Talk:COVID-19 pandemic/Archive 11

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5 ← Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 → Archive 15

Requested move 18 February 2020

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

The result of the move request was: There looks like a clear consensus to move this page looking at both this discussion and the earlier one at #2019–20 coronavirus outbreak. -- Guerillero | Parlez Moi 21:56, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak → 2019–20 coronavirus outbreak – Notice this a very minimal change of removing the word "Wuhan" from the title. I believe it is most constructive to move one step at time instead of trying to find a perfect title in one move request. Obviously the name might change in the future, but that does not mean we should be stuck with the current title while waiting for that perfect one, especially since this article is being viewed by ~200,000 to ~500,000 visitors every day and are being featured on the Wikipedia main page as well as on Google search result's knowledge panel. Remember we have redirections, so 2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak would still be available should someone searches that name.

It would be constructive for the discussion to reach a consensus (and save everyone's time) if we could focus on whether or not we should remove "Wuhan" from the title in this move request. We could discuss whether we should use "COVID-19," whether the year range should be changed, whether to use "outbreak" or "epidemic," etc. in new future discussions/move requests.

Below is a summary of the major rationales for moving the page based on the discussion:

  • WP:COMMONNAME had been a huge deal in previous discussions. However, now most major media outlets are just using the phrase "Coronavirus Outbreak" without referencing to the word "Wuhan": NYT (Coronavirus Outbreak), BBC (Coronavirus Outbreak), CNN (Coronavirus Outbreak), South China Morning Post (Coronavirus Outbreak), WebMD (Coronavirus 2020 Outbreak), Reuters (Coronavirus), AP (Virus Outbreak), MarketWatch (Coronavirus), BMJ (Coronavirus Outbreak), SkyNews (Coronavirus), FoxNews (Coronavirus), The Guardian (Coronavirus outbreak), Al Jazeera (Coronavirus Outbreak). Hence, "Wuhan coronavirus outbreak" is no longer the common name.
  • WP:RECOGNIZABILITY and WP:COMMONNAME: based on Google Trends (7 day view). To estimate, subtract "X coronavirus outbreak" from "coronavirus outbreak" and the more general term dominates at least 10 to 1. Prior debate over the recognizability of Wuhan vs. novel is less consequential by comparison. Notice that at all times "coronavirus outbreak" scores much higher than "wuhan coronavirus outbreak".
  • WP:NCMED: it does not contradict the scientific name of the disease by WHO, CDC, and NHS and to the extent that "Wuhan" is interpreted to be the disease/virus name, it does not contradict WHO Best Practice Guidelines (2015), which advises against using locations in disease names to avoid stigma.
  • WP:NPOVTITLE: some argue "Wuhan" may support anti-China discrimination seen on social media and opinion media. We should also consider the societal impact Wikipedia has given that this article is featured on Google results as well as on Wikipedia main page, and that ~200,000 to ~500,000 visitors visit this page everyday.
  • WP:PRECISION: "2019–20" makes it unambiguous enough which coronavirus outbreak is being discussed (see also WP:RECOGNIZABILITY and WP:COMMONNAME arguments above, especially since even the media outlets are only using the phrase "Coronavirus Outbreak" to refer to this outbreak). "Titles should unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but should be no more precise than that." Hence the term "Wuhan" is not needed. While it is possible (but hopefully not) that another new coronavirus outbreak might happen this year or that this outbreak isn't finished by the end of 2020, but Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. We could move this page again if and when that happens. Efly (talk) 08:03, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
Strongly support and rescind my previous statements supporting COVID-19 over coronavirus disease 2019 for the related move discussions. I think that we should just look at WP:COMMONNAME closely. 'Tis very very surprising to me that the commonest, and even the "official" name will remain so ambiguous. It doesn't matter, just another thing to confuse medical students! And wikipedians.--Almaty (talk) 08:47, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
For the outbreak, this seems like a reasonable title, until the common name changes even more or it becomes even more ambiguous. --Almaty (talk) 08:50, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
Support. "Wuhan" should be removed from the title because it is easily misinterpreted as meaning either (1) we're calling the virus "Wuhan coronavirus"; (2) the article is limited to the impact on Wuhan itself; or (3) the article asserts that there has been little or no spread outside Wuhan. Jruderman (talk) 10:03, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
Strongly support per WP:NPOVTITLE. Remove the "Wuhan" from the title, as there is ample evidence of racial discrimination on a global scale being directly caused by the outbreak's association with Chinese people and Asian people as a whole. —Tookabreather (talk) 12:49, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
Support. The virus went beyond Wuhan and China in general. This is a planetary story. And that’s why the article should be renamed. --Gruznov (talk) 12:54, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
Strongly support with comment per reasons above. Remove the "Wuhan" from the title, because it now spread around the world. But because this RM was related to the my multiple requests move related to this article. I encouraged to add that item to this section of multiple requested moves 36.69.53.66 (talk) 12:59, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
Support. We need to improve the clarity of the title as per Jruderman's three points above. --LukeSurl t c 13:53, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
Strong support – Fair play, you've done your homework. jackchango talk 13:59, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
Strong support – It's no longer confined to Wuhan and doesn't follow traditional naming styles for epidemics. Tsukide (talk) 14:21, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support. No longer confined, sources often refer to outbreak without Wuhan. There is only one known significant outbreak in these years.--Eostrix (talk) 15:08, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support split to discuss the global outbreak. It should be recalled that the primary story is in Wuhan. There should be a subpage discussing the outbreak in Wuhan primarily. 199.66.69.88 (talk) 15:27, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment - The virus is not called "severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2" per ICTV. So either 2019–20 severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 outbreak or 2019–20 SARS-CoV-2 outbreak would be best. Of if you prefer the name of the disease and not the virus, 2019–20 COVID-19 outbreak. --Nessie (📥) 16:35, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support per WP:COMMONNAME, everybody just knows it as the coronavirusPancho507 (talk) 16:41, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support It seems that the significant impact is to the world, not just in Wuhan any longer. Peterwu2019 (talk) 16:44, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong Support The outbreak has spread worldwide and even though it originated in Wuhan, it isn't just Wuhan that has to deal with it anymore. Mase268 (talk) 17:14, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong Support It would have been appropriate to call it the Wuhan Coronavirus outbreak when it was contained in Wuhan, sadly, this isn't the case anymore ShiberToast (talk) 17:38, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Strongly support per all reasons, well stated above, especially WP:PRECISION. Holy (talk) 18:35, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support per above reasoning. The outbreak is extending itself far beyond Wuhan. --LiamUJ (talk) 18:37, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
  • I support removing "Wuhan" from the title (and that must be WP:SNOW by now), but I would prefer "2019-20 Covid-19 outbreak" or "2019–20 SARS-CoV-2 outbreak". While sources often just say "coronavirus", it would not contravene WP:COMMONNAME to be more specific. Bondegezou (talk) 18:58, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong support Thank you for submitting this. I hope we can do this as early as possible and then have the extended discussion of possible long-term solutions (2019–20 COVID-19 outbreak vs. 2019–20 Covid-19 outbreak vs. COVID-19 outbreak vs. 2019–20 coronavirus disease 2019 outbreak vs. coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak vs. 2019–20 SARS-CoV-2 outbreak), which will to take two weeks. - Wikmoz (talk) 19:06, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
    • @Wikmoz: I completely agree (also thank you for starting the informal discussion!). After this move request, we can again start a similar informal discussion like this for long-term solutions to evaluate all options available before creating a new formal RM. --Efly (talk) 19:16, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
  • support. Makes sense as its no longer restricted to Wuhan. Starzoner (talk) 19:19, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong support Yes lets move it already. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:30, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
  • support perWP:PRECISION--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:53, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

