Talk:COVID-19 pandemic/Archive 7

Requested move 2 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: not moved. This has garnered a lot of attention due to the preceding events taking place rapidly and rightly so. While, there is a policy-supported reasoning to use "2019–20 novel coronavirus outbreak" (namely WP:NCMED), we also have policies in place (namely WP:COMMONNAME) which dictate using names that are against the aforementioned policy. Some of the supports also chose alternative capitalization, which might not be conforming of NCMED, COMMONNAME or NCCAPS. Coming to the final aspect of assessing consensus, NCMED is treated as a guideline w.r.t the current English Wikipedia Manual of Style whereas WP:COMMONNAME is a part of the official WP:Article titles policy in place. Some of the opposition to this requested move were of the view that the COMMONNAME policy should supersede the NCMED guidelines (or simply stated the COMMONNAME policy) given that "2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak" is the more recognized title (as observed in Google Trends and elsewhere). In light of guideline vs. policy conflict, as well as a lack of general consensus, and for the sake of completeness, I'm closing this as no consensus. qedk (t 桜 c) 07:59, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak → 2019–20 novel coronavirus outbreak – As WHO has listed this outbreak as a global risk, the title should have a title that is potentially misleading changed - as the virus outbreak is no longer limited to Wuhan and/or China. Kirbanzo (userpage - talk - contribs) 02:33, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Edited to be "novel coronavirus outbreak" per emerging consensus. Kirbanzo (userpage - talk - contribs) 22:58, 2 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Support The outbreak has so far affected every continent except for Africa. TheEpicGhosty (talk) 02:53, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I would go with "2019 novel coronavirus outbreak". This is a specific coronavirus. And we should bring it in line with Talk:Novel_coronavirus_(2019-nCoV) Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 02:55, 2 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Support I didn't see any report citing Wuhan Coronavirus all over the world except Taiwan's. Natureindex (talk) 17:18, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Wuhan Coronavirus is the current most identifying name for the the virus. The common person is not calling this virus nCov-2019 or novel coronavirus. It is a stretch to assume that anyone would mistake this title to mean it is only affecting China or Wuhan. Especially if one were to read the article they had just searched for. Wilsonahrens (talk) 01:28, 6 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Support for "2019–20 novel coronavirus outbreak" instead. Without or with the (2019-nCoV) addendum. Which would be the title as proposed in the above thread, which is better as it's the one WHO actually uses per here. This also brings the move request to fall in coordination with the page on the virus, Novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV). This brings into relevance to note the consensus established on that article's Talk against a move request there to 'Wuhan coronavirus' on the grounds of:
 * 1) Opposition through the "multiple documented issues with over-enthusiastically naming diseases after places."
 * 2) Support for the primacy of officially-designated names over common names if the latter are not "the common name."
 * Sleath56 (talk) 03:01, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
 * WHO uses "Novel Coronavirus 2019" Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 03:12, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
 * This may be a technically correct way to name the disease, but it doesn't really reflect the outbreak, which occured mostly in 2020 (so far). We could name it *"2019-20 outbreak of the Novel Coronavirus 2019", but that seems unnecessarily clumsy. Renerpho (talk) 03:28, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
 * That naming seems to be for the virus itself (hence 2019-nCoV), which could be brought as a point of order on the page for the virus, but 2019-20 is better as this article details the outbreak which, unfortunately, has carried over into 2020. Sleath56 (talk) 03:31, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Sure we can add the 20. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 04:03, 2 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Support for Sleath's 2019–20 novel coronavirus outbreak as it moves us in the right direction. I think the lowercase approach is correct and "2019-20" clearly indicates which novel coronavirus is being referenced. - Wikmoz (talk) 21:51, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose as originally suggested, but support 2019–20 novel coronavirus outbreak. Renerpho (talk) 03:23, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Changing vote to Wait, upon announcement that an official name may be announced soon. Renerpho (talk) 13:45, 7 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Move to 2019–20 Novel coronavirus outbreak as many others suggested it to follow English grammar. But Novel needs to capitalised N. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.137.171.220 (talk) 03:37, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
 * As with many disease names, the term 'novel coronavirus' is not a proper in of itself to require capitalization. For example: WHO in the page cited uses "On this website you can find information and guidance from WHO regarding the current outbreak of novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV)..." Sleath56 (talk) 03:50, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose as originally suggested, but support 2019–20 novel coronavirus outbreak. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 03:57, 2 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Support for Any name without Wuhan or China. example (Option 1) "Move to 2019–20 coronavirus outbreak, or (Option 2) Move to Novel Coronavirus 2019 -20 outbreak. Description about (Option 2) it is consistent with the official name by WHO and additional description about year 2019 to 2020. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 03:59, 2 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Move to 
 * 2019-20 Novel Coronavirus outbreak. The virus has spread to the world, and it doesn't only affect Wuhan. Peterwu2019 (talk) 04:01, 2 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose keep the same name, as this is a perfectly good name, but putting "novel" in the name is clearly temporary. This was discussed quite recently. It does not matter that "Wuhan" is in the title as that is the origin and the most significantly affected place. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:16, 2 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Supportive but concerned. In general, I really like the idea of removing Wuhan from the title and having all of these topics reference Novel coronavirus


 * However, the article currently is largely limited to discussing activity in China and we're already at 400 references. And there's another topic 2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak by country and territory tracking the international outbreak that is blowing up as well. On the talk page there, there's discussion of splitting that one by region (2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak in Europe)


