06, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

• Support per above. Coronavirus lacks specificity, there are other Coronaviruses. Liam Skoda (talk) 00:16, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
• Support As mentioned before per WP:COMMONNAME, WP:CONCISE, WP:NAMINGCRITERIA and WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL. I'm a doctor and officially we refer to the pandemic mostly by COVID-19 than simply coronavirus. WHO has a pattern to give names to new diseases and that is done so we can avoid xenophobia, discrimination and other problems related to a poor naming (like Chinese flu or something like it). That makes the name relevant enough to have such distinction. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 00:20, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
• Support per above. Nate 2169 ^Talk
  _{Contributions} 00:44, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
• Support per nom. — 1857a (talk) 01:06, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
• Support per discussions above Triangleman3 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:28, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
• Support, the proposed is slightly better, and slightly overcomes WP:TITLECHANGES. The proposed is more correct. 2019-2020 Coronavirus Pandemic is "correct" but less so. The pandemic is over not just any coronavirus, or coronaviruses in general, but specifically the SARS‑CoV‑2 virus. COVID-19 is the disease caused by SARS‑CoV‑2 virus. This disease is very unlikely to be confined to the 2019-2020 date space, and so it is appropriate to drop the date with the proposed new title "COVID-19 pandemic", which will be timeless. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:32, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
• Support: Per WP:COMMONNAME, WP:CONCISE. Chinese Wikipedia already has the article named after the disease, not the virus: zh:2019冠状病毒病疫情. —Wei4Green (talk, contributions) 02:13, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose: The name COVID or COVID-19 is very technical, harder to utter, and most speeches mention the pandemic as the coronavirus. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. --Mahmudmasri (talk) 03:22, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
  • To a similar extent that COVID-19 is technical, referring to this thing as "coronavirus" is incorrect, is broken. Coronavirus, the technical term, is very very broad, much more broad than the specific virus, and still much more broad than the virus class. The term dereives from the morphology, "virus with a crown", which is a common morphology. COVID-19 is "harder to utter" is nonsense, it is easier, less syllables, unambiguous emphasis pattern, and irrelevant really. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:31, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
  • “ko-vid-nine-teen” vs “twen-tee-nine-teen-twen-tee ko-ron-uh-vie-rus pan-dem-ik” Look at this and decide for yourself which is harder to utter. sam1370 (talk) 11:34, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
• Comment. I consider myself an advocate for our readers and therefore I think that using the simplest/most widespread terms for this event (whether we choose "Coronavirus" or "COVID-19" pandemic) would be very helpful to our general audience in finding and remembering this very important article and its vital information, especially for the duration of this emergency. However, once the emergency ends, the name of this article should look more encyclopedic and in line with the other similar articles and include the *year/s* in the front, so it ultimately looks like: "2020-XX something something". We are witnessing an event of historic proportions, so please don't forget to add the date once it ends! Cordially, History DMZ ^{(talk)+(ping)} 03:52, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

• COVID-19 is permadated by the -19, which means 2019. Its start. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:12, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

• The COVID-19 *pandemic* was declared by the WHO in 2020, that's the start. If the article were simply titled "COVID-19" (thus covering the whole timeline) then the start would be 2019. Cordially, History DMZ ^{(talk)+(ping)} 06:52, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

So even if you are not happy with the proposal, you believe that the current naming for the page is wrong, and therefore that it should be changed? Kevin McE (talk) 08:06, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

• Kevin McE, the proposal that you presented is not wrong but it is incomplete. It presents a dilemma: using COVID-19 in the title is correct, and so is including the year 2020. Problem becomes the flow/readability of "2020 COVID-19 pandemic". Then if we try abbreviating to "2020 COVID pandemic" that may cause confusion and give the impression there is a covid-19 and a covid-20. Finally, "2020 coronavirus pandemic" solves some issues but raises others that were already mentioned by fellow users here. What I support is an easy-to-find practical article name *for now*, and a more detailed encyclopedic article name after this global crisis ends. Cordially, History DMZ ^{(talk)+(ping)} 11:57, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

There is no formulation that is totally future proof. Maybe (and let's all hope) there will be no further recurrence of a pandemic of this disease: in that case the current suggestion meets all requirements, and needs no year prefix to identify it. Maybe it will recur, but will have mutated to the extent that the disease is renamed (COVID-25 or whatever it may be): again, the proposed new name will be sufficient to identify it. Maybe there will be a second major outbreak, and we will need to specify, presumably with a year prefix, the extent of the incident we are living through with the benefit of hindsight to know whether it is generally accepted that what happened in December was the start of the pandemic, and knowledge of when it finished. Maybe opinion and/or expert advice will turn against the idea of 2019 as having seen anything of the pandemic, which would affect the present formulation (and many others) but not mine. And maybe it will drag on beyond the end of this year, in which case my proposal is unaffected, but the current name, crystal balling a conclusion in 2020, would need changing, as would all the related pages. Kevin McE (talk) 13:40, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: This isn't Simple English Wikipedia. It would be better to put a redirect instead. However, we still need to know which term is more recognizable, COVID-19 or Coronavirus. My idea is that whichever term is more recognizable, we use that as the mainspace article name. RareButterflyDoors (talk) 05:34, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
• Support - moving it to "COVID-19 pandemic" is a much better title as mentioned by many people above. It's shorter, precise, concise, it is more accurate since it is using its established name "COVID-19", instead of "coronavirus" which refers to multiple other viruses, and by omitting the date range, we won't have to keep moving the article if the pandemic extends into another year. --TheSameGuy (talk) 06:19, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Having the year prefix is clumsy. Ljgua124 (talk) 07:08, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
• Support Coronavirus is too general; COVID-19 is more specific. Jam ai qe ju shikoni (talk) 09:48, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
  • @Jam ai qe ju shikoni Don't forget that COVID-19 is a more common name for it. RareButterflyDoors (talk) 11:57, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

