Jump to content

Talk:COVID-19/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

RfC: What should the new name for this article be?

It looks like MelanieN is offline and unable to respond to my request, so with apologies to MelanieN, for what was a good-faith IAR decision, per objections already raised by Dekimasu and Melanie's permission given below, I'm going to close this and reopen the above RM. That is the correct way to assess a move discussion, and per WP:NOGOODOPTIONS it should be possible for an uninvolved admin to weight the arguments for each proposed title and come to a decision. The RFC here looks like it's framing up as a simple WP:VOTE rather than a discussion based on policy, and that's not the way move discussions should be conducted and is not fair on those who provided lengthy debate and rationale in the RM on the same topic. Anyone who has not had their say yet, please do so at the RM above. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 09:15, 15 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.

The closed RM discussion above showed consensus to give this article a new name, but no consensus for what it should be. The proposed choices were COVID-19 or Coronavirus disease 2019. Please see that extended discussion for arguments either way, and please indicate your choice here. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:24, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

  • comment @Dekimasu: agreed that this process is strange and I wouldn't have done so myself. However it has been started, and rather than getting bogged down on the particular policy for name moves, most if not all can see that consensus is to change now. I would expect someone to WP:IAR given that has been followed already by @MelanieN: and simply change the name to either title. The outcome of this RfC can then settle on the final title. --Almaty (talk) 02:05, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes, alternatively, a normal IAR close that did select one of the two titles but left the option for a move request to the other option would be preferable. However, again, that should be based upon evidence and not preference, and as far as I can tell the question of which title best fit WP:NAMECHANGES had yet to be settled—which is not surprising, given that the "official" title change only happened a few days ago. The listing was removed from Wikipedia:Requested moves when the venue was changed, so I have for the time being left a note at Wikipedia talk:Requested moves noting that there is still a move discussion taking place. I do not mean to stand on policy or deny the usefulness of IAR, but I am not convinced that this shift will move the discussion toward a stable conclusion. Dekimasuよ! 02:20, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Hopefully this process doesn't take too long and we can get a quick vote. Otherwise, I'd be in favor of double checking the original vote count going with whichever one had a majority. In the case of a tie, the uninvolved admin closer should flip a coin per WP:COINFLIP, a policy that needs to be written. I think there's consensus that a decision should be made sooner than later. - Wikmoz (talk) 02:12, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Great that sounds like a fantastic idea. My !vote would be for COVID-19 for this page, simply because it is the commonest name, and clearly what the WHO are aiming for (genius I think, another name wouldn't have been as well accepted). Happy with either --Almaty (talk) 02:21, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
  • To be fair, the evidence given by Wikmoz in the discussion above is the best we have in terms of WP:NAMECHANGES, which is the section of policy at the heart of this request. "X is a better name" or "I prefer Y because organization Z named it that" are arguments that hold little weight in move discussions. It is disheartening to see a continuous stream of that type of input, and the presence of those types of !votes is one of the reasons that we don't rely upon "vote counts" when closing requests. Dekimasuよ! 02:24, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
That's why it was IAR. I knew it was against the rules. But I felt (and another admin agreed with me) that the RM format was not working, since it was set up to move to a particular title but the discussion was splitting for and against that title. Anyone who disagrees with my action and thinks the existing setup might have yielded, or might still yield, a solid result is welcome to unclose and restart the discussion. -- MelanieN (talk) 04:28, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
If you're referring to Amakuru above, I doubt this is the route he would have taken. But OK. Changing an RM into an RFC has been treated as a form of forum shopping in the past and as much as possible we should avoid normalizing it. Dekimasuよ! 05:39, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
yes, unfortunately so. I don't see how this is going to help at all, it's just the same RM as above with a different audience. I don't like that at all, I know this wasn't the intention but it's forum shopping. @MelanieN: please could you shut this down, and reopen the original RM so that an uninvolved admin can call it one way or the other. Then if people still object they can do a new RM after that. Page titles should never be decided by RFC.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:02, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
  • I believe that was certainly an unambiguous name about 7 days ago @Yejianfei:. However, the most common name of "coronavirus" or even "Wuhan pneumonia" cannot apply per the WP:COMMONNAME policy: 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, the commonest, unambiguous name for this particular page is COVID-19 or Coronavirus disease 2019. I would suggest the former, because COVID-19 is in more common usage. --Almaty (talk) 04:58, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
  • "WHO recommends that the interim name of the disease causing the current outbreak should be '2019-nCoV acute respiratory disease' (where ‘n’ is for novel and ‘CoV’ is for coronavirus)." Previous (outdated) WHO guidance. Dekimasuよ! 05:06, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Relevant Data Between "Coronavirus disease 2019" and "COVID-19" there's no comparison in user search frequency. "COVID-19" wins by 15:1 according to Google Trends. HOWEVER, when you also consider "coronavirus" in the WP:RECOGNIZABILITY calculation, "Coronavirus" wins by 10:1... even when you factor out all of the variations and possible alternate user search intentions. Obviously, we can't name this topic "coronavirus" but we can factor its popularity into the decision at hand. While "Coronavirus disease 2019" may not win in a head to head popularity contest, the fact that it contains the keyword in universal use, should be considered. FWIW, I provided a dozen examples of how NYT, CNN, BBC, and other major publishers are handling this decision and the key takeaway for me is they are using BOTH "coronavirus" and "COVID-19" to ensure their content is discoverable. All that said, I'd still cite WP:NOGOODOPTIONS and WP:NOTAVOTE and WP:NOTDEMOCRACY and suggest WP:FLIPACOIN today and resume this debate in March if necessary. - Wikmoz (talk) 05:23, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
  • COVID-19 is what the media are using, its the official name given by WHO, and people are starting to call it this. Lets make it simple, and easy for people to find, and call it that. Deathlibrarian (talk) 05:37, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
  • COVID-19 per deathlibrarian. Anyone with a name like that i have to agree with ;-) Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:28, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Coronavirus disease 2019 is much clearer to the reader in denoting the topic, and more recognizable to those accustomed to names like "Wuhan coronavirus". feminist (talk) 06:30, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
  • COVID-19 is the clear WP:COMMONNAME compared to 'Coronavirus disease 2019' in RS, which is how the determination of the title should be measured by, and which also satisfies WP:NCA as 'COVID' has no clash potential. Sleath56 (talk) 06:42, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
  • COVID-19 seems obvious at this point and mostly I can't understand why this seems to be some sort of a controversial topic. I do think that the other names should be included in the history section, though they don't need a lot of details, but just to make sure that searches find them, too. Shanen (talk) 09:04, 15 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.
I've just sent out a request for help to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. -- The Anome (talk) 15:10, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