 * Maybe a short term fix for this one is 2019–20 novel coronavirus outbreak in China? Not sure what the answer is. - Wikmoz (talk) 04:28, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The correct procedure as I see it would be to propose a move request for that page as the same concerns brought up here would apply there as well. Sleath56 (talk) 04:37, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Changed to clearer suggestion below. - Wikmoz (talk) 13:56, 2 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:RECENT, not convinced that the common used name has changed and we can't just make a unilateral change. It it turns out people are calling it something else in hindsight we can certainly change the name in the future. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 05:04, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment The assumption that "Wuhan coronavirus outbreak" is the common name is far from established. A Google search for "Novel coronavirus outbreak" returns 16,800,000 results. Whereas "Wuhan coronavirus outbreak" returns at 100k higher at 16,900,000 results. As such, it is far from the case that the current "Wuhan coronavirus" is the Common name and in fact that the proposed alternative stands very close in utility. Thus those parameters of WP:COMMONNAME are not applicable and in fact as the guidelines there state: " When there are multiple names for a subject, all of which are fairly common, and the most common has problems, it is perfectly reasonable to choose one of the others." Sleath56 (talk) 05:27, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I think it would be misleading to use the grand total of all results to find the WP:GHITS - this strain is not the only novel coronavirus. A much better test for the common name would be to use Google Trends which shows that Wuhan coronavirus is exponentially more common. Cheers, Vanilla   Wizard  💙 09:44, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the attempt to clarify, the Google Trends method is not ideal but serves more practicality. However, I believe there are faults in your method. Setting for international search (instead of just the United States as your result reflected) and using "" for exact terms within the last 30 days, the result comes out like this: the terms are much closer to parity and "Wuhan coronavirus" while still ahead is certainly not "exponentially more common" This result shows that the "Novel coronavirus" jumping to a mere 19% difference at present after the adoption of the term by the WHO and it indicates that the term "Wuhan coronavirus" while still trending above, especially at the onset of the outbreak, is nowhere near being definitively the WP:COMMONNAME. Sleath56 (talk) 17:27, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
 * When I follow the provided link which specifies that the trends are worldwide and from the last 30 days, what I see is that the term "Wuhan coronavirus" is consistently being more widely used and by a rather large margin, and is the preferred term in nearly all countries. With all due respect, I think this certainly adds to the list of reasons to consider "Wuhan coronavirus" to be the WP:COMMONNAME. Vanilla   Wizard  💙 23:14, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I think we can agree it's not, as you say, "exponentially more common". Indeed, as I've admitted, "Wuhan coronavirus" was the predominant term, and if we had this conversation days ago, I'd be forced to agree with the pure statistical imbalance no matter my views. However, since the WHO has adopted the term in popular use, though as an editor below has stated, its not the only officially used term, the gap between the two is very noticeably closing. Especially on the weekly window. I can respect a disagreement in opinion. I think the move request was a little premature, so undoubtedly we'll be repeating the same conversation a week from now. Hopefully, a proper term will be decided then, though my belief is that an official term is preferable so long as a common term is not the WP:COMMONNAME, and which I believe "Wuhan coronavirus" isn't, especially recently. Furthermore, this page must line up regardless of the outcome here with the page on the virus itself, which has already discarded the term "Wuhan coronavirus" in preference for a term in line with the RS/MC. Sleath56 (talk) 23:33, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
 * At nearly all points on that graph, bar the three-hour-long spike of "novel coronavirus" on January 30th, the term "Wuhan coronavirus" has been between 1.5x and 2x as frequent as "novel coronavirus" and as of right now it's 1.6x as common. I do, however, agree with your belief that this move is premature. In my view, the best option is to close this move request as not moved, then wait (preferably for at least two or three weeks) to see if any name emerges as the obvious best choice. As of right now, I think it's too early to get a good consensus for any proposed title. Vanilla   Wizard  💙 00:56, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Support 2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak its pretty basic and i am supporting it. We do not need anymore extra name in between.Regice2020 (talk) 05:41, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
 * For clarity, please follow the procedure of citing 'Oppose' for opposition unless proposing an alternative name to keep vote tracking easier. That would be a position of 'Oppose,' is it not? Sleath56 (talk) 07:29, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I cancel my vote. This was obvious change it should went for "coronavirus outbreak" as the article title in the first place. Right now i am seeing back and forth. Have nice day. Regice2020 (talk) 07:55, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose because there are many types of coronavirus, this outbreak is of Wuhan coronavirus, not about the other types of coronavirus.Rafaelosornio (talk) 05:53, 2 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Support - The current consensus in the medical field is against naming pathogens and events after people or human settlements. I'd suggest moving it to the new target and suggesting Wuhan Virus as an alternative name, thought there appear to be at least a dozen casual names floating around. Tsukide (talk) 08:33, 2 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose the proposed title & weaker oppose on replacing "Wuhan" with "Novel." The current title is accurate, unambiguous, and the common name. Novel coronavirus would be better than just "coronavirus", but "Wuhan coronavirus" is both the common name & more specific than either proposal because the term "Wuhan coronavirus" refers specifically to the 2019-nCoV strain. I understand the concern that having "Wuhan" in the name makes it sound like the virus is limited only to Wuhan when it's clearly spread throughout the world, so I'm not strongly opposed to the alternative proposal, but when I read the title I assume it to mean "2019-20 outbreak of the Wuhan coronavirus" and not "2019-20 coronavirus outbreak in Wuhan" (if that explanation makes any sense). Vanilla   Wizard  💙 09:44, 2 February 2020 (UTC)


 * It looks increasingly likely that the virus will be moved to “2019 novel coronavirus” when the RM there is complete, so I would advise against being a stickler for “2019–20” lest the page end up at 2019–20 2019 novel coronavirus outbreak (sic). Dekimasu よ! 10:26, 2 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment, From my understanding, "Novel Coronavirus 2019": It would meet the requirement of WP:NPV,  Although one of the examples name below has "the greatest number of google search results" and I don't think  that it is a proper name :Sydney Virus, Washington Virus, U.S.A Virus, London Virus or, British Virus as, I saw that one of the newspaper in  Melbourne of Australia named the current virus as a China Virus: I believe that it could create potential negative influence in our society.
 * As WHO uses "Novel Coronavirus 2019" as an official recommended name. Please refer to the related article link from WHO below.[]and there are a few options of the names on this talk page.
 * Regarding "Requested move 2 February 2020"
 * Would it be possible for us to go for two steps.
 * Step 1: Decide whether we can change the name
 * Step 2: if we pass the step 1, select the best name for the current the title of this article. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 10:56, 2 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose it is known in media as the wuhan virus. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 12:10, 2 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose - The place of outbreak or the extent of its eventual distrubution should not change the pathogen's name. It's a usual procedure and rather commonplace to name emerging pathogens after the place of their first discovery.


 * Examples include:
 * Norovirus: named after Norwalk, Ohio
 * Ebola virus: named after Ebola River, DR Congo
 * Marburg virus: named after Marburg, Germany
 * West Nile virus: named after West Nile Province, Uganda
 * Zika virus: named after Zika Forest, Uganda
 * MERS virus (aka 2012-nCoV): named after the Middle East


 * A change in affected areas has no effect on the pathogen's name.


 * Thus the title 2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak doesn't refer to the place where the disease occurs (i.e. some "Wuhan outbreak" of any coronavirus), but to the fact that it's an outbreak of the specific Wuhan coronavirus regardless of its extent.