2019–20 coronavirus outbreak

Page moved per this discussion and the one at #Requested move 18 February 2020 --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 21:59, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

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

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

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

2019–20 coronavirus outbreak

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

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

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

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

Comment The Wikipedia main page doesn’t use the term ‘Wuhan’ when talking about the outbreak Benica11 (talk) 23:49, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

The best place to complain about that is at Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:12, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Page move moratorium

There does not seem to be a consensus to halt page move discussions. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 22:00, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

I'm sympathetic to this argument, but it seems evident the name is problematic, especially as new reporting shows rising levels of xenophobia that can't be attributed to mere caution about the virus. My view is that if we were to recreate this article whole cloth knowing what we know today we would use it's official name, COVID-19, plus some variant of outbreak/epidemic. Being new here, I honestly didn't expect to see such detailed coverage about the epidemic to appear so quickly. So, maybe you could help me understand how Wikipedia normally handles covering emergent events? I'd welcome the discussion on my talk. PedanticLlama (talk) 21:43, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and not a newspaper. This is extremely key to understanding why we aren’t leaping upon WHO’s terminology (let’s be clear, there can be no “official name” for a disease, which is a process created by nature and not by a human organization), or changing the page title to reflect new developments that are coming every day. Even looking at the most recent move request, the scope of this article is the outbreak in Wuhan that has spread across China and around the world. The outbreak in Wuhan started in December 2019 and is only now (mid-February) being called a pandemic. There was no pandemic until now, nor “official name” until recently, so discussing a pandemic or an official name when describing the developing nature of the outbreak is honestly inappropriate. Once again, we are not a newspaper that focuses on what’s happening today and what may happen tomorrow, but what happened on all the days before tomorrow. This is still true in current events. 199.66.69.88 (talk) 00:01, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
I appreciate the response! I've read the NOTNEWS policy, and although I arrived at the opposite conclusion I understand your reasoning. Precisely because Wikipedia is not intended to be the news, I wonder why this article exists to the extent it does. However, since it does exist, it makes sense to weight sources based on confirmation of recent accuracy, if that makes sense. As an example, if there are 150 references citing an incorrect name and only a handful citing a new development that has been verified by experts, but happened recently, would it make sense to keep the old (incorrect) name? Especially given that the preponderance of new references use the new name.
And just to make sure I understand what's being asked: most people want to change the title to epidemic, right? I'm not aware of pandemic being suggested or cited anywhere as that would be a pretty major development (which consequently may be worthy of breaking this 30 day rule). PedanticLlama (talk) 00:41, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support one-month moratorium on pagemove discussions. This is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. We don't need to give in to these recentist fad-driven name changes and further contribute to our readers' confusion. Naming is not as important as those panic-prone commenters insisting that we immediately change the page name to reflect some advisory organization's whimsical decisions seem to believe. Improve the content of this page if you want to help inform people. 199.66.69.88 (talk) 22:37, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support for one month moratorium It feels to me like the reason this title is so contentious is because pro-China editors are trying to right a great wrong and save face. But the reality is that Wikipedia must wait until an alternate name becomes dominant enough to meet the requirements of WP:COMMONNAMES. Wikipedia is not censored and hosts great deal of content offensive to many groups. Experienced editors oppose them on policy grounds, breeding conflict and accusations of Sinophobia. Melmann 22:54, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support one month moratorium for pagemove because if this requested move happens everyday, it will confuse readers as it can be move to someone else. This moratorium needs to applied to 2019 novel coronavirus as well as all articles containing "Wuhan coronavirus outbreak" name. If multiple request move needed, this request must discuss on single talk-page, not multiple talk pages of their respective articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 36.76.229.147 (talk) 23:14, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
    • This is a great point. At some level we might want to talk about an RfC on general sanctions for this topic area. It’s become extremely disruptive to have all the discussion focused on naming and accusations of bias/sinophobia, especially against experienced editors whose views are essential to keeping this topic area in good shape. I guess on some level it might seem like an extreme escalation, but I see no better way to keep this topic area peaceful and collegial for what will likely be a controversial area for the next year. 199.66.69.88 (talk) 23:54, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
      • This article in brief period was included in post-1932 United States politics general sanctions because this article relate to the United States. But it removed because not related to that. 36.76.229.147 (talk) 00:22, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support, but restrict page moves requests until end of March 2020, require unregistered users to create a account to vote once the stable name is found, and preempt any consensus from overruling this temporarily restriction. We need a restriction on this page. Regice2020 (talk) 00:31, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
    • Why not give six-months moratorium request move instead at least? Because this 6-month moratorium need to use to give more information about that event. This event can be last until summer.36.76.229.147 (talk) 00:39, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose I don't think blocking a RM will be more productive.xinbenlv Talk, Remember to "ping" me 00:45, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