See also

Yug (talk) 07:22, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

  • The "treatments given" template was removed by another editor citing WP:MEDRS. This is the first time the symptoms template has gone up here, but it is based upon the same data, so it would be worth checking whether the same issue applies. Dekimasuよ! 08:12, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
@Dekimasu: your deletionism approach goes too far and prevent us from reasonable building up. For both template, we can take precautions in citing the source via some "according to this study" or alike. The source is of quality, state of the art actually (as we already discussed). The data is emerging and must be declared as such, simply. *Removing* such well sourced info is not the solution. While "/Treatments given" is ambiguous medically (it's the treatment chosen in these 99 cases by the local medical staff, mainly to prevent or cure complications), it's not the cases for /Symptoms, which are rigorously observed, documented, and published is this reliable academic source. Yug (talk) 14:12, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
I did not remove either one of the templates. In fact, I believe I improved the "treatments given" one a bit. Dekimasuよ! 15:31, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
(@Dekimasu: i believe i misread your message and shot an undeserved arrow at you, my apologize. I will enquire on this mishap when back on desktop PC) Yug (talk) 19:43, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 12 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: moved to Coronavirus disease 2019. After going through the below discussion, there is clear consensus to move this article to Coronavirus disease 2019 and not COVID-19. Since only Administrators can make the move to the new title. I'll now file a request at WP:RM/TR. (closed by non-admin page mover) NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 15:43, 19 February 2020 (UTC)


2019-nCoV acute respiratory disease → COVID-19 – The current page isn't the common name nor the official name 935690edits (talk) 10:33, 12 February 2020 (UTC) I am creating a new section so that this can be discussed more clearly. 935690edits (talk) 10:33, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Previous closure

I am going to IAR and close this as a consensus to change the title, but no consensus for the title COVID-19. There was almost no support to keep the current name, but the choice of a new title was virtually tied between COVID-19 (21 !votes) and Coronavirus disease 2019 (22 !votes). We should have a survey to choose between those two names, and then undertake a move. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:14, 15 February 2020 (UTC)


