Talk:COVID-19 recession/Archive 1

Transportation sector
Currently, the section talks only about aviation and ignores all other forms of transport.

Clearly the outbreak has had significant impact on other forms of public transport such as buses and trains. No doubt taxi companies have been hit as well. And then there's the impact on petrol stations, motorway services, road maintenance, etc. in more ways than one. Is anyone here up to the task of adding relevant info about these? — Smjg (talk) 13:28, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

"which is going to happen"
So Wikipedia can now have articles "predicting" things. How is this even allowed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.0.211.137 (talk) 03:36, 25 March 2020 (UTC)


 * , Thank you for the question. Technically, Wikipedia has a rule against this kind of thing, however some notable and well sourced events may be accepted, such as the up-and-coming Olympics, in which case we have news already for this. Hope this helps, Sincerely, User:Zanygeniuschat For info on 1 Jul 20 move, see this. 03:41, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
 * As sources describe it is a certain prediction. The recession has begun. Please pay attention to IMF's statement. -- Seyyed(t-c) 06:33, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
 * It sounds like a dangerous thing for Wikipedia to do. Wikipedia is a go to source for tens or hundreds of millions of people. It should not serve as an amplifying platform for "certain predictions". Let the things happen first, and not codify analyses as if they were upcoming events. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.0.211.137 (talk) 16:43, 25 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Here is an overview of indicators and events to follow. It is not a reliable source in itself, but it points to useful resources. TGCP (talk) 23:51, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Obviously notable
I don't have an opinion about the title or merging but the subject is obviously notable and has begun so am removing the notability tag. Officially declared by IMF https://www.euronews.com/2020/03/28/imf-declares-global-recession-and-doubles-the-size-if-its-financial-war-chest Chidgk1 (talk) 06:47, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Rename Page Title
I believe the name doesn’t follow Wikipedia naming style. I think it should be rename from Coronavirus Recession to 2020 Recession. Efuture2 (talk) 00:57, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Too Soon?
While I thank you in a way for creating the article, this particular article has a few setbacks. The first of which, it feels like it's just a copy and paste of Financial impact of the 2019-20 coronavirus pandemic, and hardly presents any new information. The second problem, the biggest one, is that this has been tried before. Another thing is that this feels like an essay/editorial you might find in the New York Times. An article about the upcoming recession certainly is notable, but I suspect that they will be knocking on the door soon, telling us to wait until next year. In the meantime, definitely find a discussion to get involved in, and perhaps we-work this article to look at the big picture in an encyclopedic way.

Thank you for your considerations, and if you have any questions, feel free to contact me at anytime, and I'll try to help., do you have any input on this? Thanks, Sincerely, User:Zanygeniuschat For info on 1 Jul 20 move, see this. 16:54, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I would avoid creating many different articles on the Financial Impact of the virus - It is very hard to keep even one major article properly up to date and well written, it won't happen if split over many articles. I would change this as a Redirect to the main Financial impact of the 2019-20 coronavirus pandemic. Britishfinance (talk) 16:56, 24 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your fast response. I definitely feel like we could merge this all in to the Financial impact article. Perhaps somewhere down the line, like in June, or even later, like 2021, perhaps we could redirect all the articles to a name based on what ends up occurring? I agree that too many articles would be borderline impossible to maintain, and we aren't a directory. However, while "Financial impact" works very well, and fits with the quo of everything with the virus, what will we think about it in 20 years? For this reason, I say merge into Financial impact for now, and revisit later. Would you agree? Thanks, Sincerely, User:Zanygeniuschat For info on 1 Jul 20 move, see this. 17:09, 24 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes, create a new section in Financial impact of the 2019-20 coronavirus pandemic, titled "Global recession", and merge this into it. Then redirect this article to Financial impact of the 2019-20 coronavirus pandemic. Hope that makes sense. Britishfinance (talk) 17:21, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , I second this. I also think the normal 7 day waiting period should be bypassed since there doesn't seem to be in objection and in consideration of the urgency involved in having concise and accurate information surrounding this subject. Sulfurboy (talk) 05:22, 25 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes it does, Thank you. :) Stay safe, Sincerely, User:Zanygeniuschat For info on 1 Jul 20 move, see this. 17:36, 24 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes, this article definitely should be merged. We are currently in the midst of this pandemic and its economic impact is still being determined day-by-day. It will probably result in a recession but I don't think that has been declared yet. Liz Read! Talk! 02:24, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , Thanks for the input, definitely a lot of unknowns regarding the virus. Where should we merge to? Sincerely, User:Zanygeniuschat For info on 1 Jul 20 move, see this. 02:43, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Section B
I disagree with merging this article in Financial impact. "The global economy will contract this year, International Monetary Fund managing director Kristalina Georgieva said in a statement after a call with G20 finance ministers and central bankers... the economic outlook for the world economy for 2020 is negative—a recession at least as bad as during the global financial crisis or worse. But we expect recovery in 2021". " As IMF's statement describes the crisis may be even worse than a global financial crisis. You see, the real economy has been damaged severely and we can not merge the damage of economic sectors such as transportation and tourism in Financial impact of the 2019-20 coronavirus pandemic.-- Seyyed(t-c) 06:43, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is full of half-done articles that arose because one core topic was so broken up into many topics that they were all sub-standard/unfinished. It could happen that a larger "global recession" article might arise (which would still be a sub-section in the "financial impact" article, but with a "Main article" hat to the "global recession" article).  However, my strong advice would be to create this inside the "financial impact" article first and let it progress from there.  If this article is ever going to be really read it needs to be short and figures/table based (e.g. with the actual falls in GDP, and the new records those falls set).  If it is just full of long paragraphs of well sources text on the "topic" of the global recession, it will be read by very few.  Hence the benefit of keeping things consolidated until the real "encyclopedic-vale" factual GDP figures emerge. Britishfinance (talk) 09:29, 25 March 2020 (UTC)


 * It is not logical to merge a broader issue in one of its subsection!-- Seyyed(t-c) 11:03, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
 * In all scenarios, the "2020 global economic recession" will appear as a sub-section in the "Financial impact of coronavirus" article. Whether there is also a standalone "2020 global economic recession" article is to be seen.  I can tell you from experience, the thing readers will want from a "2020 global economic recession" article are the actual statistics and records of the recessions.  However, most of those numbers will not be known for months. Hence, incubating the article inside "Financial impact" article will save editors of writing large bloated but well-referenced content on the daily chronicle of the emergence of global recession information, that will all be deleted in a 12-24 months time, in favour of a more reasonable slimmed-down article, with the actual tables of the GDP fall (and the associated economic records they will create), that readers want. Britishfinance (talk) 14:32, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Section C
I do see where one day the impacts could be split up and have a large article on it's own, and in fact I tried to lay the groundwork for it earlier, but now I think we should draftify and wait. Sincerely, User:Zanygeniuschat For info on 1 Jul 20 move, see this. 14:14, 25 March 2020 (UTC) Actually scratch that. I want to ping a few dozen Wikipedians and achieve some consensus before moving on. We have policies contradicting other policies and everybody's best interest. As a new *ish* user, I officially retract my opinion. Sincerely, User:Zanygeniuschat For info on 1 Jul 20 move, see this. 14:25, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

The discussion is continued here.-- Seyyed(t-c) 08:07, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 3 April 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: CONSENSUS TO NOT MOVE: There is general consensus against the move at this time. Too soon, not a common name. (non-admin closure) Aasim 03:20, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Coronavirus recession → 2020 Global Recession – Coronavirus Recession does not follow naming guidelines by wiki. There's many causes for the new recession including Coronavirus, crude oil prices dropped. IMF declare a recession on March 27, 2020. https://www.euronews.com/2020/03/28/imf-declares-global-recession-and-doubles-the-size-if-its-financial-war-chest Efuture2 (talk) 01:08, 3 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose - simply WP:TOOSOON to know the commonname of this - and that is probably an indication that its TOOSOON to even have an article about it (WP:NOTNEWS). -- Netoholic @ 01:45, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Support, the new article title makes much more sense.  14:58, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now. I agree that it's too soon to know what this recession will be eventually called by the history books, but for now the term "Coronavirus recession" seems to be the most descriptive title we could use, as well as being most recognizable by current readers. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:31, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose until the media settles on a different name. Also, "2020 global recession" would be a better capitalization, as 'global recession' is a generic term. Mcrsftdog (talk) 21:11, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose not established as a name just yet. "Coronavirus recession" seems to be better established and chances are it will be the commonname in the future. Juxlos (talk) 04:49, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Los Angeles Times, [BBC], New York Times, Foreign Affairs have used this title.-- Seyyed(t-c) 08:06, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Support with lowercase : We shouldn't assert causation in the title, and this is more of a descriptive title than a proper noun. Per MOS:CAPS, Wikipedia avoids unnecessary capitalization. —BarrelProof (talk) 15:40, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Slightly Oppose Now, this virus will most definitely cause havoc around the world in their economics, lifestyle, way of living, etc. But we have to consider the different economies of different regions around the world. We don't know there exact situation and how that will play along in the long run. Feel free to message me for anything :) ObliteratedRox (talk) 00:30, 6 April 2020 (UTC) ObliteratedRox
 * Oppose and merge. No independent sources indicate that "Coronavirus recession" is an official or common name. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥ ) 21:34, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I repeat my answer for you. Los Angeles Times, [BBC], New York Times, Foreign Affairs and many others have used this title.-- Seyyed(t-c) 13:23, 8 April 2020 (UTC)


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

Requested move 10 April 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: CONSENSUS TO NOT MOVE: There is a unaminous concensus against renaming the title to '2019-20 coronavirus pandemic economic recession'. Not a common name. (non-admin closure) Foxterria (talk) 18:32, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Coronavirus recession → 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic economic recession – To match the base article 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic, which is how other articles are named, and also because "coronavirus recession" is ambiguous, it cuold refer to recession of the virus from the world, and not an economic concept. It also doesn't specify which coronavirus, such as the recession experienced by Hong Kong during SARS -- 65.94.170.207 (talk) 16:07, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I can find many sources that call it the "coronavirus recession" but I can't find a single one that calls it the "coronavirus pandemic economic recession". Rreagan007 (talk) 16:22, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Support adding 2020 to the title. Neither "pandemic" nor "economic" is necessary, and "2019-20" may describe the period of the pandemic, but the recession is entirely occurring in 2020. BD2412  T 03:35, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose - just stop. -- Netoholic @ 03:52, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment what about "The Great Lockdown"? --Saqib (talk) 17:05, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Seconding this. The IMF have reported said name in a recent publication (https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WEO/Issues/2020/04/14/weo-april-2020). Might help to add something like (2020 economic event) at the end to clarify it? JakeyPotter (talk) 20:12, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME Very few people know it as such. It is also a mouthful. We need to take average readers into consideration.Pancho507 (talk) 20:28, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:CONCISE. We don't need to clutter up the title with a bunch of unnecessary additional information. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:46, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose, way too unwieldy and other more appropriate names have been suggested. BanditTheManedWolf (talk) 23:39, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above. Ljgua124 (talk) 00:11, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Completely unnecessary title change. Is it to differentiate from the 1988-1989 coronavirus pandemic economic recession? ~ HAL  333  04:50, 15 April 2020 (UTC)