    Support, convinced by @Hurricane Noah: at Special:Diff/940855982 xinbenlv Talk, Remember to "ping" me 09:02, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose any moratorium on name change discussions. Weakly oppose a one week moratorium Neutral on a 5-day moratorium on actual formal move requests because they do require participation and there seems to be no chance at consensus without more careful consideration of options. - Wikmoz (talk) 01:47, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Strongly support - the common name in the media has stuck, and the TP is filling up with move req's and attempts to get around the RM process. Freeze it for a few weeks.50.111.33.78 (talk) 02:15, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose - Censorship is bad. If you don't like the discussion(s) don't participate. The guideline for page names says it is strongly waited for recent names. wp:namechanges Excerpt:
Sometimes the subject of an article will undergo a change of name. When this occurs, we give extra weight to reliable sources written after the name change.
Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 02:48, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose This is neither a formal RfC to be binding nor is it an appropriate proposal. RM will come and they will be speedy closed or entertained with discussion as the community sees fit, this is neither as big a deal as some make it out to be nor is restricting RM for a developing event that has been especially notable because of the name changes an appropriate measure. Sleath56 (talk) 03:09, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support even a 1 week pause would save effort! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:48, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Strongly Oppose - the page title is technically factually incorrect because this article isn't about the outbreak in Wuhan but rather a wider epidemic. I haven't come across any other article which has kept the original location in the title of the epidemic page. Tsukide (talk) 07:41, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
  • (crossposting to WP:AN; involved closer) Strong support as proposed. The primary issue is not that unregistered contributors are participating but the fact that this is an ongoing issue, the current proposal to have a one-month moratorium was greatly needed, I see all the closes after mine were speedily closed (there was one restarted on the same day!). The correct process to argue with any move you disagree with is to file a Wikipedia:Move review after you discuss it with the closer. You are supposed to debate whether the close was fair or not in reference to the consensus and then decide if such a request is required. Opening RMs again and again with the same or different title is pointless if you want to establish consensus, when there wasn't any in the first place. --qedk (t 桜 c) 10:31, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Strongly Oppose Things are moving fast. In that context, a one month moratorium is a ridiculously long time to ban discussion of something. Bondegezou (talk) 14:06, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose-1 month is long, but it is an epidemic, so how about a few weeks? After all, the month of February is 672 hours, and March is 72 hours longer — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.24.150.111 (talk) 16:24, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I would rather suggest that one new formal, properly prepared and advertised move discussion is initated which cannot speedily closed. Before it is initiated we should have a discussion on which new title we should propose. The new move discussion can than be held in a constructive manner and what ever result it brings we obey and then we impose a moratorium on new move request.Tvx1 17:13, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Strongly Oppose The disease page (2019-nCoV acute respiratory disease) is going to be renamed soon it seems. Once that is done, a renaming of this page to become consistent with the new name there will be needed. (The proper name for this page is 2019-20 XXX outbreak, where XXX is the disease name.) Afterwards, a moratorium like the one suggested here will be a good idea. EMS | Talk 19:24, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Stop it. This is ridiculous. If it turns out that this eventually is no longer used as the common name, the page can be moved to whatever the common name ends up being. There is no rush. Natureium (talk) 21:23, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
If it turns out that this eventually is no longer used as the common name... Your criteria for a move has been met. "Wuhan coronavirus" is no longer the common name by any measure. Regarding recognizability, "coronavirus" has a 50:1 advantage over "Wuhan coronavirus" and "COVID" has at least a 2:1 advantage based on Google Trends-. Wikmoz (talk) 17:49, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Strongly Oppose The current title of this page is clearly a divisive issue. Regardless of one’s opinion on the title, prohibiting further discussion would be to silence those with dissenting opinions and suppress open discussion as well as constructive criticisms. Ganymede94 (talk) 06:25, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Very few newspaper headlines are currently using "Wuhan", instead it's mostly "China" or occasionally "Global" Robertpedley 17:01, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Strongly Oppose We should not censor the discussions. There's nothing wrong or harmful with starting a new discussion. --Efly (talk) 22:58, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Move to table proposal until the reopened move review closes 20 February 2020. The move review already exerts a de-facto moratorium. Until then, I'm going to urge people to comment there instead of opening even more move requests. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 17:25, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
@Rotideypoc41352: The MR has been closed. Sleath56 (talk) 17:36, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose According to the latest Google Trends:Google Trends. Term COVID is four times more searched as compared to Wuhan CoronavirusTyr1118 (talk) 03:39, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move 18 February 2020 regarding all articles related to first article

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

The result of the move request was: All moved already by Doc James, as uncontroversial.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:45, 18 February 2020 (UTC)


– Someone who requested move to single article forgetting to multiple request moves that related to this RM by Efly. Please added articles that related to the former names retaining Wuhan because this RM was related to the RM by Efly. 36.69.53.66 (talk) 12:03, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Sure and done. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:54, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Why has "on an international conveyance" been merged with the Japanese entry?

