Talk:COVID-19 pandemic/Archive 1

Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) outbreak in China

 * 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: Between the original proposal date (15 January 2020) and today (15 March 2020), the coronavirus has turned into a pandemic. CoronavirusPlagueDoctor (talk) 19:39, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

The CDC (and/or other authorities) seems to have settled on a name for it --  Shall we change the title of the article to '2019-20 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) outbreak in China' JuanTamad (talk) 04:57, 15 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Maybe, see what everyone else calls it. let's wait a little. Whispyhistory (talk) 06:47, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

The table right show wrong total: Confirmed cases: 1,468, but sum is 1441 Deaths: 43, but sum is 42 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 3dcboz (talk • contribs) 22:35, 25 January 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.

Confirmed cases in Thailand
She did visit similar markets, which suggests the virus may have spread to other markets. She was confirmed to have the 2019-nCoV virus. JuanTamad (talk) 05:30, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

This is the 5th confirmed case in Thailand as of 1830 24nJan China time, also from Bangkok. One unconfirmed case in Chiang Mai. JuanTamad (talk) 10:37, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

confirmed case in Philippines
https://news.abs-cbn.com/news/01/21/20/philippines-probes-case-of-child-from-china-who-tested-positive-for-coronavirus?fbclid=IwAR26cLp3Fsk8pg8VLn1EHeoCxTVkOXjcFBiSR9ECpHk147SfjxW8maVgPdE JuanTamad (talk) 15:12, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Hong Kong should be listed separately
The health authorities and immigration borders of Hong Kong are segregated from Mainland China. The method of the dispersal would be different for Hong Kong than any other Mainland Chinese city, though Hong Kong is a major transit and destination for all of China. Hong Kong reports its numbers separately from Mainland China as well. Tsukide (talk) 13:03, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , Do you see any particular area of the article requiring improvement? Hoping you can offer some specificity here, unless your concern has been addressed. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 22:58, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

possible case in Thailand- Chiang Mai
18 year old male on flight from Wuhan placed in local hospital waiting for results from Bangkok— https://www.cm108.com/w/19543/ JuanTamad (talk) 15:19, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

POV dispute
Can someone rewording the lead section of this article because it give me impression that Novel coronavirus only spread in Wuhan or involved chinese nationals. This statement violates NPOV policy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 36.76.229.208 (talk) 23:37, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Well, the information was true at that point as the virus was confined to China, so the statements aren't bias. How about this: You try and rewrite the statements? Thanks. TheGreatSG&#39;rean (talk) 23:46, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Mexico's President, Confirms first Coronavirus case.
The President of Mexico, Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador has confirm the first case of coronavirus in a press conference today 01/22/2020. The carrier is was introduce as a 57 year old from Asian origin. The man had travel to Wuhan, China on the 25th of December and traveled back to Mexico on the 10th of January. The men is currently under observation from his own home in Reynosa, Tamaulipas a town that borders with the Texas, USA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fgonzalez78582 (talk • contribs) 21:50, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Organization of "No confirmed cases" section
The "No confirmed cases" has a long list of pretty short sections. Thoughts or merging some of these section into subsections for each continent? My thinking is sections for Asia, Australia, Europe, North America, and South America would reduce the number of section headings.

But, since this article is changing quickly, I also wonder if keeping content separated by country for now is easiest until editing starts to wind down and we have a better sense of how text might be organized. Thoughts? --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 05:38, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

infobox country order
What is the reasoning behind the current order of the countries listed in the infobox? It's not alphabetical, it's not according to date of first reported case, and it's also not ordered by number of cases or fatalities --134.41.201.57 (talk) 15:50, 22 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Put in alphabetical order. Whispyhistory (talk) 16:44, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , Seems to be sorted by # confirmed cases now. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 23:00, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorted by number of confirmed cases. 39cookies (talk) 15:10, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Virus, disease, outbreak
Shouldn't the disease, the virus, and the outbreak be treated in separate articles? SARS, MERS 2012/2015/2018 are treated in that manner. We have a virus article and this article, we should have a separate disease article. SARS has 3 articles, for outbreak (timeline), virus, disease. MERS has 3 outbreak articles, 1 disease article, 1 virus article. -- 67.70.33.184 (talk) 05:51, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * There are already separate articles: Novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) and this. robertsky (talk) 06:25, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Agree with : we already have two articles. I don't think there's quite enough content yet to separate out a disease article and an outbreak article. Content is growing rapidly: I am happy to support such a split at a later date. Bondegezou (talk) 15:21, 22 January 2020 (UTC)


 * I worked a great deal on 2009 flu pandemic timeline. The China Corona epidemic isn't a pandemic yet, but that article can serve as a template. Never in the history of public health has a city of 11 million been shut down, and that's just for starters. And parenthetically, I don't feel up to beginning the timeline for this epidemic just yet, but at at the beginning of the Swine Flu Pandemic federal and state warehouses rehearsed shipping out body bags, etc. kencf0618 (talk) 15:41, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 16 January 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. The !votes for wait and see still apply and this article can be re-moved at that point. --  JHunterJ (talk) 22:46, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

2019–20 outbreak of novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) → 2019–20 outbreak of novel coronavirus – "(2019-nCoV)" is redundant because it is a shortened form of "2019 novel coronavirus". A relevant article 2012 Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus outbreak is not 2012 Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) outbreak. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 22:13, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
 * (Move history)
 * 2019-2020 China pneumonia outbreak: Initial title
 * 2019–20 China pneumonia outbreak: move to consistent title
 * 2019-20 outbreak of novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) in Wuhan, China: formal name from the US CDC - https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/novel-coronavirus-2019.html''
 * 2019-20 outbreak of novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV): Moving this because there are now 2 cases outside of China and the new title is still very specific
 * 2019–20 outbreak of novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV): Changed the dash code to the larger one


 * Other outbreaks pages include the location, the year(s), and the agent (virus, bacteria etc); see Western African Ebola virus epidemic, 2016 Angola and DR Congo yellow fever outbreak, List of Ebola outbreaks. Probably include Wuhan in the title since associated with that one city in China. '2019 novel coronavirus outbreak in Wuhan. China' as in this article JuanTamad (talk) 01:51, 17 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose While "2019-nCoV" is derived from "2019 novel coronavirus", it is also now a name for a particular strain of virus and thus differentiates this article. has a point that other outbreak article pages use geography, so we could do that here. Bondegezou (talk) 14:53, 17 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment - The name of the virus is not even firm yet, so if the article is moved now, it will likely be moved again atleast once in the future. "Novel coronavirus" is just a placeholder name. --Nessie (📥) 14:59, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Good point. So let's go back to something like "2019–2020 Wuhan pneumonia outbreak". Bondegezou (talk) 16:02, 17 January 2020 (UTC)