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

Requested move 15 April 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: No consensus to move, consensus is leaning against. buidhe 04:16, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Coronavirus recession → Great Lockdown – Due to the fact that no one is calling it the 'Coronavirus Recession', but instead 'The Great Lockdown' (google search should easily show this), I believe that this article should be renamed to accurately represent what's actually being stated across the world. There's probably now hundreds of sources that could back this up, as well as trusted sources by wikipedia. Foxterria (talk) 13:26, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I'm not convinced that "Great Lockdown" refers to the recession itself or to people being ordered to stay at home and not work. The two are obviously related, but not the same thing. "Great Lockdown Recession" might be an appropriate title, but for now I think we should stick with the current title. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:49, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The IMF have made it clear that this is the name of the current recession. Practically zero sources are calling it the 'coronavirus recession', which means it isn't a common name. The common name being used for the recession is 'The Great Lockdown'. Foxterria (talk) 19:01, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Support "Great Lockdown": Like the Great Depression, this is commonly named through various reliable news outlets. "The" is not needed in the title. —Wei4 Green (talk • contributions) 18:09, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I hadn't realized it but I agree that it should be that way, so I've edited the requested move to represent what'd be better for the article. Foxterria (talk) 18:20, 15 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose A flavor-of-the-moment neologism, the sourcing is not there to support widespread adoption at this time. If the current title isn't ideal, moving it to a weak and silly name is less-than-ideal. Zaathras (talk) 20:14, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
 * It musn't be that 'weak and silly', considering it's what the IMF is calling it. And there's plenty of sourcing to support widespread adoption at this time. - If this isn't enough for you, I don't know what will be. Foxterria (talk) 06:52, 16 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Support I'm in favor for this for two reason; the first reason is that comparing to Coronavirus recession and Great Lockdown the amount for the Great Lockdown is numbered by a 27x factor compared to the former. As for the second reason, the name Great Lockdown is rememberable for how short and impactful the title is compared to Coronavirus recession where while the name itself tells what caused it, let be honest when is the last time friends, family and other have honestly said Coronavirus recession without shortening it to Corona Recession or Great Lockdown. Overall I support this wholeheartedly for the Great Lockdown title. Bitsweet55 (talk) 21:52, 15 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Support The IMF, generally considered the main authority on such topics, has referred to the recession as the Great Lockdown, and in accordance most of the news media has followed suit, as a quick Google search may indicate. Geekgecko (talk) 22:36, 15 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Support Per IMF's usage. It's also worth noting that the most proximal cause of the recession is the lockdown, not the virus itself, so the name makes sense from that perspective.--DrCruse (talk) 23:55, 15 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose The IMF has been refering to this as a Recession not a great lockdown. More media are calling this a recession, not the great lockdown.Efuture2 (talk) 02:50, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually while the IMF has said that this situation is a Recession, the IMF itself actually uses the term Great Lockdown in their World Economic Outlook for April this year, when looking that this document the IMF does use the term Great Lockdown 14 times in this report, hell even the term itself is the name within this report, if that not enough the IMF exclaims ″The Great Lockdown, as one might call it, is projected to shrink global growth dramatically.″ at page 6 of the report and in this news report ″ ′The Great Lockdown is the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression, and far worse than the Global Financial Crisis [of 2008],′ International Monetary Fund (IMF) Chief Economist Gita Gopinath said on Tuesday.″ by the chief economist of IMF herself; so the tl;dr version is that you are half right with the title as a recession but half wrong that the word Great Lockdown has never been used by the IMF Bitsweet55 (talk) 04:20, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The IMF calls it on the front page of their World Economic Outlook 'The Great Lockdown', you can see it by dowloading the full text of the outlook on the sourced page. They also state in their blogpost on the economic downturn by call it: "The Great Lockdown: Worst Economic Downturn Since the Great Depression", source here too. Foxterria (talk) 06:52, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Support |The IMF has used the term to refer to the recession, and it is generally being used to refer to the recession by some news outlets. BanditTheManedWolf (talk) 06:44, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now The term is very fresh. Maybe it will pick up, maybe it won't. Wait a few weeks to see if it does. Keepcalmandchill (talk) 08:38, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Only the media calls it the great lockdown. Most people just call it the coronavirus recession. And even if they don't call it that now, i'm pretty sure they will call it that in a few years, since the recession was caused by the coronavirus. And the name the great lockdown would mostly be appropiate for describing the quaratine measures taken due to the coronavirus. Just look at the definition of lockdown. I belive that it should be left as it is right now, as a redirect and mention "the great lockdown" on the article. Pancho507 (talk) 16:09, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now until the term 'Great Lockdown' becomes widely used, I think it would be better to retain the article's current title. Vida0007 (talk) 23:43, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Support The term "Second Great Depression" should also redirect to that page. J4lambert (talk) 15:39, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Where are you seeing the term 'Second Great Depression' in any common, journalistic, or academic use? --DrCruse (talk) 21:04, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose The usage of the term "Great Lockdown" implies that this article is about the lockdown efforts, not the economic downturn. --Tiiliskivi (talk) 16:04, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose as the term lockdown is not at all the same thing as a recession. Axedel (talk) 21:24, 17 April 2020 (UTC)


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

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:22, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Lines in Australia at Centrelink during the Great Lockdown.webp

Transportation sector
Currently, the section talks only about aviation and ignores all other forms of transport.

Clearly the outbreak has had significant impact on other forms of public transport such as buses and trains. No doubt taxi companies have been hit as well. And then there's the impact on petrol stations, motorway services, road maintenance, etc. in more ways than one. Is anyone here up to the task of adding relevant info about these? — Smjg (talk) 13:28, 26 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Restored from the archive as the issue is still unresolved. — Smjg (talk) 18:25, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Name and Merging Articles
Hello my fine-looking wikipedia companions, I'm wondering on your thoughts of merging the 2020 Stock Market Crash with this article, considering we probably want to keep everything in one place in order to keep things concise. As well as that, should this article be changed from 'Coronavirus recession' to 'The Great Lockdown'? With a quick google search, it doesn't take much to see that every media outlet in existance is calling this now 'The Great Lockdown', with no mention of 'The Coronavirus Recession' in sight. As IMF is calling it this, and multiple media outlets have latched onto the term, I think it's now appropriate - or should we wait for the meme community to start making jokes about it?

We humans tend to romantacize specific extreme events, and 'financial impacts of the coronavirus pandemic' doesn't roll of the tongue as well. The IMF have given us a glorious name. Thanks to certified reports (IMF) we can officially say that we are indeed now in a recession, one that could well and truly last outside of this year. It's probably also good to consider that the virus isn't the only reason for recession! We were on path for one anyways, this just kinda, accelerated it. Let me know your thoughts. By the way IMF, thanks for the badass name. Foxterria (talk) 20:04, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I feel that "the great lockdown" should be used to describe the quarantine measures that are being taken because of the coronavirus.Pancho507 (talk) 20:35, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * It's a play on words to reference the lockdown of Human Civilization during the pandemic and of the lockdown of the economy, the IMF and Reuter's have clearly stated it to be 'The Graet Lockdown', I do think this would be the best course of action to call it what the media and world is actually calling it. Foxterria (talk) 20:51, 15 April 2020 (UTC)


 * I think care should be taken when suggesting the usage of a neologism to describe an event. Let's wait a bit to see if this silly "lockdown" verbiage gets picked up. Zaathras (talk) 20:54, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Well to be honest, we seem to have done so liberally with the name 'coronavirus recession' - no one's calling it that, they're calling it the Great Lockdown. We should go by what the IMF and Reuter's are calling it. Foxterria (talk) 21:10, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Los Angeles Times, [BBC], New York Times, Foreign Affairs and many others have used this title.-- Seyyed(t-c) 05:22, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Support the use of "Great Lockdown". The term "Great Depression" was not named by the IMF or any such organization. Much like the "Great Lockdown", the most popular term should be used. Until I read this article today, I had not heard this financial crisis referred to as "Coronavirus Recession", from anyone other than some IMF officials. If we want to be super accurate with the name, then we should use the real official IMF name; Financial Crisis 2020. Additionally, the term "Coranavirus Recession" strongly implies that this is a financial crisis is a recession. The IMF defines what a recession is. There must be at least three quarters of loss/stagnant growth in the economy. PortugeeStud82 (talk) 05:38, 17 April 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm thinking oppose on the merge of 2020 stock market crash to here. Although related, they are two separate topics—compare for example the distinct articles Wall Street Crash of 1929 and Great Depression. Mz7 (talk) 07:02, 18 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose for above reasons. Keepcalmandchill (talk) 00:17, 20 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Google search results for each term:


 * 143 million results - COVID-19 recession


 * 161 million results - Coronavirus recession


 * 499 million results - The Great Lockdown


 * Hopefully this data is useful for the discussion. sam1370 (talk &#124; contribs) 02:29, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Map and possible errors
I have restored the infobox map from your edit because: Jay Coop &middot;&#32;Talk &middot;&#32;Contributions 06:04, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) It was unnecessary to remove an image if there was an error in it. You could have simply messaged me to make a correction.
 * 2) I reviewed the source (see "Statistical Appendix: Tables Part A"), which projects −10.0% growth for Greece in 2020, not −9.1% as you indicated in your edit summary.

Requested move 6 May 2020
Coronavirus recession → COVID-19 recession – As many other articles have changed the "coronavirus" in their titles to "COVID-19" due to the renaming of the main article, this should be done for this one too Geekgecko (talk) 17:22, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. Google returns 936,000 results for "coronavirus recession" -wikipedia and 408,000 for "COVID-19 recession" -wikipedia. Compare this to "coronavirus pandemic" -wikipedia (139 million) and "COVID-19 pandemic" -wikipedia (163 million). On a WP:NATURALNESS basis, I find "coronavirus recession" to be superior. — Goszei (talk) 06:57, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose coronavirus recession seems to be a good name for the severe impact of COVID-19. I know that 2019-20 coronavirus pandemic has changed into COVID-19 pandemic, since it's not the only outbreak of a kind of coronavirus, so it needs a accurate name. But this recession is special, and other coronavirus like SARS-CoV didn't cause this. So it's more acceptable for the general public, "coronavirus" is a better choice.Peter Wu (2019) 15:49, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The current title still seems to be the most common name. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:30, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose There has never been any other recession related to the coronavirus. KingSkyLord (talk &#124; contribs) 15:27, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Maybe should move for consistency. Is there consensus on if we're calling this COVID-19 or Coronavirus in titles? DemonDays64 (talk) 17:17, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support for consistency across Wikipedia. Brad (talk) 00:31, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Coronavirus is a real name versus COVID-19 which will soon be forgotten in 2020 / 2021. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trevorfpinto (talk • contribs) 06:43, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * What does that even mean? They're both "real name"s, whatever that means (even though COVID-19 is shorter, more accurate, and more specific). Also, it's pretty unlikely that the name "COVID-19" will be forgotten by later this year, or next, or anytime soon. Paintspot Infez (talk) 01:56, 12 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Support per . Love of Corey (talk) 23:46, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose I supported the name change of the pandemic but I oppose this. As nice as consistency is, it simply isn't the common name. Ljgua124 (talk) 13:00, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Oppose There is no reason why the name would need to be changed since their is only one recession dealing with the coronavirus BigRed606 17:17, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose, common name for this recession. Dede2008 (talk) 21:16, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

great lockdown/great shutdown
great lockdown/great shutdown should have its own article. it refers explicitly to government policies and their related effects on the population. that's very different than a recession or even socioeconomic effects. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.114.255.226 (talk) 04:59, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * This article does exist: Curfews and lockdowns related to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic. I somewhat agree with you that Great Lockdown should redirect to that page instead of this one. If you have evidence for the change, you can start a discussion at WP:RFD.— Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 16:21, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I boldly changed Great Lockdown to point to more relevant articles. -- Beland (talk) 17:28, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Headed for depression?
Should this article by Nouriel Roubini claiming that the world is headed for a economic depression be included in this article? Inter&#38;anthro (talk) 20:57, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Map "real GDP growth rates in 2020"
I like the idea of visualizing the loss of economic growth, but I think the map "real GDP growth rates in 2020" is not very informative. Especially the absolute values do not show you which countries "lost" and which not. Some countries like China always had a very high GDP growth, so even if they suffer, they have a less high but still positive GDP growth. On the other side, countries in western Europe had a very low GDP growth in the past, so if they suffer a bit, they quickly end up with negative growth. My idea would be to show the difference in GDP growth compared to last year. The source used to create this files does provide those values. What do you think --TheRandomIP (talk) 21:23, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