@RareButterflyDoors I don't see how that puts my argument down. Did you perhaps mean "Coronavirus" and misspelled it as "COVID-19"? Jam ai qe ju shikoni (talk) 14:13, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

No, I meant that COVID-19 is a more recognizable term to name the article. RareButterflyDoors (talk) 01:19, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

@RareButterflyDoors Ah, gotcha. At first glance it seemed to like you were arguing against me; that's why I asked. Other than meeting the criteria for WP:COMMONNAME, it also seems to meet the criteria for WP:CONCISE and WP:PRECISE. Jam ai qe ju shikoni (talk) 11:52, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

• Support per common name. TheGreatSG'rean (talk) 12:05, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
• Support Should be as per the common name of the disease, not the year. Vikram Maingi (talk) 12:51, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
• Support for the many reasons given above. "COVID-19" is not only more concise, it's more accurate than "coronavirus" (which gives a false impression about coronaviruses in general; they're one of the viruses responsible for the common cold!)...however, I'd prefer keeping the date prefix. "2019-20 COVID-19 Pandemic" would be best IMO. Nevertheless, "COVID-19 Pandemic" is better than what we have now. Global Cerebral Ischemia (talk) 12:25, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Try again in a few months time if "COVID-19" is really the most common way of referring to the pandemic at that time. Round my neck of the woods, "coronavirus" is still what it's generally called. Both titles are probably acceptable, which means that whichever was originally used should remain for simplicity's sake. 31.53.12.152 (talk) 13:30, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
• Support as specificity (from other coronavirus disease i.e. the common cold) is required. Magic9mushroom (talk) 14:13, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
• Strongly support as I have done since january, as my first edits on the issue before becoming a prolific editor in Feb- early march. For the same reasoning, the current name is not WP:PRECISE and the WP:COMMONNAME as many including myself predicted, is COVID-19. I recognize that according to the WHO, that is technically an abbreviation. But they intended for it to become the common name, and it has, we must follow. --Almaty (talk) 14:22, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
• Support as per common name Geekgecko (talk) 15:52, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. --Wolbo (talk) 16:41, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

At this point in time, they're seemingly tied for which is the common name. (As said above, "..."covid-19 pandemic" (with quotes) shows 149,000,000 results to sites such as FAO.org, Unicef.org, Eui.eu, Unv.org, Time.com, MIT.edu, WHO.int, theGuardian.com. Conversely, "coronavirus pandemic" (again with quotes) gets 124,000,000 results and "2019–20 coronavirus pandemic" has a mere 259,000 results from largely wiki based sites.") Additionally, since they're generally tied for which is the common name, it would make more sense to use the more correct, more specific, more concise, more accurate, more natural name. Paintspot Infez (talk) 16:52, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Nonsense, a quick tour of leading English speaking news(paper) website shows coronavirus is used much more frequently, and much more prominently, than Covid-19. It is nowhere near equal.--Wolbo (talk) 17:27, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Covid stands for the disease, and is the most specific, WP:concise and WP:precise qualifier for the pandemic under WP:NAMINGCRITERIA. Search count for 'coronavirus' (alone) is irrelevant. —RCraig09 (talk) 17:45, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

• Support points 1 and 2 per nom and other editors. Oppose point 3. The resultant name would be: 2019–20 COVID-19 pandemic. There is no reason to believe this will be the sole COVID-19 pandemic in history. Indeed, several sources suggest subsequent waves are inevitable. Change to Full Support. Re-read above discussion in light of Global Cerebral Ischemia's comment below. I'm convinced that the year need be added only if and when another COVID-19 pandemic occurs. Was especially convinced by discussion re: Spanish flu and September 11 attacks above. Sahitana (talk) 17:19, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

FWIW, subsequent waves (in the fall and winter) would be considered part of the same ongoing pandemic and be covered by this article. Presuming that this pandemic ends with an effective vaccine and/or herd immunity (in a year? a year and a half?), this would indeed be the sole COVID-19 pandemic in history. Global Cerebral Ischemia (talk) 19:11, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

• Support COVID-19 is now common and it is certainly more precise. Ribbet32 (talk) 18:13, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