 * comment ...something like "2019–2020 Wuhan pneumonia outbreak" is a good ideaOzzie10aaaa (talk) 19:02, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment—"(2019-nCoV)" does nothing except confuse non-expert readers. I agree with Bondegezou and Ozzie10aaaa, "2019–20 Wuhan pneumonia outbreak" is the best placeholder until there's a settled name in the medical community. Harland1 (t/c) 19:17, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * rename to 2019–20 Wuhan pneumonia outbreak agreeing with above voters. I certainly agree that the stuff in parenthesis is inappropriate. The virus has been changing names, and "novel" is certainly only ever a temporary name. Since the disease is called Wuhan pneumonia, we should use that. The alternative is using Wuhan coronavirus in the new title. ie 2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:14, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * comment..."2019–2020 Wuhan pneumonia outbreak" sounds reasonable. Whispyhistory (talk) 06:18, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
 * comment... Just 'pneumonia' is not specific enough. Many causes of pneumonia, so coronavirus is a key term - 'coronavirus pneumonia' - the agent and the disease. Don't think WHO will ever refer to it as 'Wuhan pneumonia.' SARS originated in Guangdong province but that isn't part of any article title.  JuanTamad (talk) 08:03, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
 * As per and, happy to go with 2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak. Bondegezou (talk) 09:09, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
 * sounds good. It is still very much associated with Wuhan. Short and succinct. JuanTamad (talk) 11:02, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
 * "2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak" is ok too. Whispyhistory (talk) 15:02, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * FYI 2015 Middle East respiratory syndrome outbreak in South Korea is not named 2015 South Korea MERS coronvirus outbreak or 2015 South Korean coronvirus outbreak. The name "2020 Wuhan coronvirus outbreak" may results in an illusion that the coronvirus is scientifically named "Wuhan coronvirus". --173.68.165.114 (talk) 02:16, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Thus I'd suggest 2019–20 2019-nCoV outbreak in Wuhan. --173.68.165.114 (talk) 02:21, 21 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Rename to 2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak. The Moose  05:33, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose as proposed. It is only "novel" temporarily. Any title with 'novel' or 'nCoV' should not be used (ever, for any article), they are not proper longer term titles (anything longer that short or immediate term), but instead are WP:NOTNEWS WP:RECENTISM-tinged titles. I am good with the suggested 2019-2020 Wuhan coronavirus pneumonia outbreak or similar. -- 67.70.33.184 (talk) 08:37, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Why not wait until the virus has a formal name to discuss what title should be appropriate for this entry?--　　  @舞月書生 （Joye Zhang）   ..👉Talk👈..  『My heart will go on』 08:44, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose as proposed - good point by @舞月書生  （Joye Zhang）  - much better to wait for a formal (i.e. WHO recognised) name to be agreed: and then use that one. Roy Bateman (talk) 13:22, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep current title until the virus are formally named. --173.68.165.114 (talk) 02:09, 21 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment agree that (2019-nCoV) is redundant and obscure and must go. Novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) should also be renamed. While it is true that "novel" is a relative term, 2019–20 novel coronavirus outbreak would show when it was novel. The names with "Wuhan coronavirus" or "Wuhan pneumonia" also work for me. jnestorius(talk) 07:20, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment The article is about the outbreak rather than the virus (which has another page called Novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV)), so the article should be renamed something similar to "2019-20 pneumonia outbreak". It does not even need to specify Wuhan or China. Tsukide (talk) 13:00, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per previous reasons Sir Magnus (talk) 17:49, 21 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose This page on the official WHO site defines a novel coronavirus more as a non-specific term that describes "a new strain that has not been previously identified in humans" and gives the name (2019-nCoV) to the strain identified causing the initial cases in Wuhan. That is, without the name (2019-nCoV), the term "novel coronavirus" would technically be pointing to any strain that has not been identified instead of specifically the one that has been identified for the cases in and related to Wuhan.  Thus, I oppose removing "(2019-nCoV)" from the title. Hopechen (talk) 19:14, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose As per comments by and . Let's wait for the official name to be determined. robertsky (talk) 02:43, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now also as per comments by and, as something more official may develop in the coming weeks or months. Matilda Maniac (talk) 03:58, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per abovementioned reasons. GerifalteDelSabana (talk) 05:38, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment - Why not just call it "2019-nCoV outbreak in 2019-20"?C933103 (talk) 21:51, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Rename to 2019-20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak. "Wuhan coronavirus" is arguably the WP:COMMONNAME for the virus.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 23:08, 22 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Rename We'll have the conventional name soon enough. Naturally the nomenclature hasn't been settled yet, and this thing is moving very, very fast, far faster than Swine. Wuhan Flu? We'll see. kencf0618 (talk) 15:52, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support we can decide on a better title once the virus is formally named, but for now removing the (2019-nCoV) part seems reasonable Would (oldosfan) 02:32, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per Oldosfan. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥ ) 03:49, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment - If diseade keep infecting at this rate, unfortunaly we may rename to 2019 coronavirus pandemic. Carlosguitar (Yes Executor?) 16:29, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support removing (2019-nCoV) as redundant / unnecessary. Though I agree that "novel coronavirus" is definitely a temporary title, so the title will presumably need to be changed further when they decide on a permanent name for the virus.  Dragons flight (talk) 16:36, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support removing "(2019-nCoV)" (but oppose all other suggestions) for brevity, but current name form has encyclopedic worth. Media reporting clearly suggests the outbreak is well-documented as a coronavirus outbreak. Optakeover (U)(T)(C) 17:18, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per Optakeover. Willbb234Talk (please &#123;&#123;ping&#125;&#125; me in replies) 20:23, 23 January 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.

8 December 2019: the real outbreak date
Could someone explain why this section exists? Whispyhistory (talk) 21:24, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Seconding this. This seems like a NPOV error at least. I'm going to take the liberty of deleting it; if important NPOV information comes up, it can simply be restored, but otherwise it seems to be detracting from the article. Aqua817 (talk) 22:24, 23 January 2020 (UTC)


 * It was added by User:Discern irony, who turns out to be another sockpuppet of a blocked user. -Zanhe (talk) 00:22, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Paper on this virus asks for assistance in editing
Evolution of the novel coronavirus from the ongoing Wuhan outbreak and modeling of its spike protein for risk of human transmission from SCIENCE CHINA Life Sciences.Since I am not a medical major and my English is not good, I ask other colleagues for help.Ask wikis who are good at related fields to make appropriate additions based on the content of the paper contained in this source. Thank you.-- 舞月書生 👉☎️👈  ∮Strive to be a good Wikipedians. 17:54, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Send me a way to contact you. I might be able to help. JuanTamad (talk) 02:20, 22 January 2020 (UTC)


 * from this paper,I find GISAID:CoV2020,but I can't add it in wikidata.-- 舞月書生 👉☎️👈  ∮Strive to be a good Wikipedians.  18:11, 21 January 2020 (UTC)`
 * Add an article about Wuhan virus in Journal of Medical Virology ：Homologous recombination within the spike glycoprotein of the newly identified coronavirus may boost cross‐species transmission from snake to human(Wiley

biorxiv)，Note that this is an unpublished version. -- 舞月書生 👉☎️👈  ∮Active at zh.wikipedia, strive to be a good Wikipedian. 00:42, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Here's a video
It appears to be public domain if anyone wants to migrate it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v7am-CtOVB0