This might not be an official recession for the US economy.
To date, the NBER has never declared a recession shorter than 6 months (the 1980 recession); the next shortest is 8 months. NBER doesn't use the Econ 101 "two quarters of negative GDP" definition, but instead looks at month-by-month economic indicators to determine exactly which months the economy peaked & bottomed.


 * https://www.nber.org/cycles.html
 * The NBER does not define a recession in terms of two consecutive quarters of decline in real GDP. Rather, a recession is a significant decline in economic activity spread across the economy, lasting more than a few months, normally visible in real GDP, real income, employment, industrial production, and wholesale-retail sales.

The US economy likely peaked in mid-March, before all the stay-at-home orders started, and bottomed in mid- to late-April, when the first states began to reopen. This 5- or 6-week peak-to-bottom is likely too short to be a recession, though NBER will make the final judgment, possibly months if not years after the fact. For the time being, I believe this article should not be titled "COVID Recession" but instead "Economic impact of coronavirus"

Aaaaaabbbbb111 (talk) 04:19, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * There are several problems with this approach:
 * NBER is not the only source we can use for identifying a recession. If reliable sources in general call it a recession, then for our purposes, it's a recession, even if one specific source chooses not to use that terminology.
 * NBER is American, and focuses on the US economy. This article is about a global recession.
 * The "economic impact" article already exists, and there's an ongoing merge discussion about whether we should have one article or two. But unless that discussion decides to merge them, this article cannot take over the "economic impact" name, because it's generally one article per primary topic.
 * I don't think you can possibly come up with a citation for the claim that the economy will be completely "back to normal" by September (6 months after March). Nobody has a crystal ball, and I doubt any reliable sources are claiming that now.
 * In a few months or years, it might make sense to rename or merge this article, but for the time being, I think we have to go with what the sources say. As far as I can tell, the sources are describing it as a "recession." -- N Y  Kevin   07:19, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * NBER Business Cycle Dating Committee officially announced on June 8, 2020 that a recession began with the monthly peak in February 2020, and the quarterly peak in 2019Q4: "The fact that the monthly peak of February occurred in the middle of 2020Q1 while the quarterly peak occurred in 2019Q4 reflects the unusual nature of this recession. The economy contracted so sharply in March (the final month of the quarter) that in 2020Q1, GDP, GDI, and employment were significantly below their levels of 2019Q4." We need to make a major update to the United States article subheading. DougEMandy (talk) 01:07, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

"Great Collapse (2020)" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Great Collapse (2020). The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 9 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. im temtem • hOI!! • fsfdfg • alt account of pandakekok9 04:00, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Should the May 2020 US jobs report be added?
Here's what I think should be added: "In May of 2020, the unemployment rate fell unexpectedly, falling from 16.4% in April to 13.3% in May. Many politicians were surprised; the DNC chairman, Howard Dean, tweeted, "The trump [sic] folks fudged the figures.""

Thanks, Thanoscar21talk, contribs 15:24, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Merge with Economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic
I propose merging this article into Economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, and explaining "Coronavirus recession" as terminology (with graphs, etc.) in that article. The recession is the primary economic impact of the pandemic, and slowdowns in various industries and countries are the details of how that is happening. There is very little if any that either article has to say beyond that, which results in both articles approaching the topic at the same level of detail, even if theoretically there might be impacts beyond the recession. (And those can easily be added to the post-merge article, since the title will be more general.) In particular: -- Beland (talk) 18:26, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * There are by-country sections in both articles, which are 100% overlapping in scope.
 * There are by-industry sections in both articles, which are 100% overlapping in scope.
 * The Financial crisis/Financial markets sections are 100% overlapping in scope, though some details probably need to merge down to Financial market impact of the COVID-19 pandemic.
 * The Background sections have exactly the same scope, but currently have different contents. (It's unclear if the content about global economic conditions before the pandemic are on-topic.)
 * Any of the remaining sections could be found in either article, and if maintained properly would be the same in both. -- Beland (talk) 18:26, 14 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose, notable event, one of the impact of coronavirus is the Great Lockdown. I think splitting off content about Great Lockdown would be better, since it is more severe than 2008 financial crisis. Then list the another economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic besides Great Lockdown in that article. Dede2008 (talk) 19:21, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * How would you scope Great Lockdown? Which article would cover GDP stats, unemployment, and supply disruptions? What should be in "Economic impact" that's not in Great Lockdown? -- Beland (talk) 20:57, 14 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Support, for which opinion, in addition to the arguments of Beland, I wish to submit that: (i) the merged article becomes much easier to manage with limited editorial resources; (ii) "recession" may be suggestive, but it is first and foremost a technical term that is, in my view, not easy to delineate from "non-recession". Hence it seems not a good criterion to define the title of an article that also caters for novice readers. --CRau080 (talk) 21:01, 15 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Strong Oppose, would you call the Great Recession "economic impact of the 2007 subprime mortgage crisis", or call the Great Depression "economic impact of the 1929 stock market crash"?? (I know these examples are not perfect, but you get the idea)  The recession is an event in itself: the coronavirus pandemic was the triggering event, but it was also exacerbated by other factors, and in particular many economists were predicting the next recession as part of the normal business cycle to occur around now anyways.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.17.34.27 (talk) 20:25, 16 May 2020 (UTC)


 * As you say yourself, the examples you give are not perfect, and I think the gap is considerable. That a recession may have been around the corner even without the COVID-19 pandemic is, at present at least, only a theory – and one that would have its detractors in countries such as Germany, where prominent government members referred, at least in the early stages of the pandemic in the country, to the robust state of the economy as a good shield. Therefore, the pandemic ought to be considered, in my view, as the single crucial event on one side and its economic impact, including recession, on the other as a whole. --CRau080 (talk) 20:53, 17 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Strong Oppose Notable event in its own right and it shouldn't just be mixed in with everything else. This is already major news as it stands and is only going to get worse and more noteworthy before it gets better. As the person above me stated, we don't minimize the importance of the Great Depression or Great Recession and this is already competing with them in fallout and notability. Gamermadness (talk) 21:06, 16 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Strong Oppose Experts agree that this virus will create a short term recession and those effects are already being felt; they are encyclopedic and should be documented in this article. Dmarquard (talk) 05:37, 17 May 2020 (UTC)


 * It's obvious that the recession should be covered. But do we really need two articles on the recession? Wouldn't one be better? If we need both "Coronavirus Recession" and "Economic Effects of COVID-19" how do we decide what content belongs in which of these articles? To me, they seem to be the exact same subject. MarylandGeoffrey (talk) 02:45, 20 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose this article is long and notable enough to be on its own.  Crazy Boy  826  22:11, 17 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Strong Support Nobody is disputing that the recession caused by COVID-19 is a notable event. Nobody is arguing that the economic impact isn't encyclopedic or shouldn't be covered. But having two articles on the event with overlapping content is absurd. Readers would be better served by having a single merged article with the best content from both current articles. Please explain what you mean by "the gap is considerable." I can't see any difference between the 'Coronavirus Recession' and the 'Economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic' They are one and the same and should be a single article. WP:MERGE says "There are several good reasons to merge pages ... Duplicate: There are two or more pages on exactly the same subject, with the same scope." Here, we have duplicate pages. MarylandGeoffrey (talk) 01:57, 18 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Support under the name of coronavirus recession — I believe that the two articles should be merged, but a title such as "economic impact" may not truly reflect the severity of the impact as it would be in calling it a recession. Jay Coop &middot;&#32;Talk &middot;&#32;Contributions 01:52, 18 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Strong support for merge, and milder support for retaining the "impact" title. If a recession isn't an economic impact, I'm not sure what it is. We need to consolidate to make better use of our editorial resources and not confuse readers. The "impact" title is more consistent with other COVID-19 articles and more flexible (e.g. if it becomes a depression, or if we want to talk about the economic impact before it technically became a recession. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 03:12, 18 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Strong oppose for merge. "Recession" language is consistent with the extremity of the downturn. Japan, one of the world's largest economies, is now "officially" receding. Unemployment rates in the United States have skyrocketed to Depression-era levels. The language of "economic impact" does not adequately convey to Wikipedia's readership the severity of the turmoil wrought by prolonged shutdowns and widespread uncertainty on future reopening and economic productivity. Frevangelion (talk) 08:07, 18 May 2020 (UTC)


 * That seems more like an argument for using the word recession in the title of the merged article than for keeping the two articles separate. Do we really need two articles on the economic impact / recession? Would you support merging the articles if the "Coronavirus Recession" title was retained? MarylandGeoffrey (talk) 02:49, 20 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Stronge oppose for merge. I don't think a recession is really enough to describe the full picture when it comes to the impact this virus has on the economic life as a whole. There are definitely other affects that aren't the direct results of the recession. --Dundeezic (talk) 17:09, 18 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Support under the name of coronavirus recession Having a single article would be better, but this is clearly more than just a sub-topic of the pandemic. Keepcalmandchill (talk) 02:49, 19 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Strong Support under the name of coronavirus recession — definitely a better title, both articles talk about very similar topics.(The Sr Guy (talk) 18:59, 19 May 2020 (UTC))