References

• Support Recognized name for this specific virus and pandemic. Coronavirus too generic and refers to all viruses of this type. Primecoordinator (talk) 18:45, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
• Support The title is too long and COVID-19 is the exact term while coronavirus is a more generic term relating to a family of viruses. Alexceltare2 (talk) 19:15, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose The current title is simple and easy to understand. COVID-19 is jargon, and, as we've seen in the news, many people don't even know the "19" stands for 2019. — the Man in Question (in question) 19:37, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
• Support COVID-19 is the disease. Furthermore, most of the pandemic (nearly all of it) has happened this year, only the very beggining was in 2019. Naming it "2019-2020...pandemic" would be confusing for future readers, this is more accurate. WesSirius (talk) 19:40, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
• Support The current title is a compromise from before any single name was common, now that COVID-19 has become the common name the article title should be changed to reflect this. Sonictrey (talk) 00:41, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
• Support I support COVID-19 as it simpler and its more widely recognize.In my country at least they call it covid or covid 19 in most news. Like a user above mention we dont call the spanish flu the 1918 pandemic etc, so this case should not be different. --Allancalderini12 (talk) 01:30, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
• For those new editors wanting to join the discussion, here's a list of arguments made by editors. This is very long lol
  • Under Support:
    • Concise name, per WP:CONCISE
    • Recognizable term for it, per WP:COMMONNAME
    • Eliminates the need for changing the article name every year
    • Prevents nonsense terms like "Chinese Virus" or "Chinese Flu"
    • More specific; coronavirus is a general term, per WP:PRECISION
  • Under Oppose:
    • Too technical
    • Already easy to understand
    • More descriptive
    • Recognizable term for it, per WP:COMMONNAME

I think that's all the arguments I can find. This is just to let new editors who want to take part of the discussion know how the discussion is ongoing, because this thread is REALLY long. You can change this if you want. Anyway stan Jimmy Wales RareButterflyDoors (talk) 02:45, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Biased list, some have used WP:COMMONNAME to argue against changing the name. It can be said that both terms (COVID-19 and coronavirus) are equally commonly used. Changing the article name every year is a very minor issue that we won't have to worry about for eight months. I don't see how changing the title to COVID-19 prevents nonsense terms. Another valid argument against changing the title is people don't realise the 19 in COVID-19 stands for 2019 and therefore it will sound like a general title if it doesn't have the year attached. 31.53.12.152 (talk) 03:13, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

By the way, it might be worth checking Google Trends on this issue of which is more common. "Coronavirus" seems to be a far, far more popular search term than COVID-19, both in the US and globally. I have to say COVID-19 sounds elitist and technical. 31.53.12.152 (talk) 03:27, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

I have mentioned that you can change the list. It was really hard to get a grasp of what arguments editors say since it was very long. RareButterflyDoors (talk) 03:58, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

• Comment If, God forbid, another outbreak or pandemic of COVID-19 will happen in the future, then we will have to rename articles such that we have to disambiguate using the year or years that it would occur. The name COVID-19 may sound common but it would confuse readers because there is no indication of when that outbreak or pandemic happened if there was no year in the title. The -19 refers to 2019, but the vast majority of countries are experiencing this pandemic in 2020. Also, the name coronavirus is generic but it is now used mostly as an alternative to saying COVID or COVID-19, so the other coronaviruses would stand less in name recall than this current one. Also, we have the article about the 2002–2004 SARS outbreak which, despite having happened only once, is still disambiguated using the years that it occured. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 05:58, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose As per the user above my statement, really ^^. There is a point there that we now deem this more as 'COVID-19' and it is a more reliable name than 'coronavirus'. However, as the user above me also stated, majority of the effects were being felt in 2020. Personally think that we should remain with the current name and after all of this is at least over, then we could perhaps have another discussion about naming, but adding the year(s) is better to signify which pandemic as this could happen again. Typhoon2013 (talk) 08:32, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment Just to add in, with me still opposing, as long as both titles are recognised in the opening statements too. As for instance with this, as long as in the opening line could have something as, "also known as the COVID-19 pandemic (or 2019-2X coronavirus pandemic". Typhoon2013 (talk) 08:45, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
• Comment I would certainly support changing the title to "2020 Coronavirus pandemic". After all, although the disease existed in 2019, it only became a pandemic in 2020. Similarly, if it is declared to no longer be a pandemic by the relevant authorities before the end of the year, I think people will still think of it as the "2020 pandemic" even if there are minor aftershocks in coming years, as there usually are for major pandemics. 31.53.12.152 (talk) 09:25, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Seems more specific and natural. I don't think that the concern of the "19" not reflecting the time period of the pandemic is a particular issue, as the 19 in COVID-19 is simply a component of the name of the disease, and shouldn't be taken to imply anything in particular about the time period of this pandemic as a whole (the original choice in relation to the year of emergence of the disease is a separate matter). BlackholeWA (talk) 12:24, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Edit to note - "2019-20 COVID-19 pandemic" also sounds okay to me if people really want the years. BlackholeWA (talk) 12:30, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