Victor Grigas (talk) 00:50, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Inappropriate article title
"2019–20 outbreak of novel coronavirus 2019-nCoV" is something that some geeky editor came up with with only one thing in mind: official scientific nomenclature. That is inappropriate for a general purpose Wikipedia. It also reeks of a breach of Wikipedia rules (WP:ORIGINAL since this is definitely not the most common or even a rarely used name for the epidemic. Use something like "2019-20 corinavirus epidemic". There is no other competing epidemic in a different but related virus so there will be no confusion and so no need to get granular and elongate the name beyond practical use. --Loginnigol (talk) 20:28, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * You must have missed the move discussion above, the title is now 2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak, a much more accessible title. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:14, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

New Article: Wuhan Flu Timeline
I have shifted the entirety of the Chronology section to Wuhan Flu Timeline (for obvious reasons).

I would recommend that the timeline here be limited to major announcements. kencf0618 (talk) 17:16, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Wuhan flu may not be a term commonly used to refer to the novel corona 2019-nCoV. PenulisHantu (talk) 18:37, 23 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment I am not well-versed with viruses, but it seems that Flu/influenza viruses are very different from the coronaviruses. Xenmorpha (talk) 19:14, 23 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment: Flu has vaccine but Wuhan Virus doesn't. --Discern irony (talk) 19:15, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I have noted the distinction, but it'll take a while for the nomenclature to firm up (it's not as fast as the virus). For that matter, the title of this article is doubly redundant. kencf0618 (talk) 19:29, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Because it was erroneous and awkward — and practically no one is calling this "the Wuhan Flu" — I moved that new article to the title "Timeline of the 2019–20 outbreak of novel coronavirus". Paintspot Infez (talk) 20:02, 23 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Fine by me. kencf0618 (talk) 01:23, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

South Korea second confirm
https://news.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2020/01/24/2020012400518.html Just to note that new confirmation occurred in South Korea. Luke Kern Choi 5 (talk) 03:22, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Mistake in the map
There is a mistake in the map. It indicates "as of 2019-01-24"" and it should be 2020. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.176.159.64 (talk) 08:59, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Someone corrected it. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:40, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Trust in announcements
Official releases from the Chinese government are often justifiably untrusted by many people, how could we go about researching the trust level on this issue? Anyone got any ideas? 210.121.187.8 (talk) 01:30, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Please justify your accusation with evidence. Thanks. Magnetic Flux (talk) 15:52, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

During the 2003 SARS Epidemic China hid infected patients from the WHO and underreported the number of SARs cases. --Colin dm (talk) 02:58, 24 January 2020 (UTC)


 * https://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/13/world/asia/13doctor.html 70.178.54.132 (talk) 09:09, 24 January 2020 (UTC)


 * https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/obituaries/shuping-wang-whistleblower-who-exposed-chinas-hivaids-crisis-dies-at-59/2019/09/25/1dd6c1e2-dfa1-11e9-b199-f638bf2c340f_story.html 70.178.54.132 (talk) 09:15, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

2 new cases in Hong Kong
https://twitter.com/rthk_enews/status/1220649721800249344 need better source — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.157.95.111 (talk) 10:42, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Adding new contents
I have seen social-political controversy section in Chinese Wikipedia. Should the English Wikipedia add such content? (if with realiable source support)Mariogoods (talk) 23:59, 23 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Taiwan is not a member of WHO due to PRC pressure. kencf0618 (talk)
 * The issue you methioned is one of the social-political controversies, but there are other controversies surrounding the event. But the current article does not methioned such controversies. Mariogoods (talk) 05:17, 24 January 2020 (UTC)


 * I've added that context here just in case. kencf0618 (talk) 11:27, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Suudi arabia
This news is turkish https://www.cnnturk.com/dunya/suudi-arabistanda-hintli-hemsirede-corona-virusu-saptandi Eray08yigit (talk) 13:33, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Request removal of chart titled 'Suspected cases of 2019-nCoV in Hong Kong
This chart appears under the 'Global: Reported cases and repsonses' section. It is not factually inaccurate, however I believe it portrays a much more alarming situation than the underlying data presents. The chart, which I believe does not meet Wikipedia's formatting rules, presents 'suspected cases' of the virus in Hong Kong. I read the cited source, which is a list of all patients in Hong Kong that were tested for the virus, with almost all (except for 2) NOT testing positive for 2019-nCoV. The graph is not necessary, and similar information about 'suspect' cases of the virus are not presented in chart form for any other data. Tezakhiago (talk) 16:40, 22 January 2020 (UTC) your chart. notifying you to comment on this robertsky (talk) 06:58, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support with the current number of confirmed cases, suspected cases of a specific region may not be as notable to warrant a chart. PenulisHantu (talk) 04:17, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

The graph was first inserted and made when the epidemic was still at small scale, and the graph played a significant role in showing the social awareness of this disease. As time passes, I wouldn't disagree with removing the graph, and to follow the consensus reached. Cypp0847 (talk) 08:22, 24 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment I haven't seen much discussion generated here, however I'm a little new to discussions about removals on important wikipedia pages. I do, however, disagree with how we are presenting 'suspected' cases at this point in the outbreak. Most of the 'suspect' cases in the Hong Kong graph have been cleared as healthy. I would be more inclined to keep that data but present it in a way that clearly states that there are not 180 people in Hong Kong that have suspected nCoV infections, but 180 people have been, or are being screened for the virus. The Mainland China chart on the page Timeline of the 2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak presents this data in a much clearer light, presenting number of people quarantined (and presumably tested) and number of people cleared. Paging since your chart also displays countries with 'suspect' cases, although I think all the ones in Canada have been cleared now. It might be time to add a 'previously suspect cases which were cleared' colour. I'm not good at tracking suspect cases, however, so I'll defer here if my information is out of date. Tezakhiago (talk) 15:42, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

US Suspected Cases
We need to update the US suspected cases to contain the following. New here and can't edit the page myself at this moment.