It was a separate row, now it's merged with the Japanese number again... At least, in the past, there was x+y (to separate the two).--Adûnâi (talk) 07:38, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

will look--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:36, 18 February 2020 (UTC)


Strong Support This title is exactly what I have been arguing for recently. EMS | Talk 17:50, 18 February 2020 (UTC) (voting is in the section below--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:21, 18 February 2020 (UTC))

References

Chloroquine press conference

Under WP:MEDRS, please add the main updates on the chloroquine claim(s) at COVID-19#Chloroquine; and update the summary here in the 2019–20 coronavirus outbreak#Management section if need be.

Please keep a brief pointer here. Otherwise, people will keep adding it to this article in wrong places such as the Vaccine research section. Chloroquine is not a vaccine. Boud (talk) 23:37, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

That chloroquine report clearly fails WP:MEDRS. I've removed text about it. It is better to say nothing on this than to describe an unpublished study of 10 patients based on a single news report. Bondegezou (talk) 23:43, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
Well, let's focus the discussion at COVID-19#Chloroquine_press_conference rather than split it into two. Boud (talk) 23:49, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Graph question

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

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

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

Cumulative calculated case fatality rate in China by date, February 2020[1][2]

The cumulative case fatality rate in China compares the total number of deaths with the total number of confirmed cases, on a daily basis. It is based on reported figures. The current figure is not an estimate of the severity of the disease, nor an estimate of likelihood of death from coronavirus disease 2019.[2][3]
[EDITED] It looks good, BUT using or even presenting the case fatality rate (CFR) during an outbreak is extremelly deceiving! I'm annoyed by how the WHO keeps using this silly statistic to downplay the severity of the virus! The D/(D+R) is a much better approximation to the final CFR and is, thus, much more useful. If you intend to make a timeline for the CFR, you must make one for the D/(D+R) (ideally in one figure to show how they eventually converge) and mention that the latter is more reliable. Otherwise, it's better to have nothing, since it would be deceiving people with WHO's malefic politics. Alexiscoutinho (talk) 16:16, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
Agree, data manufactured by the CCP is false. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 17:22, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
I agree, this graph has to be removed, as it misleads the general public. The graph is mixing (dividing) the number of people infected e.g. 30 days ago and diagnosed 20 days ago (-30 days from today infected, -30+10 days incubation = -20 days diagnosed, 0=today dying) with the people diagnosed today, that is about 10 days ago infected). Even D/(D+R) is not the best approximation, as I can imagine the infection to death time interval can be significantly shorter (or different) than infection to recovery time interval. It will be nice to dig out from the WHO/Chinese data the average time for diagnose to death time interval and diagnose to recovery time interval. This can be used for calculating of better estimate of the mortality by improving D/(D+R) formula. Vladimir.Smutny 12:15, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
Agree, the true death chance/mortality at each stage/day of the outbreak should be a bit lower than stock D/(D+R). However, if we try to improve it by considering those delays you mentioned we would likely get framed for WP:OR as we would be adding a degree of subjectivity to the data. I think there would be no problem if we used a professional research that did your suggestion (why isn't the WHO doing it? money involved?). Alternatively, we could comment that the true mortality as of each day (during the outbreak) is a bit lower than the D/(D+R) and much higher than the CFR. Alexiscoutinho (talk) 13:13, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
[Refactored] It isn't deceiving it is a statistic, that is used in outbreak investigation. Please note that Doc James (talk · contribs) is fine with the graph. I'll put in the disclaimer that it is not a mortality rate either. --Almaty (talk) 17:15, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
I have removed the graph. The citation given to support the graph contained nothing like this graph, in which case this goes beyond WP:CALC and into WP:OR. Show a reliable source (preferably MEDRS-compliant) that presents data like that or else I don't see how it is acceptable under WP:OR. And there's certainly no consensus here for the graph, so please establish a consensus for it before seeking to re-add it. Bondegezou (talk) 17:32, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
@Bondegezou: can you please explain how WP:CALC applies? Routine calculations do not count as original research, provided there is consensus among editors that the result of the calculation is obvious, correct, and a meaningful reflection of the sources. I would suggest it passes both tests; the chinese press release explains exactly how they calculate it (within the limits of google translate, and also it is a true reflection of the figures in the sit reps. Although I'm unexperienced as to what we consider obvious and correct I would also argue that the calculation is obvious and correct, its a very simple division expressed as a percentage. It is the commonest method used, has a disclaimer, was verified by another editor quickly Here, and here by @Global Cerebral Ischemia:. The calculation is wikilinked in the title. Main reason to use the table is to avoid primary sources which are conflicting. I think the "death rate" is a major thing that people want to know, and the terminology is important. --Almaty (talk) 21:16, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