 *  Soft support for merging under the name "Coronavirus Recession"  - the economic recession/depression resulting from the virus is a notable event in its own right. One article would definitely be better than what the situation is now, but the name 'Economic impacts of the Covid-19 pandemic' does not highlight that the recession is a big event with potentially big effects on its own. Brikumw02 (talk) 02:59, 20 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Strong Support - They are just different names for the same thing. In some places it may become a depression, but that would not warrant a separate article - it will still be the same thing.  Multiple articles on the financial impacts might well be warranted, but need an unambiguous basis for separation.  (e.g. separate article(s) covering effects in particular places).  Zodon (talk) 05:41, 21 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Support - The title "Coronavirus recession" is exactly a major subset of "Economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic". With the context and content being (as at present) nearly identical - although narrower in its scope, its merger can certainly be advanced as being in the general interest, in creating a more balanced and holistic article (including for example the change brought to consumption models, the development of certain sectors and technologies), also avoiding duplication, redundancy, and the development into a POV fork. --Ohconfucius (on the move) (talk) 09:15, 21 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose the article is long and notable, as the effects are more severe than the Great Recession.Elishop (talk) 23:12, 22 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose and renamed as COVID-19 (or Coronavirus) depression, you can't recognized/recognised that this economical disaster is excesses the definition of a normally economical recession is, if you seen the clear comparisons from the previous economical disasters from (the last 100 years of) modern history, even its sound really too soon for you and the others yet, and also some of these articles on the page, are just describing to referring to the big event happen, starting on February 2020. Chad The Goatman (talk) 04:39, 23 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Strong Oppose Economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic is a bit more broad than this, while few and far between, there are industries that have benefited from the pandemic (not the best cite I admit), the (anticipated) recession as a result of Covid-19 is a more compact, narrower topic that should be referenced in the Economic Impact page, but have a link to here as the main article. Longer term, I suggest perhaps this article discuss the impact over the longer term, and Economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic be a more short term impact page about the more immediate impact of Covid-19. (do tell me if such a distinction or page already exists). Regards.747-200B (talk) 16:59, 23 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose - A recession is enough to get its own article. We should just have a section about it in the Economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic page. Nojus R (talk) 00:43, 25 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Strong Oppose This article is lenghty enough and considering it is a (major) recession, it definitely warrants its own article. AshMusique (talk) 23:02, 25 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Strong Oppose and renamed as Great Shutdown I oppose this move as by this point i consider this article as a complete, which i don't think deserves merging. However, i want this article to be renamed since it might be confusing. this might be ugly 03:51, 1 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose -- Economic impact is broader than the recession specifically. That'll be clearer as the recession ends. -- econterms (talk) 16:12, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose This is the major recession we are facing after 2008 and the worst since the Great Depression of 1930. Though recession is a temporary economic decline it is better to have a separate article like this instead of merging with Economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. Abishe (talk) 19:42, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above. Also, I am shocked that the requested renaming of "Coronavirus recession" to the more WP:CONSISTENT "COVID-19 recession" is rejected per WP:COMMONNAME. Why the policies are fighting each other in these cases? --Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 08:56, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, rename the article "2020 recession" ( à la 1973–1975 recession) or "recession of 2020" (à la recession of 1958). --Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 09:03, 7 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Strong oppose as the two pages are already long with different information in both. Andysmith248 (talk) 17:47, 9 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Somewhat oppose as economic impact is broader the the recession specifically. There are numerous economic impacts of the Great Shutdown, only one of which is the recession.


 * oppose* I feel like this is a event of its self in my opinion Powerofgamers01 &#60;3 (talk) 07:38, 17 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Strong oppose as I believe that this article has enough data in it to stay as its own separate page. -- Dreamqast (talk) 06:19, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 6 July 2020
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;">
 * 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: page moved by strong (but not quite unanimous) consensus. Andrewa (talk) 02:55, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Coronavirus recession → COVID-19 recession – Fewer syllables, fewer characters, and as the 2003 SARS-CoV-1 was also a coronavirus, specifies which coronavirus and consistent with COVID-19 pandemic article style. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:45, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. The most common name for this recession is the current title. A Google news search results in 105,000 results for "coronavirus recession" and 74,700 results for "COVID-19 recession". Rreagan007 (talk) 01:33, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Strong support WP:COMMONNAME (in the part of coronavirus, which should be known by most as COVID-19 in the rest of Wikipedia. Needs WP:CONSISTENCY)  SMB   99   thx   Email!  05:20, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support for specificity. This is not the only Coronavirus case in history. J I P  &#124; Talk 13:37, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * But it is the only Coronavirus-caused recession in history. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:31, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * For now; WP:CRYSTALBALL. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 19:12, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * It's not logically impossible for there to not be a subsequent novel coronavirus to emerge in the future that evolves by either natural or artificial selection, spreads to pandemic levels of contagion, and requires comparable international economic lockdowns. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:02, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, "coronavirus" is 11 characters, while "COVID-19" is only 8. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:50, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * You have it completely backwards. It's WP:CRYSTALBALL to assume there will be another economic recession caused by another coronavirus in the future, and thus we should move this article now in anticipation of this possible future eventuality. If there ever is another economic recession caused by a coronavirus, then we can move this article at that future time. Rreagan007 (talk) 01:54, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't agree with your interpretation of WP:CRYSTALBALL; in fact, I think you are the one who has it entirely backwards. I am not stating that there will be another economic recession caused by a coronavirus, only that it is logically possible and it's not based on "unverifiable speculation" (as the WP policy article puts it) but a pretty basic understanding of both introductory macroeconomics and evolutionary biology (and in point of fact, evolutionary biologist Bret Weinstein stated in an interview on 18 June 2020 that it is possible that the current coronavirus was the result of artificial selection), while I would argue instead that the current title actually violates WP:CRYSTALBALL because the current title assumes that there won't be (which is an implicit prediction), which is why it makes more sense to have what is a more precise and less clunky title that is consistent with the remainder of the COVID-19 project and has fewer characters than the current title. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:12, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I also believe I'm the person who originally proposed the title "Coronavirus recession". -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:22, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:CRYSTALBALL is about anticipating future events, and you are anticipating a future event, specifically that there will be another recession caused by a coronavirus, thus necessitating another article on that event. What future event am I anticipating exactly? Rreagan007 (talk) 04:39, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Nope. I am not predicting a future event, only stating that a particular event is possible within the category of possible future events while the current title of the article does violate WP:CRYSTALBALL because it makes an implicit prediction that the same particular event will not occur (or in other words, stating that the same particular event has a probability of 0). You are the one implicitly claiming that the economy won't go into another recession in the future and that it's impossible for any future recession to be caused by lockdowns in response to a subsequent novel coronavirus. You're the one making implicit predictions, not me. I'm also a math and economics major and I think your misunderstanding of WP:CRYSTALBALL is related to not understanding probability theory (and even if you have a PhD in mathematics, it doesn't occur to me that your opinion has any more standing than someone who doesn't given how most mathematicians responded to the Monty Hall problem and still do). More importantly, this is secondary to the fact that the proposed title is shorter, more consistent with the rest of the COVID-19 project on Wikipedia, is a common enough name in its own right, and is a more precise name than the current title. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 14:37, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * We're clearly going around in circles here, and it is largely an irrelevant point. The title should be located at the most common name, and right now the most common name is the current title. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:41, 7 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Support per WP:COMMONNAME. Love of Corey (talk) 11:24, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - This is the WP:COMMONNAME for this page. Interstellarity (talk) 14:41, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support as consistent with other COVID-19 pages and common name.--Bob not snob (talk) 07:23, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - COVID-19 is a common name, used in other related articles. &#x2009;KRtau16&#x2009;  '&laquo;Talk&raquo;'  10:38, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - as per . Thanks, Thanoscar21talk, contribs 22:13, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support for consistency with all other COVID-19 articles, please read a FAQ in the top of talk page. 36.77.93.202 (talk) 00:33, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support so that way the article's name is consistent with other COVID-19 articles. - Kamran Mackey (talk to me · my contributions) 10:53, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support WP:COMMONNAME and consistency. Dede2008 (talk) 13:18, 11 July 2020 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. <b style="color: #FF0000;">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"Great Shutdown" / "Great Lockdown" / "Coronavirus Crash"
Can we please move this jangle of names down to a new section, rather than in bold text in the introduction? Many of these names, especially the "Great Shutdown" or "Great Lockdown," haven't been used enough to really justify placement in the article's opening paragraph, as 'cool' as they sound. The sources cited don't even list many of the names we've provided, and, even if they do, the preferred name of a single journalist writing in the early days of the recession are again not worth including in the opening. Let's please curb it to just 'COVID-19 Recession' or 'Coronavirus Recession,' or some other phrase that is used more commonly in media? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.148.138.242 (talk) at 03:46, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I've removed the nicknames. The title is meant to just be general, having alternative names like that gives the impression they're somewhat official. <b style="border:1px solid #0800aa"> Nixinova </b> <b style="border:1px solid #006eff"> T </b> <b style="border:1px solid #00a1ff"> C </b>  07:42, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Rename: COVID-19 Depression
I think that the article should be renamed from "COVID-19 Recession" to "COVID-19 Depression," as the Q2 2020 economic report indicates a GDP drop of 32.9%, well lower than the 10% threshold for a depression. At this point, I think continuing to call the crisis a "recession" is trivializing the issue, and the terminology needs to be fixed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.194.56.232 (talk) 05:53, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * NOTE: Wikipedia is not Original Research. So does not using the term which rarely use by media or use before it publish by media. 114.125.244.19 (talk) 14:00, 3 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not a doomer colony. So go away doomer. 68.134.239.246 (talk) 14:01, 13 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I suggest this section becomes an RFC for further consideration. The U.S. Economy has depressed in 2020 more than three times the 10% GDP trough threshold. This easily qualifies it as an acute Economic Depression, and some Economists project 50% loss of GDP before 1-1-2021. We also need to decide when is the most Encyclopedic time to reevaluate a Recession as a Depression. I would not feel comfortable with a move to "COVID-19 Depression" until year's end. However, as previously mentioned, this section needs an RFC to be truly settled; I would support an immediate move to "COVID-19 Recession" because the current article name is misspelled with an improper noun. -- Sleyece (talk) 18:47, 15 August 2020 (UTC)