US health officials are currently monitoring 63 other potential cases within the US. The cases currently being monitored in the U.S. stretch across 22 different states, including the first patient in Washington state and the new case in Illinois, Dr. Nancy Messonnier, the director of the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, told reporters on a conference call hosted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on Friday. https://www.cnbc.com/2020/01/24/cdc-confirms-second-us-case-of-coronavirus-chicago-resident-diagnosed.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmanndriver (talk • contribs) 16:29, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ - Thanks, I've edited and put this in. |→ Spaully ~talk~

Finland coronavirus case
two people are suspected to have corona-virus in Finland. danish article.Ragoris (talk) 14:42, 24 January 2020 (UTC)


 * The tests were negative. --Znuddel (talk) 19:20, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Adding nationality note to infobox country
Can someone add note for nationalities in infobox country order, because I found that despite many countries reported their cases, their nationality can actually Chinese, for example In Singapore, there are 3 cases, but they all originated from mainland Chinese, or in South Korea there are 2 cases, but 1 cases is actually originated from mainland Chinese and 1 from South Koreans. The infobox in Ukraine International Airlines Flight 752 can explained that as example for this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.245.103.83 (talk) 12:49, 24 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Support - putting this in in some fashion, if the information is available. It may be better presented as a simple, seperate chart, tabulating nationality and/or suspected location of infection. I personally would feel better assured if I knew every case had originated in China but I haven't seen that information presented anywhere. Tezakhiago (talk) 15:47, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose I would rather have a breakdown of confirmed cases by age rather than nationality. That would lead to allocation of blame or alienation, which is not helpful, when we already know all cases can be traced back to the epicenter. What if a victim has dual nationality? How about naturalized American Chinese or even naturalized Singaporean Chinese for that matter? PenulisHantu (talk) 20:31, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

The first Turkey carona case
https://www.ntv.com.tr/turkiye/cinli-hasta-ulkesine-gonderildi,3xSDZb8Aa0SQLthh_iBlAQ Eray08yigit (talk) 15:42, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Not clinically confirmed? Just mentions of suspected patient being sent back to China but there's no clinical confirmation. PenulisHantu (talk) 20:42, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

More suspected US cases
4 under investigation in NYC for Coronavirus. https://www.timesunion.com/news/article/NY-reports-4-people-under-investigation-for-new-15001917.php

3 people in michigan being tested. https://www.fox2detroit.com/news/state-sends-three-possible-cases-of-coronavirus-in-se-michigan-to-cdc-for-testing

These can be added to US suspected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmanndriver (talk • contribs) 20:33, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree, but adding every individual case may become harder if the number of cases keeps increasing as it is right now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Colin dm (talk • contribs) 21:06, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 January 2020
I have to add a country to the country list. Onche de Bougnadée (talk) 19:52, 24 January 2020 (UTC)Onche de Bougnadée Onche de Bougnadée (talk) 19:52, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Melmann 21:30, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

We should add a warning for viewers that Chinese cases are likely being underreported
Chinese cases have likely been underreported by both not testing patients for the virus and classifying them as "severe pneumonia" and by turning away potential virus patients due to overcrowding. However, I think we should keep the Chinese statistics alongside an asterisks since no WHO estimates are available yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Colin dm (talk • contribs) 21:42, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

United States Paragraph about prevention should be moved to the prevention section from the confirmed cases section
The paragraph "Between 60,000 and 65,000 people travel from Wuhan to the United States every year, with January being a peak.[120] At San Francisco International Airport, Los Angeles International Airport, and John F. Kennedy International Airport in New York City, arriving passengers began to be screened for symptoms of the virus ahead of the Chinese New Year peak travel season. As the number of cases started to increase, O'Hare International Airport in Chicago and Hartsfield–Jackson Atlanta International Airport have also started screening arriving passengers.[121][122]" should be moved from the "confirmed cases" section to the "prevention" section, since it is related to prevention rather than detailing cases.--Colin dm (talk) 22:00, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 January 2020 - Case in Belo Horizonte, Brazil dismissed
The person from Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais state in Brazil that had travelled to Shanghai is no longer at suspicion. That section has to be edited out.

https://www.em.com.br/app/noticia/gerais/2020/01/23/interna_gerais,1116451/ses-mg-descarta-caso-coronavirus-em-protocolo-do-ministerio-da-saude.shtml

https://saude.estadao.com.br/noticias/geral,mg-investiga-caso-suspeito-de-coronavirus-chines-em-belo-horizonte,70003168598 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flamesii (talk • contribs) 13:53, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * These changes were introduced in the revision as of 14:26, 24 January 2020. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:17, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 January 2020 - Two suspected cases in India
On 25 January 2019, two individuals returning from China were placed under quarantine in Mumbai.

Here is the source to support the updated information. 2001:8003:4E48:8600:1DFF:8071:601E:451F (talk) 13:48, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * This information has been put in by someone. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:18, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Change death toll in China
In French wiki, the death toll of the virus in China hits 41, can someone in English also edited it, I found from CBS News. China coronavirus outbreak: Death toll hits 41 as second case confirmed in U.S. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.245.103.83 (talk) 23:01, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

New sources claim 1287 cases https://www.nhc.gov.cn/xcs/yqfkdt/202001/a7cf0437d1324aed9cc1b890b8ee29e6.shtml

Potential cases in Zimbabwe
Zimbabwe has isolated 22 people from Wuhan for potential Coronavirus. https://www.herald.co.zw/22-under-monitoring-for-coronavirus/

However, I could only find one reputable source for this and it provided little information. I'm unsure on whether I should add this to "suspected" right now or wait for more information. --Colin dm (talk) 23:51, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 January 2020
Change France in the chart from 2 to 3 https://www.theguardian.com/science/2020/jan/24/french-cases-show-coronavirus-has-reached-europe 50.35.120.54 (talk) 22:33, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * It has been updated. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:15, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 January 2020
Please change, in the section "Confirmed cases, France", the current text "Both passengers had traveled through Schiphol Airport on their way to France." to "The passenger to Bordeaux said he had recently been in the Netherlands and Wuhan - from the context it seems he traveled back via the Netherlands." The originally cited source merely speculates that this passenger might have been travelling via Schiphol Airport. A better source to cite is the SOS doctors report on which reads "A doctor from SOS Doctors Bordeaux, at the consultation centre, receives a patient for fever and cough. At the beginning of the exam, the doctor asks the patient if he has traveled recently. He says he came from the Netherlands but reports that he came from China. Immediately the doctor asks him to indicate whether he has stayed or has been in contact with people from wuhan province. The answer is positive." Regarding the other (Paris) passenger, there is no indication for any travel through the Netherlands. Arnold1122 (talk) 21:39, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I have removed the sentence. It is no longer supported by the source anyway. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:21, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 January 2020 - First confirmed case in Nepal
Please update what has happened in Nepal. The new content I have included has been highlighted next to the existing content on the page. Here is the source to support the updated information.