Well, that escalated quickly. So, is addition fine but division not? Even the stock D/(D+R) shouldn't be considered WP:OR since it's basic probability, which can be learnt before lesson 1 of statistics. Alexiscoutinho (talk) 21:48, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
Almaty, I appreciate you are trying hard to do something useful here, but 5 people have expressed views in this discussion: 4 of us do not support this graph's inclusion, while you do. You need to respect that and work out what to do here before you can re-add to the article. Bondegezou (talk) 17:37, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
I am fine with this[5] graph. The one above I am not sure it is needed as we have the other one. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:39, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
Ok I did so because I thought Doc James (talk · contribs) supported the second graph. I wouldn't have reinserted it otherwise and there's also 3RR. I won't have time to work on this today. The rationale for having a different graph is because it it shows the best we have on what everyone wants to know IMO. The Chinese cites show it each day I'm pretty sure. --Almaty (talk) 17:53, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
I put it on the timeline page for now. Request help with wikification and from native Chinese speakers to assist with the sourcing. I think its helpful as a separate graph, because when looking at the first graph, it doesn't show how the CFR has been remarkably stable throughout, it looks like its increasing. --Almaty (talk) 18:11, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
We can just put the risk of death here IMO Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:13, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
No no no that's the point @Doc James: we don't know the risk of death, at all. Thats why I think my graph is helpful. --49.195.82.107 (talk) 18:14, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
We have sources that say "As of Feb 11, 2020, the cumulative number of confirmed cases in mainland China has reached 38 800, with 4740 (12·2%) cured cases and 1113 (2·9%) deaths"[6] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:27, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
Yes, we have some WP:PRIMARY sources such as the ones you've listed which is why I'm trying to use the WHO. We can see that it is changing on a day to day basis, and as the outbreak continues I expect this will change. Perhaps in late February the graph could then change to a weekly basis, until it stabilises. I don't want to WP:CRYSTAL but I think that will take about a month (just a hunch, we really don't know) --Almaty (talk) 18:34, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
Just reiterating, I'm not completely against the graphic, I just want some compromise (at least include D/(D+R) [D = deaths and R = recovered]). Alexiscoutinho (talk) 21:48, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
[Edited] Yeah I'm not sure I agree for the deaths section. CFR is inherently biased especially early in a rapidly spreading outbreak, not due to intent or politics but due to the delay of deaths, as we can see logically. It's still a valid statistic, it's used everywhere and gives good encyclopaedic information, Eventually, it becomes a good indicator of disease severity, but for now I've tried to disclaimer for this outbreak at this stage. I tried to overcome the inherent bias by using the graph, then the reader can come to their own mind, avoiding any synthesis. Im not sure where you source D/D+R? Interested to know. It would likely have even bigger problems, from the top of my head, who defines a recovery, delays in reporting recovery, etc. When you have a surveillance system (as many infectious diseases do, eg. measles in many countries), clinicians are much more likely to input disease, and death rather than recovery, then there's loss to followup when people are better, etc. Also, with WP:CALC which has been referred to you have to do two lots of math, CFR is just the one. --Almaty (talk) 08:11, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
D/(D+R) is shown here 2019–20_Wuhan_coronavirus_data/China_medical_cases. It's probability 101. It's just like calculating how likely it is to get heads or tails: get the events of the outcome you are interested and divide by the total number of events. Alexiscoutinho (talk) 12:03, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
Yes I understand that it has been used on Wiki and it is a simple ratio, thanks @Alexiscoutinho:. Are you able to point me to sources on how/when/why it is used in outbreaks or infectious diseases? Or a WP:MEDRS source showing it used in this outbreak and the disease? --Almaty (talk) 16:13, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Almaty, first, stop re-adding your graph, here or on the Timeline article. There clearly is not consensus for it. Establish consensus, then you can re-add what is supported by consensus. We shouldn't be trying things out in the article: get it right here, then you can add it (presuming there is some form of the graph that is acceptable).