 * That 30% figure is annualized data and headline writers are being misleading with it. The Q2 contraction was actually slightly under 10% and current estimates put Q3 in as a GDP gain. For this to be a depression you would need Q2 like figures or worse to be the case for a multiyear period. 50.200.31.90 (talk) 17:29, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Lmao, no! I don't know what White House Press Conference you've been absorbing without question, but Q3 is not on track for a "GDP gain" by any reasonable measure. -- Sleyece (talk) 10:12, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The Federal Reserve and a laundry list of analysts say otherwise. https://www.frbatlanta.org/-/media/documents/cqer/researchcq/gdpnow/RealGDPTrackingSlides.pdf, https://fortune.com/2020/08/06/us-gdp-growth-record-rebound-q3-2020-election/ 50.200.31.90 (talk) 19:34, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * That report STARTS measuring GDP on June 25th of this year. Doing slightly better in Q3 than absolute rock bottom, does not meet an encyclopedic standard for "GDP Gain" year over year. I'm very confused as to why this needs to be explained. -- Sleyece (talk) 00:52, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Should have specified yoy. Yes overall GDP for the year is expected to be negative but a bounce back is still forecasted for Q3. Again for this to be eventually classified as a depression you would need sustained significant contraction for over a year and realistically this is a call we can’t make until early 2022. 2600:1003:B001:CB0C:91D9:C8FB:3812:7219 (talk) 02:22, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * No, there are two ways economists identify a depression. One is as you said, and that is the most publicized one because that was the type the Great Depression was. The other depression type is 10% total GDP loss year over year. This recession is on track to easily hurdle that second one. -- Sleyece (talk) 09:41, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Looks like IMF projections are above that threshold even more than in summer. Still even June's more bleaker update was still above the 10% decline mark. 50.200.31.90 (talk) 21:17, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * It's WP:TOOSOON to call it a depression as sources have yet to make that declaration. 9March2019 (talk) 00:55, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The IMF released their October outlook and the severity has decreased from their June report. The current annual GDP decline for the US is projected to be -4.3% up from June's projection of -8%. So looks like the rename won't be necessary. 68.134.239.246 (talk) 18:13, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Summary of national impacts
I tried to cross check with the source but it seems soma values are incorrect. Moreover, this section is outdated. At least the time span for which the data was obtained should be mentioned in text.Nico (talk) 09:51, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Worse than the great depression?
There is a currently an unsourced sentence in the lead section stating "It is currently the worst global economic crisis in history, surpassing the impact of the Great Depression." What exactly is this referring to? As measured by percentage change in global GDP, the current recession has not yet nearly reached the levels of the great depression. Topotrivl (talk) 20:20, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Good point. That was a recent change.  I undid it.  The phrasing had been "SINCE the Great Depression," which is justified by text in the article.  If the covid recession is deeper, or more impactful, than the Great Depression, we'll have sources that say that. -- econterms (talk) 21:19, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

There's no legend for that GDP map
Also known as a key.. I know it's obvious that green=up and red=down but "It's obvious" isn't a good reason not to add one here in my opinion BetweenCupsOfTea (talk) 10:40, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

A Re-evaluation of the "Impact of U.S. Protests" Section?
I propose a re-evaluation of the section; "Impact of U.S. Protests". The sources cited in this section are news reports written at the time of protests - they, therefore, report the expected short-term impact of protests upon the economy.

The claims made here also seem overstated, when considering the figures: QUOTE; "overwhelming public infrastructure with large-scale property damage,[344] costing an estimated $500 million." A $500 million figure does not seem considerable enough to merit the size of this "U.S. Protests" entry, when considered relative to the trillions of dollars governments around the world are utilising in fiscal aid. With the longer-term perspective we now have, the claims of this section seem exaggerated.

The preceding section (U.S Impact by occupation and demographic) also does not seem sufficient enough to merit inclusion in this article. I propose that this and the "Impact of U.S Protests" sections be placed either within the "economic impact by country" section, or within the dedicated "Economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States" article. With this should be included a greater number of references in support of claims made. Having dedicated country-specific articles enables global articles like this one to keep their focus global. --Chippu101 (talk) 15:13, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Just for reference, how much property damage would you like there to be before we can consider it worthy of inclusion? Do you want $1 Billion dollars in damage? Do I hear $10 Billion? Do we count Police shootings and medical bills in the number, or just tally up the property estimate of the Wendy's restaurants and public buildings destroyed by Molotov cocktails? -- Sleyece (talk) 02:01, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The $500 million figure given is not even in the source provided (news article). Additional research needs to be done so an estimation can be verified. Furthermore, if there are any sources talking about how lockdown may have affected public reaction, that would be good to include as well. Musicalmather (talk) 01:25, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, we need quality sources. We need at least two sources confirming the same estimate. -- Sleyece (talk) 17:59, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * One could just as easily ask where we draw the line 'downwards', as it were. Whether, given 500m (now 550m) is such a small (relative) figure, we might include damage done by small storms, or wildfires. I could flip your question and ask why $200m damage from a wildfire shouldn't have its own section, or even $400k from an arson attack (for example). Nevertheless, you may have noticed that I am not encouraging the removal of the section entirely, just its integration into the US sub-section (a more suitable location) and better referencing Chippu101 (talk) 20:49, 5 December 2020 (UTC).

Could someone please update Australia
Rather than going into a depression, as the article says is expected, Australia is now out of recession — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.240.244.167 (talk) 04:20, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

End date
Does anybody have a reliable source that states whether this global recession is ongoing, or if it ended in June 2020? I checked for 15 minutes, couldn't find one. The reason I ask is that this article says it's ongoing in the infobox, but doesn't have a citation for it. But List of recessions in the United States says it ended in June 2020, and cites ABC News, but the ABC News article doesn't even have the word recession in it. I'd prefer to find a good source such as a journal article, or the IMF or World Bank website, then update the end date in both locations. Thanks. – Novem Linguae (talk) 04:33, 24 March 2021 (UTC)


 * NBER has determined the US recession is over and ended in April 2020. 2600:6C64:507F:E6E1:20EC:1AD7:9F1C:4CF1 (talk) 20:30, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Anyone else feel the whole “This Recession only lasted two months in the US thing” is misleading?
Because I currently see out of control gas prices, massive employee walkouts, and extreme economic instability in nearly every facet? Why did we suddenly change our mind that this was a 2 month recession? It looks to me things are only getting worse at the moment with the Delta variant.

Worldwide it’s even worse in most places.
 * It looks to me is not how things work here. soibangla (talk) 22:57, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Stock Data
in According to Dow Jones stock data, even when adjusted for stock inflation, the recession in the United States ended late March 2021. LukeyBear11 (talk) 07:19, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Rename page to "Covid-19 depression" or "The COVID Depression"
It's been nearly two years since this thing started, and there's no sign the worldwide economic slump is ending. Over the last year, massive struggles with lower pay work issues have flared up, several nations have gone into further strife, and even the stock market is in trouble once again. This is worse then the Great Recession, and I'm comfortable calling this a depression now. Not a depression nearly as bad as the one in the 1930s(not yet anyway), but a depression all the same. A degree of support was established a year ago, so... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.144.93.30 (talk) 06:04, 27 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Support - I would agree for 2022 as defined by previously accepted sources for the Wiki definition pages (AND NOT THE PAGES THEMSELVES) as severe contractions + length of time could both individually meet the previously agreed upon criteria in those pages sources. It does have to be taken into account on the search litmus test that people would have to specifically search for economic depression as opposed to the clinical depression (medical condition) that has been talked about in relation to the past 2 years.
 * Daesin (talk) 00:54, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment - There was a previous crystal ball issue that was on the page stating that "It is considered (By Whom?) to be the shortest recession in history (When)" without citation and was just coming here to question that. So I say we should atleast talk and share comments about this or any move request/review before dismissing out of hand.
 * Daesin (talk) 00:57, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Support - Yeah, this is a Depression. Also, Covid Depression is currently ahead of COVID Recession in Google Trends — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.174.216.170 (talk) 19:52, 30 November 2021 (UTC)


 * "COVID Depression" Would be a preferable option from my perspective in all honesty Daesin (talk) 02:50, 4 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Support* Covid Depression too — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:3D09:1F80:CA00:D4CE:999B:4730:AC7C (talk) 22:19, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

If the recession is still ongoing in February 2022, this should be renamed to COVID-19 Depression
I know that's widely jumping the gun and that probably will not happen, but I want to bring it up ahead of time.

A depression is defined as being measured in years, as apposed to a recession which is measured in months. The Great Recession(the worst one up to that point) was roughly a year and a half, give or take a month.

Therefore, if this one makes it past the two year mark, it would not be unreasonable to retitle it to Depression. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.174.216.170 (talk)


 * Most developed countries are out of recession at this point, do we call the Great Recession a Depression because Greece entered a depression during that time? No. 68.134.239.246 (talk) 21:04, 19 July 2021 (UTC)


 * depression is defined as being measured in years by whom? soibangla (talk) 22:04, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * @Soibangla By consensus already established on the topic in Wikipedia, Depression Inc Global   L-K Shaped Degrowth    2 years and/or a 10% contraction * was defined by previously accepted & referenced citations of multiple sources for the Wiki definition pages  (AND NOT THE PAGES THEMSELVES)    and I have also responded to the so called 'litmus test' not working here in the sections below. Wiki guidance itself says that it's not to be some set in stone bureaucracy where people bring up random rules to stop something in places where logic shows it shouldn't be like that. This isn't officially called the "Covid-19 Recession" nor the "Great Lockdown" but those names have been used in the past.
 * Which has even been shown recently in the discussions on the Afghanistan Conflicts for one example where the end date was set early and people agreed to only change after if circumstances show otherwise when the date arrives. They used precedent as an example there when people were in disagreement of the crystal ball rule and snowball one in a move review. Daesin (talk) 17:40, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment - With that said, it is apparent that this complex occurrence would meet multiple criteria to be correctly classed as an economic depression under multiple agreed upon definitions; via both widespread Sustained Degrowth, and/or severe contraction caused by a far reaching catastrophe.
 * Daesin (talk) 17:49, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Support Even in the better off parts of the world where things have nominally improved, there has been a general massive downtick in productivity and production not seen since the great depression. Combined with the fact most second and third world nations are going to be in recession past 2025, and I see no reason not to adjust the name sooner rather then later. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.144.93.30 (talk • contribs)


 * The Great Recession lasted a lot more than 24 months in most of the world, so the proposed criterion would be at best US-centric. See also WP:CRYSTAL, and WP:COMMONNAME: "Wikipedia ... generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources)." However, it's hard to say which term is more common by the usual Google lithmus test, as "covid depression" produces more hits, but many of the first page results are related to the major depressive disorder. <span style="font-family:Garamond,Palatino,serif;font-size:115%;background:-webkit-linear-gradient(red,red,red,blue,blue,blue,blue);-webkit-background-clip:text;-webkit-text-fill-color:transparent">Daß Wölf 10:11, 22 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Support - Even if it has different definitions throughout time around the world, I feel like the search litmus test would be distorted if not searching economic depression due to the reports on the Depression (Condition) rates rising recently. Could still be applicable though
 * Dasein (talk) 17:30, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: Although to talk about a future point now does feel a bit pre-emptive, although I understand it's making a point ahead of time to build consensus Dasein (talk) 17:34, 27 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Support - OP here. First off, I support it still all these months later as recent events have solidified in my mind that the situation is not yet improving on the whole, even if some narrow areas like the stock market are. We are still in a deep and worsening situation on the whole.

Secondly, yes, there isn't really one solid definition of when recession becomes depression, due to a lack of sample points and how long ago the Great Depression was. But I feel from a logical point the 2 year line in major economies makes sense. Someone's gotta mark it, and I feel it's a good place to do so.