• Comment "COVID-19" is the official name of the disease and its pandemic should be named "COVID-19 pandemic". But in some ways "coronavirus pandemic" is more acceptable to the general public. Peter Wu (2019) 13:12, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Despite WHO acknowledged the pandemic as "COVID-19", most of the worst effects were witnessed in 2020 and it won't be accurate to rename it as COVID-19 pandemic. The current title 2019-20 coronavirus pandemicis very clear to the viewers and certain that the current pandemic originated in 2019 and the worst effects are witnessed in 2020. Abishe (talk) 13:23, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

COVID-19 stands for "COronaVIrus Disease 2019". The disease emerged in 2019. If it were called COVIP-19 then you might have a point, but it's not. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 15:32, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

• Neutral per all reasons by users. Whether it will move the name of the article or not, I have to play safe to vote neutral and the majority votes will be the result. Movies Time (talk) 13:43, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
• Support, coronavirus is a type of virus where there are lots of different viruses making up this family typing. MERS, SARS and flu viruses being a handful of them. The particular virus in question is SARS-2 which causes the Covid-19 disease. It is this disease which the pandemic has been called for. The media latched on to the term coronavirus while the WHO came up with a name for this strand and the disease it causes. Furthermore, a pandemic was not really declared fully until 2020 so the the article's original title makes little sense. → Lil-℧niquԐ1 - (Talk) - 14:48, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
• Support in addition to being more concise and aligning with the COVID-19 WikiProject title, it's hard to say whether this will end in 2020, plus this pandemic refers to a specific type of coronavirus. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 15:17, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
• Support As of now, I think it is quite clear that the term "COVID-19 pandemic" is 1) more accurate than the current title, and 2) at least as commonly used as the current title, if not even more common. A quick Google search I did for "COVID-19 pandemic" yields 522,000,000 results, while "coronavirus pandemic" yields 510,000,000 results, and "2019–2020 coronavirus pandemic" yields only 354,000,000 results. Note that I have added "-wikipedia" to these search terms to exclude results related to that keyword. Masjawad99^💬 15:26, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

RM sidebar (comments, extended discussion)

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

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

• Support uniform rename per WP:CONSISTENT Elizium23 (talk) 04:56, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
• Support per above. --Soumyabrata ^{stay at home 🏠} _{wash your hands 👋} ^{to protect from COVID-19 😷} 05:06, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
• Support per above. Paintspot Infez (talk) 13:20, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
• Support per above. Benica11 (talk) 14:45, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
• Support, and this is already mandated by the WikiProject COVID-19 consensus. Relieved to hear that it can be done by bot. Kevin McE (talk) 15:01, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
• Support per above. --Ahecht (TALK
  PAGE) 19:32, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
• Support per above. Veritycheck✔️ (talk) 22:47, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
• Support per above. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 11:43, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
• Support per above. Scolaire (talk) 15:44, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
• Support per above. § Agathoclea (talk) 16:56, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
• Support per nom. -- Jeandré, 2020-04-28t17:12z
• Support per above. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:58, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
• Support per above, however both commonly used names should be addressed in opening paragraph. --Mtaylor848 (talk) 21:22, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
• Support for consistency. Boud (talk) 21:24, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
• Support per above. 39cookies (talk) 22:02, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
• Support if this page is remained, consistency with the rest of Wikipedia will be of the utmost importance. Teddybearearth (talk) 00:08, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
• Support per above. Nate 2169 ^Talk
  _{Contributions} 00:44, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
• Support --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:41, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
• Support: Shouldn't even be discussed. We did the same when we renamed the article from 2019–20 coronavirus outbreak to 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic. The consistency of Wikipedia article titles helps readers and Wikipedians navigate more easily. —Wei4Green (talk, contributions) 02:13, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
• Support. -sche (talk) 05:20, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
• Support per above. Jam ai qe ju shikoni (talk) 09:28, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
• Support for consistency. Bluesatellite (talk) 11:03, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
• Above per Support. sam1370 (talk) 11:35, 29 April 2020 (UTC)--
• Support per above. Make article titles consistently follow WP:NAMINGCRITERIA.—RCraig09 (talk) 17:40, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
• Support WP:CONSISTENCY. Ribbet32 (talk) 18:13, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

*oppose this name works fine the way it is. Starzoner (talk) 21:25, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

• @Starzoner: We are speaking of a possibility where we do accept the name. Reread Markworthen’s comment. sam1370 (talk) 23:14, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

  • @Sam1370:, wow, i wrote that in the wrong place. Starzoner (talk) 23:50, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

    • @Starzoner: Haha, it's fine. sam1370 (talk) 00:04, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

• Support for consistency, if this happens. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:26, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
• Support In discussing epidemics in general, it seems we usually refer to them by the name of the disease rather than the pathogen. TornadoLGS (talk) 04:17, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
• Neutral per all reasons by users. Whether it will move the name of the article or not, I have to play safe to vote neutral and the majority votes will be the result. Movies Time (talk) 13:45, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Pandemics are named after the disease, not the virus

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

Some references

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Agree. Viruses tend to have technical names, and the disease is what non virologists usually talk about. Smallpox is eradicated. Smallpox is the disease. The virus, "Variola virus", still exists, in secure labs. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:45, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Are we have to do an another RM yet over again?