  • Strong Support - The current page isn't the common name nor the official name. Wikipedia needs to choose either the official name or a truly common name, the latter of which I am fully opposed to. 935690edits (talk) 10:33, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
*Please see WP:RM#Nom. Dekimasuよ! 11:12, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose - the name seems to change every five minutes. It's probably going to end up being called SARS (which will require a merger). Let's leave it as it is for the time being. I cannot understand the mad rush over this. (And the requesting editor should not support twice. The entry above should be amended accordingly).Graham Beards (talk) 11:24, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
    • Now the disease name has been designated by WHO and the virus name by ICTV it is unlikely to change Legendiii (talk) 12:59, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
    • Silly point. It has changed once, from 2019-nCoV which stood for novel coronavirus, which was a temporary name (hence the term novel). This is an official designation. The mad rush is just editors being efficient. Strong support Acalycine (talk) 20:18, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose - It should be WP:CONSISTENT with other disease articles like Severe acute respiratory syndrome or Middle East respiratory syndrome. COVID-19 (COronaVIrus Disease 2019) is more like a code name, even if we really need to change the title, it should be Coronavirus disease 2019, as discussed above. This would follow WP:COMMONNAME and WP:CONSISTENT. It would be better if we discuss and give out more ideas first before initiating an official move request. –Wefk423 (talk) 11:43, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Move to Coronavirus Disease 2019 per Wefk423 as it need to be consistent with other articles such as SARS and MERS which use long-form name, not that acronym. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 36.76.229.147 (talk) 11:55, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
    • Comment - I am from Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR) and I remember that back in 2003 when the term "SARS" first came out, some radio host complained that the "name of the disease" sounds similar to the "name of the city". The acronym SARS implies that the disease originated from HKSAR. The other "SAR" is Macau by the way. My point is, there is always problem with acronym. You never know what "COVID" stands for. Computer Virus Dog? Malairen (talk) 12:24, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Move to Coronavirus Disease 2019, per past practice, but mentioning COVID-19 as the acronym on the first line and using that for the rest of the article. Things have changed in the last few hours. COVID-19 is now the official name,[2] and also being used by reliable secondary sources. See [3], [4]. -- The Anome (talk) 12:57, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support WHO states "We now have a name for the disease and it's Covid-19", and indicated that etymologically it is derived from COronaVIrus Disease 2019 (but the name remains Covid-19 not coronovirus disease 2019). The BBC and other outlets have updated style guidance to use Covid-19 (usually alongside the term 'coronavirus' which actually refers to the subfamily of viruses Orthocoronavirinae and should not be used as the common name). I have not seen coronovirus disease 2019 or 2019-nCoV acute respiratory disease anywhere. Legendiii (talk) 12:59, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Weak support or Move to Coronavirus disease 2019, per Wefk423. --hueman1 (talk) 13:07, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
    • Comment It is very interesting to discuss this comment as this move request will only involve English Wikipedia which will know as Coronavirus Disease 2019 in long-form name if moved, not Wikipedia's in other languages as other languages will keep short-form name (COVID-19) in that article title along with names in local languages in description to avoid mistranslation and confusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 36.76.229.147 (talk) 13:20, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support - I am one of the editors that has contributed somewhat to this article. I am making one generic comment to cover all three article pages, with a general "support" to all the moves except in terms of the technicalities of the name... I consider the name of the virus to be "SARS-CoV-2" so precedence would suggest that the name of the virus article should be "Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2". The WP:COMMONNAME appears to be "coronavirus" and "novel/new coronavirus" which make for unencyclopedic article titles and should remain nothing more than placeholder names... The disease is called "COVID-9" so similarly the article should be "Coronavirus disease 2019". The usage of the word "novel" should be discouraged as per comments above... The outbreak article should be "2019-20 coronavirus outbreak" (similar to the Zika virus outbreak) or as suggest in other comments "2019-20 COVID-9 outbreak" (similar to the 2009 flu pandemic as suggested elsewhere). I disagree that the name would confuse people because the vast majority of people are either going to be confused with "coronavirus" (in which case the Simple English Wikipedia would help) or they would be able to deduce what it means. There are numerous WP:COMMONNAME that can be used so I think that all of them should redirect to a more formal name... Putting together all these arguments, which aren't related to the arguments about whether a virus/disease/outbreak ought to be named after cities, I am against the usage of the word "novel" in article titles and supportive of using official names across the virus, disease and outbreak articles. I also disagree that there is an established WP:COMMONNAME out there and the Wikipedia article may in fact be "forcing" the "Wuhan coronavirus outbreak" onto society. Tsukide (talk) 13:31, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
Update WHO just released Situation Update 23 with a new title: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19): Situation Report – 23 (supporting Doc James proposal). CDC has posted a notice on all nCoV pages indicating the name change. NHS has changed its page to "Coronavirus (COVID-19)". - Wikmoz (talk) 20:42, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
I think we finally have consensus on one of these topics!? I count 18 support and 3 oppose votes for renaming with 11 votes in specific support of Coronavirus disease 2019. Doc James, Dekimasu: Any way to expedite the change at this point? FWIW, searches for COVID are 10 to 15x more popular right now than "coronavirus disease" so I'd still recommend including in parentheses. - Wikmoz (talk) 03:45, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
I didn't receive this ping, but I wouldn't be inclined to rush this yet. WP:NAMECHANGES is on its way to being fulfilled, but most of what is being discussed here is still primary sources. What is being used today by the BBC, The New York Times, the South China Morning Post, etc.? Dekimasuよ! 05:07, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback, Dekimasu. I wasn't too familiar with WP:NAMECHANGES but it makes sense. I did a quick survey of global newspapers of record and high impact journals and it's still a mixed bag so I guess we wait another day. CDC and WHO are still dragging their feet on website updates as well. - Wikmoz (talk) 07:32, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
@Dekimasu and Doc James: I think we may be there with general public usage. WHO, CDC, and NHS have updated their websites. A number of secondary sources are using COVID-19 in their general reporting as well:
* CDC: Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)
* WHO: Coronavirus disease (COVID-19)
* NHS: Coronavirus (COVID-19)
* SCMP: Covid-19
* The Lancet: COVID-19
* TIME Magazine: COVID-19
* Le Monde: Coronavirus COVID-19
* NEJM: Coronavirus (Covid-19)
* Sky News: COVID-19
BBC, CNN, and NYT are just referring to it as coronavirus infections but no one is using "2019-nCoV acute respiratory disease."
Wikipedian positions: 23 support, 3 oppose. Common usage: Google Trends (7 Day) - Wikmoz (talk) 19:37, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
User:Wikmoz Maybe we need a new RM for specifically for Coronavirus disease 2019 Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:10, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
@Dekimasu and Doc James: Happy to resubmit if necessary but I think there may be sufficient consensus here for an admin to act upon. Per WP:NOGOODOPTIONS, if "it is determined that the current title should not host the article. (There are good arguments for Y, and there are good arguments for Z, but there are virtually no good arguments for it to stay at X.) In these difficult circumstances, the closer should pick the best title of the options available, and then be clear that while consensus has rejected the former title (and no request to bring it back should be made lightly), there is no consensus for the title actually chosen. And if anyone objects to the closer's choice, then instead of taking it to move review, they should simply make another move request at any time, which will hopefully lead the article to its final resting place." - Wikmoz (talk) 23:25, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
Wikmoz, thank you for adding a lot of the sort of sources we need to make an informed decision about WP:NAMECHANGES. It looks like there may end up being a consensus to move the page and no particular consensus for one title (COVID-19) or the other (coronavirus disease 2019), in which case exactly as you pointed out WP:THREEOUTCOMES comes into play. To me it looks like the sources are going to come down in favor of COVID-19 and not coronavirus disease 2019, and I think that was also the WHO's intention in introducing and explaining the acronym at the time: it seems like they were trying to give the disease a short name, but explain where the name was coming from. Still, I am happy with both decisions if there is policy-based consensus for them. My guess (note to closer) is that regardless of WP:THREEOUTCOMES, we will need to impose moratoriums on moves of several of these pages in the near future. Everyone is getting tired of the requests and they are taking away from our ability to actually improve the articles. Dekimasuよ! 05:02, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
Thanks Dekimasu! While COVID-19 does seem to be the preferred form, there's substantial value in keeping "coronavirus" in the title. See: Google COVID vs. coronavirus disease (7 day). There's about a 15:1 advantage to the word "coronavirus". So Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) may offer the best of both worlds. Can an uninvolved admin be invited to make a decision on an early resolution? - Wikmoz (talk) 05:20, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
If I were to suggest an admin to ping that might defeat the purpose of asking someone uninvolved to close. However, rather than asking at WP:AN or WP:AN/RFC I would suggest leaving a note at WT:RM. It is more likely to be seen by a veteran move request closer there. There might be less appetite for an early close from editors reading that page as well, but you should get be able to get productive feedback that way eventually. Dekimasuよ! 05:25, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Support CoViD-19 is as good a name as any. The most common name is Coronavirus, but obviously that's taken, New Coronavirus will be obsolete soon, CoViD-19 is the official name, it's unambiguous, and it's used more often than any other name. Rambo Apocalypse (talk) 09:44, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

I oppose. Hypoxine (talk) 19:23, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

