Talk:COVID-19 pandemic

Page move moratorium

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

I'm sympathetic to this argument, but it seems evident the name is problematic, especially as new reporting shows rising levels of xenophobia that can't be attributed to mere caution about the virus. My view is that if we were to recreate this article whole cloth knowing what we know today we would use it's official name, COVID-19, plus some variant of outbreak/epidemic. Being new here, I honestly didn't expect to see such detailed coverage about the epidemic to appear so quickly. So, maybe you could help me understand how Wikipedia normally handles covering emergent events? I'd welcome the discussion on my talk. PedanticLlama (talk) 21:43, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and not a newspaper. This is extremely key to understanding why we aren’t leaping upon WHO’s terminology (let’s be clear, there can be no “official name” for a disease, which is a process created by nature and not by a human organization), or changing the page title to reflect new developments that are coming every day. Even looking at the most recent move request, the scope of this article is the outbreak in Wuhan that has spread across China and around the world. The outbreak in Wuhan started in December 2019 and is only now (mid-February) being called a pandemic. There was no pandemic until now, nor “official name” until recently, so discussing a pandemic or an official name when describing the developing nature of the outbreak is honestly inappropriate. Once again, we are not a newspaper that focuses on what’s happening today and what may happen tomorrow, but what happened on all the days before tomorrow. This is still true in current events. 199.66.69.88 (talk) 00:01, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

I appreciate the response! I've read the NOTNEWS policy, and although I arrived at the opposite conclusion I understand your reasoning. Precisely because Wikipedia is not intended to be the news, I wonder why this article exists to the extent it does. However, since it does exist, it makes sense to weight sources based on confirmation of recent accuracy, if that makes sense. As an example, if there are 150 references citing an incorrect name and only a handful citing a new development that has been verified by experts, but happened recently, would it make sense to keep the old (incorrect) name? Especially given that the preponderance of new references use the new name.

And just to make sure I understand what's being asked: most people want to change the title to epidemic, right? I'm not aware of pandemic being suggested or cited anywhere as that would be a pretty major development (which consequently may be worthy of breaking this 30 day rule). PedanticLlama (talk) 00:41, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

• Support one-month moratorium on pagemove discussions. This is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. We don't need to give in to these recentist fad-driven name changes and further contribute to our readers' confusion. Naming is not as important as those panic-prone commenters insisting that we immediately change the page name to reflect some advisory organization's whimsical decisions seem to believe. Improve the content of this page if you want to help inform people. 199.66.69.88 (talk) 22:37, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
• Support for one month moratorium It feels to me like the reason this title is so contentious is because pro-China editors are trying to right a great wrong and save face. But the reality is that Wikipedia must wait until an alternate name becomes dominant enough to meet the requirements of WP:COMMONNAMES. Wikipedia is not censored and hosts great deal of . Experienced editors oppose them on policy grounds, breeding conflict and accusations of Sinophobia. Melmann 22:54, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
• Support one month moratorium for pagemove because if this requested move happens everyday, it will confuse readers as it can be move to someone else. This moratorium needs to applied to 2019 novel coronavirus as well as all articles containing "Wuhan coronavirus outbreak" name. If multiple request move needed, this request must discuss on single talk-page, not multiple talk pages of their respective articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 36.76.229.147 (talk) 23:14, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
  • This is a great point. At some level we might want to talk about an RfC on general sanctions for this topic area. It’s become extremely disruptive to have all the discussion focused on naming and accusations of bias/sinophobia, especially against experienced editors whose views are essential to keeping this topic area in good shape. I guess on some level it might seem like an extreme escalation, but I see no better way to keep this topic area peaceful and collegial for what will likely be a controversial area for the next year. 199.66.69.88 (talk) 23:54, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
    • This article in brief period was included in post-1932 United States politics general sanctions because this article relate to the United States. But it removed because not related to that. 36.76.229.147 (talk) 00:22, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
• Support, but restrict page moves requests until end of March 2020, require unregistered users to create a account to vote once the stable name is found, and preempt any consensus from overruling this temporarily restriction. We need a restriction on this page. Regice2020 (talk) 00:31, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Why not give six-months moratorium request move instead at least? Because this 6-month moratorium need to use to give more information about that event. This event can be last until summer.36.76.229.147 (talk) 00:39, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose I don't think blocking a RM will be more productive.xinbenlv ^{Talk, Remember to "ping" me} 00:45, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

  Support, convinced by @Hurricane Noah: at Special:Diff/940855982 xinbenlv ^{Talk, Remember to "ping" me} 09:02, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose any moratorium on name change discussions. Weakly oppose a one week moratorium Neutral on a 5-day moratorium on actual formal move requests because they do require participation and there seems to be no chance at consensus without more careful consideration of options. - Wikmoz (talk) 01:47, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
• Strongly support - the common name in the media has stuck, and the TP is filling up with move req's and attempts to get around the RM process. Freeze it for a few weeks.50.111.33.78 (talk) 02:15, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose - Censorship is bad. If you don't like the discussion(s) don't participate. The guideline for page names says it is strongly waited for recent names. wp:namechanges Excerpt:

Sometimes the subject of an article will undergo a change of name. When this occurs, we give extra weight to reliable sources written after the name change.

Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 02:48, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose This is neither a formal RfC to be binding nor is it an appropriate proposal. RM will come and they will be speedy closed or entertained with discussion as the community sees fit, this is neither as big a deal as some make it out to be nor is restricting RM for a developing event that has been especially notable because of the name changes an appropriate measure. Sleath56 (talk) 03:09, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
• Support even a 1 week pause would save effort! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:48, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

• Strongly Oppose - the page title is technically factually incorrect because this article isn't about the outbreak in Wuhan but rather a wider epidemic. I haven't come across any other article which has kept the original location in the title of the epidemic page. Tsukide (talk) 07:41, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
• (crossposting to WP:AN; involved closer) Strong support as proposed. The primary issue is not that unregistered contributors are participating but the fact that this is an ongoing issue, the current proposal to have a one-month moratorium was greatly needed, I see all the closes after mine were speedily closed (there was one restarted on the same day!). The correct process to argue with any move you disagree with is to file a Wikipedia:Move review after you discuss it with the closer. You are supposed to debate whether the close was fair or not in reference to the consensus and then decide if such a request is required. Opening RMs again and again with the same or different title is pointless if you want to establish consensus, when there wasn't any in the first place. --qedk (t 桜 c) 10:31, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
• Strongly Oppose Things are moving fast. In that context, a one month moratorium is a ridiculously long time to ban discussion of something. Bondegezou (talk) 14:06, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose-1 month is long, but it is an epidemic, so how about a few weeks? After all, the month of February is 672 hours, and March is 72 hours longer — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.24.150.111 (talk) 16:24, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. I would rather suggest that one new formal, properly prepared and advertised move discussion is initated which cannot speedily closed. Before it is initiated we should have a discussion on which new title we should propose. The new move discussion can than be held in a constructive manner and what ever result it brings we obey and then we impose a moratorium on new move request.Tvx1 17:13, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
• Strongly Oppose The disease page (2019-nCoV acute respiratory disease) is going to be renamed soon it seems. Once that is done, a renaming of this page to become consistent with the new name there will be needed. (The proper name for this page is 2019-20 XXX outbreak, where XXX is the disease name.) Afterwards, a moratorium like the one suggested here will be a good idea. EMS | Talk 19:24, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
• Support Stop it. This is ridiculous. If it turns out that this eventually is no longer used as the common name, the page can be moved to whatever the common name ends up being. There is no rush. Natureium (talk) 21:23, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

If it turns out that this eventually is no longer used as the common name... Your criteria for a move has been met. "Wuhan coronavirus" is no longer the common name by any measure. Regarding recognizability, "coronavirus" has a 50:1 advantage over "Wuhan coronavirus" and "COVID" has at least a 2:1 advantage based on Google Trends-. Wikmoz (talk) 17:49, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

• Strongly Oppose The current title of this page is clearly a divisive issue. Regardless of one’s opinion on the title, prohibiting further discussion would be to silence those with dissenting opinions and suppress open discussion as well as constructive criticisms. Ganymede94 (talk) 06:25, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Very few newspaper headlines are currently using "Wuhan", instead it's mostly "China" or occasionally "Global" Robertpedley 17:01, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
• Strongly Oppose We should not censor the discussions. There's nothing wrong or harmful with starting a new discussion. --Efly (talk) 22:58, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
• Move to table proposal until the reopened move review closes 20 February 2020. The move review already exerts a de-facto moratorium. Until then, I'm going to urge people to comment there instead of opening even more move requests. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 17:25, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

@Rotideypoc41352: The MR has been closed. Sleath56 (talk) 17:36, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose According to the latest Google Trends:Google Trends. Term COVID is four times more searched as compared to Wuhan CoronavirusTyr1118 (talk) 03:39, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

2019–20 coronavirus outbreak

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

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

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

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

2019–20 coronavirus outbreak

PROS

• WP:COMMONNAME: based on NYT (Coronavirus Outbreak), BBC (Coronavirus Outbreak), CNN (Coronavirus Outbreak), South China Morning Post (Coronavirus Outbreak), WebMD (Coronavirus 2020 Outbreak), Reuters (Coronavirus), AP (Virus Outbreak), MarketWatch (Coronavirus), BMJ (Coronavirus Outbreak), SkyNews (Coronavirus), FoxNews (Coronavirus), The Guardian (Coronavirus outbreak), Al Jazeera (Coronavirus Outbreak)
• WP:RECOGNIZABILITY and WP:COMMONNAME: based on Google Trends (7 day view). To estimate, subtract "X coronavirus outbreak" from "coronavirus outbreak" and the more general term dominates at least 10 to 1. Prior debate over the recognizability of Wuhan vs. novel is less consequential by comparison.
• WP:PRECISION: "2019–20" makes it unambiguous which coronavirus outbreak is being discussed. "Titles should unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but should be no more precise than that."
• WP:NCMED: it does not contradict the scientific name of the disease by WHO, CDC, and NHS and to the extent that "Wuhan" is interpreted to be the disease/virus name, it does not contradict WHO Best Practice Guidelines (2015), which advises against using locations in disease names.
• WP:CONCISE: it helps shorten all of the branched topics
• WP:CAPITALIZATION: "coronavirus" is not a proper noun
• WP:NPOVTITLE: some argue "Wuhan" may support anti-China discrimination seen on social media and opinion media
• MOS:LEADALT: may be used to recognize common name
• WP:DEADLINE: the topic can be renamed in a few weeks