How many of RMs is required to satisfy the requirement for an name? --91.207.170.201 (talk) 08:21, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

one Kevin McE (talk) 13:42, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

• Yes. Instead, I think it should be moved to 2019-2020 coronavirus/COVID-19 pandemic because i either of them are used.

The Question of Origin

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

• Note: the same discussion is happening over at SARS-COV-2 Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:38, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here's Reuters covering the story as well. Certainly nothing conclusive, but it seems fair to include the fact that the Wuhan Institute of Virology is being investigated as a possible source. Azahariev (talk) 01:47, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

It's a conspiracy theory refuted by multiple authoritative sources in the cited Vox article. There's no "there" there. Global Cerebral Ischemia (talk) 12:47, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

From your citation: "The scientists I did speak to all acknowledge it’s not possible to definitively rule out the lab-escape theory." That a plausible explanation is not the most probable one is no basis for calling it "refuted" or "misinformation". I'm not asking for us to say outright that it came via WIV - that would be even more inappropriate than the current state of affairs. I'm asking for it to not be literally labelled false while it's still under serious consideration.

I'll say what we're all thinking: the accusation is political dynamite related to one of the world's great powers, and some of the people making it are more interested in that dynamite than in the truth. That doesn't mean it's wrong. I think it probably is, but we don't have (and may never have) solid evidence one way or the other and until we do it shouldn't be in the category of "misinformation" - that's specifically outright lies. Magic9mushroom (talk) 14:40, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Of course scientists will "acknowledge it’s not possible to definitively rule out the lab-escape theory:" they're scientists and thinking in terms of probabilities. Scientists' love of hedging and cautious language has been used by others, notably climate science deniers, to produce controversy where there is none. Many scientists calling the lab escape theory "highly unlikely" means "BS" in plain English. -Darouet (talk) 16:07, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

The point about not being able to "definitively rule out" the conspiracy theory is meaningless. This is specifically addressed in the article I linked to: “The trouble with hypotheses is that they are not disprovable. You cannot prove a negative,” said Peter Daszak, president of EcoHealth Alliance and a disease ecologist who has studied emerging infectious diseases with colleagues in China. Yet he also sees the lab-escape theory as “ironic and preposterous.” The issue isn't whether it can be "definitively" rule out, the issue is whether there is any good reason whatsoever to believe it. The answer is definitively "no." Global Cerebral Ischemia (talk) 19:20, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

@Global Cerebral Ischemia: agreed. -Darouet (talk) 21:21, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

From the Vox Article: "Newsweek reported April 27 that in March the US Defense Intelligence Agency issued a report that “reveals that U.S. intelligence revised its January assessment in which it ‘judged that the outbreak probably occurred naturally’ to now include the possibility that the new coronavirus emerged ‘accidentally’ due to ‘unsafe laboratory practices’ in the central Chinese city of Wuhan.”" and "I asked Jim LeDuc, head of the Galveston National Laboratory, a level-4 biosafety lab in Texas, for his thoughts on Yuan’s statement. “I like to think that we can take Zhiming Yuan at his word, but he works in a very different culture with pressures we may not fully appreciate,” he said. In other words, we don’t know what kind of pressures he might be under from his government to make such a statement." ... These are the kind of issues that folks who want this to be merely mentioned are concerned about. Is this not enough evidence to include two sentences? Something like "Western intelligence agencies are looking at the WIV as a potential origin of the virus, as rumors and concerns about lab safety surface, indicating a possibility that the naturally occurring virus accidentally originated there before spreading to other areas in Wuhan including the wet market. At this time, this origin source is viewed as unlikely by most in the scientific community." Azahariev (talk) 15:51, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Scientific consensus strongly favors natural, zoonotic origin. In the mean time, as during the 1918 flu pandemic, countries all over the world are blaming their enemies for creating the virus or spreading panic. We should keep politicization out of this section. I have done so with this edit [19], restoring longstanding text and consensus for the opening epidemiology paragraph. -Darouet (talk) 15:40, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Darouet, you are not understanding: the regular procedure after a once-in-a-millenium-pandemic like this is for the world to conduct an independent investigation on key details: its origin, who was patient-zero, and what possible measures we can do to prevent new outbreaks. As far as I know, the WHO has not done that research, and instead they have fully endorsed China's version as the only truth. Think about it, if this had happened in North Korea, and the regimen's scientists were diverting an accidental leak, the rest of the world would be asking to take a look into it with our own specialists. Or, on the other hand, if this had happened in a free country like the United States or Denmark, the official story would be trusted by the international community and the case could be closed, with all speculation being dismissed.I am sure we can agree that China lies in a middle point between those tow extremes--Forich (talk) 18:47, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

"once-in-a-millenium-pandemic" ? Are you saying that during the medieval period people over 80yo were surviving easily to a new strain of coronavirus ? Iluvalar (talk) 20:00, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

I understand perfectly well, and I'm not going to get involved in political speculation. The scientific evidence has thus far been unambiguous, e.g.

Nature: Our analyses clearly show that SARS-CoV-2 is not a laboratory construct or a purposefully manipulated virus.

Cell Press: ...SARS-CoV-2 undoubtedly has a zoonotic origin...