 * 89.206.114.57 (talk) 12:44, 2 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment: In those cases as you've cited, a point of order which should be brought up that those names are also the officially designated ones used by WHO:
 * * Norovirus: named after Norwalk, Ohio Adopted by WHO
 * * Ebola virus: named after Ebola River, DR Congo Adopted by WHO
 * * Marburg virus: named after Marburg, Germany Adopted by WHO
 * * West Nile virus: named after West Nile Province, Uganda adopted by WHO
 * * Zika virus: named after Zika Forest, Uganda Adopted by WHO
 * * MERS virus (aka 2012-nCoV): Adopted by WHO
 * In all of those cases, the geographic name is also the official name as adopted by WHO. The point of order being brought up is not if geographic virus naming is always inapplicable but if a common name should be chosen over the official name. In this present case, the WHO has not adopted the term "Wuhan coronavirus" but instead "Novel coronavirus". It's not in my view that this current case is therefore comparable to those as the "Wuhan coronavirus" is a common name, not an official name, and also not the common name. Sleath56 (talk) 17:05, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
 * If you’re going to be pedantic I’m going to have to point out to you that the name the WHO uses is not “Novel coronavirus” as you have repeatedly stated. They have not actually designated *any* common or “official" name as you keep saying, what they did do was designate "2019-nCoV acute respiratory disease” (yes, the whole thing) as the preferred interim name. They have also designated "2019-nCoV" as a less preferred but still acceptable interim name . Please stop repeating things that aren't true. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:48, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
 * There was no explicit view that "2019-nCoV" was a less preferred" statement on that page, if you required that clarification.
 * This is what I said in my statement of position: "Support for "2019–20 novel coronavirus outbreak}}" instead. Without or with the (2019-nCoV) addendum." One, I don't view the WHO's statement as wholly contrary to that at the moment when the titling of the very page you cited is itself "Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV)" Second, Novel coronavirus being seen as an acceptable alternative to nCoV, which is the abbreviation, is already finding discussion on the virus page. Sleath56 (talk) 18:09, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Don’t be an jerk. Both are proposed by WHO but only one is recommended by WHO, thats pretty darn explicit. Care for me to clarify further? Ps. The abbreviation is 2019-nCoV not nCoV and no it isn't "an acceptable alternative." Horse Eye Jack (talk) 04:34, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Not sure why you thought it was appropriate to add a WP:PA, so stop before you get blocked. Beyond misconstruing my statement, you need to refer to the talk on the virus page before making your own conjectures for the community on what's appropriate or not. Sleath56 (talk) 19:15, 5 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Note that WHO want to **brake the tradition** of naming diseases after locations for stigmatization and economic reasons (press conference on Feb 3, comments around 40min) Cheater no1 (talk) 15:20, 4 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose - The virus is known as the "Wuhan" coronavirus and whether it has spread across the globe or it is restricted to Wuhan is irrelevant. See anon's comment above about Norovirus, Ebola, etc. -- Kimon talk 13:19, 2 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose - The virus is generally known as the Wuhan Coronavirus. In the end, Wikipedia is to learn and not to be precisely correct while sacrificing usability. If you went to someone and asked "What is the novel Coronavirus" they might answer not actually knowing that it is simply the same thing as the Wuhan Coronavirus — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hushak (talk • contribs) 00:28, 9 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment. I really like the idea of being consistent in referring to the virus as novel coronavirus across topic titles for now. However, this topic currently focuses in fine detail on the outbreak in China and international reaction to the outbreak in China with light details on its international spread. If changing the title to eliminate "Wuhan", then something like 2019–20 Novel coronavirus outbreak in China may be more immediately accurate. Don't know how we go international at this level of topic detail (we're already at 400 references). There's another topic 2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak by country and territory tracking the international outbreak that is blowing up as well. On the talk page there, there's discussion of splitting that one by region (2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak in Europe). Perhaps that topic could be renamed to something like 2019–20 novel coronavirus international spread in parallel so the two topics clearly complement each other? Still just a short-term fix. Core virus details would continue to be directed to Novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV). Unsure. Really tough with a news story of this magnitude being chronicled at this level of detail. - Wikmoz (talk) 13:56, 2 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Move to 2019–20 novel coronavirus outbreak. The naming of Wuhan is misleading and contrary to recommended disease naming methods. Already a much more preferred name has been 2019-nCoV (by WHO, for example). The only reason I see not to use 2019-nCoV is that the resulting title "2019–20 2019-nCoV coronavirus outbreak" is excessively awkward in English. Rethliopuks (talk) 14:56, 2 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Move to 2019–20 novel coronavirus outbreak per WP:NCMED. WP:NCMED should be clear enough, and keep the words lowercase. The interim names proposed by WHO are "2019-nCoV acute respiratory disease" and "2019-nCoV". The former cannot be found in sources so per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NCMED, it cannot be used. The latter is an acronym which translates to "2019 novel coronavirus" and since it needs to be unambiguous, recognizable and natural per WP:NAMINGCRITERIA, the acronym is not recommended. Even if "novel coronovirus" may be a temporary name (just like what happened with MERS-CoV when it was also called "novel coronavirus"), the current title needs to change as it needs to be the "scientific or recognised medical name" even though it's a provisional name. Also, take note that there is an ongoing discussion for "novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV)" to be moved, and both of these article names need to be in line. The rest of my arguments can also be found there. LightKeyDarkBlade (talk) 18:12, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Update. I believe I would have to retract my initial comment per WP:NCEVENTS, specifically WP:DESCRIPTOR under the "Health incidents and outbreaks" section. However, I would like to emphasise that the page is a guideline and not a policy. Even so, the guideline implies that the current title is acceptable, with "where and what", and year added for disambiguation. And only when we get a final name on the virus, we'll move it to "2019–20 Wuhan *final name of virus* outbreak", with the virus name italicised using Template:DISPLAYTITLE. This is in accordance with WP:NCEVENTS and WP:NCMED. All being said, the page about the virus itself (Novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV)) is not affected by WP:NCEVENTS but is affected by WP:NCMED. LightKeyDarkBlade (talk) 19:05, 3 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose there is a long tradition in the English language of naming pathogens like this after the place of discovery, see Spanish Flu and then Hong Kong Flu and Russian Flu from the 1960s and 1970s. SARS was actually an outlier in this long series as it was not names after Guangdong where it originated. Wikimucker (talk) 18:56, 2 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment Traditions can change; they are merely what (often) happened in times past and are not themselves binding. The current recommendation of the medical community and WHO is to avoid naming diseases with place or person names.Rethliopuks (talk) 10:41, 3 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Move to 2019–20 novel coronavirus outbreak there are already chinese persons complaining about discrimination "Chineses queixam-se de discriminação por causa do coronavírus"["Chinese persons complain about discrimination due to the coronavirus" ] due to the name "Wuhan" associated right next to the coronavirus. The virus has since its inicial outbreak expanded to other countries. I understand the reasoning of naming viruses as historically accurate (Spanish Flu, etc...) but we should be pragmatic and not create any further unecessary discrimination. FranciscoMMartins (talk) 19:35, 2 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Another Comment. - I understand the historical precedent for naming a virus after its (usually more obscure) location of origin. However, please consider the current best practice published by the WHO in 2015: World Health Organization Best Practices for the Naming of New Human Infectious Diseases, May 2015 ...it's a quick read and explains why using location names are problematic. I'd support replacing Wuhan with novel to bring the topic in line with the corresponding Wikipedia virus entries (1 and 2) and the name currently used by WHO, NIH, and NHS. My only real concern as stated above is that we also need to consider how the current topic content aligns with the title. - Wikmoz (talk) 20:05, 2 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Its fine if the medical term for the virus is located at the proper article. We need to keep in mind WP:RECOGNIZABILITY when it comes to a worldwide perspective for the outbreak. The average person is not going to instantly recognize what a novel coronavirus is. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:44, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
 * That's a fair point as "Wuhan coronavirus" is still the most popular term, though the term's relative popularity (7 day view) is dropping fast relative to novel coronavirus. That said, I think we also need to factor consider Precision and Consistency (Deciding on an article title). - Wikmoz (talk) 21:06, 2 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose - The current title is more descriptive and identifies where the virus strain originated. Octoberwoodland (talk) 22:27, 2 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Support Move - Coronavirus isn't localized to Wuhan. Possible issue of discrimination. WHO advise against associating virus names with city or people. 11 million people wouldn't like to be associated with a virus for everyone outside of China. Please have some sympathy and/or respect for these people. They have already suffered enough. A slight inconvenience for moving is greatly outweigh by the positives. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newslack (talk • contribs) 00:08, 3 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose While the coronavirus isn't necessarily localized to Wuhan nearly every case can be connected to the Wuhan region based on recent history. I do understand that some may see this as becoming a pejorative, but the common name should remain until this coronavirus has been officially named or some other common name replaces it. The 2019 coronavirus is possible but an unlikely name, either way we should not be WP:CRYSTALBALL in this situation and remain with this name for this outbreak for now.  Krazytea  (talk) 04:09, 3 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Support move - WP:CommonName is coming into play here, and with the WHO declaration, this isn't regional just to Wuhan, even if you are only seeing this as an issue only in China. Common sense also seems to dictate this should be moved. Also, Google hits for this and news hits are way higher than when you use the term Wuhan, and the WHO does not refer to it this way, per DocJames. Isingness (talk) 05:10, 3 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment Perhaps a better possible name would be 2019-20 Wuhan coronavirus epidemic. --Charsum (talk) 06:08, 3 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Wait. I think the name should be of the form "XXX outbreak", where "XXX" is replaced by the name of the disease, not of the virus. The WHO has recommended that the interim name of the disease causing the current outbreak be "2019-nCoV acute respiratory disease". If we rename the page at all, that should replace the "XXX". Since this is a bit of a mouthful and the name is only temporary, let's wait till they come up with the definitive name. But if we must rename the page and "2019-nCoV acute respiratory disease outbreak" is too long, I prefer "2019-nCoV outbreak" over "2019–20 novel coronavirus outbreak". That shorter name is actually used by the WHO and in the professional literature .  --Lambiam 07:51, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. It is becoming global, and there isn't another 2019-2020 coronavirus outbreak for this to be confused with.--Eostrix (talk) 07:57, 3 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Wuhan Virus or Wuhan Coronavirus is the common name of the media, and is unambiguous. Possible negative associations and views of China due to the name is irrelevant, lest we rename Spanish Flu, Ebola, West Nile Virus, MERS, etc.47.144.147.17 (talk) 07:57, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose, I think it won't be better to rename the page for the present Wuhan Coronavirus as the name is very specific, changing it may bring confusion.The Living love 10:45, 3 February 2020 (UTC)