CONS

• WP:COMMONNAME: based on CNN (Wuhan coronavirus outbreak)
• WP:RECOGNIZABILITY: to the extent that "Wuhan" is not read as the disease name and just the as the center of the current outbreak, much of the press reporting is about the situation in Wuhan and the Hubei region
• WP:CENSORED: there's a feeling that removing "Wuhan" is being done for political reasons
• WP:DEADLINE: something else may eventually emerge as a better option
• WP:PRECISION: it can be argued that "2019–20 coronavurus outbreak" is not precise enough; 'Wuhan' or 'COVID-19' eliminates all ambiguity
• WP:CONSISTENT: to the extent that "Wuhan coronavirus" is read as the disease name, including the location in name is consistent with historical precedent (e.g. MERS, Ebola, Spanish flu) even though this is now explicitly discouraged by WHO per best practice guidelines for naming diseases
• WP:CONSISTENT: to the extent that "Wuhan coronavirus" is not read as the disease name, it is consistent with other Ebola outbreak topics like West African Ebola virus epidemic (a PHEIC with imported infections in Europe and US), 2017 Democratic Republic of the Congo Ebola virus outbreak, 2018 Équateur province Ebola outbreak, and Kivu Ebola epidemic (also a PHEIC)

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

• Move to close this thread immediately: This is yet another attempt to reframe prior discussions in a manner different from those originally participating in those discussions, and to deride and portray as conspiracy theorists anyone who disagrees with renaming the article. This is more disruption and failure to stop the abuse of a deceased equid form. 199.66.69.88 (talk) 02:54, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

This is a new name idea that may address most previously-raised concerns and reduce move requests now and for a while. There were no prior RMs for a general title like this. "...portray as conspiracy theorists anyone who disagrees with renaming the article." I don't understand this at all. What conspiracy theory? "...reframe prior discussions in a manner different from those originally participating" The list applies to a different proposal than those previously discussed. - Wikmoz (talk) 03:17, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

I don’t expect you to admit to wrongdoing in making this thread. I’m just asking that an admin close it as disruptive. There is no intention to seek self-criticism here. 199.66.69.88 (talk) 03:22, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Understood. While we may disagree, I certainly appreciate your perspective. Thank you for participating in the discussion. - Wikmoz (talk) 03:32, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Wikmoz: I want to give kudos for starting this thread. The pros and cons are clear. I support this discussion. xinbenlv ^{Talk, Remember to "ping" me} 05:42, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

@Wikmoz: I have closed my other thread and will join this discussion you started. xinbenlv ^{Talk, Remember to "ping" me} 06:25, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

• Support - I'm going to put my foot in here and say that there's no good reason to keep the "Wuhan" in the title. Using "2019-20 coronavirus outbreak" or "2019-20 coronavirus epidemic" is sufficient and would be understood by virtually everyone. The arguments against are turning into gatekeeping now. Tsukide (talk) 08:32, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
• Delete Again, this article intent really for people wanting mess with Wikipedia community. A water down version of the outbreak should be place in main virus page. Regice2020 (talk) 08:43, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

• Propose 2020 Chinese non-computer virus arising from Wuhan, to sort out all conflicts. XavierItzm (talk) 13:41, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Hahaha @XavierItzm: xinbenlv ^{Talk, Remember to "ping" me} 19:00, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

• Support and also Propose 2019-20 coronavirus outbreak (Covid-19), resolve one of the CONS as not very procise xinbenlv ^{Talk, Remember to "ping" me} 19:00, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
• Support All pros and cons indicated by you are neutral and logical. The is no need to include Wuhan in the name of the article if the outbreak/epidemic has gone beyond Wuhan. I have a question... how may I confirm all the articles that redirect to 2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak? Thank you! FranciscoMMartins (talk) 19:17, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
  • [1] All the best: Rich Farmbrough (the apparently calm and reasonable) 19:29, 14 February 2020 (UTC).
    
• Comment The outbreak is of the disease, not the virus! And what (in Wikipedia) to call the disease is being debated at the 2019-nCoV acute respiratory disease page. If you want a new name, then I will suggest 2019-20 coronavirus disease 2019 outbreak. But even that is pending the disease page being renamed to coronavirus disease 2019, which has not happened yet. EMS | Talk 19:40, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, regarding the disease. The proposal is far from perfect but I was aiming to keep this to the simplest possible and most inoffensive change. As soon as "disease" is introduced to the discussion, it opens many new rabbit holes of possible debate. - Wikmoz (talk) 09:25, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

• Support 2019–20 coronavirus outbreak Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:51, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
• Support 2019–20 coronavirus outbreak --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 01:31, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
• Support 2019-20 COVID-19 outbreak or 2019-20 SARS-CoV-2 outbreak or 2019-20 coronavirus disease 2019 outbreak - do not support 2019-20 coronavirus outbreak for ambiguity. People do not support the current title at all this needs senior uninvolved admin input ASAP. Suggest a guideline (nb. I state guideline, not policy) for future, some very heated discussions here that could be avoided. Future diseases may be more virulent and I think this is a good test run for that event. --Almaty (talk) 04:00, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
• Support name change in principle. Naming is difficult, see above strikethrough comment. I think this particular page is best named COVID-19 outbreak per WP:COMMONNAME. Although this doesn't follow precedent, it is clearly the commonest name, removes Wuhan, but arguably at this particular point in time COVID-19 outbreak is the clearest, least ambiguous name. Future outbreaks of SARS-CoV-2, that cause COVID-19, may lead to a change in name of this page. --Almaty (talk) 04:13, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Further to the above, COVID-19 outbreak may not ever need to be renamed. Considering this is a novel disease, in the future, everyone will remember the first time it occurred, which is now. So COVID-19 outbreak, eventually, will become a page on the historical outbreak. There is no need to expand in the title on its initial location, geographical spread, or even the clinical syndrome (which is changing). This is the first time that there has ever been an outbreak of the virus causing COVID-19, therefore per WP:COMMONNAME, COVID-19 outbreak as a title would probably persist for at least a decade, as the commonest name, even if there are future outbreaks. --Almaty (talk) 04:38, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Since the 'common name' in the media REMAINS "coranavirus" - how does your claim of WP:COMMONNAME apply for the WHO designation? - TeeCeeNT (talk) 04:13, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

@TeeCeeNT:, the WP:COMMONNAME policy applies because Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources.. Therefore, we need to use the commonest name that is also unambiguous. --Almaty (talk) 04:48, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

WP:CRYSTALBALL applies to your predictions whether future outbreaks of the COVID-19 disease might happen and how they would be remembered. So far the actual numbers of infected and dead people are far lower than for the ongoing flu season (influenza kills around half a million people every year). This outbreak needs a name that stays unique even if the next outbreak of this disease would kill a billion people. LoveToLondon (talk) 14:26, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

This is a good point. Recognising that it is a global outbreak if you look at the Ebola precedent however it is called "West African Ebola virus epidemic" - not the specific country or city where it was first located. I think that 2019-20 coronavirus outbreak remains ambiguous. Longer titles get unwieldy which is why I think COVID-19 outbreak is clearest (despite it being the disease rather than the virus) --Almaty (talk) 22:23, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

• Support There’s no need to include Wuhan in the title. The 2009 flu pandemic doesn’t include Mexico in the title, the SARS article does not mention Guangdong in the title, nor does the 2015–16 Zika virus epidemic mention Natal, Brazil in the title. Ganymede94 (talk) 06:52, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose The main claims Also conforms to WHO Best Practice Guidelines (2015), which advises against using location names. and even though this is now explicitly discouraged by WHO are incorrect for an outbreak. The World Health Organization Best Practices for the Naming of New Human Infectious Diseases cover only the naming of the disease (which is named COVID-19), not the naming of outbreaks. So Ebola would be named differently today (a non-location name like for the SARS disease), but the established naming of articles for new Ebola outbreaks was not affected by this new WHO policy for diseases and includes the location of the outbreak: 2017 Democratic Republic of the Congo Ebola virus outbreak, 2018 Équateur province Ebola outbreak and the ongoing Kivu Ebola epidemic. WHO calling the latest one 2018–2019 Ebola outbreak in North Kivu and Ituri, the Democratic Republic of the Congo also makes it clear that naming the location of the outbreak is not affected by the new policy on disease naming. 2019–20 Wuhan COVID-19 outbreak would be the correct naming of this specific outbreak of the COVID-19 disease caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus. LoveToLondon (talk) 15:12, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

You're citing local outbreaks that were isolated to a specific region. In those cases, it's logical to specificy the location of the outbreak. Accordingly, if the outbreak hadn't spread or if this topic only covered what was happening in Wuhan, the title you suggested could work or I'd suggest (as would the WHO based on your cited PDF), 2019–20 COVID-19 outbreak in Wuhan to avoid confusion. However, the outbreak is global and the content of this article discusses that global outbreak. - Wikmoz (talk) 18:04, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

The current COVID-19 outbreak is so far not a global outbreak, the point of putting people into quarantine is to prevent a global outbreak. It is more like the Western African Ebola virus epidemic that also had cases imported to Europe and America, including a death in the US. in Wuhan would be misleading since not all cases are at the starting point of the outbreak, just like Ebola virus epidemic in Western African would be misleading since this epidemic also included people who got infected with Ebola in the US. LoveToLondon (talk) 19:14, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

• Trying to get the facts right as basis for consensus I did strike out incorrect information from the overview table at the top:

As explained above the cited WHO guidelines are only about disease naming, not outbreak naming as applies to this article. The article for the disease is COVID-19.

It is not true that coronavirus aligns with scientific name of the disease and virus. The scientific name of the disease is coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and the scientific name of the virus is severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). It would be correct to call it 2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus disease 2019 outbreak, but that sounds more confusing than anything else.