National Science Review: ...Our results suggest that the development of new variations in functional sites in the receptor-binding domain (RBD) of the spike seen in SARS-CoV-2 and viruses from pangolin SARSr-CoVs are likely caused by mutations and natural selection...

CSIRO: ...SARS-CoV-2 is the seventh coronavirus known to infect humans, and the third zoonotic virus after SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV...

IJBS: The emergence of SARS-CoV-2 follows the general theme by which SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV arose. Whereas a bat beta-CoV sharing 95% nucleotide homology with SARS-CoV has been found, there also exists a bat-CoV sharing 96% nucleotide homology with SARS-CoV-2. Whereas civets and other animals in the markets have been found to harbour viruses identical to SARS-CoV, immediate intermediate hosts for SARS-CoV-2 have not been identified. Pangolin beta-CoVs strikingly homologous to SARS-CoV-2 have been found, indicating that pangolins might serve as one of intermediate hosts or pangolin betaCoVs could contribute gene fragments to the final version of SARS-CoV-2. Although questions remain, there is no evidence that SARS-CoV-2 is man-made either deliberately or accidentally.

Zoological Research: ...there are several speculations or conspiracy theories that HCoV-19 was artificially generated in the laboratory (Andersen et al., 2020; Liu et al., 2020)... Based on the information and knowledge gained from past SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV epidemics, combined with the successful detection and isolation of SARS-like coronaviruses (Bat-CoVRaTG13) in bats (R. affinis) with over 95% similarity to HCoV-19, it can be postulated with a degree of confidence that this novel coronavirus likely also originated from bats (Zhou et al., 2020a).

From a scientific perspective this is described as a conspiracy theory and should have no place in this article. -Darouet (talk) 21:21, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Iluvalar, the comparison with the black plague is irrelevant. My point holds even if we diminish Covid's severity to a "once-in-a-decade" pandemic. I hope that we agree that, given China's Comunist Party censuring behavior, it is our duty as wikipedians to discuss whether to move them down in our WP:RS scale of reliability.--Forich (talk) 21:47, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Darouet, this is a productive discussion, I like that you have moved over the terrain of providing sources. You seem open to discussing different views if backed by solid evidence stated in reliable sources. I am willing to engage and see whether we can reach a middle ground. Please provide a quote from any reliable source labeling the accidental leakage hypothesis as "conspiracy" or "fringe" or "out of the realms of possibility" that does not rely on any "Occam razor" sophisms.--Forich (talk) 22:09, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Did you read the sources I quoted above? -Darouet (talk) 23:16, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Darouet, I looked at the sources you quoted. I don't see why the "bio-engineered and weaponized" conspiracy theory has to be conflated with questioning whether a naturally occurring virus that mutated due to natural selection may have been studied in a lab and was accidentally released. The former theory is ruled out by your sources and seems prima facie highly implausible. The latter theory is not addressed by your sources and seems plausible. Azahariev (talk) 15:05, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

You did not read the sources: they specifically state that it is natural, and was not artificially created.

In other news, it's been reported today that Trump has asked his intelligence agencies to find some way of showing that China created the virus. This request finds no support in scientific literature but I assume the pressure being placed by his administration will have some impact non-MEDRS, and on what people begin arguing here. -Darouet (talk) 15:46, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Darouet, Accusing me of not reading the sources when I'm attempting to address them directly doesn't seem like you are assuming good faith on my part. Please be a little more charitable, in keeping with Wikipedia Etiquette. I am not making the claim that it's plausible that this virus was artificially created. As I stated in my previous comment, the question of whether a naturally occurring virus was accidentally leaked from a lab is the more plausible hypothesis in this line of reasoning. The sources you cited, as I understand them, don't address this. Azahariev (talk) 16:00, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

@Azahariev: thanks and my apologies, I misunderstood your comment. For what you're saying to be true, the WIV would have had to have located this highly virulent and deadly SARS-CoV-2 strain in Nature sometime in 2019, brought it to the lab, and lost it back into nature once more at the end of the year. I think scientists haven't considered that hypothesis because it's convoluted and preposterous enough to be outside the realm of reasonable investigation. -Darouet (talk) 17:07, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Per my comment on the same discussion at SARS-CoV-2: Wikipedia should not be promogulating politically motivated conspiracy theories about the virus. Saying that natural selection is unable of creating such an effective virus and therefore it must have been lab created is idiotic and obviously false considering the many pandemics throughout history have happened with no genomic editing technology whatsoever, and the crude nature of current genomic editing technology. The nature of this argument feels similar to that of Ancient astronauts, where of course "primitive" indigenous people can't have created complex works of architecture therefore it must be aliens. It's the same fallacy. We now know that the US Government is pushing this conspiracy theory to cover for their own failures. (Mazzetti, Mark; Barnes, Julian E.; Wong, Edward; Goldman, Adam (2020-04-30). "Trump Officials Are Said to Press Spies to Link Virus and Wuhan Labs". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2020-04-30.) Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:50, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

@Hemiauchenia: Thank you. -Darouet (talk) 17:07, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