A suspected case was reported in Nepal on 16 January 2020. The Nepali national had returned from Wuhan and was quarantined in Kathmandu. The first case in the country was confirmed on 25 January 2020 and three more people with symptoms were quarantined in the capital. 2001:8003:4E48:8600:1DFF:8071:601E:451F (talk) 13:21, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Confirmed case in Nepal has been included. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:13, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay thanks but I don't see any information on the three suspected cases. Here is the source for confirmation. Also, I don't see any reason why the fact that this is the first case reported in South Asia needs to be included. It kind of sounds trivial. (2001:8003:4E48:8600:1DFF:8071:601E:451F (talk) 00:36, 25 January 2020 (UTC))

First Australian Case
A news source is claiming that the first confirmed case was found in Australia https://twitter.com/spectatorindex/status/1220872896857272320 Bitbyte2015 (talk) 01:19, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

I added it to the list of confirmed cases --Colin dm (talk) 01:26, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
 * But the sentences needs to replaced by:


 * The first confirmed case in Australia was announced 25 January by Victorian Health Minister Jenny Mikakos. The case was of a man in his 50's, who had recently travelled from Wuhanto Australia via Melbourne and is currently receiving treatment in Victoria.
 * (This article use British English or it's equivalent variant (Australian, Oxford, Canadian, International, etc). In that sense, traveled must be replaced by travelled (with double L) which also common in all varieties of English.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.245.103.83 (talk) 01:29, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I fixed the typo --Colin dm (talk) 01:35, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Finland shouldn't be in the "suspected" category of countries
Now that the only 2 cases in Finland were confirmed negative I don't think Finland deserves to be in the "suspected" category and it should be moved somewhere else. --Colin dm (talk) 20:27, 24 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Finland removed. Znuddel (talk) 20:41, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree that it should've been removed, but I think it should be moved somewhere else because of it's importance. --Colin dm (talk) 20:44, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Second that, maybe a we need a new category for cases like this? Znuddel (talk) 21:00, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree. Is there any precedence for this in a previous article? --Colin dm (talk) 21:10, 24 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Here is the article about the negative tests, if that's what you're looking for? I suspect there will be more similiar cases gradually. --Znuddel (talk) 21:33, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

With the growing confirmed cases and deaths, previously suspected but negative cases should not be notable. There were previously suspected but negative cases in Vietnam and even Saudi Arabia (which turned out to be a different coronavirus). Negative cases add to the confusion and anxiety. If there's no objection, I propose negative cases in Finland should be removed until such time there are suspected or even confirmed cases. PenulisHantu (talk) 02:07, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Question
Who can edit this page? Wuhan2019 (talk) 01:34, 25 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi, according to User_access_levels: four days old and have made at least 10 edits, unless you are editing trough Tor or blocked IP. Carlosguitar (Yes Executor?) 02:11, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

cc-licensed Videos here
If anyone wants to migrate them: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCpbfXQsYBJTwq5lCkwGIeuQ/videos Victor Grigas (talk) 02:33, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Three Confirmed Cases in Malaysia
News just broke that they have three cases https://twitter.com/spectatorindex/status/1220915123218341889 Bitbyte2015 (talk) 03:47, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Lockdown of 10 Chinese Cities
Should the lockdown of the 10 Chinese cities have its own page? This is unprecedented in history, with at least 32 million people cut off from the world. See https://www.voanews.com/science-health/least-10-chinese-cities-lockdown-830-confirmed-coronavirus-cases-across-country

I would think this is an extraordinary event which deserves a article of its own. Seloloving (talk) 04:16, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

As the situation in Hubei becomes more complex I think having a page dedicated to lockdown would be useful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Colin dm (talk • contribs) 04:25, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Virtually every subsection could. kencf0618 (talk)

Adding more content
I would suggest that we translate the information from the article in Mandarin and add the content here. Right now the article is too short to provide a comprehensive overview. For example, we can talk about actions taken by other places like Singapore, Taiwan, Hong Kong and so on. Thanks. TheGreatSG&#39;rean (talk) 17:35, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * the only case ex-China is in Thailand, so far. What do you mean, talk about airport screening? I don't see an article on that. Would probably be a good idea. JuanTamad (talk) 05:03, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Good idea! Wuhan2019 (talk) 01:38, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Yeah great idea Nickayane99 (talk) 11:28, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Trust in announcements
Official releases from the Chinese government are often justifiably untrusted by many people, how could we go about researching the trust level on this issue? Anyone got any ideas? 210.121.187.8 (talk) 01:30, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Please justify your accusation with evidence. Thanks. Magnetic Flux (talk) 15:52, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

During the 2003 SARS Epidemic China hid infected patients from the WHO and underreported the number of SARs cases. --Colin dm (talk) 02:58, 24 January 2020 (UTC)


 * https://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/13/world/asia/13doctor.html 70.178.54.132 (talk) 09:09, 24 January 2020 (UTC)


 * https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/obituaries/shuping-wang-whistleblower-who-exposed-chinas-hivaids-crisis-dies-at-59/2019/09/25/1dd6c1e2-dfa1-11e9-b199-f638bf2c340f_story.html 70.178.54.132 (talk) 09:15, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Adding new contents
I have seen social-political controversy section in Chinese Wikipedia. Should the English Wikipedia add such content? (if with realiable source support)Mariogoods (talk) 23:59, 23 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Taiwan is not a member of WHO due to PRC pressure. kencf0618 (talk)
 * The issue you methioned is one of the social-political controversies, but there are other controversies surrounding the event. But the current article does not methioned such controversies. Mariogoods (talk) 05:17, 24 January 2020 (UTC)


 * I've added that context here just in case. kencf0618 (talk) 11:27, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 January 2020
Change France in the chart from 2 to 3 https://www.theguardian.com/science/2020/jan/24/french-cases-show-coronavirus-has-reached-europe 50.35.120.54 (talk) 22:33, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * It has been updated. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:15, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Change death toll in China
In French wiki, the death toll of the virus in China hits 41, can someone in English also edited it, I found from CBS News. China coronavirus outbreak: Death toll hits 41 as second case confirmed in U.S. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.245.103.83 (talk) 23:01, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

New sources claim 1287 cases https://www.nhc.gov.cn/xcs/yqfkdt/202001/a7cf0437d1324aed9cc1b890b8ee29e6.shtml

Semi-protected edit request on 24 January 2020
Add hyperlinks to the countries that have been infected. Samozd (talk) 21:59, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Pending-protection-unlocked.svg Not done: According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:14, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
 * it appears that someone else has since updated the table with country templates, which link to the country articles. robertsky (talk) 17:21, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , thank you for noting that. I will leave my response to  so they may know that they can now edit the article if they have further concerns.  Thanks again. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:26, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 January 2020
Please change, in the section "Confirmed cases, France", the current text "Both passengers had traveled through Schiphol Airport on their way to France." to "The passenger to Bordeaux said he had recently been in the Netherlands and Wuhan - from the context it seems he traveled back via the Netherlands." The originally cited source merely speculates that this passenger might have been travelling via Schiphol Airport. A better source to cite is the SOS doctors report on which reads "A doctor from SOS Doctors Bordeaux, at the consultation centre, receives a patient for fever and cough. At the beginning of the exam, the doctor asks the patient if he has traveled recently. He says he came from the Netherlands but reports that he came from China. Immediately the doctor asks him to indicate whether he has stayed or has been in contact with people from wuhan province. The answer is positive." Regarding the other (Paris) passenger, there is no indication for any travel through the Netherlands. Arnold1122 (talk) 21:39, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I have removed the sentence. It is no longer supported by the source anyway. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:21, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

More suspected US cases
4 under investigation in NYC for Coronavirus. https://www.timesunion.com/news/article/NY-reports-4-people-under-investigation-for-new-15001917.php

3 people in michigan being tested. https://www.fox2detroit.com/news/state-sends-three-possible-cases-of-coronavirus-in-se-michigan-to-cdc-for-testing

These can be added to US suspected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmanndriver (talk • contribs) 20:33, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree, but adding every individual case may become harder if the number of cases keeps increasing as it is right now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Colin dm (talk • contribs) 21:06, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 January 2020
I have to add a country to the country list. Onche de Bougnadée (talk) 19:52, 24 January 2020 (UTC)Onche de Bougnadée Onche de Bougnadée (talk) 19:52, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Melmann 21:30, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

US Suspected Cases
We need to update the US suspected cases to contain the following. New here and can't edit the page myself at this moment.