LoveToLondon (talk) 18:50, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

It's relevant to mention in regards to the suggestion of your second point, that it would not be a correct alternative because it's wholly inventive for WP compromise per WP:TITLECHANGES. RS that use COVID-19 do so at the behest of the WHO's explicit adoption of the term to prevent geographic association, thus no RS that adopt COVID-19 would also in titling include "Wuhan" in logic and have not per observance. Sleath56 (talk) 19:58, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

You are still confusing the naming of the disease (should not include location) with the naming of the outbreak (usually contains location). Logic tells that COVID-19 outbreak would be wrong since there might be many future outbreaks (similar to Ebola, which even had two separate outbreaks in Congo in 2018). LoveToLondon (talk) 21:40, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

It's quite clear and so is my response wherein your suggestion is WP:TITLECHANGES. It's rather explicit that the intent of the adoption was to prevent geographic association for transitive suggestions such to split a difference there. The potential for ambiguity is easily resolvable with the inclusion of "2019-20" at the front in my view Sleath56 (talk) 02:19, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Understood. I've revised the original point to clarify that it only supports the WHO naming guidelines to the extent that people interpret "Wuhan" in the title to reference the disease/virus name rather than the location. - Wikmoz (talk) 20:20, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I've added more of my points in cursive to the table for review. LoveToLondon (talk) 23:02, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! I will review them tonight and offer feedback, if any. For now, I've just removed these COMMONNAME examples as they're all from BEFORE the official name was announced. Per WP:NAMECHANGE and WP:COMMONNAME, we'd look for current usage. None of these publishers continue to use "Wuhan coronavirus": NYT (Wuhan coronavirus outbreak), South China Morning Post (Wuhan coronavirus outbreak), Reuters (Wuhan coronavirus outbreak), MarketWatch (Wuhan coronavirus outbreak), SkyNews (Wuhan coronavirus outbreak), Vox (Wuhan coronavirus outbreak), Aljazeera (Wuhan coronavirus outbreak) - Wikmoz (talk) 23:29, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

I took a quick pass and included most of your arguments. Just organized and condensed a bit but let me know if the reworded form misrepresents your position. - Wikmoz (talk) 23:47, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

• Support 2019–20 coronavirus outbreak. Wikmoz provides ample evidence that this is the current common name. And I think we should change this title ASAP to something, anything, that doesn't include Wuhan. Reason: this title can be read as if the name of the disease is "Wuhan coronavirus”. But WHO made a huge point that “We had to find a name that did not refer to a geographical location, an animal, or an individual or group of people” to avoid stigma.[2][3][4] Based on how we have handled other such cases, we have used the full title of the disease in the main article about the disease, and the abbreviated title for the outbreak. Example: Severe acute respiratory syndrome vs. Timeline of the SARS outbreak. That would suggest a change to this title to 2019-20 COVID-19 outbreak. But I'm also fine with the proposed title here, "2019–20 coronavirus outbreak." I don’t really care what we change it to, as long as we change it to SOMETHING. Right now this is even listed on the WP front page, under In the News, as “Wuhan coronavirus outbreak.” That's wrong. We need to fix that. Soon. (BTW I strongly disagree with proposals for a "moratorium" on discussing the name, or demands for a speedy close of such discussions. This issue is only being discussed so heavily because so many people realize that the current name is unfortunate.) -- MelanieN (talk) 21:01, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Your SARS example shows how naming was done in 2003 when Wikipedia was new and had no established rules. The primary source makes it clear that the huge point of the WHO applies only to the naming of the disease, not the naming of the outbreak. More recent examples how we and the WHO handle such cases are:

• 2017 Democratic Republic of the Congo Ebola virus outbreak
• 2018 Équateur province Ebola outbreak
• Kivu Ebola epidemic
• WHO: 2018–2019 Ebola outbreak in North Kivu and Ituri, the Democratic Republic of the Congo

Note how both Wikipedia and WHO are using Kivu in naming of the current outbreak that is a Public Health Emergency of International Concern like the 2019-2020 Wuhan COVID-19 outbreak. LoveToLondon (talk) 22:09, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

A majority of arguments made for "Wuhan" over the past two weeks have been that "Wuhan coronavirus" is the common disease name and won't be confused as specifying the outbreak location. You seem to be for "Wuhan" by making the opposite argument that "Wuhan" indicates the location and won't be confused for the disease name. Both are valid but seemingly contradictory arguments. Maybe there’s some nuance in there that it's specifying the origin location?

The cases you cite were of a named virus "Ebola" isolated to a specific region. I think in those cases, it's logical to specify the region of the outbreak. If the argument is that the current outbreak is not global and localized to China, then you should be equally against "Wuhan" as incorrect and presumably in favor of renaming the topic to "2019–20 China coronavirus outbreak". But again, I can see the exception where you're recommending inclusion of the original location as a reference.

Since those outbreaks were of Ebola, I think it's safer to assume that most people would read it as a location to your point. However, to remove ambiguity, I'd argue that those topic titles should be updated to "2018–2020 Ebola epidemic in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Uganda" (per your PDF, "2017 Ebola virus outbreak in Democratic Republic of the Congo", and "2018 Ebola outbreak in Équateur province". - Wikmoz (talk) 23:22, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Would you also argue that Western African Ebola virus epidemic should be updated to 2013–2016 Ebola epidemic in Western Africa, Europe and the United States? LoveToLondon (talk) 00:02, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

It's a good question. In this case, there was one death and 7 infections outside of West Africa. Perhaps that doesn't cross the line of a global outbreak. I don't know. It would align with the naming of topics like 2013–2014 Zika virus outbreaks in Oceania, where there were isolated cases outside of the region. I could see a couple factors come into play in the decision including that the specified region is half a continent and there's also a named virus in the title so the odds of confusion (i.e. that there's a disease named West African Ebola) are much lower but still there. All said, "2013–2016 Ebola epidemic in West Africa" may be the clearest title. If the international impact was more substantial then perhaps just "2013–2016 Ebola epidemic" would work provided there were no other regional Ebola epidemics in that timeframe, like 2009 flu pandemic. - Wikmoz (talk) 19:33, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

• Support. I don't want to say this but some people view Wikipedia as a reliable source. Many people say we should wait for a common name, but we cannot ignore the fact that the common name itself might be influenced by what the current Wikipedia name is. As such, I believe it is good to adopt a neutral interim name like 2019–20 coronavirus outbreak. --Efly (talk) 22:53, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
• Comment: half-baked WP:PRECISION mumbles:

• I don't know if "2019–20" in the title has precedence. Spanish flu has "1918 influenza pandemic" bolded in the lede despite lasting into 1920. Its sister H1N1 outbreak lasted into 2010 but goes by 2009 flu pandemic. SARS outbreak redirects to Timeline of the SARS outbreak, whose title does not even mention the years. We've dubbed a fellow ongoing coronavirus outbreak 2012 Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus outbreak.
• which is not adequately described by "coronavirus" because it's a family of viruses. It'd be like saying "2009 orthomyxovirus outbreak". "2019–20 coronavirus outbreak" makes it sound like an article discussing all notable coronavirus outbreaks during that time period. As a reader, I'd expect to then find more specific articles about MERS and COVID-19, which isn't what's happening here.
• I'd expect an article titled "2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus oubreak" to be something like 2015 Middle East respiratory syndrome outbreak in South Korea. This article's scope exceeds what happened in Wuhan or Hubei province or even China.

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

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

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

The best place to complain about that is at Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:12, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Infobox map colors

I would kindly like to suggest that the coloring in the infobox map's colors be tweaked. At the moment, I feel like we're using to dark tones for relatively low number of cases. For instance the USA gets a really dark tone for just 16 cases among over 328 million inhabitants. Therefore I would suggest that we tweak which tone is applied to which range of cases. Currently the distribution is as follows (darkest tone on top):

• 1000+
• 100-999
• 10-99
• 5-9
• 2-4
• 1
• none

I suggest to change this to:

• 1000+
• 100-999
• 50-99
• 10-49
• 5-9
• 1-4
• none

An other possibility would be:

• 1000+
• 500-999
• 100-499
• 50-99
• 10-49
• 1-9
• none

Any thoughts?Tvx1 17:29, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

I don’t have any particular feelings about color, just that we should be careful to follow MOS:CONTRAST with whatever is chosen. There’s already been a complaint about accessibility on a different chart on this page (see #Semi-protected edit request on 14 February 2020 above). 199.66.69.88 (talk) 18:32, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

@Tvx1: I'm the author of the map. It has initially been created on January 31st and the scale was determined according to what fitted best at the time. I agree it needs to be changed. The map is now displayed in 36 languages and as a result I feel a bit accountable to update it daily (which wasn't necessarily the initial plan). As told above, what's important is to keep a limited number of categories for contrast readability reasons. I agree with your first scale suggestion, it would fit better with the current situation. However, I need to adjust all frames of the animated GIF for this and I can't take the time immediately, I'll try doing this fast. Metropolitan (talk) 15:55, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for you reply. My proposal was exactly intended to update the shade distribution for the current situation. Do not worry to much about the time it takes to change. There is no deadline on Wikipedia. The most important thing is that the update is made.Tvx1 16:27, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

@Tvx1: Map has been updated. Metropolitan (talk) 06:20, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Problem in counting

Since you reference the "tested confirmed cases" as orange only, this does not meet the graphics. Orange bar has to be (and obviously is) only the active cases which are still open, meaning neither dead or recovered. This is, because you are keeping them in one diagram. So I would propose to either move them into a new diagram or name this organge bar "tested confirmed cases (undecided / active). Kleinelucy (talk) 23:01, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Graph question

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

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

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

Cumulative calculated case fatality rate in China by date, February 2020

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

[EDITED] It looks good, BUT using or even presenting the case fatality rate (CFR) during an outbreak is extremelly deceiving! I'm annoyed by how the WHO keeps using this silly statistic to downplay the severity of the virus! The D/(D+R) is a much better approximation to the final CFR and is, thus, much more useful. If you intend to make a timeline for the CFR, you must make one for the D/(D+R) (ideally in one figure to show how they eventually converge) and mention that the latter is more reliable. Otherwise, it's better to have nothing, since it would be deceiving people with WHO's malefic politics. Alexiscoutinho (talk) 16:16, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Agree, data manufactured by the CCP is false. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 17:22, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree, this graph has to be removed, as it misleads the general public. The graph is mixing (dividing) the number of people infected e.g. 30 days ago and diagnosed 20 days ago (-30 days from today infected, -30+10 days incubation = -20 days diagnosed, 0=today dying) with the people diagnosed today, that is about 10 days ago infected). Even D/(D+R) is not the best approximation, as I can imagine the infection to death time interval can be significantly shorter (or different) than infection to recovery time interval. It will be nice to dig out from the WHO/Chinese data the average time for diagnose to death time interval and diagnose to recovery time interval. This can be used for calculating of better estimate of the mortality by improving D/(D+R) formula. Vladimir.Smutny 12:15, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Agree, the true death chance/mortality at each stage/day of the outbreak should be a bit lower than stock D/(D+R). However, if we try to improve it by considering those delays you mentioned we would likely get framed for WP:OR as we would be adding a degree of subjectivity to the data. I think there would be no problem if we used a professional research that did your suggestion (why isn't the WHO doing it? money involved?). Alternatively, we could comment that the true mortality as of each day (during the outbreak) is a bit lower than the D/(D+R) and much higher than the CFR. Alexiscoutinho (talk) 13:13, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

[Refactored] It isn't deceiving it is a statistic, that is used in outbreak investigation. Please note that Doc James (talk · contribs) is fine with the graph. I'll put in the disclaimer that it is not a mortality rate either. --Almaty (talk) 17:15, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

I have removed the graph. The citation given to support the graph contained nothing like this graph, in which case this goes beyond WP:CALC and into WP:OR. Show a reliable source (preferably MEDRS-compliant) that presents data like that or else I don't see how it is acceptable under WP:OR. And there's certainly no consensus here for the graph, so please establish a consensus for it before seeking to re-add it. Bondegezou (talk) 17:32, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