"Excluding the disputed Taiwan"

Moved to Template talk:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data § "Excluding the disputed Taiwan"

 – MarioGom (talk) 18:12, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Incidents of xenophobia and discrimination in the intro

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

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

We have sections in the article for many things mentioned in the lead. The lead introduces the subjects, the sections flesh them out in detail. sam1370 (talk) 11:43, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Xenophobia section length

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

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

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

I've trimmed about 9 kB out. (Pace Mtaylor848, it's a fairly notable aspect of the pandemic, and unlike some other sections which have their own articles their content could/should be moved to, we don't seem to have any summary-format article on xenophobia during the pandemic, only linking to a list-format article cataloguing instances of xenophobia. So, there's more basis for summarizing the situation in this article. However, it did merit some trimming and may still merit further trimming.) -sche (talk) 05:09, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Asia section needs an update

Asia section starts with As of 16th April. This is over 2 weeks old. It is also incorrect as there were 3 asian countries with no reported cases - North Korea is missed. Dhristhadyumana (talk) 06:10, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

thank you for post--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:36, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Country comparisons

The article should better contrast & explain how countries differed in their reactions to the pandemic & how that affected the incidence of infection. How & why did S Korea recover from being one of the worst-affected countries whilst in many other countries the pandemic worsened? Jim Michael (talk) 06:31, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Various redirects listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect 2019-20 China pneumonia outbreak. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Soumyabrata ^{stay at home 🏠} _{wash your hands 👋} ^{to protect from COVID-19 😷} 10:16, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect China pneumonia outbreak. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Soumyabrata ^{stay at home 🏠} _{wash your hands 👋} ^{to protect from COVID-19 😷} 10:18, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Controversies related to the 2019–20 coronavirus outbreak. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Soumyabrata ^{stay at home 🏠} _{wash your hands 👋} ^{to protect from COVID-19 😷} 10:23, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Controversies related to 2019–20 coronavirus outbreak. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Soumyabrata ^{stay at home 🏠} _{wash your hands 👋} ^{to protect from COVID-19 😷} 10:24, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Controversies related to the 2019-20 coronavirus outbreak. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Soumyabrata ^{stay at home 🏠} _{wash your hands 👋} ^{to protect from COVID-19 😷} 10:24, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Controversies related to 2019-20 coronavirus outbreak. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Soumyabrata ^{stay at home 🏠} _{wash your hands 👋} ^{to protect from COVID-19 😷} 10:25, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Controversies related to the 2019-20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Soumyabrata ^{stay at home 🏠} _{wash your hands 👋} ^{to protect from COVID-19 😷} 10:26, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Controversies related to the 2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Soumyabrata ^{stay at home 🏠} _{wash your hands 👋} ^{to protect from COVID-19 😷} 10:27, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect 2019-2020 coronavirus 2019 pandemic. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Soumyabrata ^{stay at home 🏠} _{wash your hands 👋} ^{to protect from COVID-19 😷} 10:29, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Nine countries have more cases than China?

It doesn't appear plausible that 9 countries (all of which are thousands of miles away from Wuhan) each have more cases than China. Jim Michael (talk) 14:48, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

The whole point of a pandemic is that it has spread around the world, so distance is not an issue. I assume you are referring to the table, which has the footnote "This number shows the cumulative number of confirmed human cases reported to date. The actual number of infections and cases is likely to be higher than reported" Is there something other than showing the official reported number that you believe we should record? Kevin McE (talk) 15:46, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Someone apparently did not read the header: This talk page is not a forum for general discussion. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 15:51, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

I've read that many times. It's not a forum post - I'm questioning the accuracy of the official figures. Some sources say that the Chinese government (& perhaps some other governments) greatly under-report the extent of the pandemic. I'm saying that we should improve the article by including that. Jim Michael (talk) 17:15, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

No one said China have less cases or more. All we say is they have less confirmed cases. It's very plausible, even in assumption that it started in Wuhan, if China don't confirm as much cases. Iluvalar (talk) 17:24, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Edit: to be clear, China's tests stop ramping up after this source [20] was published on February 4. It became clear the virus was out of Wuhan as well. Iluvalar (talk) 17:46, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

@Iluvalar: The only mention of non-Hubei cases is as follows: Figure 4 shows the fraction with each outcome by age, drawn only from the cases before Jan 15 for which most have complete data. To put a lower bound on the confirmed-case-fatality-ratio (confirmed-CFR) for this first month of cases, we assume the censored cases, almost all of whom are outside Hubei, will eventually recover, and the model shown extrapolates the confirmed-CFR to younger ages based on that assumption. Considering the update is referring to an updated IFR (with a ridiculously wide 95% confidence interval), and that section is referring to pre-15 Jan outcomes, your inference that China's tests stop ramping up after this source was published on February 4. It became clear the virus was out of Wuhan as well. involves too many logical jumps. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 18:38, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion Caradhras. First I complained myself about the confidence interval of that study, which is still used in our WHO source for the IFR. I believe since feb 4 we can do much better in that direction and we should stop using this in our main article. Now, for our main discussion, I think it's self evident that after this source Wu et al (jan 31) and [21] (feb 4), The chinese authorities changed their attitude toward COVID-19. Up to that point, they were increasing their test capacity and trying to contain the virus. After being told that 100 times more cases were already all around Wuhan, I'm inferring that they returned to their normal ILI strategy. We can all see ourselves that the confirmed cases peaked on feb 4. I don't think i'm doing that many logical jumps. We have a peak of confirmed case on feb 4, a source that evaluate the IFR down by an order of magnitude and make the containment at an hospital level or city level ridiculous on feb 4 and an international consensus that since then, china's numbers are "suspicious". Iluvalar (talk) 19:38, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