US health officials are currently monitoring 63 other potential cases within the US. The cases currently being monitored in the U.S. stretch across 22 different states, including the first patient in Washington state and the new case in Illinois, Dr. Nancy Messonnier, the director of the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, told reporters on a conference call hosted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on Friday. https://www.cnbc.com/2020/01/24/cdc-confirms-second-us-case-of-coronavirus-chicago-resident-diagnosed.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmanndriver (talk • contribs) 16:29, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ - Thanks, I've edited and put this in. |→ Spaully ~talk~

Semi-protected edit request on 24 January 2020 - Case in Belo Horizonte, Brazil dismissed
The person from Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais state in Brazil that had travelled to Shanghai is no longer at suspicion. That section has to be edited out.

https://www.em.com.br/app/noticia/gerais/2020/01/23/interna_gerais,1116451/ses-mg-descarta-caso-coronavirus-em-protocolo-do-ministerio-da-saude.shtml

https://saude.estadao.com.br/noticias/geral,mg-investiga-caso-suspeito-de-coronavirus-chines-em-belo-horizonte,70003168598 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flamesii (talk • contribs) 13:53, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * These changes were introduced in the revision as of 14:26, 24 January 2020. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:17, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 January 2020 - Two suspected cases in India
On 25 January 2019, two individuals returning from China were placed under quarantine in Mumbai.

Here is the source to support the updated information. 2001:8003:4E48:8600:1DFF:8071:601E:451F (talk) 13:48, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * This information has been put in by someone. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:18, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 January 2020 - First confirmed case in Nepal
Please update what has happened in Nepal. The new content I have included has been highlighted next to the existing content on the page. Here is the source to support the updated information.

A suspected case was reported in Nepal on 16 January 2020. The Nepali national had returned from Wuhan and was quarantined in Kathmandu. The first case in the country was confirmed on 25 January 2020 and three more people with symptoms were quarantined in the capital. 2001:8003:4E48:8600:1DFF:8071:601E:451F (talk) 13:21, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Confirmed case in Nepal has been included. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:13, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay thanks but I don't see any information on the three suspected cases. Here is the source for confirmation. Also, I don't see any reason why the fact that this is the first case reported in South Asia needs to be included. It kind of sounds trivial. (2001:8003:4E48:8600:1DFF:8071:601E:451F (talk) 00:36, 25 January 2020 (UTC))

Semi-protected edit request on 25 January 2020
There was a reported case in Italy, in Parma. Of a woman that returned from Wuhan, however, it is still not certified that it is the Coronavirus. Robert Milanovic (talk) 13:43, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Pending-protection-unlocked.svg Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. MadGuy7023 (talk) 22:54, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 January 2020
Update number of cases: China (Mainland) - Confirmed: 1402 YeetSoftware (talk) 15:21, 25 January 2020 (UTC) Done, YeetSoftware (talk) 17:20, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 January 2020
Change the cases of South Korea to 3 in the TEXT, not the table. DavidBautista (talk) 02:25, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 02:33, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Should we add "Origin" parameter at Infobox event which is used in this article?
Support/oppose this suggestion here. Hddty (talk) 02:20, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * AFAIK, we only know of a suspected origin.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 02:24, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

2 new cases in Hong Kong
https://twitter.com/rthk_enews/status/1220649721800249344 need better source — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.157.95.111 (talk) 10:42, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Suudi arabia
This news is turkish https://www.cnnturk.com/dunya/suudi-arabistanda-hintli-hemsirede-corona-virusu-saptandi Eray08yigit (talk) 13:33, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Request removal of chart titled 'Suspected cases of 2019-nCoV in Hong Kong
This chart appears under the 'Global: Reported cases and repsonses' section. It is not factually inaccurate, however I believe it portrays a much more alarming situation than the underlying data presents. The chart, which I believe does not meet Wikipedia's formatting rules, presents 'suspected cases' of the virus in Hong Kong. I read the cited source, which is a list of all patients in Hong Kong that were tested for the virus, with almost all (except for 2) NOT testing positive for 2019-nCoV. The graph is not necessary, and similar information about 'suspect' cases of the virus are not presented in chart form for any other data. Tezakhiago (talk) 16:40, 22 January 2020 (UTC) your chart. notifying you to comment on this robertsky (talk) 06:58, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support with the current number of confirmed cases, suspected cases of a specific region may not be as notable to warrant a chart. PenulisHantu (talk) 04:17, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

The graph was first inserted and made when the epidemic was still at small scale, and the graph played a significant role in showing the social awareness of this disease. As time passes, I wouldn't disagree with removing the graph, and to follow the consensus reached. Cypp0847 (talk) 08:22, 24 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment I haven't seen much discussion generated here, however I'm a little new to discussions about removals on important wikipedia pages. I do, however, disagree with how we are presenting 'suspected' cases at this point in the outbreak. Most of the 'suspect' cases in the Hong Kong graph have been cleared as healthy. I would be more inclined to keep that data but present it in a way that clearly states that there are not 180 people in Hong Kong that have suspected nCoV infections, but 180 people have been, or are being screened for the virus. The Mainland China chart on the page Timeline of the 2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak presents this data in a much clearer light, presenting number of people quarantined (and presumably tested) and number of people cleared. Paging since your chart also displays countries with 'suspect' cases, although I think all the ones in Canada have been cleared now. It might be time to add a 'previously suspect cases which were cleared' colour. I'm not good at tracking suspect cases, however, so I'll defer here if my information is out of date. Tezakhiago (talk) 15:42, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Finland coronavirus case
two people are suspected to have corona-virus in Finland. danish article.Ragoris (talk) 14:42, 24 January 2020 (UTC)