@Bondegezou: can you please explain how WP:CALC applies? Routine calculations do not count as original research, provided there is consensus among editors that the result of the calculation is obvious, correct, and a meaningful reflection of the sources. I would suggest it passes both tests; the chinese press release explains exactly how they calculate it (within the limits of google translate, and also it is a true reflection of the figures in the sit reps. Although I'm unexperienced as to what we consider obvious and correct I would also argue that the calculation is obvious and correct, its a very simple division expressed as a percentage. It is the commonest method used, has a disclaimer, was verified by another editor quickly Here, and here by @Global Cerebral Ischemia:. The calculation is wikilinked in the title. Main reason to use the table is to avoid primary sources which are conflicting. I think the "death rate" is a major thing that people want to know, and the terminology is important. --Almaty (talk) 21:16, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Well, that escalated quickly. So, is addition fine but division not? Even the stock D/(D+R) shouldn't be considered WP:OR since it's basic probability, which can be learnt before lesson 1 of statistics. Alexiscoutinho (talk) 21:48, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Almaty, I appreciate you are trying hard to do something useful here, but 5 people have expressed views in this discussion: 4 of us do not support this graph's inclusion, while you do. You need to respect that and work out what to do here before you can re-add to the article. Bondegezou (talk) 17:37, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

I am fine with this[5] graph. The one above I am not sure it is needed as we have the other one. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:39, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Ok I did so because I thought Doc James (talk · contribs) supported the second graph. I wouldn't have reinserted it otherwise and there's also 3RR. I won't have time to work on this today. The rationale for having a different graph is because it it shows the best we have on what everyone wants to know IMO. The Chinese cites show it each day I'm pretty sure. --Almaty (talk) 17:53, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

I put it on the timeline page for now. Request help with wikification and from native Chinese speakers to assist with the sourcing. I think its helpful as a separate graph, because when looking at the first graph, it doesn't show how the CFR has been remarkably stable throughout, it looks like its increasing. --Almaty (talk) 18:11, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

We can just put the risk of death here IMO Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:13, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

No no no that's the point @Doc James: we don't know the risk of death, at all. Thats why I think my graph is helpful. --49.195.82.107 (talk) 18:14, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

We have sources that say "As of Feb 11, 2020, the cumulative number of confirmed cases in mainland China has reached 38 800, with 4740 (12·2%) cured cases and 1113 (2·9%) deaths"[6] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:27, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, we have some WP:PRIMARY sources such as the ones you've listed which is why I'm trying to use the WHO. We can see that it is changing on a day to day basis, and as the outbreak continues I expect this will change. Perhaps in late February the graph could then change to a weekly basis, until it stabilises. I don't want to WP:CRYSTAL but I think that will take about a month (just a hunch, we really don't know) --Almaty (talk) 18:34, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Just reiterating, I'm not completely against the graphic, I just want some compromise (at least include D/(D+R) [D = deaths and R = recovered]). Alexiscoutinho (talk) 21:48, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

[Edited] Yeah I'm not sure I agree for the deaths section. CFR is inherently biased especially early in a rapidly spreading outbreak, not due to intent or politics but due to the delay of deaths, as we can see logically. It's still a valid statistic, it's used everywhere and gives good encyclopaedic information, Eventually, it becomes a good indicator of disease severity, but for now I've tried to disclaimer for this outbreak at this stage. I tried to overcome the inherent bias by using the graph, then the reader can come to their own mind, avoiding any synthesis. Im not sure where you source D/D+R? Interested to know. It would likely have even bigger problems, from the top of my head, who defines a recovery, delays in reporting recovery, etc. When you have a surveillance system (as many infectious diseases do, eg. measles in many countries), clinicians are much more likely to input disease, and death rather than recovery, then there's loss to followup when people are better, etc. Also, with WP:CALC which has been referred to you have to do two lots of math, CFR is just the one. --Almaty (talk) 08:11, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

D/(D+R) is shown here 2019–20_Wuhan_coronavirus_data/China_medical_cases. It's probability 101. It's just like calculating how likely it is to get heads or tails: get the events of the outcome you are interested and divide by the total number of events. Alexiscoutinho (talk) 12:03, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes I understand that it has been used on Wiki and it is a simple ratio, thanks @Alexiscoutinho:. Are you able to point me to sources on how/when/why it is used in outbreaks or infectious diseases? Or a WP:MEDRS source showing it used in this outbreak and the disease? --Almaty (talk) 16:13, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

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

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

Bondegezou yes I can see that you don't see consensus here. I'm trying to explain. Recoveries as a data point is not reliable, but we use a lot of it, leading to misinformation IMO. Lots of non WP:MEDRS compliant sources use this type of graph, we cite them many times already. All the outbreak investigators are following this graph closely in the background. I just think it is misleading to give any kind of death rate without using cumulative CFR with a caveat. I'll add worldometers which is being used a lot, hopefully allaying some of your concerns --Almaty (talk) 17:19, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Almaty, I don't see consensus here because there isn't consensus here. Until you have consensus, you should not add your graph anywhere except Talk space. Do not add a revised version of the graph anywhere except Talk space. Doing so is edit-warring and can get you banned. Do you understand? Bondegezou (talk) 17:27, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Bondegezou please calm down, I don't believe I am edit warring. Generally edit warring leads to a block not a ban. I have never broke 3RR.--Almaty (talk) 17:34, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

As per WP:3RR, you can be guilty of edit-warring without breaking 3RR. You have repeatedly re-added content against consensus. When your graph was removed from this article because it lacked support, you added it to two other articles instead! Do you not understand the problem with that? Respect Wikipedia procedures: as per WP:BRD, discuss what you want to do here, in Talk space, with respect to this graph. When you have something that most other editors support, it can be re-added. Not before. Bondegezou (talk) 17:39, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

OK point taken. I was suggested by other editors to put it on other pages, but yourself seems to be the main one following MEDRS. I think the main graph has real statistical problems which will get worse esp if the outbreak continues. Am I allowed to WP:BOLD remove that graph so they both have to be discussed. Also can we please mutually refactor the discussion for clarity and if you want to untemplated warn me, please do so on my talk page for clarity of the dispute. Context - it will take a few weeks for secondary sources to show a graph of my type, followed by a plethora of publications. For the interim our graph is misleading. --Almaty (talk) 17:52, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

My concern is with this graph and your over-eager attempts to place this graph on article space. I do not wish to restrict your other edits: if you think another graph is problematic, BOLDy remove it, explain why in a new section. We have had a large number of reliable source coronavirus publications, so I don't believe your argument that it will take a few weeks for secondary sources to show a graph of my type. I doubt such will appear, because it's not a useful graph. Bondegezou (talk) 18:46, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, however we both should not be WP:CRYSTAL, the epidemiologists are interpreting heaps of data. I'll Boldly remove the graph (very reluctantly) and put it on the RfC which explains all the concerns. Thanks --Almaty (talk) 19:23, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

References

RfC about epidemiology

COVID-19 cases in Mainland China  ()
     Deaths        Recoveries        Tested        Clinically diagnosed (C.D.)        Tested or C.D.