Why am I concerned about WP:OR? I can't see anything like this graph in reliable sources. If it was a useful and meaningful way of presenting data, you'd think someone else would have done it. They haven't (that I can see). If you can show me something like this graph in a reliable source, that would be a good argument for it. The discussion above says to me that there isn't consensus about what these numbers mean, or if these are the right numbers to use. Bondegezou (talk) 17:07, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Bondegezou yes I can see that you don't see consensus here. I'm trying to explain. Recoveries as a data point is not reliable, but we use a lot of it, leading to misinformation IMO. Lots of non WP:MEDRS compliant sources use this type of graph, we cite them many times already. All the outbreak investigators are following this graph closely in the background. I just think it is misleading to give any kind of death rate without using cumulative CFR with a caveat. I'll add worldometers which is being used a lot, hopefully allaying some of your concerns --Almaty (talk) 17:19, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
Almaty, I don't see consensus here because there isn't consensus here. Until you have consensus, you should not add your graph anywhere except Talk space. Do not add a revised version of the graph anywhere except Talk space. Doing so is edit-warring and can get you banned. Do you understand? Bondegezou (talk) 17:27, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
Bondegezou please calm down, I don't believe I am edit warring. Generally edit warring leads to a block not a ban. I have never broke 3RR.--Almaty (talk) 17:34, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
As per WP:3RR, you can be guilty of edit-warring without breaking 3RR. You have repeatedly re-added content against consensus. When your graph was removed from this article because it lacked support, you added it to two other articles instead! Do you not understand the problem with that? Respect Wikipedia procedures: as per WP:BRD, discuss what you want to do here, in Talk space, with respect to this graph. When you have something that most other editors support, it can be re-added. Not before. Bondegezou (talk) 17:39, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
OK point taken. I was suggested by other editors to put it on other pages, but yourself seems to be the main one following MEDRS. I think the main graph has real statistical problems which will get worse esp if the outbreak continues. Am I allowed to WP:BOLD remove that graph so they both have to be discussed. Also can we please mutually refactor the discussion for clarity and if you want to untemplated warn me, please do so on my talk page for clarity of the dispute. Context - it will take a few weeks for secondary sources to show a graph of my type, followed by a plethora of publications. For the interim our graph is misleading. --Almaty (talk) 17:52, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
My concern is with this graph and your over-eager attempts to place this graph on article space. I do not wish to restrict your other edits: if you think another graph is problematic, BOLDy remove it, explain why in a new section. We have had a large number of reliable source coronavirus publications, so I don't believe your argument that it will take a few weeks for secondary sources to show a graph of my type. I doubt such will appear, because it's not a useful graph. Bondegezou (talk) 18:46, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
Yes, however we both should not be WP:CRYSTAL, the epidemiologists are interpreting heaps of data. I'll Boldly remove the graph (very reluctantly) and put it on the RfC which explains all the concerns. Thanks --Almaty (talk) 19:23, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
That's not what WP:CRYSTAL means. We follow what reliable sources say. We do not seek to predict what reliable sources will say. This is one of the basics of how Wikipedia works. Bondegezou (talk) 09:37, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
we agree here wasn't clear. --Almaty (talk) 11:58, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
Some graphs. They have a proposed approach... the early stage of an epidemic when local surveillance is affected by substantial ascertainment bias and export and death data are available and better ascertained --Almaty (talk) 12:05, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) situation reports". www.who.int. Retrieved 16 February 2020.
  2. ^ a b "2020年2月4日新闻发布会文字实录". National Health Commission of the People's Republic of China.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  3. ^ Lipsitch, Marc; Donnelly, Christl A.; Fraser, Christophe; Blake, Isobel M.; Cori, Anne; Dorigatti, Ilaria; Ferguson, Neil M.; Garske, Tini; Mills, Harriet L.; Riley, Steven; Kerkhove, Maria D. Van (2015-07-16). "Potential Biases in Estimating Absolute and Relative Case-Fatality Risks during Outbreaks". PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases. 9 (7): e0003846. doi:10.1371/journal.pntd.0003846. ISSN 1935-2735.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)

An Adjustment to the Infection / Death / Recovery Chart

There are some countries that have had infected patients but they have either died or all recovered. Maybe we should highlight those countries that currently do not have any ongoing cases. Just a thought. Dannelsluc (talk) 00:40, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

I think delete the recoveries can see how unreliable it is --Almaty (talk) 12:11, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Happy to make an epidemic curve

But won't spend heaps of time on it unless has consensus wants it. --Almaty (talk) 12:13, 19 February 2020 (UTC).

This is the best interpreted data out of china so far. I think follow this publications lead. --Almaty (talk) 12:27, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
Are you proposing a graph like figure 3 in that paper? That seems useful. Bondegezou (talk) 14:26, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
I am proposing that. Yes it is a standard form of graph for outbreak investigation. --19:54, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Double redirects

Can I get some help cleaning up the double redirects that came from moving this page? --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 22:06, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

@Guerillero: Oof, all those need to be manually corrected? Sleath56 (talk) 23:31, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
I'm sure that there are bots that do this. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 00:04, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, seems like so. I've corrected a substantial amount number of them already for more prominent mainspaces, but best to wait a while and see if any bots pick it up. Sleath56 (talk) 22:18, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Keep an eye on Current events portal

This is for people who edit this a lot. Keep an eye on the current events portal, as it can give new details not the virus and it’s spread, event before it is listed here. Most people probably knew that, but just a heads up. (Saying this after Iran reported first cases today). Elijahandskip (talk) 14:02, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

thank you for post--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 01:44, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Table of Mainland China cases might not be accurate?

The CDC China has published their latest papers according to two major news outlets[1][2] in China on the outbreak of corona virus in a domestic medical journal. Their tally of casualties of the virus and when it might have started largely corroborate with what many reporters have seen and it is in total contrast to official government figures. For example, according to one paper, before 1 Dec, 104 cases had already been recorded . While between 7 Jan and 16 Jan, the Wuhan government said there were 41 confirmed cases during that period, the paper revealed between 1 Jan and 10 Jan, there were 653 and between 11 Jan and 20 Jan, there were a whopping 5417.

Beijing News also reports the average waiting time for a patient with serious symptoms to get admitted to a hospital is about 10 days. Swoopin swallow (talk) 04:12, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://www.bjd.com.cn/a/202002/18/WS5e4bdf8ae4b0094948681c52.html
  2. ^ https://new.qq.com/omn/20200219/20200219A0H2FK00.html

RfC about epidemiology

For the coronavirus outbreak, should we utilize: Graph 1 (original graph) that shows cases deaths and recoveries, Graph 2 (CFR); Both graphs; No graphs, or use a Epidemic curve as per reliable sources? --Almaty (talk) 19:22, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Complex discussion. Think needs a bit more than third opinion.
We have a graph on the COVID-19 outbreak page that has consensus, and whilst its great and speedily updated I believe it is slightly misleading. I have concerns about the data point "recoveries" - and any inferences the reader may make from this. Recoveries has a few problems, namely that clinicians are less likely to report recoveries, loss to followup etc. They generally always report cases and deaths in a rapidly developing outbreak such as this
I'm suggesting balancing the current graph with this graph:
Graph 2 (CFR) --Almaty (talk) 14:35, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

'Proposed Graph 2 (CFR)'Cumulative calculated case fatality rate in China by date, February 2020[1][2]