 * The tests were negative. --Znuddel (talk) 19:20, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Adding nationality note to infobox country
Can someone add note for nationalities in infobox country order, because I found that despite many countries reported their cases, their nationality can actually Chinese, for example In Singapore, there are 3 cases, but they all originated from mainland Chinese, or in South Korea there are 2 cases, but 1 cases is actually originated from mainland Chinese and 1 from South Koreans. The infobox in Ukraine International Airlines Flight 752 can explained that as example for this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.245.103.83 (talk) 12:49, 24 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Support - putting this in in some fashion, if the information is available. It may be better presented as a simple, seperate chart, tabulating nationality and/or suspected location of infection. I personally would feel better assured if I knew every case had originated in China but I haven't seen that information presented anywhere. Tezakhiago (talk) 15:47, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose I would rather have a breakdown of confirmed cases by age rather than nationality. That would lead to allocation of blame or alienation, which is not helpful, when we already know all cases can be traced back to the epicenter. What if a victim has dual nationality? How about naturalized American Chinese or even naturalized Singaporean Chinese for that matter? PenulisHantu (talk) 20:31, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

The first Turkey carona case
https://www.ntv.com.tr/turkiye/cinli-hasta-ulkesine-gonderildi,3xSDZb8Aa0SQLthh_iBlAQ Eray08yigit (talk) 15:42, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Not clinically confirmed? Just mentions of suspected patient being sent back to China but there's no clinical confirmation. PenulisHantu (talk) 20:42, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

We should add a warning for viewers that Chinese cases are likely being underreported
Chinese cases have likely been underreported by both not testing patients for the virus and classifying them as "severe pneumonia" and by turning away potential virus patients due to overcrowding. However, I think we should keep the Chinese statistics alongside an asterisks since no WHO estimates are available yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Colin dm (talk • contribs) 21:42, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

United States Paragraph about prevention should be moved to the prevention section from the confirmed cases section
The paragraph "Between 60,000 and 65,000 people travel from Wuhan to the United States every year, with January being a peak.[120] At San Francisco International Airport, Los Angeles International Airport, and John F. Kennedy International Airport in New York City, arriving passengers began to be screened for symptoms of the virus ahead of the Chinese New Year peak travel season. As the number of cases started to increase, O'Hare International Airport in Chicago and Hartsfield–Jackson Atlanta International Airport have also started screening arriving passengers.[121][122]" should be moved from the "confirmed cases" section to the "prevention" section, since it is related to prevention rather than detailing cases.--Colin dm (talk) 22:00, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Potential cases in Zimbabwe
Zimbabwe has isolated 22 people from Wuhan for potential Coronavirus. https://www.herald.co.zw/22-under-monitoring-for-coronavirus/

However, I could only find one reputable source for this and it provided little information. I'm unsure on whether I should add this to "suspected" right now or wait for more information. --Colin dm (talk) 23:51, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

First Australian Case
A news source is claiming that the first confirmed case was found in Australia https://twitter.com/spectatorindex/status/1220872896857272320 Bitbyte2015 (talk) 01:19, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

I added it to the list of confirmed cases --Colin dm (talk) 01:26, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
 * But the sentences needs to replaced by:


 * The first confirmed case in Australia was announced 25 January by Victorian Health Minister Jenny Mikakos. The case was of a man in his 50's, who had recently travelled from Wuhanto Australia via Melbourne and is currently receiving treatment in Victoria.
 * (This article use British English or it's equivalent variant (Australian, Oxford, Canadian, International, etc). In that sense, traveled must be replaced by travelled (with double L) which also common in all varieties of English.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.245.103.83 (talk) 01:29, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I fixed the typo --Colin dm (talk) 01:35, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Finland shouldn't be in the "suspected" category of countries
Now that the only 2 cases in Finland were confirmed negative I don't think Finland deserves to be in the "suspected" category and it should be moved somewhere else. --Colin dm (talk) 20:27, 24 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Finland removed. Znuddel (talk) 20:41, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree that it should've been removed, but I think it should be moved somewhere else because of it's importance. --Colin dm (talk) 20:44, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Second that, maybe a we need a new category for cases like this? Znuddel (talk) 21:00, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree. Is there any precedence for this in a previous article? --Colin dm (talk) 21:10, 24 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Here is the article about the negative tests, if that's what you're looking for? I suspect there will be more similiar cases gradually. --Znuddel (talk) 21:33, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

With the growing confirmed cases and deaths, previously suspected but negative cases should not be notable. There were previously suspected but negative cases in Vietnam and even Saudi Arabia (which turned out to be a different coronavirus). Negative cases add to the confusion and anxiety. If there's no objection, I propose negative cases in Finland should be removed until such time there are suspected or even confirmed cases. PenulisHantu (talk) 02:07, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Question
Who can edit this page? Wuhan2019 (talk) 01:34, 25 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi, according to User_access_levels: four days old and have made at least 10 edits, unless you are editing trough Tor or blocked IP. Carlosguitar (Yes Executor?) 02:11, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

cc-licensed Videos here
If anyone wants to migrate them: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCpbfXQsYBJTwq5lCkwGIeuQ/videos Victor Grigas (talk) 02:33, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Three Confirmed Cases in Malaysia
News just broke that they have three cases https://twitter.com/spectatorindex/status/1220915123218341889 Bitbyte2015 (talk) 03:47, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 January 2020
Change infection count in Australia from 1 to 4. 167.179.171.190 (talk) 08:12, 25 January 2020 (UTC) Done. Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 09:18, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Update China Confirmed Cases
https://www.foxnews.com/health/coronavirus-death-toll-rises-in-china

Live sources has updated to 1354 instead of 1320 now, so please change 1320 to 1354

Airplane50 (talk) 05:36, 25 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Done. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 09:23, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 January 2020
added the word "and" (between "inspectors" and "underreported"), it was grammatically missing

Additional concerns have been raised due to China's past handling of the 2003 SARS Epidemic, where the Chinese government hid infected patients from WHO inspectors and underreported the number of SARS cases. 107.190.3.6 (talk) 09:25, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Done―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 09:38, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Edit request
Please create the for this article because in many editing for this article about Wuhan coronavirus outbreak, they have grammar issue about spelling and punctuation for example traveled, this word should be changed to Travelled with double L. 180.245.103.83 (talk) 03:13, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I have added such a notice, though writers may not even be aware of the spelling differences. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:40, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

The Lancet
The Lancet has its first article on this bug. kencf0618 (talk) 03:53, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)30183-5/fulltext


 * Thanks...added to epidemiology...can be expanded. Gives details of first cluster. Whispyhistory (talk) 10:01, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
 * https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)30186-0/fulltext#.Xiwz-GlEou8.twitter

update epidemology
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novel_coronavirus_(2019-nCoV)#Epidemiology

section should be updated (or at least edited with this article to avoid this duplication) - I would suggest making the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novel_coronavirus_(2019-nCoV)#Epidemiology article more generic saying Wuhan - china - rest of the world and linking here. BUT as these 2 articles are getting a lot of edits - I do not do that. Other editors can better update the 2 so they are not contradictory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.115.204.102 (talk) 10:28, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Removal of the cases distribution map
I have removed this graphic map, as multiple issues listed on the talk page of the correspondence Chinese Wikipedia article. The large Wuhan circle has covered a lot of provinces outside Hubei and looks like cases all over China; the skull next to the PRC flag looks like a curse of the entire nation. The word, Wuhan, consequently, has been squeezed to the extremely left of the map, at a location near Qinghai, making the entire pictures geographically terrible (also to notice he put Washington State to the extreme west of the map instead of the extreme east of the map, leaving huge area of blankness and an unreadable graph). The info are also extremely outdated.