20192019202020202021202120222022

DecDec

JanJanFebFebMarMarAprAprMayMayJunJunJulJulAugAugSepSepOctOctNovNovDecDec

JanJanFebFebMarMarAprAprMayMayJunJunJulJulAugAugSepSepOctOctNovNovDecDec

JanJan

Last 15 daysLast 15 days

Date			Number of cases (excluding C.D.)	Number of cases (including C.D.)
2019-12-31				27(n.a.)
⋮				27(=)
2020-01-03				44(+63%)
2020-01-04				44(=)
2020-01-05				59(+34%)
⋮				59(=)
2020-01-10			41(n.a.)
2020-01-11			41(=)
2020-01-12			41(=)
⋮			41(=)
2020-01-15			41(=)
2020-01-16			45(+9.8%)
2020-01-17			62(+38%)
2020-01-18			121(+95%)
2020-01-19			198(+64%)
2020-01-20			291(+47%)
2020-01-21			440(+51%)
2020-01-22			571(+30%)
2020-01-23			830(+45%)
2020-01-24			1,287(+55%)
2020-01-25			1,975(+53%)
2020-01-26			2,744(+39%)
2020-01-27			4,515(+65%)
2020-01-28			5,974(+32%)
2020-01-29			7,711(+29%)
2020-01-30			9,692(+26%)
2020-01-31			11,791(+22%)
2020-02-01			14,380(+22%)
2020-02-02			17,205(+20%)
2020-02-03			20,438(+19%)
2020-02-04			24,324(+19%)
2020-02-05			28,018(+15%)
2020-02-06			31,161(+11%)
2020-02-07			34,546(+11%)
2020-02-08			37,198(+7.7%)
2020-02-09			40,171(+8%)
2020-02-10			42,638(+6.1%)	48,315(n.a.)
2020-02-11			44,653(+4.7%)	55,220(+14%)
2020-02-12			46,472(+4.1%)	58,761(+6.4%)
2020-02-13			48,467(+4.3%)	63,851(+8.7%)
2020-02-14			49,970(+3.1%)	66,492(+4.1%)
2020-02-15			51,091(+2.2%)	68,500(+3.0%)
2020-02-16				70,548(+3.0%)
2020-02-17				72,436(+2.7%)
2020-02-18				74,185(+2.4%)
2020-02-19				75,002(+1.1%)
2020-02-20				75,891(+1.2%)
2020-02-21				76,288(+0.52%)
2020-02-22				76,936(+0.85%)
2020-02-23				77,150(+0.28%)
2020-02-24				77,658(+0.66%)
2020-02-25				78,064(+0.52%)
2020-02-26				78,497(+0.55%)
2020-02-27				78,824(+0.42%)
2020-02-28				79,251(+0.54%)
2020-02-29				79,824(+0.72%)
2020-03-01				80,026(+0.25%)
2020-03-02				80,151(+0.16%)
2020-03-03				80,270(+0.15%)
2020-03-04				80,409(+0.17%)
2020-03-05				80,552(+0.18%)
2020-03-06				80,651(+0.12%)
2020-03-07				80,695(+0.05%)
2020-03-08				80,735(+0.05%)
2020-03-09				80,754(+0.02%)
2020-03-10				80,778(+0.03%)
2020-03-11				80,793(+0.02%)
2020-03-12				80,813(+0.02%)
2020-03-13				80,824(+0.01%)
2020-03-14				80,844(+0.02%)
2020-03-15				80,860(+0.02%)
2020-03-16				80,881(+0.03%)
2020-03-17				80,894(+0.02%)
2020-03-18				80,928(+0.04%)
2020-03-19				80,967(+0.05%)
2020-03-20				81,008(+0.05%)
2020-03-21				81,054(+0.06%)
2020-03-22				81,093(+0.05%)
2020-03-23				81,171(+0.1%)
2020-03-24				81,218(+0.06%)
2020-03-25				81,285(+0.08%)
2020-03-26				81,340(+0.07%)
2020-03-27				81,394(+0.07%)
2020-03-28				81,439(+0.06%)
2020-03-29				81,470(+0.04%)
2020-03-30				81,518(+0.06%)
2020-03-31				81,554(+0.04%)
2020-04-01				81,589(+0.04%)
2020-04-02				81,620(+0.04%)
2020-04-03				81,639(+0.02%)
2020-04-04				81,669(+0.04%)
2020-04-05				81,708(+0.05%)
2020-04-06				81,740(+0.04%)
2020-04-07				81,802(+0.08%)
2020-04-08				81,865(+0.08%)
2020-04-09				81,907(+0.05%)
2020-04-10				81,953(+0.06%)
2020-04-11				82,052(+0.12%)
2020-04-12				82,160(+0.13%)
2020-04-13				82,249(+0.11%)
2020-04-14				82,295(+0.06%)
2020-04-15				82,341(+0.06%)
2020-04-16				82,692(+0.43%)
2020-04-17				82,719(+0.03%)
2020-04-18				82,735(+0.02%)
2020-04-19				82,747(+0.01%)
2020-04-20				82,758(+0.01%)
2020-04-21				82,788(+0.04%)
2020-04-22				82,798(+0.01%)
2020-04-23				82,804(+0.01%)
2020-04-24				82,816(+0.01%)
2020-04-25				82,827(+0.01%)
2020-04-26				82,830(=)
2020-04-27				82,836(+0.01%)
2020-04-28				82,858(+0.03%)
2020-04-29				82,862(=)
2020-04-30				82,874(+0.01%)
2020-05-01				82,875(=)
2020-05-02				82,877(=)
2020-05-03				82,880(=)
2020-05-04				82,881(=)
2020-05-05				82,883(=)
2020-05-06				82,885(=)
2020-05-07				82,886(=)
2020-05-08				82,887(=)
2020-05-09				82,901(+0.02%)
2020-05-10				82,918(+0.02%)
2020-05-11				82,919(=)
2020-05-12				82,926(+0.01%)
2020-05-13				82,929(=)
2020-05-14				82,933(=)
2020-05-15				82,941(+0.01%)
2020-05-16				82,947(+0.01%)
2020-05-17				82,954(+0.01%)
2020-05-18				82,960(+0.01%)
2020-05-19				82,965(+0.01%)
2020-05-20				82,967(=)
2020-05-21				82,971(=)
2020-05-22				82,971(=)
2020-05-23				82,974(=)
2020-05-24				82,985(+0.01%)
2020-05-25				82,992(+0.01%)
2020-05-26				82,993(=)
2020-05-27				82,995(=)
2020-05-28				82,995(=)
2020-05-29				82,999(=)
2020-05-30				83,001(=)
2020-05-31				83,017(+0.02%)
2020-06-01				83,022(+0.01%)
2020-06-02				83,021(=)
2020-06-03				83,022(=)
2020-06-04				83,027(+0.01%)
2020-06-05				83,030(=)
2020-06-06				83,036(+0.01%)
2020-06-07				83,040(=)
2020-06-08				83,043(=)
2020-06-09				83,046(=)
2020-06-10				83,057(+0.01%)
2020-06-11				83,064(+0.01%)
2020-06-12				83,075(+0.01%)
2020-06-13				83,132(+0.07%)
2020-06-14				83,181(+0.06%)
2020-06-15				83,221(+0.05%)
2020-06-16				83,265(+0.05%)
2020-06-17				83,293(+0.03%)
2020-06-18				83,325(+0.04%)
2020-06-19				83,352(+0.03%)
2020-06-20				83,378(+0.03%)
2020-06-21				83,396(+0.02%)
2020-06-22				83,418(+0.03%)
2020-06-23				83,430(+0.01%)
2020-06-24				83,449(+0.02%)
2020-06-25				83,462(+0.02%)
2020-06-26				83,483(+0.03%)
2020-06-27				83,500(+0.02%)
2020-06-28				83,512(+0.01%)
2020-06-29				83,531(+0.02%)
2020-06-30				83,534(=)
2020-07-01				83,537(=)
2020-07-02				83,542(+0.01%)
2020-07-03				83,545(=)
2020-07-04				83,553(+0.01%)
2020-07-05				83,557(=)
2020-07-06				83,565(+0.01%)
2020-07-07				83,572(+0.01%)
2020-07-08				83,581(+0.01%)
2020-07-09				83,585(=)
2020-07-10				83,587(=)
2020-07-11				83,594(+0.01%)
2020-07-12				83,602(+0.01%)
2020-07-13				83,605(=)
2020-07-14				83,611(+0.01%)
2020-07-15				83,612(=)
2020-07-16				83,622(+0.01%)
2020-07-17				83,644(+0.03%)
2020-07-18				83,660(+0.02%)
2020-07-19				83,682(+0.03%)
2020-07-20				83,693(+0.01%)
2020-07-21				83,707(+0.02%)
2020-07-22				83,729(+0.03%)
2020-07-23				83,750(+0.03%)
2020-07-24				83,784(+0.04%)
2020-07-25				83,830(+0.05%)
2020-07-26				83,891(+0.07%)
2020-07-27				83,959(+0.08%)
2020-07-28				84,060(+0.12%)
2020-07-29				84,165(+0.12%)
2020-07-30				84,292(+0.15%)
2020-07-31				84,337(+0.05%)
2020-08-01				84,385(+0.06%)
2020-08-02				84,428(+0.05%)
2020-08-03				84,464(+0.04%)
2020-08-04				84,491(+0.03%)
2020-08-05				84,528(+0.04%)
2020-08-06				84,565(+0.04%)
2020-08-07				84,596(+0.04%)
2020-08-08				84,619(+0.03%)
2020-08-09				84,668(+0.06%)
2020-08-10				84,712(+0.05%)
2020-08-11				84,737(+0.03%)
2020-08-12				84,756(+0.02%)
2020-08-13				84,786(+0.04%)
2020-08-14				84,808(+0.03%)
2020-08-15				84,827(+0.02%)
2020-08-16				84,849(+0.03%)
2020-08-17				84,871(+0.03%)
2020-08-18				84,888(+0.02%)
2020-08-19				84,895(+0.01%)
2020-08-20				84,917(+0.03%)
2020-08-21				84,939(+0.03%)
2020-08-22				84,951(+0.01%)
2020-08-23				84,967(+0.02%)
2020-08-24				84,981(+0.02%)
2020-08-25				84,996(+0.02%)
2020-08-26				85,004(+0.01%)
2020-08-27				85,013(+0.01%)
2020-08-28				85,022(+0.01%)
2020-08-29				85,031(+0.01%)
2020-08-30				85,048(+0.02%)
2020-08-31				85,058(+0.01%)
2020-09-01				85,066(+0.01%)
2020-09-02				85,077(+0.01%)
2020-09-03				85,102(+0.03%)
2020-09-04				85,112(+0.01%)
2020-09-05				85,122(+0.01%)
2020-09-06				85,134(+0.01%)
2020-09-07				85,144(+0.01%)
2020-09-08				85,146(=)
2020-09-09				85,153(+0.01%)
2020-09-10				85,168(+0.02%)
2020-09-11				85,174(+0.01%)
2020-09-12				85,184(+0.01%)
2020-09-13				85,194(+0.01%)
2020-09-14				85,202(+0.01%)
2020-09-15				85,214(+0.01%)
2020-09-16				85,223(+0.01%)
2020-09-17				85,255(+0.04%)
2020-09-18				85,269(+0.02%)
2020-09-19				85,279(+0.01%)
2020-09-20				85,291(+0.01%)
2020-09-21				85,297(+0.01%)
2020-09-22				85,307(+0.01%)
2020-09-23				85,314(+0.01%)
2020-09-24				85,322(+0.01%)
2020-09-25				85,337(+0.02%)
2020-09-26				85,351(+0.02%)
2020-09-27				85,372(+0.02%)
2020-09-28				85,384(+0.01%)
2020-09-29				85,403(+0.02%)
2020-09-30				85,414(+0.01%)
2020-10-01				85,424(+0.01%)
2020-10-02				85,434(+0.01%)
2020-10-03				85,450(+0.02%)
2020-10-04				85,470(+0.02%)
2020-10-05				85,482(+0.01%)
2020-10-06				85,489(+0.01%)
2020-10-07				85,500(+0.01%)
2020-10-08				85,521(+0.02%)
2020-10-09				85,536(+0.02%)
2020-10-10				85,557(+0.02%)
2020-10-11				85,578(+0.02%)
2020-10-12				85,591(+0.02%)
2020-10-13				85,611(+0.02%)
2020-10-14				85,622(+0.01%)
2020-10-15				85,646(+0.03%)
2020-10-16				85,659(+0.02%)
2020-10-17				85,672(+0.02%)
2020-10-18				85,685(+0.02%)
2020-10-19				85,704(+0.02%)
2020-10-20				85,715(+0.01%)
2020-10-21				85,729(+0.02%)
2020-10-22				85,747(+0.02%)
2020-10-23				85,775(+0.03%)
2020-10-24				85,790(+0.02%)
2020-10-25				85,810(+0.02%)
2020-10-26				85,826(+0.02%)
2020-10-27				85,868(+0.05%)
2020-10-28				85,915(+0.05%)
2020-10-29				85,940(+0.03%)
2020-10-30				85,973(+0.04%)
2020-10-31				85,997(+0.03%)
2020-11-01				86,021(+0.03%)
2020-11-02				86,070(+0.06%)
2020-11-03				86,087(+0.02%)
2020-11-04				86,115(+0.03%)
2020-11-05				86,151(+0.04%)
2020-11-06				86,184(+0.04%)
2020-11-07				86,212(+0.03%)
2020-11-08				86,245(+0.04%)
2020-11-09				86,267(+0.03%)
2020-11-10				86,284(+0.02%)
2020-11-11				86,299(+0.02%)
2020-11-12				86,307(+0.01%)
2020-11-13				86,325(+0.02%)
2020-11-14				86,338(+0.02%)
2020-11-15				86,346(+0.01%)
2020-11-16				86,361(+0.02%)
2020-11-17				86,369(+0.01%)
2020-11-18				86,381(+0.01%)
2020-11-19				86,398(+0.02%)
2020-11-20				86,414(+0.02%)
2020-11-21				86,431(+0.02%)
2020-11-22				86,442(+0.01%)
2020-11-23				86,464(+0.03%)
2020-11-24				86,469(+0.01%)
2020-11-25				86,490(+0.02%)
2020-11-26				86,495(+0.01%)
2020-11-27				86,501(+0.01%)
2020-11-28				86,512(+0.01%)
2020-11-29				86,530(+0.02%)
2020-11-30				86,542(+0.01%)
2020-12-01				86,551(+0.01%)
2020-12-02				86,567(+0.02%)
2020-12-03				86,584(+0.02%)
2020-12-04				86,601(+0.02%)
2020-12-05				86,619(+0.02%)
2020-12-06				86,634(+0.02%)
2020-12-07				86,646(+0.01%)
2020-12-08				86,661(+0.02%)
2020-12-09				86,673(+0.01%)
2020-12-10				86,688(+0.02%)
2020-12-11				86,701(+0.01%)
2020-12-12				86,725(+0.03%)
2020-12-13				86,741(+0.02%)
2020-12-14				86,758(+0.02%)
2020-12-15				86,770(+0.01%)
2020-12-16				86,777(+0.01%)
2020-12-17				86,789(+0.01%)
2020-12-18				86,806(+0.02%)
2020-12-19				86,829(+0.03%)
2020-12-20				86,852(+0.03%)
2020-12-21				86,867(+0.02%)
2020-12-22				86,882(+0.02%)
2020-12-23				86,899(+0.02%)
2020-12-24				86,913(+0.02%)
2020-12-25				86,933(+0.02%)
2020-12-26				86,955(+0.03%)
2020-12-27				86,976(+0.02%)
2020-12-28				87,003(+0.03%)
2020-12-29				87,027(+0.03%)
2020-12-30				87,052(+0.03%)
2020-12-31				87,071(+0.02%)
2021-01-01				87,093(+0.03%)
2021-01-02				87,117(+0.03%)
2021-01-03				87,150(+0.04%)
2021-01-04				87,183(+0.04%)
2021-01-05				87,215(+0.04%)
2021-01-06				87,278(+0.07%)
2021-01-07				87,331(+0.06%)
2021-01-08				87,364(+0.04%)
2021-01-09				87,433(+0.08%)
2021-01-10				87,536(+0.12%)
2021-01-11				87,591(+0.06%)
2021-01-12				87,706(+0.13%)
2021-01-13				87,844(+0.16%)
2021-01-14				87,988(+0.16%)
2021-01-15				88,118(+0.15%)
2021-01-16				88,227(+0.12%)
2021-01-17				88,336(+0.12%)
2021-01-18				88,454(+0.13%)
2021-01-19				88,557(+0.12%)
2021-01-20				88,701(+0.16%)
2021-01-21				88,804(+0.12%)
2021-01-22				88,911(+0.12%)
2021-01-23				88,991(+0.09%)
2021-01-24				89,115(+0.14%)
2021-01-25				89,197(+0.09%)
2021-01-26				89,272(+0.08%)
2021-01-27				89,326(+0.06%)
2021-01-28				89,378(+0.06%)
2021-01-29				89,430(+0.06%)
2021-01-30				89,522(+0.1%)
2021-01-31				89,564(+0.05%)
2021-02-01				89,594(+0.03%)
2021-02-02				89,619(+0.03%)
2021-02-03				89,649(+0.03%)
2021-02-04				89,669(+0.02%)