  • Move to Coronavirus disease 2019 It's what the shorter version stands for and consistent with the articles on SARS and MERS. Also, the common name seems to be just "coronavirus", which isn't very specific, but at least that word is in there. Also very googleable. Benimation (talk) 20:24, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
I previously had the same thought and I'd honestly be happy with any of the above. Compare "COVID" to "coronavirus disease" and there's a clear COMMONNAME winner... until you factor in searches for just "coronavirus". Check out the Google Trends: COVID vs. coronavirus disease vs. coronavirus (7 day) view. There's about a 15:1 advantage to the word "coronavirus," which is why I'm now thinking 'Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)' really gets the job done. - Wikmoz (talk) 07:26, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support COVID-19 It's the remarkably simple, official name from the WHO. See [[5] Any comment saying "coronavirus" is more common is really a silly comment, since the name COVID-19 is completely new. Give it time!!!HiLo48 (talk) 07:21, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
I appreciate the additional perspective but I don't think it's silly. I absolutely grant you that it's not apples-to-apples and I'm the first to agree COVID search volume is soaring. However, considering current day WP:RECOGNIZABILITY, it's hard to discount that many people know the disease as "coronavirus" right now. - Wikmoz (talk) 08:21, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
Well of course it is! But so what? Do we really want to make a move that we know will be inappropriate at some future time? HiLo48 (talk) 08:25, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
Just trying to call attention to the issue of COMMONNAME as it stands today. It's something that appears to be supported by professional editors in how they continue to label the outbreak at major publishers: NYT (Coronavirus Outbreak), BBC (Coronavirus Outbreak), CNN (Coronavirus Outbreak), CMT (Coronavirus Outbreak), WebMD (Coronavirus 2020 Outbreak), Reuters (Coronavirus), AP (Virus Outbreak), MarketWatch (Coronavirus), BMJ (Coronavirus Outbreak), SkyNews (Coronavirus), The Guardian (Coronavirus outbreak). I'm ok with an interim fix that will need to be changed in a few months. All that said, I'd be very happy with any of the above so long as we're not stuck with nCoV for another week. - Wikmoz (talk) 08:35, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
Re "Do we really want to make a move that we know will be inappropriate at some future time" - per WP:NODEADLINE it's not really a problem if we decide in a few months time that actually COVID really is the common name for this, similar to NASA (which is the sort of case required to use an abbreviation, per WP:ACRONYMTITLE). We can reassess then. But for now, the idea that it might become the common name in the future is just speculation, and per WP:CRYSTAL we stick with the known facts today, which is that the majority of people know this as "coronavirus" and won't recognise the name "COVID".  — Amakuru (talk) 09:02, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
Do you have any thoughts at all about the final two sentences of my post immediately before yours? HiLo48 (talk) 08:10, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
@HiLo48: I have replied above on your point that we should change the name now, because we already know that we'll have to change it again in the future. That's by no means certain. And if we do have to change it then so be it. Whether COVID or coronavirus will remain the commonly used name going forward is unknown, although if I had to predict I'd personally think coronavirus will stick, because people tend to stick with the name that first hits the popular imagination. I just think calling it the coronavirus disease ticks all the boxes and even if you prefer "COVID", the proposed name is, after all, the spelled out version of that. It would be better for us to rally around one consensus title for now, since it seems we all agree that the present temporary name is no longer correct.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:08, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
I don't like the idea of using a sloppy, media driven name instead of a simple, official name. This is medical stuff. Precision is important. HiLo48 (talk) 09:14, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
Neither 'Coronavirus disease 2019' nor 'Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)' is a sloppy, media-driven name. They're both accurate descriptions used by CDC, WHO, and NHS. I'm just pointing out that the long form version has the added bonus of including the word that most people are still using to describe the virus and disease. - Wikmoz (talk) 09:27, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) The official name actually is "Coronavirus disease 2019" - see [6]. "COVID-19" is just a handy acronym for that, much like "SARS" is an acronym for Severe acute respiratory syndrome. It's not sloppy, and it's not media driven. And re "this is medical stuff" I can't speak for that as I'm not medical myself. But given that Doc James supports the longer name, and he is both a doctor and also at the forefront of the WP:MEDICINE project's efforts to promote accurate and reliable medical coverage, I am satisfied that the proposed longer name makes sense medically as well.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:31, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
The source I provided above says the official name is COVID-19. That source, which many seemed to have missed, is https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-02-14/why-whos-official-name-for-the-coronavirus-matters/11964176 HiLo48 (talk) 09:36, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. I have already demonstrated twice above that COVID-19 is the official name. Redirects would fully address your other concern. HiLo48 (talk) 21:25, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
Not wrong at all. Your source for saying COVID-19 is official is a media outlet, which would not be the most reliable place to make such a determination. From WHO's very own literature, the disease is called "Coronavirus disease 2019" followed by "(COVID-19)" in brackets. So the former is the spelled out official name, while COVID-19 is the abbreviated form. Both are official, but the long form is more recognizable, which is why it is preferable. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 10:03, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong Support - not just for this disease, but for future ones as well. When WHO establishes the official name/nomenclature, WP should follow as soon as possible, within the WP procedures. This is a good principle in general, but in case of epidemics and pandemics it could become vital.jax (talk) 10:19, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support seems the sources are now following this. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 11:38, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose (see below): Few sources are actually using this as the name of the disease. Most that do use it do so as an alternate name (always parenthetically explaining it as the WHO’s name for the disease everyone calls “coronavirus” or “Wuhan coronavirus”), or misuse it as the name of the virus (rather than the disease). There’s a lot of hard pushing here and on related articles to mandate the “official” name (as though WHO speaks for anybody but the WHO), riding on WHO’s specious (and likely motivated by political/diplomatic concerns with getting the PRC government to work with them) claim that other names “assign blame” to the Chinese people. I could support “coronavirus disease” or a similar name change, but COVID-19 should never be used in any article title unless and until it is the COMMONNAME within our policies. 199.66.69.88 (talk) 14:55, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
It is simply wrong to say everyone calls it “coronavirus”. HiLo48 (talk) 21:23, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
Did I say that everyone calls it coronavirus? No. I said that the news media that use the phrase "COVID-19" all parenthetically explain that this is the WHO's name for the disease that everyone else calls "coronavirus" (or "coronavirus disease" or "Wuhan coronavirus", etc.), or those media outlets misuse "COVID-19" to refer to the virus itself rather than the disease.
However, in light of the changed circumstances since I made the above comment, I now Support "Coronavirus disease 2019" as the only acceptable choice if a pagemove is found to be needed. I still oppose "COVID-19" as not being the COMMONNAME. 199.66.69.88 (talk) 16:34, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong support Can't see any reason against the move. I see the new name being adopted in the mainstream as well. Leotext (talk) 18:18, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support, as long as there are plenty of redirects from the various common names out there. Almost anything would be better than the title we have now, which has zero usage in sources. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:55, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