 * I personally don't believe moving it is a good thing, but I reluctantly support the move anyways based on WP:NCMED and the need to follow the MOS. WP:COMMONNAME does not apply here and in other cases when titling articles about diseases or conditions. The formal, official name, even if it's not the common name should be used in articles about diseases, such as myocardial infarction or bovine spongiform encephalopathy. Media organizations don't get any weight, "The article title should be the scientific or recognised medical name that is most commonly used in recent, high-quality, English-language medical sources." I believe the best name is one that's around 2019-2020 novel coronavirus outbreak or something that includes the actual, current, disease name. Also, talking about what the virus should be called is not an argument. The virus is called "2019 novel coronavirus" or "2019-nCoV". That's the official name and the official name is the ONLY one we should be considering according to Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles. English language medical sources are the only ones we should be considering to determine the official name. Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 11:15, 3 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment: Changing the name of the article subject in accordance with the WHO Recommendations From my understanding, according to international and ethical norms, it is not appropriate to follow an previous WHO rule of the virus name in Wikipedia, which previously followed a local or country name: examples: Spanish flu, Ebola virus Middle East respiratory syndrome and others...
 * I think it is appropriate to follow the current recommendations of the U.S. & United Kingdom Government: NIH, and NHS and the names recommended by the WHO. The reasons are as follows:
 * The Social Role of Wikipedia: English Wikipedia has a strong social impact as an example: to be used in the program as a reference for Microsoft Word. Using it as a standard heading in Wikipedia can bring a huge social impact, and I believe that it is socially responsible as the world's largest encyclopedia and numerous readers all over the world every day access this article here.
 * Complaining about the Chinese being discriminated against by the name of the new corona virus. Chinese persons complain about discrimination due to the corona virus [] including Anti-China, in some cases, anti-Asian backlash and it would make racism worse in our global society. [] Another example of discrimination: As I personally saw on social media, Koreans living in the United States, or Australia, were discriminated against for being Asian as they are the same skin color with Chinese.
 * As an one practical example, when a 10-year-old Korean girl goes to school, her co-students bulled her that she could be infected with a Chinese coronavirus so that a young girl refuses to go to school while crying at home. I could understand the painful heart of the mother of the young child.
 * Although there have been many cases where WHO has created the names of viruses by region or country names, it is now WHO that established new regulations(or norms) in consideration of side effects that have occurred. In the future and for now WHO would no longer use virus names using local, or country.
 * Considering the social role of Wikipedia which is the largest and influential encyclopedia in the world, I ask for your thoughtful and kind consideration in the Wikipedia editors so that the terminology of neutrality can be used instead of using discriminant terms as per WHO recommendation:  link: Goodtiming8871 (talk) 12:23, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Please refer to that I've removed my previous writing after reading the feedback from other Wikipedians.
 * From my understanding, my previous writing might be too emotional to other Wikipedia editors.
 * From my point of view, I want to see the issue of 2019–20 novel coronavirus outbreak resolved asap without undesirable side effects in our global society. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 23:23, 3 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Wikipedia should adopt the most common name in the world and it is Wuhan Coronavirus now. -- hoising (talk) 13:22, 3 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose for two reasons: 1) Place of origin (or predominance) is a common means of naming diseases, e.g., Spanish flu. 2) "novel" is a poor replacement, because novel just means new, and there could be another new coronavirus at some point in the future, as well as continued outbreaks of the now-"old" one. --2601:444:380:8C00:9592:B507:7129:7D03 (talk) 16:58, 3 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NCEVENTS. --- C &amp; C  (Coffeeandcrumbs) 16:59, 3 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Wait. Right now, most people refer to this as the "Wuhan virus" or something similar. If Wikipedia was alive in 1918, we might have named the Spanish flu as the "Soldier's disease" (for a while until the Spanish flu became prevalent). The 1918 influenza pandemic is more technically correct but Spanish flu is the everyday name. We are not a medical organization like WHO, who must choose the names that it first applies carefully.


 * If something major happens (say, Hong Kong becomes the major source, far exceeding Wuhan) and the majority of people start to use "Wuhan and Hong Kong virus", we might do the same. With redirects, it's not a big deal to change a title (except for these discussions). What do you say? Is it OK to leave the name as it is and then, in a year or two, revisit this discussion? --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 18:44, 3 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose for now. Current title is commonly used and easily recognisable. It is entirely possible for the situation to change in a month or two, but at this point moving would be premature.--Staberinde (talk) 20:37, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now: Too soon to establish a definite and concrete change of WP:COMMONNAME. Wikipedia should not be a frontrunner in terminology change, no matter how noble the justification may be. Give it a month or so, and we can revisit this issue at a more sensible time. -- benlisquare T•C•E 00:23, 4 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Wait. At some point in the near future the virus will be given a designation that describe symptoms (such as respiratory, spongiform, deficiency), groups affected (juvenile, pediatric, maternal), time course (acute, transient), severity, seasonality (winter, summer), and even arbitrary identifiers (Alpha, beta, a, b, I, II, III, 1, 2, 3). 2019-nCoV is just a temporary placeholder. Jtreyes (talk) 01:00, 4 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment. Should we use the technically-correct, medically-approved name or the common, everyday name? 1918 influenza pandemic vs. Spanish flu. Or 2009 flu pandemic vs. Swine flu. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 01:29, 4 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Unfortunately Wuhan coronavirus will turn to be a epidemic, because speed of spread, or even worse, turn to be pandemic, therefore I preffer to wait to a more common name such as 2019 coronavirus epidemic than moving now to a new name. Would be unnecessary extra effort moving now, just wait. Carlosguitar (Yes Executor?) 02:32, 4 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose. The common name should stay. We can include WHO's official name, when it become available. The logic for the renaming proposal is unsound, given that we have names like German measles or Spanish flu. Nerd271 (talk) 02:36, 4 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Summary We've blown past 5,000 words and the proposal changed mid-discussion making things a little confusing so I thought it may be helpful to summarize key points being repeated with respect to 2019–20 novel coronavirus outbreak. Feel free to suggest an edit if I missed a major argument. - Wikmoz (talk) 03:08, 4 February 2020 (UTC)



Support
 * WP:NCMED as it aligns with scientific naming by WHO, NIH, and NHS
 * WP:CONSISTENT with Novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), 2019-nCoV acute respiratory disease, and Novel coronavirus
 * Conforms to WHO Best Practice Guidelines (2015), which advises against using location names
 * WP:CAPITALIZATION as "novel" is descriptive and not a proper noun
 * Virus is now global; including a location name may be confusing
 * "Wuhan" may support anti-China discrimination seen on social media and opinion media
 * MOS:LEADALT may be used to recognize common name

Oppose
 * The International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses hopes to announce the official name "within days".
 * WP:RECOGNIZABILITY and WP:COMMONNAME based on Google Trends (30 day view)
 * Location in name is consistent with historical precedent (e.g. MERS, Ebola, Spanish flu)
 * WP:CONSISTENT with Timeline of the 2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak and 2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak by country and territory