2021-02-05				89,681(+0.01%)
2021-02-06				89,692(+0.01%)
2021-02-07				89,706(+0.02%)
2021-02-08				89,720(+0.02%)
2021-02-09				89,734(+0.02%)
2021-02-10				89,736(=)
2021-02-11				89,748(+0.01%)
2021-02-12				89,756(+0.01%)
2021-02-13				89,763(+0.01%)
2021-02-14				89,772(+0.01%)
2021-02-15				89,788(+0.02%)
2021-02-16				89,795(+0.01%)
2021-02-17				89,806(+0.01%)
2021-02-18				89,816(+0.01%)
2021-02-19				89,824(+0.01%)
2021-02-20				89,831(+0.01%)
2021-02-21				89,842(+0.01%)
2021-02-22				89,852(+0.01%)
2021-02-23				89,864(+0.01%)
2021-02-24				89,871(+0.01%)
2021-02-25				89,877(+0.01%)
2021-02-26				89,887(+0.01%)
2021-02-27				89,893(+0.01%)
2021-02-28				89,912(+0.02%)
2021-03-01				89,923(+0.01%)
2021-03-02				89,933(+0.01%)
2021-03-03				89,943(+0.01%)
2021-03-04				89,952(+0.01%)
2021-03-05				89,962(+0.01%)
2021-03-06				89,975(+0.01%)
2021-03-07				89,994(+0.02%)
2021-03-08				90,002(+0.01%)
2021-03-09				90,007(+0.01%)
2021-03-10				90,018(+0.01%)
2021-03-11				90,027(+0.01%)
2021-03-12				90,034(+0.01%)
2021-03-13				90,044(+0.01%)
2021-03-14				90,049(+0.01%)
2021-03-15				90,062(+0.01%)
2021-03-16				90,066(=)
2021-03-17				90,072(+0.01%)
2021-03-18				90,083(+0.01%)
2021-03-19				90,087(=)
2021-03-20				90,099(+0.01%)
2021-03-21				90,106(+0.01%)
2021-03-22				90,115(+0.01%)
2021-03-23				90,125(+0.01%)
2021-03-24				90,136(+0.01%)
2021-03-25				90,147(+0.01%)
2021-03-26				90,159(+0.01%)
2021-03-27				90,167(+0.01%)
2021-03-28				90,182(+0.02%)
2021-03-29				90,190(+0.01%)
2021-03-30				90,201(+0.01%)
2021-03-31				90,217(+0.02%)
2021-04-01				90,226(+0.01%)
2021-04-02				90,252(+0.03%)
2021-04-03				90,273(+0.02%)
2021-04-04				90,305(+0.04%)
2021-04-05				90,329(+0.03%)
2021-04-06				90,341(+0.01%)
2021-04-07				90,365(+0.03%)
2021-04-08				90,386(+0.02%)
2021-04-09				90,400(+0.02%)
2021-04-10				90,410(+0.01%)
2021-04-11				90,426(+0.02%)
2021-04-12				90,435(+0.01%)
2021-04-13				90,447(+0.01%)
2021-04-14				90,457(+0.01%)
2021-04-15				90,468(+0.01%)
2021-04-16				90,483(+0.02%)
2021-04-17				90,499(+0.02%)
2021-04-18				90,510(+0.01%)
2021-04-19				90,520(+0.01%)
2021-04-20				90,541(+0.02%)
2021-04-21				90,547(+0.01%)
2021-04-22				90,566(+0.02%)
2021-04-23				90,575(+0.01%)
2021-04-24				90,588(+0.01%)
2021-04-25				90,599(+0.01%)
2021-04-26				90,610(+0.01%)
2021-04-27				90,622(+0.01%)
2021-04-28				90,642(+0.02%)
2021-04-29				90,655(+0.01%)
2021-04-30				90,671(+0.02%)
2021-05-01				90,686(+0.02%)
2021-05-02				90,697(+0.01%)
2021-05-03				90,714(+0.02%)
2021-05-04				90,721(+0.01%)
2021-05-05				90,726(+0.01%)
2021-05-06				90,739(+0.01%)
2021-05-07				90,746(+0.01%)
2021-05-08				90,758(+0.01%)
2021-05-09				90,769(+0.01%)
2021-05-10				90,783(+0.02%)
2021-05-11				90,799(+0.02%)
2021-05-12				90,808(+0.01%)
2021-05-13				90,815(+0.01%)
2021-05-14				90,829(+0.02%)
2021-05-15				90,847(+0.02%)
2021-05-16				90,872(+0.03%)
2021-05-17				90,894(+0.02%)
2021-05-18				90,908(+0.02%)
2021-05-19				90,920(+0.01%)
2021-05-20				90,944(+0.03%)
2021-05-21				90,954(+0.01%)
2021-05-22				90,973(+0.02%)
2021-05-23				90,991(+0.02%)
2021-05-24				91,006(+0.02%)
2021-05-25				91,019(+0.01%)
2021-05-26				91,038(+0.02%)
2021-05-27				91,045(+0.01%)
2021-05-28				91,061(+0.02%)
2021-05-29				91,072(+0.01%)
2021-05-30				91,099(+0.03%)
2021-05-31				91,122(+0.03%)
2021-06-01				91,146(+0.03%)
2021-06-02				91,170(+0.03%)
2021-06-03				91,194(+0.03%)
2021-06-04				91,218(+0.03%)
2021-06-05				91,248(+0.03%)
2021-06-06				91,267(+0.02%)
2021-06-07				91,300(+0.04%)
2021-06-08				91,316(+0.02%)
2021-06-09				91,337(+0.02%)
2021-06-10				91,359(+0.02%)
2021-06-11				91,394(+0.04%)
2021-06-12				91,428(+0.04%)
2021-06-13				91,451(+0.03%)
2021-06-14				91,471(+0.02%)
2021-06-15				91,492(+0.02%)
2021-06-16				91,511(+0.02%)
2021-06-17				91,534(+0.03%)
2021-06-18				91,564(+0.03%)
2021-06-19				91,587(+0.03%)
2021-06-20				91,604(+0.02%)
2021-06-21				91,629(+0.03%)
2021-06-22				91,653(+0.03%)
2021-06-23				91,669(+0.02%)
2021-06-24				91,693(+0.03%)
2021-06-25				91,718(+0.03%)
2021-06-26				91,732(+0.02%)
2021-06-27				91,753(+0.02%)
2021-06-28				91,771(+0.02%)
2021-06-29				91,780(+0.01%)
2021-06-30				91,792(+0.01%)
2021-07-01				91,810(+0.02%)
2021-07-02				91,833(+0.03%)
2021-07-03				91,847(+0.02%)
2021-07-04				91,869(+0.02%)
2021-07-05				91,892(+0.03%)
2021-07-06				91,949(+0.06%)
2021-07-07				91,966(+0.02%)
2021-07-08				91,989(+0.03%)
2021-07-09				92,015(+0.03%)
2021-07-10				92,039(+0.03%)
2021-07-11				92,066(+0.03%)
2021-07-12				92,095(+0.03%)
2021-07-13				92,119(+0.03%)
2021-07-14				92,147(+0.03%)
2021-07-15				92,183(+0.04%)
2021-07-16				92,213(+0.03%)
2021-07-17				92,246(+0.04%)
2021-07-18				92,277(+0.03%)
2021-07-19				92,342(+0.07%)
2021-07-20				92,364(+0.02%)
2021-07-21				92,414(+0.05%)
2021-07-22				92,462(+0.05%)
2021-07-23				92,497(+0.04%)
2021-07-24				92,529(+0.03%)
2021-07-25				92,605(+0.08%)
2021-07-26				92,676(+0.08%)
2021-07-27				92,762(+0.09%)
2021-07-28				92,811(+0.05%)
2021-07-29				92,875(+0.07%)
2021-07-30				92,930(+0.06%)
2021-07-31				93,005(+0.08%)
2021-08-01				93,103(+0.11%)
2021-08-02				93,193(+0.1%)
2021-08-03				93,289(+0.1%)
2021-08-04				93,374(+0.09%)
2021-08-05				93,498(+0.13%)
2021-08-06				93,605(+0.11%)
2021-08-07				93,701(+0.1%)
2021-08-08				93,826(+0.13%)
2021-08-09				93,969(+0.15%)
2021-08-10				94,080(+0.12%)
2021-08-11				94,161(+0.09%)
2021-08-12				94,260(+0.11%)
2021-08-13				94,326(+0.07%)
2021-08-14				94,379(+0.06%)
2021-08-15				94,430(+0.05%)
2021-08-16				94,472(+0.04%)
2021-08-17				94,500(+0.03%)
2021-08-18				94,546(+0.05%)
2021-08-19				94,579(+0.03%)
2021-08-20				94,599(+0.02%)
2021-08-21				94,631(+0.03%)
2021-08-22				94,652(+0.02%)
2021-08-23				94,687(+0.04%)
2021-08-24				94,707(+0.02%)
2021-08-25				94,733(+0.03%)
2021-08-26				94,765(+0.03%)
2021-08-27				94,786(+0.02%)
2021-08-28				94,819(+0.03%)
2021-08-29				94,842(+0.02%)
2021-08-30				94,879(+0.04%)
2021-08-31				94,898(+0.02%)
2021-09-01				94,926(+0.03%)
2021-09-02				94,954(+0.03%)
2021-09-03				94,982(+0.03%)
2021-09-04				95,010(+0.03%)
2021-09-05				95,028(+0.02%)
2021-09-06				95,064(+0.04%)
2021-09-07				95,083(+0.02%)
2021-09-08				95,111(+0.03%)
2021-09-09				95,128(+0.02%)
2021-09-10				95,153(+0.03%)
2021-09-11				95,199(+0.05%)
2021-09-12				95,248(+0.05%)
2021-09-13				95,340(+0.1%)
2021-09-14				95,413(+0.08%)
2021-09-15				95,493(+0.08%)
2021-09-16				95,577(+0.09%)
2021-09-17				95,623(+0.05%)
2021-09-18				95,689(+0.07%)
2021-09-19				95,738(+0.05%)
2021-09-20				95,810(+0.08%)
2021-09-21				95,851(+0.04%)
2021-09-22				95,894(+0.04%)
2021-09-23				95,948(+0.06%)
2021-09-24				95,986(+0.04%)
2021-09-25				96,015(+0.03%)
2021-09-26				96,050(+0.04%)
2021-09-27				96,081(+0.03%)
2021-09-28				96,106(+0.03%)
2021-09-29				96,128(+0.02%)
2021-09-30				96,162(+0.04%)
2021-10-01				96,203(+0.04%)
2021-10-02				96,231(+0.03%)
2021-10-03				96,258(+0.03%)
2021-10-04				96,284(+0.03%)
2021-10-05				96,310(+0.03%)
2021-10-06				96,335(+0.03%)
2021-10-07				96,357(+0.02%)
2021-10-08				96,374(+0.02%)
2021-10-09				96,398(+0.02%)
2021-10-10				96,423(+0.03%)
2021-10-11				96,435(+0.01%)
2021-10-12				96,457(+0.02%)
2021-10-13				96,478(+0.02%)
2021-10-14				96,488(+0.01%)
2021-10-15				96,502(+0.01%)
2021-10-16				96,522(+0.02%)
2021-10-17				96,546(+0.02%)
2021-10-18				96,571(+0.03%)
2021-10-19				96,601(+0.03%)
2021-10-20				96,622(+0.02%)
2021-10-21				96,665(+0.04%)
2021-10-22				96,715(+0.05%)
2021-10-23				96,758(+0.04%)
2021-10-24				96,797(+0.04%)
2021-10-25				96,840(+0.04%)
2021-10-26				96,899(+0.06%)
2021-10-27				96,938(+0.04%)
2021-10-28				97,002(+0.07%)
2021-10-29				97,080(+0.08%)
2021-10-30				97,151(+0.07%)
2021-10-31				97,243(+0.09%)
2021-11-01				97,314(+0.07%)
2021-11-02				97,423(+0.11%)
2021-11-03				97,527(+0.11%)
2021-11-04				97,605(+0.08%)
2021-11-05				97,660(+0.06%)
2021-11-06				97,734(+0.08%)
2021-11-07				97,823(+0.09%)
2021-11-08				97,885(+0.06%)
2021-11-09				97,939(+0.06%)
2021-11-10				98,001(+0.06%)
2021-11-11				98,099(+0.1%)
2021-11-12				98,174(+0.08%)
2021-11-13				98,263(+0.09%)
2021-11-14				98,315(+0.05%)
2021-11-15				98,337(+0.02%)
2021-11-16				98,368(+0.03%)
2021-11-17				98,403(+0.04%)
2021-11-18				98,427(+0.02%)
2021-11-19				98,450(+0.02%)
2021-11-20				98,467(+0.02%)
2021-11-21				98,505(+0.04%)
2021-11-22				98,524(+0.02%)
2021-11-23				98,546(+0.02%)
2021-11-24				98,570(+0.02%)
2021-11-25				98,583(+0.01%)
2021-11-26				98,608(+0.03%)
2021-11-27				98,631(+0.02%)
2021-11-28				98,672(+0.04%)
2021-11-29				98,711(+0.04%)
2021-11-30				98,824(+0.11%)
2021-12-01				98,897(+0.07%)
2021-12-02				98,993(+0.1%)
2021-12-03				99,083(+0.09%)
2021-12-04				99,142(+0.06%)
2021-12-05				99,203(+0.06%)
2021-12-06				99,297(+0.09%)
2021-12-07				99,371(+0.07%)
2021-12-08				99,454(+0.08%)
2021-12-09				99,517(+0.06%)
2021-12-10				99,604(+0.09%)
2021-12-11				99,679(+0.08%)
2021-12-12				99,780(+0.1%)
2021-12-13				99,856(+0.08%)
2021-12-14				99,923(+0.07%)
2021-12-15				100,000(+0.08%)
2021-12-16				100,076(+0.08%)
2021-12-17				100,201(+0.12%)
2021-12-18				100,284(+0.08%)
2021-12-19				100,386(+0.1%)
2021-12-20				100,467(+0.08%)
2021-12-21				100,544(+0.08%)
2021-12-22				100,644(+0.1%)
2021-12-23				100,731(+0.09%)
2021-12-24				100,871(+0.14%)
2021-12-25				101,077(+0.2%)
2021-12-26				101,277(+0.2%)
2021-12-27				101,486(+0.21%)
2021-12-28				101,683(+0.19%)
2021-12-29				101,890(+0.2%)
2021-12-30				102,083(+0.19%)
2021-12-31				102,314(+0.23%)
2022-01-01				102,505(+0.19%)
2022-01-02				102,666(+0.16%)
2022-01-03				102,841(+0.17%)
2022-01-04				102,932(+0.09%)
2022-01-05				103,121(+0.18%)
2022-01-06				103,295(+0.17%)
2022-01-07				103,454(+0.15%)
2022-01-08				103,619(+0.16%)
2022-01-09				103,776(+0.15%)
2022-01-10				103,968(+0.19%)
2022-01-11				104,189(+0.21%)
2022-01-12				104,379(+0.18%)
2022-01-13				104,580(+0.19%)
2022-01-14				104,745(+0.16%)
2022-01-15				104,864(+0.11%)
2022-01-16				105,087(+0.21%)
2022-01-17				105,258(+0.16%)
2022-01-18				105,345(+0.08%)
2022-01-19				105,411(+0.06%)
2022-01-20				105,484(+0.07%)
2022-01-21				105,547(+0.06%)
2022-01-22				105,603(+0.05%)
2022-01-23				105,660(+0.05%)
2022-01-24				105,705(+0.04%)
2022-01-25				105,749(+0.04%)
2022-01-26				105,811(+0.06%)
2022-01-27				105,875(+0.06%)
2022-01-28				105,934(+0.06%)
2022-01-29				106,015(+0.08%)
2022-01-30				106,073(+0.05%)
2022-01-31				106,139(+0.06%)
From 10 February 2020 onwards, the data includes the cases in Hubei that were not tested for the virus but clinically diagnosed based on medical imaging showing signs of pneumonia. The lab-tested data was also separately available for 10–15 February 2020. Data from 16 February 2020 onwards did not include a separate number of lab-tested cases. From 19 February 2020 onwards, only new lab-tested cases were counted towards the total (but clinically diagnosed cases counted earlier were not discarded). On 17 April 2020, following the Wuhan government's issuance of a report on accounting for COVID-19 deaths that occurred at home that went previously unreported, as well as the subtraction of deaths that were previously double-counted by different hospitals, the NHC revised their cumulative totals dating to 16 April, adding 325 cumulative cases and 1,290 deaths. Data sourced from NHC daily reports. (In another link before January 25, on Wuhan MHC website before January 10)