    • I would actually prefer Coronavirus disease 2019 or Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) (note the small d, for those you suggesting this as a title). Can we propose this as an alternate move request right now, or do we have to wait for an up/down close on this discussion? -- MelanieN (talk) 19:01, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
      @MelanieN: I'm not really sure. It's clear that there's almost unanimous consensus already to move away from the current title, but participants are quite split on what the new one should be. As I said above, I am somewhat opposed to the "COVID-19" title as it lacks recognizability, and I would say that Coronavirus disease 2019 (which is basically the same official name, but spelled out rather than abbreviated) represents a better WP:NOGOODOPTIONS title for now, and there's kind of a rough consensus for that in the discussion, with good policy argument. Obviously I'm biased though, so I'm not sure if we can get an uninvolved admin to take a look now and maybe do the "Coronavirus disease 2019" move now, with a fresh (or continued) discussion to see if there's actually more consensus for COVID-19?  — Amakuru (talk) 19:14, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
      The WHO has started using Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) [7]. I wish we could find a way to close this as No Consensus and start a new discussion for this name, but I am also WP:INVOLVED. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:23, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose BUT: We are asking the wrong question and until we ask correctly, we cannot reach consensus. The current name is an abomination without significant support in underlying literature or media reporting. It is an article title intended to be temporary, as the bleeping thing didn't even have a name when the article was started (another reason WP should avoid current event reporting, but that's another rant). I 100% agree that we need to move this article; where I disagree is the destination. COVID-19 is not a name, just an acronym. If we assume that the WHO nomenclature won't change AND we think this will be the name of both the pathogen and the disease, the target should be the expanded form of the acronym as discussed above: Coronavirus disease 2019. I think the choices should be, (1) leave it with the abominable name it already has; (2) move it to the new abomination of COVID-19; (3) move it to Coronavirus Disease 2019 on the off chance that is how history will remember the disease; (4) wait a few weeks and find out what China, the Centres for Disease Control and Public Health England end up calling it in official releases. I support (4) because I am old enough to remember Kaposi's sarcoma and opportunistic infections (KSOI) and GRID and other namestorms before we had Wikipedia. Last1in (talk) 19:10, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
Oops. Agree with MelanieN. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Last1in (talk • contribs)
"COVID-19 is not a name, just an acronym." Nonsense. See https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-02-14/why-whos-official-name-for-the-coronavirus-matters/11964176 HiLo48 (talk) 21:32, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Move to Coronavirus disease 2019 Note that COVID-19 is inappropriate since acronym should really be used only if it is familiar to the public per WP:NCACRO. See Google Trends on how infrequent COVID-19 is used in the media compare to Coronavirus disease 2019 - [8]. Hzh (talk) 20:14, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
COVID-19 is not an acronym. It's the official name. See https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-02-14/why-whos-official-name-for-the-coronavirus-matters/11964176 HiLo48 (talk) 21:32, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
I think the dash might be having an impact on Google Trends. Check this for comparison. - Wikmoz (talk) 21:02, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
The would suggest the Google Trends is flakey considering the different numbers given for coronavirus disease. Hzh (talk) 22:13, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Coronavirus disease 2019 or COVID-19. Both are official WHO designations and have been in stable usage by mainstream media sources for several days. Boud (talk) 20:58, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
COVID-19 is the official name. See https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-02-14/why-whos-official-name-for-the-coronavirus-matters/11964176 HiLo48 (talk) 21:32, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Propose a separate RM to decide between these two options, although consistency with SARS and MERS would tend to support the long form Coronavirus disease 2019, as pointed out by Wefk423 above. The uninvolved closer should judge whether that argument is strong enough to avoid an extra delay to list arguments to distinguish the two options. Boud (talk) 20:58, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
How could the use of the short names SARS and MERS support a long name for this disease? HiLo48 (talk) 21:32, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
@HiLo48: The article of SARS and MERS uses Severe acute respiratory syndrome and Middle East respiratory syndrome for its article title. –Wefk423 (talk) 13:05, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
@Wefk423: But you didn't, which kinda negates the claim by many here that the long names are the common names. HiLo48 (talk) 20:58, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
@HiLo48: I didn't negate the claim. If you actually read my comment and discussion above, I mentioned that Coronavirus disease 2019 not only is the WP:COMMONNAME, it'a also WP:CONSISTENT with the SARS and MERS article. –Wefk423 (talk) 02:17, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
And the official name of the virus is what? Graham Beards (talk) 22:47, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
The official name of the virus is "Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2". The virus has a separate article, 2019 novel coronavirus, where a move discussion to that name is underway. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:52, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
So the proposal does not use the official name of the virus.Graham Beards (talk) 23:06, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
That's right. Our practice with previous such outbreaks like SARS and MERS has been to have two separate articles - one about the disease, one about the virus. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:02, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
I know. But the proposal is about renaming the article about the disease. I was replying to the comment above that reads "Proposed title is more accurate and uses the official name for the virus".Graham Beards (talk) 00:09, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment - I have reopened this RM. Hopefully an uninvolved admin will be able to cut through the debate and make a sensible decision about what the consensus is in this discussion. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 09:21, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
  • comment - I feel like by doing so @Amakuru: you have removed the rapid access to the clear consensus of immediacy to rename to either title. --Almaty (talk) 09:51, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
    @Almaty: I wouldn't say that's really true... this RM here does not have to run a full seven days before it is closed, it could be closed right away. In fact, I said exactly that in my comment to MelanieN above (dated 19:14, 14 February 2020). But the important thing is that it is closed with a definite decision, based on the policy arguments that have been made here, rather than with a straw poll. THanks  — Amakuru (talk) 09:58, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
    fair enough. To spell out another argument for COVID-19 for this page: if this page were named "Coronavirus disease 2019" then the outbreak page to defer to the precedent would have to be named 2019-20 Coronavirus disease 2019 outbreak, which is obviously correct but not the WP:COMMONNAME and very unwieldy. So this page should be named COVID-19 and the outbreak page COVID-19 outbreak as per the WP:COMMONNAME. --Almaty (talk) 10:13, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
    @Almaty: Ha, yes that would be a less than ideal title it's true. You could probably legitimately just remove the 2019–20 at the beginning of the title or amend it in other ways... Coronavirus disease 2019 outbreak, 2019–20 coronavirus outbreak, and 2019–20 coronavirus disease outbreak would all be very reasonable titles for that article (which, it should be noted, has had its own share of page-move drama and may not even follow the lead of this page anyway!) As has probably been said ad infinitum by now, there's no denying that COVID-19 is now more common than "coronavirus disease 2019", but the most common name of all for this remains simply "coronavirus" - even in articles released today.[9][10][11] So apologies for labouring the same point over and over, but me it seems clear that to use the spelled out version of COVID-19, which is the official full-form name used by the WHO, despite suggestions to the contrary above, and does contain the word "coronavirus" explicitly within it, therefore satisfying WP:RECOGNIZE and WP:NATURALDIS, just seems to tick more of the boxes for me than COVID-19.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:31, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Ok yes I recognise all the policies. The WHO didn't make the title for wikipedia, they made it to make sure that it would become the commonest name. And now, thankfully as others have pointed out, it has. This page should be called COVID-19 and the outbreak page COVID-19 outbreak as is the commonest name in the media, and genius on behalf of the WHO's marketing team. --Almaty (talk) 10:39, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