 * "Novel coronavirus" suggests the whole class of novel coronaviruses, which is misleading.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cheater no1 (talk • contribs) 20:02, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Updated with news that the International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses will name the virus within days. Credit to Deryck for spotting this story. - Wikmoz (talk) 19:16, 6 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Support move to 2019–20 Novel Coronavirus outbreak. To quote WP:NCMED: "The article title should be the scientific or recognised medical name that is most commonly used in recent, high-quality, English-language medical sources, rather than a lay term (unscientific or slang name) or a historical eponym that has been superseded." That seems quite clear. It also seems sensible, the practice of naming for cities or countries has past baggage and unfortunate side effects, so happy to follow the medical field's guidance on the topic -- which is the point of the WP:NCMED advice. It also protects against recentism, as the WHO label will likely stick for a while. Chris vLS (talk) 04:24, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Note that WP:NCMED is only part of a guideline. This is overridden by the policy at Article titles. So some of the support arguments are not based on policy and should not be given as much weight as policy based arguments. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:06, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Very interesting. Is this clearly stated anywhere? I assumed direction in Manual of Style was on almost equal footing as policy in terms of editing guidance but I'm probably wrong. I found relevant text on Policies and guidelines, which states: "Policies are standards all users should normally follow, and guidelines are generally meant to be best practices for following those standards in specific contexts." and "Whether a policy or guideline is an accurate description of best practice is determined by the community through consensus." - Wikmoz (talk) 05:47, 4 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Support: Although focused in Wuhan, the outbreak has reached outside mainland china. It should get it's own section in 2019-20 novel coronavirus outbreak simplified. Can I Log In (talk) 05:03, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Wikipedia should adopt the most recognisable name in the world otherwise we are trying to influence the naming. Currently Wuhan is most associated with this virus, it identifies where the virus strain originated and it is the epicentre with the most cases and deaths. Ozcloudwarrior (talk) 08:57, 4 February 2020 (UTC) — Ozcloudwarrior (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Opposehelps understand where the outbreak began and mainly occurred; the virus originated in Wuhan province Salty1984 (talk) 10:39, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose, the name is a critical part of WP:RECOGNIZABILITY for our readers. Britishfinance (talk) 13:55, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Support move to 2019–20 Novel Coronavirus outbreak. Spanish Flu is not a comparative case. Simply because there was no intergovernmental authority like WHO to give an official name but there is today. It’s fine for press to use “Wuhan Coronavirus” or other similar names before an official name is given, or just to make a shorter headline writing. When both WHO and the originating country’s government choose “2019-2020 Novel Coronavirus” as the official name, it should be adopted by Wikipedia as well. Just because Google Trends shows “Wuhan Coronavirus” is more common than “Novel Coronavirus” at this moment doesn’t mean that it’s plausible to name this page “Wuhan Coronavirus”. Otherwise “China Coronavirus” should also be considered since it surpasses “Wuhan Coronavirus” on Google Trend by an even greater percentage. Victortarrantino (talk) 14:15, 4 February 2020 (UTC) — Victortarrantino (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment, I am neither opposed nor in support of the potential name change, however I think that if the name of the article is changed that the common name should be included within the article. To many, 2019 novel coronavirus is relatively meaningless, but Wuhan coronavirus is much more recognizable. Blaise170 (talk) 14:40, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment One thing is the Wuhan coronavirus (2019-nCoV) and another thing is the Wuhan coronavirus in Wuhan. Wuhan coronavirus (2019-nCoV) is worldwide. Wuhan coronavirus (2019-nCoV) is the name of this new virus. If you change the page will be confusing because it is not an outbreak of all family of coronavirus, this outbreak is only an outbreak of Wuhan coronavirus (2019-nCoV), it is not an outbreak of the other coronavirus.Rafaelosornio (talk) 15:06, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Support clearly have seen WHO, government agencies and later media have moved from using "Wuhan coronavirus" to "Novel coronavirus". xinbenlv  Talk, Remember to "ping" me 19:18, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose/Wait While the proposed title is more scientifically correct, the designation 2019-nCoV is itself a placeholder. At some point in the future, this virus and its disease will become formally named by WHO.  At that time, it will make more sense to rename this page.  In the meantime, "2019-20 Novel Coronavirus outbreak" is a terrible title.  The virus is the 2019 Novel Coronavirus, not the "2019-20 Novel Coronavirus".  And if you are dating the outbreak as part of its description, then you end up with a name like "2019-20 2019 Novel Coronavirus outbreak". The current name is much preferable to that.  Overall, I agree that this page needs to be renamed, but the proper new name is not yet obvious. EMS | Talk 19:31, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * support to 2019–20 novel coronavirus outbreak. When I saw this title a few days (weeks?) ago, I thought it was about the outbreak in Wuhan/China; like "Australian bush fires". Opposers are basing on the basis of WP:CONSISTENCY with "Timeline of the 2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak", and "2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak by country and territory". All these articles should be moved too. We have to confront the truth that English Wikipedia is the trendsetter of Internet. This article is about the outbreak of a virus commonly known as "novel corona virus", believed to be originated in Wuhan. But now the virus has spread globally. The article will soon get its focus on other parts of the world as well. Regarding "novel" being a temporary name: well X ray was a remporary name too. But currently "novel corona virus" is common name. Also per all the support points mentioned in the table by Wikmoz. The article is about global outbreak of novel coronavirus, with a big chunk of coverage of the origin (Wuhan). It is logical to move it to "2019–20 novel coronavirus outbreak". —usernamekiran (talk) 20:43, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * "We have to confront the truth that English Wikipedia is the trendsetter of Internet." - And this is precisely the problem. For better or for worse, how Wikipedia names things has excessive sway and influence over how other publications name things. When the Bradley Manning article was moved to Chelsea Manning, newspaper sources were roughly 50:50 in name usage prior to the Wikipedia move, however eventually 99.9% of publications used "Chelsea Manning" after the move. That's why the naming of Kiev/Kyiv is such a controversial issue on Wikipedia; whoever "wins" on Wikipedia eventually "wins" everywhere else. One problem with renaming the coronavirus outbreak article is that a couple of the !votes here seem to be arguing a move for the purpose of righting great wrongs (e.g. an occasional argument used above is that "Wuhan coronavirus" stigmatises the city residents of metropolitan Wuhan). Based on Wikipedia policy (not guidelines, but policy), it is WP:NOT Wikipedia's job to fix the world's injustices or pursue noble righteousness; it is supposed to be a tertiary source information reference that covers information found in existing literature. If a change is to occur, it should occur within the existing body of literature before it occurs on Wikipedia, and not the other way around. -- benlisquare T•C•E 02:51, 5 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Support for the primary reason that this virus has spread worldwide. Thinking of the long–term, there are issues with both page titles using the word ″outbreak″. I can't help but wonder at what point an outbreak becomes a pandemic? The coronavirus has spread in such a way as to already satisfy the first part of the definition of a pandemic: in that it has spread worldwide, across multiple continents. In fact, the Novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) is already listed on the Wiki pandemic page under 4.3.2 (Concerns about possible future pandemics). Things are certainly heading in the pandemic direction, although I note that the word ′pandemic′ is not readily used in Wiki page titles. I tend to agree with User:Wikimucker that the 2001 SARS outbreak was the exception regarding geographical aspect escaping being named. On Wiki's Severe acute respiratory syndrome page, the outbreak aspect has settled down nicely into a subsection 8.1 Outbreak in South China So for these reasons, I think the geographical aspect ′Wuhan′ should be dropped.  The other issue is that the current title is well–established on Google. If it′s moved, even with redirects, it will have to be re–established as a search term. Having said all this, in the future this ′outbreak′ will probably be called something completely different; ″the Fourth Plague Pandemic″!  SpookiePuppy (talk) 01:55, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Support: since the WHO page uses the name Novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), we should too. prat (talk) 02:18, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. People search mainly for "China coronavirus" and "Wuhan coronavirus". 99% of cases occured in China. "Novel" is the worst possible name for the virus and the outbreak because after the next coronavirus outbreak, "novel" will have lost its meaning and will become a misleading and nonsensical naming for the 2019 coronavirus. Xenagoras (talk) 11:28, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: While I also oppose this change, it is worth pointing out that the current title will be retained as a redirect to the new location if this page is moved. So what people search for is a red herring.  The real issue is what in terms of Wikipedia guidelines is most proper.  In that respect, the concern of the use of the word "Novel" is more appropriate.  I also reiterate my concern above that the proposed name is the right answer if the page is to be moved.  Perhaps 2019-20 2019-nCoV outbreak would be better, but I first want to see that the WHO designation sticks and becomes more commonly used than "Wuhan coronavirus". EMS | Talk 17:43, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: There now is a page called 2019-nCoV acute respiratory disease. This is important since it is the disease that the outbreak is of, with the virus as the cause.  Even 2019-nCoV acute respiratory disease is a placeholder name for now.  Once again I council people to wait and not rename this page until we know what this disease will be called in the longer term. EMS | Talk 19:40, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose This is not the official name, but it is the common name. Additionally, "novel coronavirus" is a placeholder name. Rest assured, this virus will have a proper name some day, and we can hold this notvote then. Natureium (talk) 23:47, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose 'Wuhan' is the best bad option available at this time. The problem with "novel" it doesn't associate a place name so for anyone unfamilair with the medical terminology it won't be clear what the article is about. But mention China (or a chinese name) with virus, it becomes clear. -- Green  C  03:26, 6 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose, for seveal reasons, including 1) "novel" is a very vague word, to be avoided in an encyclopedia or a scientific article, 2) all major common names of this otbreak relate to Wuhan, and 3) traditionally the otbreak name reflects the place of origin, and not the all affected areas. Materialscientist (talk) 09:02, 6 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Wait News articles say that the International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses (ICTV) is in the process of giving the virus a proper name and I suggest we wait until the name is officially announced before moving the article. reference news article 1.02 editor (T/C) 09:34, 6 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose People know this virus as "Wuhan virus" or "Coronavirus" People who know it as the "wuhan virus" might not know the "novel coronavirus" name. Anyway they are going to give it an official name soon so we can move it then. Orangewarning (talk) 11:24, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Reverting to original name: I do have an opinion on this move suggestion, but I a) don't see this discussion approaching a consensus, and b) if the info pointed out above is correct, a long-term (ie non-interim) name is perhaps not very far away, so as has been pointed out, there will likely be a move to be made anyway. However, the move to the current name was seriously flawed, and in my view runs counter to policy - As I've pointed out elsewhere, "2019-20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak is ambiguous between the two meanings: "2019-20 outbreak of Wuhan coronavirus" and "2019-20 outbreak of coronavirus in Wuhan" (the latter of which is certainly not an accurate description of this article). I'm therefore moving this page back to the name pre-move, which was 2019-20 nCoV-2019 outbreak, or something along those lines (even if that is a shitty title, at least its accurate - and that's a requirement per the relevant policy - see point three - precision. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sean Heron (talk • contribs) 15:28, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