Complex discussion. Think needs a bit more than third opinion.
We have a graph on the COVID-19 outbreak page that has consensus, and whilst its great and speedily updated I believe it is slightly misleading. I have concerns about the data point "recoveries" - and any inferences the reader may make from this. Recoveries has a few problems, namely that clinicians are less likely to report recoveries, loss to followup etc. They generally always report cases and deaths in a rapidly developing outbreak such as this

I'm suggesting balancing the current graph with this graph:

Cumulative calculated case fatality rate in China by date, February 2020

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

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

Comment So sorry to WP:Boldly remove the current graph, as discussed with another editor. I recommend putting it back in once recoveries is removed for now, the achieve consensus about the recovery deferring to experts where possible. I think this letter is explaining a significant amount of the epidemiological uncertainty well. Also, Sorry I will not be available for replies for about 10-12 hours. --Almaty (talk) 19:33, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

User:Almaty Can we make the graph of % mortality narrower? You are proposing putting it in the section on deaths? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:06, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

User:Doc James done (on the train no less) --Almaty (talk) 21:17, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

"Cumulative calculated case fatality rate in China by date" graph is incorrect

This graph cites the daily WHO situation reports as a source, but the cumulative case fatality rate does *not* match the numbers given in the reports. For example, the WHO sitrep for February 15 shows cumulative total cases in China is 66,576, cumulative deaths is 1,524; this gives a cumulative case fatality rate of approximately 2.3%. Global Cerebral Ischemia (talk) 15:20, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

I adjusted the graph to properly match the cited source data. Global Cerebral Ischemia (talk) 15:27, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the correction. I think it was removed for some reason, I thought there was a comment pertaining to WHO politics when I checked on my mobile earlier today, perhaps I was mistaken. Please note that this is not an estimate of the severity of the disease but a commonly used easily understandable method during outbreak investigations. It is under the deaths section, because it pertains to deaths, not the severity. It will be changed and updated, that is why I made it in wiki code. No one brought up WP:SYN yet, which I need guidance on. I think it also gives another perspective to the main graph. I'll put it back in (kindly your version @Global Cerebral Ischemia: - I also received a thank for it, so we'll see if that version stays. Also note WP:MEDRS is happy with the WHO as a source. --Almaty (talk) 07:39, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Well, with that disclaimer below the chart, it is much less deceiving (it still is if people don't read it). However, I still think that the D/(D+R) should be included (in some form) in the same chart, since it is much more meaningful. You even mentioned that the CFR doesn't portray the severity of the virus, so, then, let's show something that actually tries to, because everyone else seems to be trying to downplay the virus. By the way, I had moved my original comment to the Graph_question section. Alexiscoutinho (talk) 13:52, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

@Stealth56: I am just one voice. If you think that tomorrow is a good time to start a new RM, so be it. For my part, allowing everyone an extra day or two to catch their breath is probably a good idea. But as I write above, the title is stale. The sooner it gets changed, the better. EMS | Talk 04:11, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Hospitals

Classification of Chinese Hospitals article talks about a system of speciality hospitals - this is unclear if this "speciality" is in this system or is someone using the term wrongly in English - can someone who knows the chinese system check? AND then update the article appropriately - I put the same request on the first hospital listed's page.