The cumulative case fatality rate in China compares the total number of deaths with the total number of confirmed cases, on a daily basis. It is based on reported figures. The current figure is not an estimate of the severity of the disease, nor an estimate of likelihood of death from coronavirus disease 2019.[2][3]


In outbreak communication a standard way of reporting is the case fatality rate. However, at the earliest stage of the an outbreak, the CFR is inherently biased. We're now past the very initial stages, almost 2 months into the outbreak. I created this graph to attempt to convey the uncertainty. It involves a simple division and therefore I don't think its original research, and I think it could go on this page, or the disease page.
I think when people go to wikipedia they want to see a "death rate", the new graph conveys the uncertainty of the "death rate" with using the CFR standard and a sourced disclaimer. So I don't think we should include WP:PRIMARY sources that state a CFR it without the graph because its changing. Opinions so far have included: 1. WP:CALC - I believe that using the WHO situation reports as the main source, there is one simple division and therefore "obvious and correct"
2. That WP:MEDRS sources are not showing the CFR graph at this stage, just the figures. Primary published sources show point in time CFRs which are unreliable and changing. However, they certainly don't show our current graph.
3. A statistic known as (D/D+R) has been suggested to be used, which I don't think is a standard statistic in outbreak communication. It runs the risk of vastly underover-reporting the "death rate", due to recoveries not being reported or lost to followup, IMO and I haven't yet been pointed to a source. --Almaty (talk) 18:35, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Comment So sorry to WP:Boldly remove the current graph, as discussed with another editor. I recommend putting it back in once recoveries is removed for now, the achieve consensus about the recovery deferring to experts where possible. I think this letter is explaining a significant amount of the epidemiological uncertainty well. Also, Sorry I will not be available for replies for about 10-12 hours. --Almaty (talk) 19:33, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
User:Almaty Can we make the graph of % mortality narrower? You are proposing putting it in the section on deaths? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:06, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
User:Doc James done (on the train no less) --Almaty (talk) 21:17, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
User:Doc James and yes just on the section on deaths. (unable to log in at present, this is Almaty) --156.22.244.15 (talk) 22:18, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
@Almaty: what is your brief and neutral statement? At over 6,500 bytes, the statement above (from the {{rfc}} tag to the next timestamp) is far too long for Legobot (talk · contribs) to handle, and so it is not being shown correctly at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Maths, science, and technology. The RfC will also not be publicised through WP:FRS until a shorter statement is provided. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:55, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
This is the death rate after diagnosis. NOT the death rate. In a typical coronavirus outbreak, there might be about 1 infected over 1000 that is even diagnosed. Typically, people with flu symptoms never get tested; They stay at home. We have no tool at all to calculate the actual death rate of this virus. It's most likely 1000 time lower then what is shown on this graph. Please avoid original researches. Iluvalar (talk) 23:05, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
I'm not saying anything is a death rate, I put it in inverted commas. I just wish to include more standard stats and graphs than current. Such as the case fatality rate. --Almaty (talk) 11:41, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
I don't have time to write an elaborate comment but I'll leave some thoughts in defence of the chart:
1) While reporting recovery rates is unusual it's not unheard of (see eg. [7]) and though it is approximate, so are deaths and case rates. Considering how closely monitored this disease is I'd say recovery figures would be more reliable here than in previous epidemics.
2) There have been a lot of arguments on this talk page (and in academia) over incubation times and death rates, both still hard to determine at this stage. Instead of displaying judgement on these issues in Wikipedia's voice we can show the readers the raw figures and let them make up their own mind (though of course we should also give prominence to the views of professionals).
3) I'm no opponent of boldness but consensus around the chart seems to have been pretty decisive in that while some parts of it may have been flawed it is, as a whole, a useful resource. When I asked for opinions before adding recoveries to the chart I got a positive (albeit small) response. Considering that the chart has a prominent role in this article I'd say consensus should be shown to be in favor of removing it, rather than consensus needing to be found to keep it (either way, it shouldn't take too long to determine consensus given how active this talkpage is).
Edit: I'm referring to the "COVID-19 cases in mainland China" chart. CheeseBuffet (talk) 23:01, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
The discussion here has become confusing: there are two charts in question and it's not always clear which people are referring to!
We have reasonably good text discussing what the mortality rate might be. We should focus on good text that reflects reliable sources. That text should explain the difficulties in estimating these numbers. This is a better approach that anything that might fall foul of WP:OR and violating WP:CALC.
If we are to have graphs and charts, they should be inspired by what reliable sources do. If reliable sources present a certain sort of chart, but we can't simply replicate that chart because of copyright issues, then let's do our own chart along similar lines. Show me reliable sources do a chart of a particular type, and I will support having a chart of that type. Bondegezou (talk) 23:39, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
Since you started a new section, I'll briefly defend my suggestion. Including the D/(D+R) statistic in the new chart is good because:
1- It is an "obvious and correct" calculation (it's perfect in theory (probability 101) and is the best simple estimator in practice) that should comply with WP:CALC. Take this example, if you don't mention anything about an outbreak and ask a kid in a maths test which estimator of the probability of Y is better in a situation with 2 possible end states (Y and Z) and 1 intermediary state (I), the kid should obviously choose the estimator of the form Y/(Y+Z) and not Y/(I+Y+Z) (which is theoretically equivalent to the CFR).
2- Screw WP:MEDRS, it's not our fault if big entities are doing a sloppy job (or hiding the truth) of turning their numbers into visualizations.
Just to show how decent D/(D+R) can be, it is only 2% off from a professional mortality estimate[4] of 18% in Hubei on 10 Feb. Alexiscoutinho (talk) 01:36, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
3- I would agree that doctors might not strictly report the recovery of all patients of a common disease. However, this is COVID-19 and it is very possible that doctors and government want to be sure they count everyone to keep recovery rate high to calm the public. If this is true, then D/(D+R) only slightly over-estimates mortality because of the reasons discussed by me and Vladimir.Smutny in the beginning of the Graph question section. Thus, it should captioned that D/(D+R) is only an approximation of the mortality.
4- It would be nice to see/feel the slow convergence between the CFR and D/(D+R) as the outbreak progresses.
5- It would be pertinent to hint readers about the mortality of the virus. Alexiscoutinho (talk) 00:34, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
Here are some great epi curves. They give heaps of detailed information, inferable to the general reader, probably my preferred option after this publication. No DOI yet --Almaty (talk) 12:22, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
Whoever made the first graph, you can make it into an epidemic curve from the latest data very easily. Compromise ? --Almaty (talk) 14:21, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
For clarity please respond with Graph 1 (original); Graph 2 (CFR);No Graph;Both graphs; or Epidemic curve which I will source from here