This topic has been discussed over and over. Please, WP:NOFORUM. Unless there is some particular source and change to be discussed, this is not going anywhere. --MarioGom (talk) 18:18, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

This topic is also being archived all the time. And Jim Michael is totally right, When you put me in the box a months ago, I was a bit edgy to claim that China stopped on feb 4. I had little decisive secondary sources to back this up. But since then, Trump addressed it in a press conference and I'm plated with sources. We should mention it more clearly in the article. Iluvalar (talk) 18:32, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

...much more clearly in the article IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 02:52, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

I understand the popular interpretation of this, but again, I don't see the "cover up" they talk about since China never stated they were doing tests. There was a research published that there was at least 100x more cases just in Wuhan. It was confirmed by both China and the WHO. The WHO still use that very source for their IFR. China also openly questioned the origin. Trump even won a famous twitter battle about this exact subject a few weeks later. I don't know why it was decided to only test people from Wuhan who are actively coughing, but that day they should have started testing the street of NY. The information was available. Iluvalar (talk) 17:00, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

WP:BOLD rewrite of virturally all of transmission

@Doc James: - just removing redundancy and following the WHO faq predominantly. I like explaining it to people that the surfaces are the small droplets, its the same method. And as I was saying during our dispute, the surfaces are not important in WHO's opinion anymore.

WOuld appreciate a discussion of this as opposed to a complete rewrite! Thanks James. --Almaty (talk) 15:30, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

that's a lot to rewrite IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:09, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Citation errors

There are few citation errors that I have found. It would be great if someone fixes those. Thanks, Luke Kern Choi 5 (talk) 15:32, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Can you list the precise location of these errors here so we don't have to go looking for them? Also, you're extended-confirmed, so you can always fix them yourself -- just an FYI if you didn't know. sam1370 (talk) 21:09, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Actually, I'm not that good in citaions, and I didn't know if the citation name(multiple uses?) is wrong, link is wrong, etc. Next time, I would put the citation number.(Red ones in the main article.) Also, I apologize because I can't spend enough time on Wikipedia these days. Sorry! Just wanted to help.Luke Kern Choi 5 (talk) 00:52, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Continuing of discussion about whether it is WP:DUE to include a sentence about there being no evidence for immunity in the lead

Hey User:Sdkb, since you reverted my edit including the sentence in the part of the article excerpted from the disease lead, I'd like to reopen the discussion (and hopefully get a few more opinions than just me and you as well). Personally, I believe that the fact that people who recover from the pandemic are not immune is an important thing that should be included in the paragraphs, since I think it would be a common misconception considering the common characteristic among many diseases that recovering from them grants you immunity. sam1370 (talk) 05:56, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

To help out anyone else who wants to comment on this, the reversion diff is here and the prior discussion is here. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 06:12, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

This seems important to me as it more or less directly addresses the cure. Benica11 (talk) 16:04, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Redundant graphs?

Taking a brief glance at them, some of the graphs/charts/maps in the cases and deaths sections seem redundant to each other (or to ones in the infobox or history section). Should we be removing some of them? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 07:05, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Which are you wanting to remove? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:57, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Status of Tajikistan

For any observer of Tajikistan its Coronavirus positive status was quite obvious a month ago due to large amounts of doctors being quarantined in various hospitals mostly across the north of the country. In any case the Tajik government has now officially certified that the country does indeed have Covid-19. This means the map needs to be updated. The source of this information can be found in Russian in Asia Plus's article here: https://asiaplustj.info/ru/news/tajikistan/security/20200430/v-tadzhikistane-ofitsialno-priznali-koronavirus-v-strane-est Zaharous (talk) 11:43, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

/* Updated cases, deaths, and recoveries */

Confirmed cases: 3,273,972 Active cases: 2,010,732 Deaths: 231,458 Recoveries: 1,031,782

On the top of this page, it states that the consensus is that Worldometers is not reliable. Benica11 (talk) 16:11, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

References

Wuhan sentence in the lead

I notice an interesting difference in the lead in this article and coronavirus disease 2019. There, a clause in the first paragraph of the intro reads The disease was first identified in December 2019 in Wuhan, the capital of China's Hubei province, whereas here we just use The outbreak was identified in Wuhan, China, in December 2019. A while back, it read The outbreak was identified in Wuhan, Hubei, China, in December 2019. The difference seems a little backwards, since we shouldn't have more on the origin at the disease article than the pandemic article. So: what phrasing should we use at each? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 17:23, 30 April 2020 (UTC)