I have moved the title back to the one noted in this move request, which is confusing enough as it is. I also move protected the page — the only move to happen will be as a result of closing this move request, full stop. No more moves while it remains open. El_C 15:59, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I didn't realise process trumps policy. I thought it made sense to make a bold move, considering the process wasn't really getting anywhere and there was the unresolved issue of ambiguity... Sean Heron (talk) 16:24, 6 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Wait. The virus may get a new name soon. For now, oppose moving to "2019-20 coronavirus outbreak" as I think the question "what coronavirus" ought to be addressed in the title; neutral to "2019-20 novel coronavirus outbreak" because "Wuhan" is a better descriptor but I understand concerns that the current title is ambiguous (is the outbreak in Wuhan [no, it's everywhere now] or is the virus from Wuhan [yes]). Prefer "2019-20 outbreak of Wuhan coronavirus" (1st choice) or keep title (2nd choice) until the virus' gets a new official name. Deryck C. 16:28, 6 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment. This part of talk page is weighty, so i'm gonna do the tl;dr (someone already did it before, so it's just gonna be my opinion.)
 * Arguments for supporting:
 * The World Health Organization, the National Institutes of Health, and the National Health Service just called Wuhan Coronavirus as a "novel".
 * It's not just a Wuhan's coronavirus, but a coronavirus of a many cities in 28+ countries.
 * Arguments for opposing:
 * Wuhan coronavirus is a most common name for this topic, but honestly, the more common name is "china virus". This virus is not novel at all now, it got used to be unknown/novel in it's fist month after being revealed.
 * It mainly focus at Wuhan, and in it's first 2 weeks of being discovered it attacked only Wuhan.
 * This topic might be created again during official name reveal. Not everyone likes placeholder names, while common name is different.
 * Awaiting counterarguments. --46.39.248.218 (talk) 17:14, 6 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment. I think that until the virus is given a proper name, the title should be 2019-nCov outbreak. After all, the placeholder name of the virus includes the year the outbreak started. YttriumShrew (talk) 20:33, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose: This is a viral outbreak that originated in Wuhan. There is nothing wrong with or misleading about such a title in light of that. The arguments based on preferring WHO's naming as "more scientific" requires two key assumptions: (1) That the WHO's naming is in fact more scientific (debatable), and (2) That we are primarily writing for scientists or science-interested persons (utterly false). I find the examples of sinophobia and xenophobia in news reports to be concerning, but I don't think they should trigger an opposite response from Wikipedia; namely, removing any to Wuhan province in the article title. I also find the arguments based on consistency with other coronavirus page titles to be unpersuasive: This is not an article about a virus or a disease, but about a particular outbreak that was first detected in Wuhan province. The proposed alternate titles, particularly "2019-nCov outbreak" strike me as needlessly opaque and painfully uninformative—I can imagine a reader encountering this page now, thinking, "What the heck is a 'nCov?' Why should I care about this when it has '2019' in the title?" Our readership does not consist of virologists. We are informing everyone from all walks of life, and using needlessly non-transparent terminology serves to alienate an enormous segment of our readership.Above all, we must remain mindful of the fact that there is no deadline. If the situation changes and the common name changes, or Wikipedia policy changes, this page can be renamed when that time comes. As such, I would argue that urgent demands to change the page name are both premature and inconsistent with Wikipedia policy. 199.66.69.88 (talk) 21:33, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I want to add that I find the point that 2019-nCoV is no longer "novel" is probably incorrect, at least in terms of what a "novel" virus is. It does not mean that the virus is a novelty or is currently unknown in human terms, but in evolutionary terms. It is very much a novelty and even if it takes root and recurs, it will still be a novelty to our genomes for centuries.All this said, I believe the posters making this argument are happening upon an important point: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a news service or the WHO's press desk. We are trying to write articles that will be relevant not only this week but next year. And while we need not be perfect right now, we should anticipate (based on past experience) what the COMMONNAME of this outbreak will be going forward. But for now, the onus is on those proposing a move, and without a clear candidate with a clear consensus to move, the current title should be retained. 199.66.69.88 (talk) 16:28, 8 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Support: Yes, the outbreak originated in Wuhan and the disease is being still being referred to as the Wuhan coronavirus occasionally, but I think it's already past that point and starting to be referred to as just "the coronavirus". Looking on google trends, it clearly shows how the spike for "coronavirus" has shot up the highest in comparison to the other search terms. Support for either "2019-20 novel coronavirus outbreak" or "2019-20 coronavirus outbreak". 24680FPIC (talk) 05:19, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Best argument for now. The "Novel" title is in fourth place, and just 'virus' are somehow included. --91.207.170.251 (talk) 15:05, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Now that the formal names are coming soon and we still haven't come to a consensus yet, I'd say wait until that comes out, then change this article, along with all related articles, to the formal name while leaving redirects behind. 24680FPIC (talk) 07:41, 9 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose, per arguments by User:Knowledgekid87. The idea is, that in the future, after all that is over, novel can then be reused to mark some other coronavirus. The location of origin is therefore important. We have SARS and MERS, where the former expands to 'Severe Accute Respiratory Virus', and MERS to 'Middle-East Respiratory Virus'. In that case, MERS offers a precedent in qualifying a strain of the virus with the location where it originated from. - Mardus /talk 15:42, 8 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose, fractionally, but let's not waste more time discussing, as this week the International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses will announce an official name, which will certainly not include 'Wuhan', per the 2015 WHO guidelines to avoid prejudicial geographical and other labels. But pending that definitive new name, 'Wuhan' unambiguously identifies the topic. - Onanoff (talk) 16:31, 8 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Relevant News: A new post titled "The illness gets a name, temporarily." by The New York Times details a recent Chinese announcement, "The Chinese government has announced a temporary name for the illness caused by the coronavirus, ordering the local authorities and state news media to adopt it. In English, it will be called N.C.P., for novel coronavirus pneumonia, the national health commission said on Saturday. A final, official name will eventually be chosen by the International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses. The organization has submitted a name to a scientific journal for publication and hopes to reveal it within days, the BBC reported [on 5 Feb]." - Wikmoz (talk) 01:06, 9 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Support. Based on Google News many media simply goes with "coronavirus". Hddty (talk) 03:29, 9 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose: Keeping the original and most severe location is a long-time custom and Wikipedia should not surrender to the Chinese government. 🐱💬 05:32, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Delete These are ALL NON SENSE move request. Best for the page to be deleted and create a new very shorter version of information about Novel Coronavirus outbreak on a sub section in Coronvirus. Regice2020 (talk) 06:58, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * No. This article is about the coronavirus epidemic, something important enough to be spreading all over the news. Crushing it down into a small section in the Coronavirus article would be massively downplaying how large and influential this outbreak is. 24680FPIC (talk) 07:41, 9 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.

Semi-protected edit request on 6 February 2020
In the last paragraph of the introduction, reference or mention the recent cover of the German newspaper Der Spiegel, which states "Made in China".