and the like --Almaty (talk) 14:21, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I remain confused what is being proposed or what "graph 1" and "graph 2" mean. Can you make this RfC much clearer? Bondegezou (talk) 14:25, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
@Bondegezou: is it OK now? --Almaty (talk) 19:27, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
This is not the way to run an RfC, with the question changing partway through the discussion. You're not going to get any sensible answer out of this. Personally, I oppose Graph 2 (CFR). I support the epidemic curve along the lines in the paper cited. Bondegezou (talk) 19:30, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
Reason being trying to compromise with the original graph when it was reinserted. They can regig it to a standard epidemic curve with minimal effort --Almaty (talk) 20:06, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
Admin please close this RfC as withdrawn due to clarity and being now out of date, as we have better sources. I'll make another one on the template page. Sorry if incorrect procedure I am very time poor. I tried to give this a shot but I won't be able to do it. Happy to remove consideration of the above Graph 2 --Almaty (talk) 06:37, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
I have removed the template here and reopened with the new question here @Bondegezou: thx --Almaty (talk) 06:49, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) situation reports". www.who.int. Retrieved 16 February 2020.
  2. ^ a b "2020年2月4日新闻发布会文字实录". National Health Commission of the People's Republic of China.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  3. ^ Lipsitch, Marc; Donnelly, Christl A.; Fraser, Christophe; Blake, Isobel M.; Cori, Anne; Dorigatti, Ilaria; Ferguson, Neil M.; Garske, Tini; Mills, Harriet L.; Riley, Steven; Kerkhove, Maria D. Van (2015-07-16). "Potential Biases in Estimating Absolute and Relative Case-Fatality Risks during Outbreaks". PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases. 9 (7): e0003846. doi:10.1371/journal.pntd.0003846. ISSN 1935-2735.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)
  4. ^ "Report 4: Severity of 2019-novel coronavirus (nCoV)" (PDF). Imperial College London. Retrieved 2020-02-18.

Typo under epidemiology

"propogated" should be "propagated' Bhimasena (talk) 10:19, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2019–20_coronavirus_outbreak&diff=941739020&oldid=941737798 Fixed! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pestilence Unchained (talk • contribs) 10:39, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Proposal to tabulate the daily history of cumulative deaths and the rate of change

I don't see that the article shows the daily values of the cumulative deaths; it only shows the total deaths as of today. The columns of data next to the daily bar chart show the daily values of cumulative numbers of cases and the relative change from the previous day. What if someone adds a column listing the daily cumulative numbers of deaths and the relative change? I would think that a lot of people would be interested in the history of deaths, not just the history of cases. For one thing, I think it might indicate the lag between diagnosis and death, for those who died.CountMacula (talk) 02:10, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

I support this proposal. 86.161.83.159 (talk) 07:04, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
It does not. The data is there. The daily deaths increase by ca 6%. I expect that number to drop. Xenagoras (talk) 16:48, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
Thank you. I'm changing the title of the section from "Does the daily rate of change of cumulative deaths match the daily rate of change of cases?"CountMacula (talk) 18:20, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

text in the image box for the animation of the spreading (top right of the article) is outdated

Animation file says through feb 19, text says through feb 18 Airtwit (talk) 11:46, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

thank you for pointing that out, this is a fast moving event(and therefore article)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:30, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

New article?

Since we have several articles named "(name) related to the related to the 2019–20 coronavirus outbreak" such as Evacuations related to the 2019–20 coronavirus outbreak, Xenophobia and racism related to the 2019–20 coronavirus outbreak. Should we create this new one: Travel ban related to the related to the 2019–20 coronavirus outbreak? There are many sources for this, such as https://fortune.com/2020/02/06/countries-china-travel-restrictions-coronavirus/, https://edition.cnn.com/asia/live-news/coronavirus-outbreak-01-31-20-intl-hnk/h_d3eea9b0845b9bad6103629d601b71c9. 152.133.14.9 (talk) 21:26, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Travel restrictions are in 2020 Hubei lockdowns#Reactions and measures outside Mainland China. You can go to the talk page there and propose splitting off Travel bans related to the 2019–20 coronavirus outbreak. Boud (talk) 21:42, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
Generally concur that elsewhere is the right place for discussion, but bear in mind that there's nothing wrong with posting notices on related talk pages of an ongoing discussion. 199.66.69.88 (talk) 22:03, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
Agreed. Boud (talk) 01:54, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:COVID-19_pandemic/Archive_11&oldid=1182694713"