@Almaty: Please also note that for the SARS articles, the disease article uses Severe acute respiratory syndrome as title, and Timeline of the SARS outbreak for its outbreak article title. –Wefk423 (talk) 13:11, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
Yes we should not have to have a protracted discussion like this for future potentially more virulent pandemics. --Almaty (talk) 13:49, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
  • comment also you have removed rapid access to a !vote that was clearly pro "COVID-19". Admin closure should consider all opinions, and also recognise that very clear consensus is to change prior to the commensurate 7 day period. --Almaty (talk) 09:55, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Relevant Data. An important clarification regarding what Google Trends says about WP:RECOGNIZABILITY. Between "Coronavirus disease 2019" and "COVID-19" there's no comparison in user search frequency. "COVID-19" wins by 15:1 according to Google Trends. HOWEVER, when you also consider "coronavirus" in the calculation, "Coronavirus" wins by 10:1... even when you factor out all of the variations and possible alternate user search intentions. Obviously, we can't name this topic "coronavirus" but we can factor its popularity into the decision at hand. While "Coronavirus disease 2019" may not win in a head to head popularity contest, the fact that it contains the keyword in universal use, should be considered. FWIW, I provided a dozen examples of how NYT, CNN, BBC, and other major publishers are handling this decision and the key takeaway for me is they are using BOTH "coronavirus" and "COVID-19" to ensure their content is discoverable. - Wikmoz (talk) 10:34, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
comment on the other page did my softly slowly lead rewrite help sort out the title? or am I wiki-naive? It is the intention of the WHO, and I hope we can take a deep breath if that page gets named any of the appropriate titles :) --Almaty (talk) 11:12, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
  • a CommentChange to Coronavirus disease 2019 per User:Wefk423. 183.89.195.185 (talk) 04:56, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong support - COVID-19 is the official name of the disease, hence it should be renamed. TheGreatSG'rean (talk) 09:14, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
    <sigh> For the umpteenth time, the official name of the disease is "coronavirus disease 2019". Even in today's WHO sitrep, that's what they call it.[12] COVID-19 is also official, because it's an acronym of the official name, and can be used in the article body. But per WP:ACRYONYMTITLE we should only abbreviate if it is commonly known with that abbreviation, and per the "relevant data" just above here, most sources still call it just "coronavirus", something which is handily contained in the long form of the official name.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:21, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Combine proposed names and settle This discussion has gone on for far too long with opinions split down the middle of COVID-19 and Coronavirus disease 2019. Could we just include both in the title? One of them in brackets. That will placate both camps neatly. If we are going to debate about which name to use rather than both this will go on forever. @MelanieN: Can we just combine both names instead of have another discussion about which of the two to use?--Officer781 (talk) 15:56, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
  • No, we don't do combined titles. One title or the other will be chosen by the closer based upon evidence (not head count). This discussion has still gone on for less time than is usual for a standard move discussion. Dekimasuよ! 16:33, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
    Indeed, this sort of thing has been suggested in the past where there are contentious name discussions, for example Burma (Myanmar) or Football (soccer) - although the latter was the actual title of the article for many years as a sort of disambiguation subterfuge. It's generally rejected in favour of choosing one name or the other. As Dekimasu says, there's no massive rush... the current title is not actually in error and was what people called it until last week. I don't personally see why people supporting COVID-19 object to the same name in its full spelled out form, and I'd have thought common sense dictates we just choose that as the compromise, but as noted before I'm biased in favour of my choice!  — Amakuru (talk) 17:22, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support. Move to official name of the disease. Move it again if the name changes. Simply as that. --bender235 (talk) 17:34, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support. No problem with COVID-19 but I would prefer COVID-19 (Coronavirus disease 2019). Just Coronavirus disease 2019 doesn't seem like a disease because there are many "Coronavirus" diseases like SARS and MERS. Mase268 (talk) 18:44, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment: WP:TITLE criteria:
    recognizability - The GAFAM trends statistics listed above overwhelmingly prefer the string covid over the string coronavirus disease;
    naturalness - Which title are readers likely to look for and editors likely to link to? This could go both ways. If a reader really wants to know about the disease rather than the outbreak in general, chances are s/he will have heard of "COVID-19" and search for that; s/he might vaguely recall SARS-CoV-2 and wonder if s/he should search for "SARS-CoV-2 disease" (which is not an option under debate here); a less informed reader will search directly for "coronavirus" and need a few clicks before arriving at this article; an editor will be sufficiently familiar with the mainstream media to use "COVID-19". But some readers may just search on a keyword combination: "coronavirus disease", which would favour "Coronavirus disease 2019";
    precision - There were 212 lab-confirmed MERS cases in 2019 up to 2 Dec 2019 per ECDC. so Coronavirus disease 2019 is not precise - it's ambiguous - it just as validly refers to MERS in terms of its meaning as to SARS-CoV-2 disease. On the other hand, COVID-19 has been named in reference to the SARS-CoV-2 outbreak. The compact form provides a disambiguation that is not provided by the long form (which would need a see also hatnote to MERS to disambiguate). So COVID-19 is more precise (unambiguous) than Coronavirus disease 2019;
    conciseness - COVID-19 wins over Coronavirus disease 2019;
    consistency - Coronavirus disease 2019 wins over COVID-19 because of Middle East respiratory syndrome and Severe acute respiratory syndrome;
    WP:OFFICIAL Official names ... should be used only if they are actually the name most commonly used. The GAFAM trends above overwhelmingly support COVID-19 over Coronavirus disease 2019. But which is really official? The 18 Feb WHO situation report has Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in the title. The string Coronavirus disease 2019 occurs only once in the whole pdf (in the title); the string COVID-19 occurs 17 times. So yes, WHO clearly considers COVID-19 to be an official name for common usage, and Coronavirus disease 2019 to be a description or explanation for people who don't yet know what COVID-19 is.
    So the parameters where we have a clear difference are: COVID-19 (more recognisable, more precise (unambiguous), more concise, official) vs Coronavirus disease 2019 (more consistent).
    Hope this summary helps the closer. Boud (talk) 21:36, 18 February 2020 (UTC) (minor fix Boud (talk) 21:39, 18 February 2020 (UTC))
    @Boud: Nope, this will not really help the closer as IMHO it's an inaccurate summary. COVID-19 is certainly more concise, yes. But it is not more recognisable, because the data presented by Wikmoz above suggests that the most recognisable title is one that includes "coronavirus" in the name. It is also not more precise, as both titles in question identify the subject uniquely. So COVID-19 wins on concision, coronavirus disease 2019 wins on recognisability and consistency, and it's a tie on precision and naturalness. Official name isn't really a major factor, but FWIW it is also a tie there, as the two options under discussion are just the long and short form of the WHO's official name.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:35, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ COVID19: WHO Director names virus, gives concerning opening statement | YouTube (05:29) : Coronavirus: https://www.reddit.com/r/Coronavirus/comments/f2dawd/covid19_who_director_names_virus_gives_concerning/