References:

https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/nation-world/story/2020-02-01/fears-of-new-virus-trigger-anti-china-sentiment-worldwide

https://www.globaltimes.cn/content/1178220.shtml

It might also fit in the 8.4 Disinformation section of the article. 2A01:E0A:D5:D430:30BA:39DE:4B87:BD45 (talk) 23:31, 6 February 2020 (UTC)


 * ❌. The SD Tribune barely mentions it, and I wouldn't think anything with a .cn address is reliable. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 23:58, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Is this reliable enough then : http://magazin.spiegel.de/SP/2020/6/ ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E0A:D5:D430:30BA:39DE:4B87:BD45 (talk) 00:10, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Still ❌. I probably wasn't clear with my reasoning.  The point I wanted to get across is that this isn't noteworthy enough to include in the article.  The only independent, reliable source you've provided was the SD Tribune, which is barely a passing mention.  If someone discusses Der Spiegel's coverage in significant detail, then  it could be added, but I don't know what your request does to improve the article. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 00:30, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Ok thank you for the explanation. I thought you were making two points: one about the mere mention of it in the SD Tribune article, and the other about the non reliability of sources ending with .cn, and that you came to the "not done" conclusion specifically because of the combination of the two, not because of various cumulative reasons.

I had never thought about non reliability by default of Chinese media but I am not completely familiar with the Wikipedia rules about credibility of news sources. I would have taken it not to be a matter of personal preferences, though. EDIT: there happens to be a lot of sources in this article ending in .cn, so it is not clear which ones should be considered independent and reliable, and which ones shouldn't. I am setting the request back to not answered until this point can be clarified. 2A01:E0A:D5:D430:845B:9490:1929:437 (talk) 16:33, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

There seemed to be a case to include content about racist reactions and smearing of China in this article, so I suggested to possibly add the Spiegel "Made in china" cover. I agree that the cover itself has not been "covered in significant detail" yet though it has been mentioned in at leat one independent, reliable source, and possibly two, which still needs clarification. - 2A01:E0A:D5:D430:30BA:39DE:4B87:BD45 (talk) 01:08, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * 's explanation remains true: Despite the cover image, unless other WP:RS make a significant mention of it, it is not notable enough for inclusion. Please refrain from altering the "answered" parameter unless you have new sources to bring forward. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:22, 7 February 2020 (UTC)


 * The lead presently has near the end . The lead is already very long, and this sentence in the lead quite clearly says that xenophobia has arisen and points the reader to the main article on the topic in this context. New content can be added to that article in an appropriate place. Boud (talk) 17:29, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Three points from me. First, I agree in general with the comments and explanations made by other editors here, and I think Boud in particular points out that the fact of xenophobia based on this outbreak actually already is being given prominence through inclusion in the lead. Second, I think there is a argument to be made for a subsection giving a brief overview on said xenophobia (probably under "Impacts" at the end of the article) - as I've pointed out below though, I won't be doing that, at least not in the next couple days - sorry (you might try opening a new edit request making my point - or sign up, and come aboard this somewhat questionable enterprise, and go for it yourself :P).
 * Finally, and I'm not trying to come to "Der Spiegels" defence here, but my interpretation of the image / title+subtitle combination is that "Made in China" here primarily stands for Globalisation, with the fact that virus originated in a Chinese city obviously being an intended point as well, but not as in "The virus that China produced/ unleashed on the world". But I can understand that you and others take issue with it as well! Regards Sean Heron (talk) 23:53, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't be opposed to a section on it, best organized under #Impact or #Reactions, as its notable enough in coverage by RS to warrant equivalent treatment here to the topic of #Disinformation which also has a sub-section (and also a spinoff article too apparently as per today). Sleath56 (talk) 18:32, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

The Global Times is state-sponsored propaganda. It is in WP:RSP, so it is a no-go. Pancho507 (talk) 15:28, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

A new table for cases outside China
The number of cases outside of China (not mainland) seem to be doubling every day. I think it would be interesting to see how this compares to cases in China, where it seems like infection rates are greatly slowing down... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaisersauce1 (talk • contribs) 23:48, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, i've noticed it too. but i haven't seen a single news article about it so it would require original research. BTW, In China, authorities are taking drastic measures like breaking mahjong tables and forcibly kicking people out of their homes, to put them under quarantine. Pancho507 (talk) 15:37, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Quarantine vs. travel restrictions vs. outdoor restrictions?
The lead section has a total of people under "travel restrictions". There is a table of cities under "quarantine" that just includes Hubei cities. And there is a set of cities with "outdoor restrictions." I have questions... Thanks Chris vLS (talk) 00:05, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Is there a clear difference between the three? Is not being allowed to go outside except once per two days really different from a quarantine?
 * How should we summarize them in the lead?
 * Should the tables be combined?
 * Ok. so what i have understood is: Quarantine: stay indoors, and avoid contact with others, Travel restrictions: the general public is banned from using private vehicles like cars and motorbikes, and you should only get out of your home if you need to see a doctor or if you absolutely need to buy groceries, and Outdoor restrictions: the general public is prohibited from congregating in parks, funerals are shortened, you have time limits on how long you can stay outdoors. hope this helps. Pancho507 (talk) 15:43, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Lack of testing in Indonesia
Should this be worked into the doc? Similar stories can be found for African nations. https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2020/feb/07/concerns-coronavirus-is-going-undetected-in-indonesia Excerpt:
 * ... Indonesia said it had no confirmed cases of the coronavirus and that 238 people evacuated from Wuhan, the centre of the outbreak, had not shown symptoms, although it said they hadn’t been tested.

Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 13:15, 9 February 2020 (UTC)


 * The capacity for testing is there, including in dozens of countries in Africa, according to the WHO press briefings available online. I don't think there is anyone suggesting testing all non-symptomatic people in other countries either. Dekimasu よ! 15:07, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I believe that it should be added but i'm not sure, and maybe we should also take the opportunity to say that the Japanese goverment is/was in the process of testing people on the diamond princess. This source says that they're testing everyone who came into contact with the first man that tested positive and those that present symptoms. Pancho507 (talk) 15:59, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

PRC Government issues new name for the virus
N.C.P. - Novel Coronavirus Pneumonia

There has been reports that the PRC Government has coined a new name for the virus. However, an official name has yet to be chosen by the International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses.

NYT Coronavirus Live Updates

I will leave it to others on how and where this might be included in this page. Ozcloudwarrior (talk) 08:34, 9 February 2020 (UTC)


 * This is not a name for the virus, but a name for the disease. See 2019-nCoV acute respiratory disease. Dekimasu よ! 16:02, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Why PNG version of chinese map's legends are out-of-border?
How did you explain it, and may you fix it? PNG and SVG versions a little bit different, and it may be unpleasant because it lacks color for ocean as well.

--91.207.170.251 (talk) 17:29, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Caves?
This article may be relevant if anyone wants to add it? https://nationalpost.com/news/world/cave-full-of-bats-in-china-identified-as-source-of-virus-almost-identical-to-the-one-killing-hundreds-today

Victor Grigas (talk) 19:22, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

update deaths
chart says one figure - yet total does not equal that. Please update chinese figure so it does. Deaths section says less than chart. Can these be made a rolling update? John Hopkins says 813: https://gisanddata.maps.arcgis.com/apps/opsdashboard/index.html#/bda7594740fd40299423467b48e9ecf6 and if we took it directly from here would be more updated and accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.115.204.102 (talk) 05:02, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * More of it: Total recoveries is 2736, which summaries from the regions and countries that is followed below as of now in same site.
 * Hubei, Mainland China: 1447
 * Zhejiang, Mainland China: 185
 * Hunan, Mainland China: 164
 * Henan, Mainland China: 136
 * Guangdong, Mainland China: 126
 * Jiangxi, Mainland China: 72
 * Anhui, Mainland China: 68
 * Jiangsu, Mainland China: 61
 * Sichuam, Mainland China: 60
 * Shandong, Mainland China: 51
 * Shanghai, Mainland China: 44
 * Chongqing, Mainland China: 39
 * Beijing, Mainland China: 37
 * Hebei, Mainland China: 30
 * Fujian, Mainland China: 26
 * Shaanxi, Mainland China: 25
 * Shanxi, Mainland China: 21
 * Guangxi, Mainland China: 18
 * Yunnan, Mainland China: 17
 * Hainan, Mainland China: 15
 * Gansu, Mainland China: 13
 * Heilongjiang, Mainland China: 13
 * Ninxia, Mainland China: 13
 * Liaoning, Mainland China: 8
 * Guizhou, Mainland China: 7
 * Inner Mongolia, Mainland China: 5
 * Jilin, Mainland China: 5
 * Tianjin, Mainland China: 4
 * Qinghai, Mainland China: 3
 * Macau, China: 1
 * Taiwan, The separated chinese region: 1
 * I included only Taiwan as a other country/region in this list of recovered chinese regions. They really need to update it thought. But they are updated deaths already, so i have to place it here anyway if someone want it. 91.207.170.251 (talk) 07:14, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Same problem again TABLE updated, but Deaths section not - whoever updates can you do BOTH at the same time??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.115.204.102 (talk) 23:33, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