The author of the graph has been notified in Chinese Wikipedia article talk page, but for more than 24 hours he not only didn't improve any of the issue raised but deteriorated them, so the map has already been removed in Chinese Wikipedia. --173.68.165.114 (talk) 04:17, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Allow me to clarify that, I didn't receive any notification in Chinese Wikipedia (probably technical issues). Speaking of location distribution, Europe can be assumed as the center of the map, hence Washington at the left of the map. And after all, thank you for the suggestions provided, they would be great improvements. Cypp0847 (talk) 08:33, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Oh hi Cypp0847, happy new year! You were pinged in the Chinese Wikipedia page zh:Talk:2019－2020年新型冠狀病毒肺炎事件. At that point you uploaded the graph in Chinese with an anonymous accent (i.e. Standard Chinese in formal/literary register), so I assumed you are active in Chinese Wikipedia. It seems the graph has been improved a lot, but take a note that
 * 1) Hebei and Jiangxi has been reversed
 * 2) Thailand, Japan and Korea has their flag on all the cities, while PRC has their flag on Wuhan only, leaving exactly two flags of China and making it an explicit propaganda of Two Chinas theory. I assume either applying the earlier style (flags on all cities) or remove either of the two flags of China.
 * 3) Guangzhou, Shenzhen, Hong Kong and Macau has all been squeezed together. It is hard to read.
 * 4) Europe should not be centered as it's not the origin. The map this way looks like the carrier arrived Washington State via Europe, which is not the case.

Also one of the map you made has been deleted from Chinese Wikipedia with the exact reason stated in  - the color used on disputed land is the same as background color. I was about to remove it from the timeline article in English Wikipedia as well. --173.68.165.114 (talk) 10:44, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

China is building 2 hospitals to fight the outbreak
On Saturday, officials announced that a second hospital was in the works to treat people infected by the virus. It would have a capacity for 1,300 beds. They plan to complete the facility, called Leishenshan Hospital, in 15 days Nickayane99 (talk) 11:36, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:51, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Wuhan Jinyintan Hospital (Medical treatment Center)-VOA.jpg

Survival time of virus outside animal or man body?
Is there any knowledge about the survival time of the virus outside of the animal or man body? It is imortant to know if for deciding if I can reuse may mask or I can enter a room in which an infected (or prabably infected) person was.

They have deciphered the virus, so I think they are making tests of this kind because this is highly inportant. At least they must give the information that they are testing this.

For SARS I just checked it was 24 hours living time outside human / animal body.

Isn't there a linke where we can find scientific findings pertaining the virus in a concentrated way? 130.92.100.253 (talk) 20:10, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

shouldn't this go to the virus page instead of the outbreak? Pocketenderman (talk) 13:55, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Infected Indian nurse in Saudi Arabia
Should that case be labeled under India or Saudi Arabia? It's not clear if they were infected in India or Saudi Arabia. MrTempestilence (talk) 13:51, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * If the infected person is in Saudi Arabia, I would say Saudi Arabia. PenulisHantu (talk) 14:05, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure. I think Saudi Arabia but if they were infected in India it would be both, but we don't know where they were infected. 39cookies (talk) 15:08, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * At this point, I would want better confirmation and I doubt the accuracy of this information. The referenced articles 1 and 2 have very minimal information about the actual diagnosis, and another third party news article I found here confuses information about MERS and nCoV-2019 throughout the article. The original source seems to be a reporter for the Economic Times, and there is reference to a Philipino Nurse who was infected. I haven't read about a case like that. At this point I am not convinced that this isn't a seperate infection from the ongoing 2018 Middle East respiratory syndrome outbreak. Tezakhiago (talk) 16:40, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * If true, I'd say Saudi Arabia, since that's where the nurse is working. Dege31 (talk) 16:58, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Please note that the original tweet from the Indian Minister here, which seems to be the only primary source for this case, does not actually mention nCoV-2019. It only mentions Coronavirus, which is not specific. I know this is a twitter thread, but this shows there is considerable debate about how factual the report of nCoV-2019 in this nurse is, despite the info coming from the Minister of International Affairs. It is much, much more likely this is a case of MERS. I am removing the Saudi Arabia case from tables. Tezakhiago (talk) 17:20, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * No nCoV case. Reference. -Nizil (talk) 14:32, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

One question: Are the time zones consistent in the current article?
Can I declare a +8(?) in an article?-- 舞月書生 👉☎️👈  ∮Active at zh.wikipedia, strive to be a good Wikipedian 18:39, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Currently the updates can be confusing due to the speed the event is unfolding and the time differences. PenulisHantu (talk) 14:07, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: There is no  template in the English wikipedia as an outcome of a deletion discussion. robertsky (talk) 16:30, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee Discretionary Sanctions
Why is this article subject to discretionary sanctions relating to post-1932 US politics? That seems tangential. I can see why you might want tighter controls on this article, but perhaps there is a better way to do this than use an unrelated American politics link. |→ Spaully ~talk~ 15:37, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
 * And while we're about it, why is this article semi-protected? Just one editor started adding (apparently) unsourced material and he was warned about it. An involved admin then SP'd the article on the strength of this trivial event. Now, a large number of people who might have some useful input have been blown out. 31.52.163.28 (talk) 16:13, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
 * It's semi-protected to deal with unsourced score-keeping and riumor-mongering, which often happens with ongoing events of this kind. And I've removed a forum chat about internet rumors on the source, which is another reason for protection.  Acroterion   (talk)   16:23, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I've removed the American Politics discretionary sanction notice, which was probably copied in by mistake by an IP. I believe I'll remove the protection for a while and keep an eye on things, there are lots of people editing right now, but I'll reinstate if the article becomes a scoreboard tally or a festival of unsourced edits, likewise if people start posting rumors.  Acroterion   (talk)   16:36, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Attack rate
What attack rate has this virus? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.1.179.13 (talk) 16:46, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
 * R0 is the nomenclature. kencf0618 (talk) 18:50, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Oops. Wrong subject, sorry. 2JWE (talk) 22:41, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Update
I'm here to ask for an update to be approved, IDK whether or not if you agree but the Pandemic is in fact over. The virus is in an endemic stage now, there is no uptick in serious cases as masks are lifted months ago and death rates plumbeted. People will still get sick from it for sure, like the Flu, that virus will not end, but claiming this pandemic is ongoing is ludicrous and stretches things out further. Can we please just end it already and make an update that doesn't acknowledge the pandemic is ongoing? SCPdude629 (talk) 17:59, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

This is being discussed above Talk:COVID-19_pandemic in that section. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:53, 29 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Ok SCPdude629 (talk) 21:58, 29 June 2023 (UTC)