Summary

It looks like we have overwhelming support for a move to either

Nearly everyone agrees we should move beyond what we have now. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:18, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

The 7-day official delay for debate will be over at 10:33, 19 Feb 2020 - in about 12 hours from now. It's up to an uninvolved closer to look through the arguments above and choose which of these options is better justified under guidelines and policy. Boud (talk) 21:36, 18 February 2020 (UTC) (minor fix Boud (talk) 21:39, 18 February 2020 (UTC))
Of course. Just that any of these three is better than what we have currently. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:11, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
The third one does not reflect our naming conventions, such as how parentheticals are used in titling under WP:NCDAB. It would inevitably result in further move requests, and I don't think anyone wants that. It's not a compromise, but rather a substandard title. Either of the first two seems fine. Dekimasuよ! 13:30, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
Well, you could make an argument that the third formulation is actually not a disambiguation, but represents an name, with the parentheses included, that bodies are actually using. For example WHO, CDC, EuroSurveillance, ReliefWeb. I wouldn't rule it out as a compromise title myself. It satisfies both camps' primary concern in including both "coronavirus" and "COVID-19" in the name, and on balance I think I would prefer it to option 2.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:26, 19 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.

Precautions explainers

  • Devlin, Hannah; Wishart, Ellen (2020-02-03), How to protect yourself from coronavirus, The Guardian
  • Coronavirus: Everything you need to know in a visual explainer, South China Morning Post, 2020-02-07
  • Coronavirus: Symptoms, Treatments and Science, The New York Times
  • Coronavirus: All you need to know about symptoms and risks, Aljazeera, 2020-01-xx {{citation}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

Yug (talk) 14:18, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Treatment research section title - now Management

Somewhere in this series of edits, the section Treatment research was shifted in position and renamed to Treatment. The reason for the word research in the section title is in the spirit of WP:MEDRS, to clarify that presently there are no "treatments", there is only research into treatments, which after appropriate peer review and later meta-review of multiple peer-reviewed literature, will achieve the status of "knowledge" about treatments. I'm not an expert in the medical meaning of "treatment", so either way would be OK by me.

In the present version, the title was changed again, to Management. If people disagree about the best section title, please sort this out on this talk page and come to a consensus - I tend to think that it's good to show that research is being done on the treatments, but "Management" is also reasonable. In any case, if there are any new changes to the section title, please update the link in Template:2019-nCoV. Lots of readers will be seeking information on "how can this be cured? how can it be prevented?" Providing clear answers ("not yet; here's the research being done") is the best way to minimise the growth of conspiracy theories. Boud (talk) 18:04, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

I think that "Treatment research" does a better job at making the scope of the section clear, which will help with the "management" of the article. It's also the most robust section we have at the moment. Overall, while I understand that most of the sections we have now are suggested by WP:MEDMOS, the reason why most of them are extremely short is not that no one has bothered to add more information, but rather that more information does not yet exist. For that reason I would further suggest that we reduce the number of sections in the article for the time being. For example, I don't think we really need "Cause: The cause is the virus provisionally named 2019 novel coronavirus." Sure, that hasn't been mentioned after the lede so technically it can (or should) go somewhere in the body of the article. But it's literally six lines down from the last time that was said, and we don't expand upon what was in the lede, so what's the purpose of including it? It's just pushing more essential information down the page right now. Dekimasuよ! 03:08, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Talk pages

It is confusing to have to go to Talk:2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak and Talk:2019 novel coronavirus to find the renaming discussions. Is there not a better way to keep all the discussion and archives on one talk page? Carcharoth (talk) 17:33, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Oh, I see. The discussions are still ongoing... Carcharoth (talk) 17:35, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Changing source

This is a statement from World Health Organization:

  • "and in January 2020 the WHO suggested that the case fatality rate was approximately 3%."

This statement is from Japanese source (NHK), but I found the same statement in NYpost source:

NYPost

As this is English Wikipedia, can someone replace Japanese language sources with English language equivalent or complement it aside Japanese source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 36.76.229.147 (talk) 11:49, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

We should really use the WHO directly. Do you have the WHO source that makes this claim. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:07, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
The New York Post is listed as marginally reliable, whereas NHK is generally quite reliable. WP:RSUE says "English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones when available and of equal quality and relevance." If something of equal quality can be found, that should be fine, but I disagree that the New York Post is sufficient. My guess is that the WHO has probably made a more up-to-date statement than what the NHK source is based upon, and that something unquestionably reliable has reported on it. Dekimasuよ! 02:34, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Doc James obsession with oversimplifying these articles to the point there are unreadable

User:Doc James seems to have an obsession with over-simplifying articles to the point that the majority of English speaks find these articles unreadable and stupid. I can't understand what the reason is beyond some political agenda sweeping the Wikipedia establishment currently. I don't regularly write on Wikipedia but I do read it occasionally, and I've seen the gradual simplification of Wikipeida articles especially on US political pages, hence why I think that the same Wikipedia users are trying to simplify these articles as well. The facts of the matter are that anyone who doesn't speak fluent English isn't going to seek medical advice or information in English, they will seek information in their own language. Please stop over-simplifying these articles to the point that they are becoming useless for the majority of the population.

Furthermore, the same principle should be applied with deciding what the names of these articles should be. Unless you're a five year old, anyone should be able to parse "2019-20 COVID-19 epidemic" even if it's clumsy because we've all been exposed to technical terms within our own fields. COMMONNAMES vary between culture and people (and I've never heard the term "Wuhan coronavirus" being used).

I have certainly never heard "2019-nCov acute respiratory disease" being used to refer to this. It's usually just called "flu" or "pneumonia" if it were common parlance. The actual medical condition seems to be just pneumonia and the complications that follow on from it. SomethingNastyHere (talk) 09:17, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

I see your point. Do you think using the word "disease" from WHO is also oversimplification? (You may refer to my opinion above?) PanVoyager (talk) Wednesday, 12 February 2020 10:09 (UTC)
Everything in this diatribe could be understood and resolved by a cursory reading of actual Wikipedia policies and our guiding principles. But in seeing your posts on every single talk page persisting in these “epic takedowns” of some perceived bias, I’m starting to wonder whether your axe is sharp enough yet. 199.66.69.88 (talk) 15:14, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
You need to get consensus to change the name of the article. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:52, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
agree w/ Doc James--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 03:20, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 February 2020

Change "an" in the sentence "which is thought to be of an zoonotic origin" to "a". Sentence should be found in the Cause section. Natbergu (talk) 08:53, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