It's February 2022, and we are still in an economic slump. Rename the page to "Covid-19 depression", as widely agreed upon in the past 9 months of discussion.
Two discussions on this prior, one dating back 9 months and one just a month ago, got near unanimous support to change the page name IF we were still in a state of recession by the two year mark. We are, and in many sectors the situation is not improving and worsening. We looked into establishing consensus months in advance so we could rename the page quickly when the time came. Now is that time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.174.216.170 (talk) 22:06, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment No. -- Sleyece (talk) 02:01, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Dow Jones Crash
The stock market is currently crashing faster than anything in my lifetime (including the Dot Com Bubble when I was a kid); if things keep going with current trends, I'll suggest a page move to "COVID Depression" sometime between April and July. -- Sleyece (talk) 23:45, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Let's not gaze into the WP:CRYSTALBALL here. Dow Jones is currently higher than it was before COVID. <span style="font-family:Garamond,Palatino,serif;font-size:115%;background:-webkit-linear-gradient(red,red,red,blue,blue,blue,blue);-webkit-background-clip:text;-webkit-text-fill-color:transparent">Daß Wölf 05:20, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not gazing into anything. I put this as a stop gap to the Crystal section directly above that's trying to wizard this recession into a depression before there's evidence. Please read before you slap policy at me. -- Sleyece (talk) 06:38, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:COMMONNAME states that the name most commonly used in RS is generally preferred to official titles. I would take "official" to include whether a certain organisation or definition classifies this as a recession or a depression. Whathever evidence there is for COMMONNAME exists now -- and while things might be expected to change wildly in the next few months, postponing a decision based on that expectation is in effect relying on a market prediction, which IMO Wikipedia shouldn't be doing. However, I do agree that the editors ruminating on the page title in the sections above need to take it to WP:RM or drop the matter. <span style="font-family:Garamond,Palatino,serif;font-size:115%;background:-webkit-linear-gradient(red,red,red,blue,blue,blue,blue);-webkit-background-clip:text;-webkit-text-fill-color:transparent">Daß Wölf 22:06, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, all current reputable sources references to "Covid Depression" are a reference to the mental health impact of the pandemic. The proposed name change is WP:OR at this point in time as far as I can tell. -- Sleyece (talk) 23:27, 28 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Now sure how the Dow is a measure when the US hasn't been in a recession since the second quarter of 2020. Guettarda (talk) 18:43, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Proposal Vote: Rename Page To 'COVID Depression'
Proposed poll on the grounds that have already been stated: (inc timespan of 2 Years and/or contractions of 10% or more occurring in countries which have both come to pass)


 * As previously accepted by Wikipedia consensus to be used in other related pages, not using the wiki pages as sources but referring to the multiple sources accepted in those pages.


 * It has already been established that the name isn't official and that there is multiple causes to the economic turmoil during previous discussions on the page.
 * Also note that the Litmus test isn't a rule but a guideline, as per WP:NOTBURO which doesn't work well here given that searches wouldn't specify economic depression but bias towards long-covid

Also feel free to add a "Request for Comment" if you believe this should meet the criteria for such action. Daesin (talk) 23:33, 6 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Support - As stated previously, obviously for the reasons listed on this page.
 * Daesin (talk) 23:35, 6 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Strong Support - Possibly with a "If you're looking for mental health linked to COVID-19, see 'link to that'" near the top.

2604:3D09:1F80:CA00:E9:F11F:97F1:476C (talk) 06:08, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - With how much time everyone on this page has put into establishing precarent and agreement, I cannot argue for anything, but a prompt renaming.


 * Comment - Perfectly happy with that as part of the proposal if there were a page on COVIDs impact on the brain/mental health, also agree with the fact that it has achieved support for every instance that it's been brought up. Especially considering that the name "COVID-19 Recession" wasn't really official either which should have same judgement here. A request for comment should be triggered before February due to the lack of action made so far. (Even though support has been shown)
 * Daesin (talk) 15:44, 15 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment Wait a few months maybe until we have strong evidence. -- Sleyece (talk) 23:46, 22 January 2022 (UTC)


 * It's February, and we are still in the economic state Can someone rename the page? This is the moment we've spent the past year building a solid consensus for so we could get it done quickly when the time came. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.174.216.170 (talk) 22:03, 31 January 2022 (UTC)


 * @sleyece I would agree but this is about meeting the definitions, which have occurred. By already waiting 2 years. It's not unprecedented to do so that way instead of waiting for people to name the event/object in question (Afghanistan Conflict had similar issue raised in Move Review) Daesin (talk) 19:27, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

There's an old saying: if others are unemployed it's a recession, but if you're unemployed it's a depression. Find reliable sources. Open an RfC. soibangla (talk) 19:56, 3 February 2022 (UTC) I'm curious why you include the NBER which found the US recession ended April 2020 and clearly explains NBER does not measure depressions. soibangla (talk) 20:17, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

COVID-19 "depression" is not supported
I don't seem able to revert the title change. Can someone else do it? soibangla (talk) 17:26, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

TheBrodsterBoy (talk) 17:28, 3 February 2022 (UTC) We literally spent months showcasing evidence and building support so when February 2022 came we could make the change with no fuss or debate. See the talk page
 * Show us where a single reliable source calls it a depression. Just one. soibangla (talk) 17:36, 3 February 2022 (UTC)


 * TheBrodsterBoy (talk) 17:39, 3 February 2022 (UTC) https://www.e3g.org/news/together-we-can-recover-from-the-covid-19-economic-depression-and-rebuild-better/ https://3gry456jeet9ifa41gtbwy7a-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/Sustainability-Interview-with-Dr.-Ha-Joon-Chang-Transcript.pdf  https://monthlyreview.org/2020/09/01/covid-19-economic-depression-and-the-black-lives-matter-protests/
 * We spent a great deal of months building consensus for this specifically to avoid this sort of thing.
 * Not reliable sources. soibangla (talk) 17:41, 3 February 2022 (UTC)


 * TheBrodsterBoy (talk) 17:50, 3 February 2022 (UTC) What do you define as a depression, in terms of length? I just wanna ask you. Because we're going onto 2 years of this, longer then The GREAT Recession. At what point of length does this economic slump register as a depression to you? Because we established a pretty good precadent earlier that 2 years with things continueing like this was a good benchmark.
 * Your analysis matters not here. You need reliable sources that explicitly declare this a depression. You won't find one because it hasn't happened. soibangla (talk) 17:52, 3 February 2022 (UTC)


 * TheBrodsterBoy (talk) 18:01, 3 February 2022 (UTC) Literally hundreds of sources are stating this is the worst economic situation SINCE The Great Depression, which at the very least implies it. Also for more links https://theweek.com/culture/books/1009331/our-economy-is-a-group-project  https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2022/01/24/lebanon-s-crisis-great-denial-in-the-deliberate-depression
 * Your first source is an opinion piece, the second doesn't mention COVID. There is no depression. Please stop. soibangla (talk) 18:09, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * @Soibangla It's not about what people call it, since it's not official. It's already a description. We didn't call it "The Great Lockdown" of 2020 either but that was a placeholder name until an actual one is made after its over. We don't exactly have historians talking about current events. Daesin (talk) 20:33, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * It's not about what people call it on our Talk pages, it's about what reliable sources call it. Find some that call it a depression. soibangla (talk) 20:42, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I called it nothing on my talk page, merely responded to a comment left there. So I have no idea what your formatted comment is referring to but I have raised my points and the proposal was me being bold but it seems to be striking a bad chord, so I will leave this issue here. Will also leave the potentially helpful references "By almost any measure, the 2020 recession began with sharp declines in economic activity, employment, and equity prices that rivalled or exceeded the initial declines of the Great Depression." "The second scenario: if COVID-19 is going to produce a large economic depression, then the world economy gross domestic product can take easily between five and ten years such as the case of the world great depression of 1928." + as UNCTAD Secretary-General Mukhisa Kituyi said: “The COVID-19 pandemic has gravely wounded the world economy with serious consequences for everyone,” which gave potential cause for consideration of this proposal atleast, and I already suggested an RfC (Request for Comment) on the matter if anybody else is uncertain but my input can already be found in the revision history of this Covid-19 Recession talkpage. Daesin (talk) 20:50, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * "the 2020 recession began with sharp declines...that rivaled or exceeded the initial declines of the Great Depression" for two quarters, but from there the economy quickly rebounded, unlike during the Depression. It looked like it could become a depression, but it didn't. The 2007 recession also tracked closely to the Depression in 2008-9, but it was not characterized as a depression. "The second scenario: if COVID-19 is going to produce a large economic depression..." IF. The paper doesn't conclude it did (it was published the month NBER called the US recession over). Your third source, "The COVID-19 pandemic has gravely wounded the world economy," does not mention "depression." In every recession, less-developed countries get pounded hardest and recover slowest, but that is not the same as a "depression." soibangla (talk)
 * and : Please see this from the January 2022 World Bank Global Economic Prospects: In no region or country does the World Bank estimate negative 2021 GDP growth, nor forecast it during the next two years. The word "depression" does not appear anywhere in the 240 page document, whereas "recession" appears 236 times. soibangla (talk) 22:21, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Again, I am going off of the definition. The current title is a description, much like previous ones before any official name is coined. Not bringing up as an official name in itself but using the "depression" term as a descriptor.
 * Those references were left just incase they were relevant to the "economic depression" descriptor applying as defined, to the title of the topic, It was a previously suggested proposal that I boldly started a discussion for. I already said that my input has already been given and I'm ceasing discussion to avoid spam or potential disruption to this page as a whole over semantics.
 * If it had consensus, then it had consensus. If not, then it did not. No change needed & No need to carry on with this in that case. Daesin (talk) 23:01, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * While many countries are in a recession (either still or again), and while an awful lot of people are still hurting, the global economy isn't in recession. In 2021 the US economy experienced its fastest growth since 1984. There's plenty wrong with the economy, and COVID has done a lot to worsen income inequality. But that doesn't mean we should be making things up. Guettarda (talk) 18:51, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily about inequality nor people hurting, not come across definitions like that but the previous points in favour of the suggestion do have previously accepted sources that have been used on the topic of economic depressions, there is also another factor relating to how severe the cause is (which I can't really say anyone has experienced this scale of lockdown in their lifetime before, unless you can?)
 * We've already talked the "official" naming matter to death but I do want to respond to your comment on the US economy being conflated with the Global one here however since it would be the same issue you have with multiple Highly Developed/High Income economies still being in declines or even experiencing double-dip recessions.
 * The NBER (National Bureau of Economic Research) have drawn the lines of the definition already and shown that severity of the decline can be a factor & that a depression doesn't need to have the same start or end dates as the associated recessions. (See Great Depression of 1930's to describe issues during 1929 and in the 30's) ...In addition, the more common use, also encompasses the time until the economic activity has returned close to normal levels. +  Considering the 'Covid' part is used for common use reasons and not official and that recession is just a description of the event. If multiple definitions are already met then it is a Depression, not crystal balling, not making a new name, just trying to keep some consistency here.
 * @Guettarda (Guettarda) & @Soibangla (Soibangla) Of course, with your disagreement of past consensus that's been established multiple times. Would you prefer a request for comment on this proposal? Since there does seem to be bias on both sides, perhaps myself with supporting the proposal and making the current one & then on the non-support side potentially conflating US Economy with Global Economy while other Highly Developed & High Income economies aren't accepted as valid. While also potentially conflating an accepted and predefined term (Depression) with the official 'common' name advice (Covid-19 Recession) to which the current name isn't really official and is just a description either way.  Daesin (talk) 20:30, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * "We literally spent months building consensus so that no one would object to our WP:OR name change." This meme is very real. I love this thread. -- Sleyece (talk) 00:22, 7 February 2022 (UTC)