contents table out of screen
To me it seems not too nice to have the contents table out of the screen. perhaps another intro tag summarizing the first two paragraphs could be an idea 217.245.92.154 (talk) 00:01, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

section impact - Germany, 13 cases, all caused by one person too
Since France (with "only" 5 cases) is covered - Germany might also be of interest. As in France it was one person only having introduced the virus to the country causing all the known cases up to now. In detail it was a female chinese citizen, the representant of the chinese subsiduary of the german company WEBASTO from Starnberg, near Munich. She was on a business trip from china to german location in Starnberg / Bavaria. She had no symptomes at that point of time and did not know that she had been ill. Shorly before the trip, still beeing in china, she had been visited by her parents from Wuhan. After the trip to germany when beeing back in china, she became ill and informed the german colleagues. After that detailled investigation in Munich showed that first one, later 4 and then 8 persons had been infected. In the meanwhile we have 13. The virus already had been carried over from the employes their wifes and children before having been informed. For the moment they seem to be pretty fine with only a low number of people showing symptomes. This case clearly shows, that infection might be progressed rapidly by people who appear sound at fist sight. (and it also shows that many people might be infected without being able to recognized it at all since they do not become sick significantly. The doctors currently report about a litte bit of chocking only, for 2-3 of them, most of them still have no symptomes 217.245.92.154 (talk) 00:18, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Papers by Zhong Nanshan's team
Here: Clinical characteristics of 2019 novel coronavirus infection in China-- 舞月書生 👉☎️👈  ∮Active at zh.wikipedia, strive to be a good Wikipedian. 05:25, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:2019 novel coronavirus which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 00:03, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:2019 novel coronavirus which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 23:48, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:2019 novel coronavirus which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 23:33, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

full recovered nations
is it time to add another category in in wich we can add nations where all cases were recovered?--Dwalin (talk) 22:56, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Too soon to know. There may be countries that had known cases and have no known cases now, but it is fairly likely they may have unknown cases.--Eostrix (talk) 08:00, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, the outbreak is ongoing. There is always the risk of new imported cases. We can always wait for WHO to declare as it had during the previous epidemics. robertsky (talk) 10:56, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

North Korean Death in late January
Apparently a women died in North KoreaDannelsluc (talk) 11:57, 10 February 2020 (UTC) https://www.dailynk.com/english/north-korean-woman-died-coronavirus-infection-late-january/
 * See, what's in the reference cannot be counted as reliable information. But see 2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak by country and territory Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:30, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Death Rate By Region
The death rate is being reported at 2% but death rate is a lagging indicator. Example Wuhan the source of the infection should be the most accurate when calculating death rate. Here we have CoronaVirus Death Rate running at 4.11% on 478 dead from 11,618 cases. This is a very large and oldest sample size and is larger than the sample size that was used on SARS and various other infectious diseases. Without being alarming I think at minimum we should report death rate by Region as many regions are not reporting any deaths. https://ncov.dxy.cn/ncovh5/view/pneumonia 104.158.189.50 (talk) 14:17, 7 February 2020 (UTC) There are a large number of regions reporting zero or very few deaths. Some have over 1000 cases. This maybe impacting the overall number artificially bringing the death rate down. Of the first 99 patients who had the virus 11 died. This is 11% fatality rate. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)30211-7/fulltext — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.41.87.7 (talk) 16:52, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I've been thinking about death rate recently, and you have very many complicating factors (some of which you point out). To point out the three I think are most relevant (no published basis for this, just my own reasoning):


 * Typically with infectious diseases, as an epidemic grows, the lethality goes down. This is due to the fact that the most virulent strains are killing their hosts so quickly that they can't infect that many people (vs longer lasting and "under the radar" lesser sypmtom variants). (So you typically have selection for less lethal variants - evolution at work!)
 * Lethality is not a direct function of virulence of the pathogen, but the virulence in combination with the treatment that is provided (to be precise, and the state of the immune system / general pre-infection health of patients as well) . For the most extreme contrast, in Wuhan the health system is obviously overwhelmed. I think its fair to assume that patients are not being provided optimal care/treatment. In pretty much all the other countries with cases, you have just a handful, or at most a couple dozen cases requiring treatment (hardly a strain on the health systems), and that treatment is therefore likely close to the optimum. So you see how this might contribute to the different lethality rates reported for within Wuhan/Hubei vs the rest of China / rest of the world.
 * As the death rate is basiclly "overall number of cases" / "number of case deaths", its heavily dependent on the number of cases reported. Again, in Wuhan, there are likely to be many cases that have not been diagnosed (plus of course, the asymtomatic cases!) (balancing this to an extent is that the number of deaths is likely also underreported...). In many other countries, after non-Chinese nationals were brought by their governments to the country they are citizens of, they were quarantined and / or tested for the virus, and so even asymtomatic cases were registered! (This has been pointed out elsewhere on this talk page I think).
 * Ok, so much for my thinking for now - hope that's helpful! Regards Sean Heron (talk) 23:16, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * We wikipedia editors don't calculate the death rate ourselves, for a few reasons. First, it is not as simple as just dividing 478 deaths by 11,000 cases. Some of those cases are too recent to be included in the denominator. Calculating the death rate requires looking at cohorts who have had the disease the same about of time. There are other complications as well. Most importantly, however, Wikipedia is not a place for original research. We present the consensus as found in reliable sources. If you find published sources with a higher death rate, we should think about how to include them. Chris vLS (talk) 07:57, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Here's an article https://smw.ch/article/doi/smw.2020.20203 I just stumbled over that talks about the different death rates that have been calculated, and some of the reasons for why that may be so (some overlap with my second and third points). Regards Sean Heron (talk) 01:22, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

How are we determining that the mortality rate is less than 10% or 2% or whatever. The 41 case lancet study showed 15% mortality but more importantly, most cases were still hospitalized (i.e. undetermined). The 99 case and 138 case studies show lower mortality, but again the same massive caveat applies. If we look at mortality from a resolved case point of view, then are we not looking at 910/(9190+3323 recoveries) = 21%? Gegu0284 (talk) 12:44, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Out-of-place quadratic function in the Deaths section
In the Deaths section of the article, the second paragraph consists of the following text:

An approximate curve of the number of deaths in mainland China from January 21st to February 9th is 2.49692 x2 − 5.92262 x + 20.2789 and the coefficient of determination is 0.999808. There is nearly no noise in this model.

I don't have enough edits to do this myself (the page is currently semi-protected), but I request that the above paragraph is removed, for the following reasons:

1. This model's origin is not properly cited. The only citation given is an online calculator doing the linear regression on the given data. Given that as the citation, the only assumption to be made here is that it's original research, which goes against WP:NOR.

2. In addition to being original research, it is poor-quality original research. Infectious disease is not adequately described by a polynomial model. Disease propagation models generally include an exponential function (e.g. ex. In addition, disease models are typically a lot more nuanced that just plugging the data into a linear regression..

3. Finally, the analysis of this model's accuracy is inadequate to assess whether it is an adequate predictive model. R-squared is generally inadequate on its own to determine whether a model has predictive power. Generally, you want to do something like bootstrapping or another subsampling technique, or holding out the tail end of the data, to get a good idea of that. In addition, this observation that "there is nearly no noise in this model" isn't significant: it's a polynomial, it's not going to have any noise.

VagueSpecificity (talk) 07:51, 10 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Looks like this has already been taken out. It seems too complicated for WP:CALC. buidhe 16:05, 10 February 2020 (UTC)