 Done Little pob (talk) 10:58, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 Not done minor edit was caught up in a content rollback.
@Ozzie10aaaa: the grammar fix was undone by your restore. Given your edit summary I'm not going to attempt to fix again; instead can you double-check Natbergu's request and correct/leave as is? (As appropriate.) Little pob (talk) 13:30, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
Little pob,  Done...thanks--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:39, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
Looks like the fix was reverted again. Fixed again while updating the sentence. - Wikmoz (talk) 20:13, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Poor source

This is not very well supported "with a mean of 3 days although cases have been reported with as long as 24 days of incubation.[1]"

Belongs in the body if anywhere. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:11, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Research shows 3-day median incubation period for coronavirus, 24 days in rare cases". The Straits Times. 11 February 2020.
The article says the estimate is based on 1,099 cases, which is definitely more substantial than prior estimates. However, the paper is still in prepub. The other estimates, I've seen:
Based on 88 cases, a report from Eurosurveillance has the number at 6.5 days.
Based on 10 cases, a paper in NEJM has the number at 5.2 days.
For comparison, I think SARS is 4-7 and MERS is 5-7 days and other human CoVs are 3-4.
- Wikmoz (talk) 07:01, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Alternative article titles for COVID-19?

WHO just announced the name for the disease as "COVID-19" and it has become the title of this article, but is there any better alternatives? It seems to me that this title is not the WP:COMMONNAME. Maybe we can use "Coronavirus disease 2019" instead? Not starting an official move request discussion for now until there's some input from you all. –Wefk423 (talk) 18:01, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Moved back to prior name. Move requires discussion. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:39, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
I cannot foresee any reader looking-up "COVID-19" in years to come – or even now come to think of it. We need to stick with a common name "2019-nCoV acute respiratory disease" is the best we have thus far although it is far from perfect. We can set-up a trail of redirects to bring the reader here if deemed necessary. (Imagine being told you have "COVID-19" - it sounds like a sci fi DVD).Graham Beards (talk) 20:49, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
Yes we should use the long form "coronavirus disease 2019" if anything, but happy were it is now as well. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:01, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
I agree but perhaps we should leave it as it is for the time being.Graham Beards (talk) 21:05, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
I agree with the long form. --Eric1212 (talk) 22:05, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
I also agree that the long form is better. Even among medical professionals who aren’t virology researchers I don’t see this bad joke of a short name being used outside of a particularly pedantic chief resident trying to catch someone unprepared (I believe this gets called “pimping” these days). As I’ve said elsewhere, we aren’t WHO’s press desk. We don’t have to do exactly as they say. 199.66.69.88 (talk) 23:38, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
We should request move protection if the move war continues - this move shifted the title to COVID-19 again. The requested move over at Talk:2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak#Requested move 11 February 2020 is was close to WP:SNOW in favour of COVID-19 (still a 2/3 !vote supermajority). In principle, a decision for this article could be made independently, but it seems reasonable to me to match the decision over there. Except that the latest comment over there refers back here, leading to circular reasoning... Boud (talk) 23:40, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
The title of the article should reflect the official name, which is now COVID-19. However, it would have been good to give it 24 hours to catch on a little before changing. Searches for COVID are rising fast: Google Trends (7-day). The WHO, CDC and NHS still haven't updated their pages with the new name yet. - Wikmoz (talk) 01:24, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
Yes so we wait. And we need a move request.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:07, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

If we are to move it to anything I would suggest Coronavirus disease 2019 Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:21, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

This is an interesting point. I do think that COVID-19 is going to be the runaway WP:COMMONNAME winner. Regarding the official name though, it's interesting… WHO Situation Report 22 reads: WHO has named the disease COVID-19, short for "coronavirus disease 2019." This was reiterated in the Director-General's remarks. Weirdly, it almost seems like the abbreviated form IS the preferred name and "coronavirus disease 2019" is just the explanation of how they got there. It goes against historical precedent. I guess we'll know soon enough when WHO and CDC roll it out on their websites, presumably later today. - Wikmoz (talk) 08:19, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
Here's the ICD-11 Maintenance Platform entry for COVID-19 - Wikmoz (talk) 08:27, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose - we should keep the wikipedia page at COVID-19 until further notice

The more and more I edit these Wikipedia pages, the more and more that I have realised how politically motivated most editors are despite the fact that this is an ongoing medical emergency. The main article on the outbreak is unreadable because it's written so simply... readers who don't speak fluent English aren't coming here and we can compute technical terms. The facts are as follows:

SARS-CoV-2 is the official name of the virus and hence should be the title of the virus's wikipedia article. The article is mostly technical anyway so WP:COMMONNAME is stupid.

COVID-19 is the official name of the disease and this article is also mostly technical so hence should be the name of the disease

2019-20 COVID-19 epidemic should be the name of the article, which is similar to the conventions established previously through articles such as 2009 flu pandemic, which would be called Swine flu if it were COMMONNAME. Furthermore, using people or using locations to refer to epidemics is disliked by the political and medical community, except to refer to the disease WITHIN a locality or person, such as referring to the "Princess Cruise Outbreak" about the COVID-19 epidemic within the confines of the cruise (currently docked in or near Japan). I notice that it's mostly the same people who constantly revamp the pages to suit their political agendas.

SomethingNastyHere (talk) 08:41, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

I still don't get the system that the World Health Organization is adopting (if any political reasons are excluded of course, since as we all know the current chairperson of WHO is quite controversial). Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) & Middle Eastern Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) end with "syndrome". Now, it seems that all diseases will end up with the layman word "disease" in their names after the pathogenic type (like Ebola Hemorrhagic Fever --> Ebola Virus Disease ). I personally think it'd be more consistent to call this disease "Wuhan Respiratory Syndrome" (WHRS) or "2019 Coronavirus Respiratory Syndrome" (CVRS-19). P.S. I know that "avoidance of stigmatization" is the reason of excluding any geographic locations or groups of people in the name. Can anyone tell the reason of using "disease" instead of "syndrome" in the nomenclature? PanVoyager (talk) Wednesday, 12 February 2020 10:08 (UTC)

I agree with COVID-19, as it’s the official name now, and the other names also being highlightened. 2001:1C04:2303:4A00:20B5:C82D:C2E6:1359 (talk) 15:49, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

  • Because there are many equal supporters of renaming this article into short-form name COVID-19 and long-form name Coronavirus Disease 2019, i suggested that both article titles would used interchangeably, but writting COVID-19 in parentheses, then a separate RM regarding whether short form or long form will be discuss later. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.137.126.17 (talk) 21:35, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

1 May 2020 (UTC)

Discussion on Wuhan clause in lead here and at pandemic article

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:2019–20_coronavirus_pandemic#Wuhan_sentence_in_the_lead. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 17:26, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:COVID-19/Archive_1&oldid=1045697886"