 * @Sleyece https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/03/upshot/pandemic-economy-recession.html

- I know that discussions were gridlocked, and wasn't sure whether to respond to last notif for the sake of keeping a potentially heated discussion civil, but I did want to ask whether this would qualify as a "single source" or not? Also whether or not a 'Request for Comment' addition would be applicable here. (With the talks on support & opposition prior to this section) Many apologies if this is 'necroing' or disruptive in any kind of way Daesin (talk) 02:31, 12 February 2022 (UTC)


 * It's just too early. It's going to be a torrent of sources calling it a depression when the time to move the name really comes. -- Sleyece (talk) 19:10, 12 February 2022 (UTC)


 * That article only uses "depression" in the headline, not in the body of the article. We can't consider the use of a term in the headline alone as evidence of usage or careful, deliberative analysis. And for what it's worth, the headline (from October 2020) say "The Pandemic Depression Is Over". The 2nd quarter decline in GDP in the US (31%) would meet the 10% decline that is one definition of a depression, but not the other, which depends on there being a prolonged recession (since the GDP growth in the third quarter was record-breaking). It certainly is possible that some economies with hit a 2-year recession at some point, but even then that would probably not be a global phenomenon.
 * Since a majority of sources don't support "depression", and since it doesn't meet the common definitions of a recession, the name change seems like a bit of a non-starter. Guettarda (talk) 23:36, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

2604:3D09:1F80:CA00:4404:4F6F:2F12:E9AF (talk) 05:50, 28 February 2022 (UTC) Seeing as the Russia situation is about to worsen the global economy significantly AND there are still emerging COVID variants, I’d say Depression is looking quite fitting


 * @2604:E9AF Hmm, It would seem that a double-dip or 'W-Shaped' could be used to describe it. Not sure if GDP (Not Global) for major countries around the world have recovered to Pre-Pandemic Levels yet.

Worth mentioning since there has been a description given in the sources before, saying that it's not just simply counting the time in decline, but also the time taken to recover to Pre-Crisis levels. Although it's arguably a topic that articles don't seem to talk about too often in light of other economic factors like inflation. I'd perhaps agree with the wait* & see stance, also even with the litmus test falling, I'd concede on the point that not enough article sources have called it a Depression yet even if some have. *(Atleast to wait until the next round of information by International/Central Banks & Analysts is released, later this month) Daesin (talk) 12:08, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Should the Russian Invasion on Ukraine + Retaliation via Sanctions be added?
Notably the SWIFT System events & Tit-for-Tat Responses to other countries comprehensive sanctions. (Trade War?) Daesin (talk) 01:52, 27 February 2022 (UTC)


 * I mention this because of the impact on the Russian Ruble & Global Trade as a whole. Daesin (talk) 01:54, 27 February 2022 (UTC)


 * I do also want to note here in this discussion (before any article changes) that there are are reports of proposed bans on Russian Oil & Gas Transactions via U.S. Bills that have been introduced as of March 2022. This is in addition to the already existing Sanctions by the U.S. on Gazprombank. Despite the ban not having been implemented yet, It's already reported to be impacting the Russian Oil Market due to investor fears. Also curious about if an Economic Crisis/Panic can contain multiple recessions within it (Like Depressions have in the past) Would this page need to be changed to reflect when recovery stalled and GDP's started contracting again? Since we can't go off of the U.S. Rates alone and that recovery did stall, do we include the current situations as part of this economic crisis or in the aftermath? (For the sake of consistency in prior Wiki sources, it has previously been accepted that some definitions include time taken to recover past the previous levels)

Now of course articles would have to be sourced before reflecting the newer information but wanted to ask first because I'm not sure whether this article needs to draw a line for when recovery of the last dip completed. A UN report said it stalled after 2020,2021, and now in 2022 ...but not sure if that's accepted as enough? Daesin (talk) 13:30, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Merging with economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic?
I think it's basically the same thing, so I think we should merge. I don't know how to start a merge discussion though. Jishiboka1 (talk) 04:19, 4 March 2022 (UTC)


 * @Jishiboka1 If that's on the wider Financial Impact then I would wait to seek consensus first since there is a difference, ...also due to unclear dates *(Whether going off the Times of Biggest Decline or measuring Until Full Recovery)* it's still uncertain on how the recent Conflict in Europe should fit into this article. 🤔 Daesin (talk) 01:33, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Rename
The article should be renamed. There's no recession anymore. The title of the article has to meet the current conditions, such as the surge in inflation and the energy crisis.--GreatBernard (talk) 18:06, 5 March 2022 (UTC)


 * @GreatBernard Still too early to 'call it', we don't have a crystal ball & it could be a double-dip recession. Or a Depression with two recessions inside it. (Like some of the previous "Great Depression's") Daesin (talk) 21:20, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, in the event of a double-dip recession, we have to determine whether the two downturns are related to one another. Here, the COVID-19 pandemic and Russo-Ukrainian conflict are independent from each other. In that case, a separate article would be needed when the time comes. 9March2019 (talk) 22:35, 8 March 2022 (UTC)


 * @9March2019 but a lot of the listed 'causes' are surely different from eachother, like the Evergrande Crisis for example, or the energy crisis (which is able to be linked to the war in some ways) Daesin (talk) 09:28, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

If recession & causes are ongoing, does 'COVID' recession still fit?
Due to there being many big causes and factors for Economic Disruption, Hits to GDP, and/or further stalls to recovery. Would "Recession in 2020-2022" not be more appropriate? 🤔 Especially since 'COVID-19 Recession' isn't exactly 'official' at the moment. Daesin (talk) 23:04, 7 March 2022 (UTC)


 * * Further Note - Or "Recession of 2020-22" as a potential name Daesin (talk) 23:05, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * * Oppose Recessions don't last beyond a year, which would constitute a depression. Also, there's a new reason for a global economic downturn unrelated to the COVID-19 pandemic. 9March2019 (talk) 00:06, 8 March 2022 (UTC)


 * What alternative would you propose to be used instead? @9March2019 Daesin (talk) 18:32, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I would suggest creating a separate article for the current economic downturn related to the Russo-Ukrainian conflict when the time comes. For now, we should not bring that up in this article. 9March2019 (talk) 22:24, 8 March 2022 (UTC)


 * @9March2019 Wouldn't that need a request for comment? Daesin (talk) 09:33, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

206.174.216.170 (talk) 16:06, 10 March 2022 (UTC) The pandemic was and is still the primary cause of the economic damage, although the recent Russia situation could hault recovery and further lengthen things (Hence we should probably be considering renaming to Depression from Recession). A VV pattern isn't unheard of in economic crisis, even smaller ones. The Dot Com Bubble collapse caused a recession that almost ended before 9/11 lengthed it by a few months. Heck, there was a temporary break in the Great Depression in 33 and 34 were things eased up before worsening again. That doesn't make it a seperate recession/depression, at least to most sources, assuming a full recovery from the first dip was not made. All the current worsening situation has done has proved this has escalated from an extremely bad and lengthy Recession to a Depression


 * Even then, COVID-19 will need to be removed from the title because that wasn't the only factor for the ongoing economic downturn. 9March2019 (talk) 17:43, 10 March 2022 (UTC)


 * I'd say the article has gone beyond the Covid recession and now covers a broader economic disruption. I'm not sure that disruption has a name though. If there are reliable sources that include Covid + Russia, then we might rename it. But without sources, we run the risk of creating a COATRACK. Guettarda (talk) 17:46, 10 March 2022 (UTC)


 * @Guettarda Wait, isn't there already a page on that? Also just want to clarify on the Russia thing, I noted it not just because of the Oil Bans impact on Energy Crisis or Nordstream 2, but also the Debt Rating, the SWIFT Sanctions, and the removed Trading Status (Essentially Allowing for Tariffs & Trade War) Not to mention all the companies that have pulled out, the Russian Ruble also dropped in value to approx 0.004GBP at one point so it seemed big enough and connected enough to the concurrent energy crisis to be mentioned. Daesin (talk) 19:40, 10 March 2022 (UTC)


 * @9March2019 I worry about there not even being retrospective coverage on the economic side of things, given that it was sorta more focused on impact for individual countries & now focused on current events. 2 years is a long time to be covering one period of downturn, disruption (& time taken till full recovery, as stalled as it may currently be) in the news 😬 Daesin (talk) 19:45, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * @Daseiin Not that I'm aware of. If there was an overview article like that I'd expect it to be in either Category:2020s economic history or Category:Economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic.
 * Technically, I feel like a "COVID-19 recession" article should talk about the immediate recessions - a sort, sharp global recession followed by a recovery that was quick in some countries, slow over even double-dip in some places, and that hasn't happened in others. A wider article about economic disruption should cover everything from chip shortages to the Russian invasion of Ukraine (and whatever comes next), written in summary style with all these other things as daughter articles.
 * That vision goes well beyond the things I feel comfortable writing about, so please take my comments as coming from the peanut gallery. Guettarda (talk) 19:56, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Rename to 'depression'
With the situation in Russia rapidly worsening, it's clear the case that the state of recession was about to break has been proven quite false. Combined with the fact we've passed the two year definition for more then a month, we MUST acknowledge this is a depression, it's even following a similar W pattern that the Great Depression did — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheBrodsterBoy (talk • contribs) 16:22, 10 March 2022 (UTC)


 * There needs to be reliable sources with the official announcement before this rename can be made. If you have those, please provide them here for consideration. 9March2019 (talk) 17:42, 10 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Please stop this. -- Sleyece (talk) 01:20, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Should there now be an End Date? If so, should it be Q2 2022?
As stated in subject heading, at the time of writing this we're currently into the 2nd week of April '22.


 * Considering that News Reports no longer report on the 'Covid Recession' and simply talk about the current economic state in general. Should we start talking about whether it is 'over' now? Daesin (talk) 11:30, 11 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment - & Especially considering that the current downturn has a different context/cause than the COVID-Related Crisis such as the abrupt changes to Central Bank Rates after prolonged support meassures (coupled with the supply shortages in energy, electronics, vehicles that impacted sellers & their respective industries.)
 * I would propose that a separate page is made for everything that is H2/Post-Q2 of 2022 to make a clear distinction to the line. I know that we haven't yet fully recovered but recessions have been reported as beginning to form again around the world but (more) in relation to our reactionary meassures for 'The Great Lockdown' that occured with supply shortages --Which have gotten worse again-- & cause more inflation as opposed to the initial Lockdowns+Work From Home meassures themselves that are seen to be easing now. Daesin (talk) 12:20, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Apologies for the word wall, just wanted to highlight the fact that Major Economies are still growing despite raise in base rates from Central Banks to reduce inflation, ongoing outbreaks & manufacturing shortages. If not Q2(/H2) then how about April 10 2022? Which is when the reports from news outlets & official sources in the field gave these kinds of results? 🤔
 * ​ [1 ]
 * (Only adding one citation source as it's just to give context) Daesin (talk) 01:02, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

If not Depression, would "COVID Economic Crisis/Downturn" be more fitting?
Proposal: Given that no move review nor RfC has been made already, it seems unlikely that any change will go ahead despite issues with the current name. Definitions and criteria aside, the complexity of the situation and the lack of official name have not been addressed thusfar. Daesin (talk) 15:17, 17 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment - The recovery had been confirmed by multiple sources to have stalled in 2022 and one source even says (NYTimes) that the Depression is now joined by a recession. If there is no official name that's been agreed upon shouldn't consensus be made here? ...Even the Wiki guidelines say that they are just guidance but consensus is what makes things move forward and not a beuracracy. Daesin (talk) 15:20, 17 March 2022 (UTC)


 * COVID-19 Recession is fitting for now. If things change, then the title can change, too. -- Sleyece (talk) 01:22, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes and this article probably should be merged with Economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:25, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Proposal: To mark either May or June 1st as end date if no reports of COVID-Related Recessions surface after start of next month
This would be because of the K-Shaped Recovery still counting as recovery & Economic Activity/GDP appearing to have bounced back in most major economies since the initial decline (+ return) So if nothing happens throughout May, It's safe to reasonably assume that nobody is reporting on COVID Contractions due to everything at that point having other causes. We can't wait forever if nobody reports by then. 'I would say that anything in June should likely be put in an "Aftermath" section of the article. Unless another page needs on some other recession leading from that needs linking to.'

Daesin (talk) 15:30, 21 April 2022 (UTC)


 * * Support - This is not a crystal ball, it's just using common sense and is based off of other events that were marked as over before any official announcement.

For one E.g. Articles surrounding the *War/Conflict in Afghanistan:* topic. I was opposed back then in the review, but that was the final decision. No point in invoking the CB Guideline that didn't have a chance in hell of changing the outcome. The consensus was that it would be changed if any reputable sources could show otherwise. ...That decision, in turn had also referenced the precedent before that, the worst that happened in other cases were some articles poking fun about Wiki's having to change dates. Admins didn't have a problem then and I don't see any having a problem now. Nobody wanted to do a RfC either. (Even as it was a current major event that had a lot of activity.) Daesin (talk) 15:45, 21 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Most countries having a Stalled K-Shaped Recovery that had atleast either met or surpassed pre-covid levels by this point in time still count. You can either have two separate national recessions in the timespan of a global depression, but not two global recessions that happen inside eachother. So with that being said, unless there's a consensus that says there's proof stating we're still in a global recession or that this is a prolonged depression that has 2 underlying recessions.
 * Then 1st May 2022 should be marked as the end with reporting having ceased on the matter & instead they talk about separate recessions in the future. Which implies that the current one is ending.
 * ...The only proposal now would be an Aftermath session. Otherwise, saying the current one is ending is just stating facts.
 * We don't need sources to accept that an apple exists, or that we need to prove the sky is blue, or that the pyramids were infact built by humans ...not aliens, or that the moon isn't made out of cheese as someone with a tinfoil hat may say. Those things are either implied by agreed upon definitions, implied by pre-existing sources, or just known facts that we can see for ourselves instead of trying to debate. Sources talk about one potentially starting now, so the lockdown one is now over. Especially given all the talk in news sources about how surpassing previous growth levels so quickly set the conditions for around 10% Inflation in some of the major economies. This should be settled, and if there is no other activity or edits to the page. Then unfortunately the topic is pretty much dead either way. 213.107.49.121 (talk) 21:00, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * You actually DO need sources to accept that an apple exists. Sleyece (talk) 04:29, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment "This is not a crystal ball, it's just using common sense" WP:NOT -- Sleyece (talk) 04:56, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Explanation of Ammended Dates: (*May 2022)
I want to question the rollback/revert to ongoing as there isn't really a source that we're currently in a recession. Only articles that say a new recession is likely to occur soon. That's despite the background/aggravating factors still ongoing.

Marking it as over was correct & has had numerous precedents over multiple Wiki topics where the current date was picked and amended after official sources provided otherwise in their own independent records.

Also, if we're still in a recession right now even though most major economies surpassed their Pre-2020 peaks at least once since the lockdowns, should this really be called the "COVID Recession"? Litmus test of googling it has a lot of flaws & it's not really an official name anymore than the 'Greater Recession' which has also been the term used in some reports.

But all things set aside, I would happily concede on the change back to initial state of 'ongoing' ...if there were sources to act as proof of that same global recession still occuring right now. Let alone it carrying over in the next months of Q3/H2 of 2022. (Which should be in the aftermath anyway.) Daesin (talk) 16:00, 7 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Would the Wiki just forever say ongoing if the recession isn't talked about as happening again?


 * Or if a future global recession were to happen & then is compared to this one, would the start of that one then be classed as an end date here? @user:Worldwar1989 Since two global recessions don't overlap, only Economic Depressions can have two separate* Recessions within them.
 * It can already be inferred that this would either be over by now as implied by the reports talking about a "new" recession for mid-2022 ...Or as an economic depression that is implied by the definitions & previously used standards to classify economic downturns as uniquely extreme as this one. Daesin (talk) 16:15, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Also my apologies for the formatting flaws, it seems that editing from mobile devices is still buggy. Daesin (talk) 16:43, 7 May 2022 (UTC)


 * "only Economic Depressions can have two separate* Recessions within them. " You're literally so close to an actual point, but still so far away. -- Sleyece (talk) 13:59, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Can we change this to Depression yet?
The current worsening economic woes throughout 2022 without a full recovery from the prior troubles in indicative of the W pattern common to longer economic depressions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.174.216.170 (talk) 20:22, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Depression
The combination of after-shocks from COVID, ongoing climate refugees, the emerging Monkeypox threat, global water shortfalls, looming and ongoing famines, and of course, the Russo-Ukrainian War, are pushing us into years of forthcoming economic downturn and strife. The previous wave never even fully concluded despite over 2 and a half years, already arguably pushing past the definition of Depression. We're entering a depression that started in February 2020 and was worsened dramatically in 2022 after some light recovery(which occured in the Great Depression too, temporary improvement does not mean it ended) 2604:3D09:1F80:CA00:44CF:2C03:1583:EE4B (talk) 19:28, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Consensus on Depression
How many years are we gonna allow this to drag on before we fix the damn name? TheBrodsterBoy (talk) 01:27, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 17 August 2022
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;">
 * 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. Too soon, and potentially seperate topics. (closed by non-admin page mover) – robertsky (talk) 15:27, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

COVID-19 recession → 2020s recession – While there have yet to be sources calling the economic downturn, it is becoming clear the recession(s) are caused by more than just the COVID-19 pandemic, most notably the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. Since there's no official/common name for the economic downturn established through reliable sources, and that it has run through several years of the 2020s, the proposed title may be best at this time. If you find reliable sources that give an official/common name or call it a depression, please mention it below. 9March2019 (talk) 14:52, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Far from clear, and unrelated to each other. e.g. the NBER (official recorder of US recessions) has dated the Covid-19 recession from February 2020 (peak) to April 2020 (trough).  It has been in expansion since. It may go into recession again in 2022 or 2023, but that would be a separate recession.  It is useful to keep these things clear and separate. Walrasiad (talk) 17:06, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

TheBrodsterBoy (talk) 01:41, 18 August 2022 (UTC) 'Support, but change to depression' The Great Depression was not caused by one event, but rather a series of them, with ups and downs, brief improvements not deep or long enough to break the greater Depression. When recessions chain together to the point that you can't recover from one before the next is starting, that's a Depression. The COVID caused wave of economic damage was finally starting to subside early this year, and now the Russo-Ukrainian War has thrown us into deep trouble yet again despite the COVID shocks not having truly receded and still having impacts to a noticable degree. The argument you are making is nearly the same as the one I've been making for many moons to finally call this what it is. A depression. Not as bad as the Great Depression, but a Depression none the less.


 * Most sources just call it "The Depression" or "The Recession" or "The Recessions" or "The Economic Crisis". So 2020s Depression works for me as a temp title. (And while I'm prevy to the name "The Grand Depression", that call will be on people years from now, so a temporary title will do) TheBrodsterBoy (talk) 01:42, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

<div style="padding-left: 1.6em; font-style: italic; border-top: 1px solid #a2a9b1; margin: 0.5em 0; padding-top: 0.5em">The discussion above is closed. <b style="color: #FF0000;">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * This would change the scope of the article but it does discuss the Russian war, perhaps create a new article instead?  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 07:19, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Too soon – as the proposer has pointed out, there aren't yet sources to demonstrate this is the WP:COMMONNAME. Wikipedia isn't in the business of writing history, see WP:CRYSTAL etc., we're a tertiary source so we follow what other sources say. Also agreed with Crouch, Swale that these are potentially separate topics. Jr8825  •  Talk  02:35, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Is it still reasonable to say COVID is the main cause?
Considering changes in the situation & new factors, It seems like this current title might be slightly misleading or ill-fitted as a description due to it not getting the bigger picture. Dasein (talk) 09:49, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Why is Start Date listed as February & Not in March? (Q1)
Considering that technical recessions need 2 quarters (Q4 2019 + Q1 2020) of contraction & not just 1 stagnant quarter. The line would end up being 31st March (or 1st April 2020) but I'm not sure I see a modern source that says the Global Recession started in February. Surely we cannot just go by the US as if it's the benchmark for the whole world now, right? 86.14.56.116 (talk) 13:40, 3 December 2022 (UTC)


 * @@ I would propose that it should be "31 March 2020" as the start date, as per the standard definition used across multiple major economies. Looking back on it all, using February would've required a crystal ball, but like they say about hindsight... 86.14.56.116 (talk) 13:43, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Present tense or past tense?
"Many governments have restricted or advised against all non-essential travel to and from countries and areas affected by the outbreak.[75] However, the virus is already spreading within communities in large parts of the world, with many not knowing where or how they were infected."

While this is true, as the pandemic is ongoing, it's clearly describing the situation in March 2020. Should this be updated? 2603:7081:1603:A300:65FE:396F:71B6:6609 (talk) 20:08, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

“Great Lockdown”?
First time I’ve heard the Covid recession referred to as “the Great Lockdown.” Should we provide a source for that moniker? PencilSticks0823 (talk) 00:09, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Recession
Why are we still listening the recession as current? Most sources stated the recession only lasted two month. There is even speculation of another recession, which would not make since, if we we’re currently in a recession. I propose we change the box and the heading.

sources: https://www.cbpp.org/research/economy/tracking-the-recovery-from-the-pandemic-recession#:~:text=(According%20to%20the%20National%20Bureau,%3A%20March%20and%20April%202020.)

https://www.google.com/search?q=is+the+2020+recession+still+ongoing&rlz=1CDGOYI_enUS1000US1000&oq=&aqs=chrome.5.69i177j35i39i362j46i39i362l3j35i39i362l6j46i39i362j35i39i362j46i39i362j35i39i362l2j46i39i362j35i39i362l3.252740j0j7&hl=en-US&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8 BigRed606 (talk) 03:16, 4 May 2023 (UTC)


 * In the US which is debatable, I don't think that would be logical to apply to the global economy which arguably hadn't recovered* for many parts of it (i.e.
 * (past pre-pandemic levels) Adpocalyptic (talk) 17:38, 17 August 2023 (UTC)