This actually has a real world use in how people might prepare for such hispitals based on a working chinese model in other locations — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.115.204.102 (talk) 17:20, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Our Chinese article about the Classification of Hospitals in China (zh:中國醫院等級) notes at time of writing that 9862 hospitals have not yet been assigned a grade. This new hospital is surely among them. That said, the word "specialty" (專科) is in the full name of the hospital. Does that address your question? 97.115.240.136 (talk) 06:17, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

47 missing cases

47 cases were missing from Japan so the GIF map must be updated again with 47 exta people to Japan. Wojciech 2020 (talk) 17:37, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

I mentioned exta but it should be extra. Wojciech 2020 (talk) 17:38, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

@Wojciech 2020: Comments for updating the gif would probably best go at Commons:File talk:2019-nCoV-outbreak-timeline.gif. (Right now I see 56 for Japan for 15 Feb on the gif map; the official WHO data at Template:2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus data/Japan medical cases give 53 for Japan for 15 Feb; in any case, chyba lepiej na gif talk page.) Boud (talk) 20:16, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Figures shown on the map are those officially published in WHO daily situation reports. Metropolitan (talk) 06:26, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Please reword the lead

In ordinance with WP:AVOIDBOLD, Please change lead sentence of the article from:

• An ongoing outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by the 2019 novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) started in December 2019. It was first identified in Wuhan, capital of Hubei province in China, after 41 people presented with pneumonia of no clear cause.

to

• Since December 2019, there were an ongoing outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by the 2019 novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2). It was first identified in Wuhan, capital of Hubei in China, after 41 people presented with pneumonia of no clear cause.

And please change date of the beginning outbreak from 1 December 2019 to 8 December 2019 because the outbreak actually started in 8 December. 36.69.53.66 (talk) 23:33, 16 February 2020 (UTC).

one needs consensus for any change in text--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:10, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Suggestion to remove the countries with recovered patients from the animated map

According to the animated map the disease is spreading while most countries with less than 5 patients now do not have any confirmed patients. So it is better to animate the map removing those countries gradually. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samanpress (talk • contribs) 04:31, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps we can change the colour to a paler pink to show former infection. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:22, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Incubation period

Up to 24 days! - https://nypost.com/2020/02/13/coronavirus-incubation-period-may-be-much-longer-than-once-thought/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.109.70.54 (talk) 11:16, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

It has not been peer reviewed. . . Dannelsluc (talk) 15:01, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

14 Infected Americans flown back to the U.S

Apparently at the last minute 14 infected Americans were let onboard the chartered plane for the evacuation effort in Tokyo. Does this add to the U.S infections in the infection/death/recovery chart? Link to article Dannelsluc (talk) 14:53, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

The NYT added them to the US count "With the arrival of the 14 infected passengers from Japan, confirmed coronavirus cases in the United States nearly doubled, to 29." --Nowa (talk) 17:00, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

We should move the count from the Diamond Princess to the US, when they arrive. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:35, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

An explanatory footnote for this might be helpful as well. Something like, "On [date], 14 confirmed cases were transferred from Diamond Princess to the United States. This chart lists those 14 in the United States rather than on Diamond Princess." (this is just off the top of my head so feel free to go another direction with it, but I think it's a good idea to explain it since people might look at our numbers for the ship and say they're wrong). 199.66.69.88 (talk) 05:52, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Censorship and police responses

Why is the criticism section buried? Should we promote it? Could put in before the management section and call it China Censorship and Police Responses.   Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 17:04, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

per MEDMOS it should go after 'Epidemiology' section--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:07, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

I've quite certain we had this discussion before. It's because that isn't a criticism section. It's a section that documents the CCP's censorship and suppression tactics, which is the subject of criticism but not 'criticism' in of itself. As this is a domestic governmental tactic, it precisely fits under #Domestic responses. I would support splitting the top level #Management section to #Domestic Management and #International Management, which I suppose would 'promote it' up. Sleath56 (talk) 17:30, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Why are the C.D (Clinically Diagnosed) cases merged?

In the "COVID-19 cases in mainland China" graph, the C.D. (Clinically Diagnosed) cases were represented using a different color (yellow) to distinguish them from the "tested confirmed cases (verified using nucleic acid test, represented using orange color) from Feb 12 to Feb 15. Why are the cases merged into one from Feb 16? The idea to distinguish these cases was not to mislead the viewing public that there was a sudden increase in the infected cases (which there was not). I strongly suggested that it be reverted back to the original scheme such that these two category of cases are represented differently. 98.207.237.179 (talk) 17:58, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

The Health Commission of Hubei had not released any data on C.D. cases ([7]) and the WHO has now stopped listing C.D. cases separately ([[8]]), so it seems we're going back to reporting on only one case type. Over on the template talk we are still discussing how the data should be displayed. CheeseBuffet (talk) 21:35, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

The section link into the discussion is here and the following section. There's no trivial solution (so far). Boud (talk) 21:44, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer. After reviewing the discussion at the template talk page, I've changed my position from earlier. I now recommend that the C.D. patient data not be used at all in the graph: not from now on (since the Health Commission of Hubei has stopped releasing data on C.D. cases anyway), nor include them even for the period from Feb 12 to Feb 15 (the reasons are well presented at the template talk page so I am going to duplicate them here). 98.207.237.179 (talk) 22:15, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 February 2020

"As of 18 February 2020, 73,333 have been confirmed" ==> "As of 18 February 2020, 73,333 cases have been confirmed" Jeffnc226 (talk) 06:20, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

• comment not a 'big' difference...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:42, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. DannyS712 (talk) 14:03, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

Strong Support This title is exactly what I have been arguing for recently. EMS | Talk 17:50, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

References

Requested move 18 February 2020

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

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

---

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

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

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

• WP:COMMONNAME had been a huge deal in previous discussions. However, now most major media outlets are just using the phrase "Coronavirus Outbreak" without referencing to the word "Wuhan": NYT (Coronavirus Outbreak), BBC (Coronavirus Outbreak), CNN (Coronavirus Outbreak), South China Morning Post (Coronavirus Outbreak), WebMD (Coronavirus 2020 Outbreak), Reuters (Coronavirus), AP (Virus Outbreak), MarketWatch (Coronavirus), BMJ (Coronavirus Outbreak), SkyNews (Coronavirus), FoxNews (Coronavirus), The Guardian (Coronavirus outbreak), Al Jazeera (Coronavirus Outbreak). Hence, "Wuhan coronavirus outbreak" is no longer the common name.

• WP:RECOGNIZABILITY and WP:COMMONNAME: based on Google Trends (7 day view). To estimate, subtract "X coronavirus outbreak" from "coronavirus outbreak" and the more general term dominates at least 10 to 1. Prior debate over the recognizability of Wuhan vs. novel is less consequential by comparison. Notice that at all times "coronavirus outbreak" scores much higher than "wuhan coronavirus outbreak".

• WP:NCMED: it does not contradict the scientific name of the disease by WHO, CDC, and NHS and to the extent that "Wuhan" is interpreted to be the disease/virus name, it does not contradict WHO Best Practice Guidelines (2015), which advises against using locations in disease names to avoid stigma.

• WP:NPOVTITLE: some argue "Wuhan" may support anti-China discrimination seen on social media and opinion media. We should also consider the societal impact Wikipedia has given that this article is featured on Google results as well as on Wikipedia main page, and that ~200,000 to ~500,000 visitors visit this page everyday.

• WP:PRECISION: "2019–20" makes it unambiguous enough which coronavirus outbreak is being discussed (see also WP:RECOGNIZABILITY and WP:COMMONNAME arguments above, especially since even the media outlets are only using the phrase "Coronavirus Outbreak" to refer to this outbreak). "Titles should unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but should be no more precise than that." Hence the term "Wuhan" is not needed. While it is possible (but hopefully not) that another new coronavirus outbreak might happen this year or that this outbreak isn't finished by the end of 2020, but Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. We could move this page again if and when that happens. Efly (talk) 08:03, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Strongly support and rescind my previous statements supporting COVID-19 over coronavirus disease 2019 for the related move discussions. I think that we should just look at WP:COMMONNAME closely. 'Tis very very surprising to me that the commonest, and even the "official" name will remain so ambiguous. It doesn't matter, just another thing to confuse medical students! And wikipedians.--Almaty (talk) 08:47, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

For the outbreak, this seems like a reasonable title, until the common name changes even more or it becomes even more ambiguous. --Almaty (talk) 08:50, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Support. "Wuhan" should be removed from the title because it is easily misinterpreted as meaning either (1) we're calling the virus "Wuhan coronavirus"; (2) the article is limited to the impact on Wuhan itself; or (3) the article asserts that there has been little or no spread outside Wuhan. Jruderman (talk) 10:03, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Strongly support per WP:NPOVTITLE. Remove the "Wuhan" from the title, as there is ample evidence of racial discrimination on a global scale being directly caused by the outbreak's association with Chinese people and Asian people as a whole. —Tookabreather (talk) 12:49, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Support. The virus went beyond Wuhan and China in general. This is a planetary story. And that’s why the article should be renamed. --Gruznov (talk) 12:54, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Strongly support with comment per reasons above. Remove the "Wuhan" from the title, because it now spread around the world. But because this RM was related to the my multiple requests move related to this article. I encouraged to add that item to this section of multiple requested moves 36.69.53.66 (talk) 12:59, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Support. We need to improve the clarity of the title as per Jruderman's three points above. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 13:53, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Strong support – Fair play, you've done your homework. jackchango talk 13:59, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Strong support – It's no longer confined to Wuhan and doesn't follow traditional naming styles for epidemics. Tsukide (talk) 14:21, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

• Support. No longer confined, sources often refer to outbreak without Wuhan. There is only one known significant outbreak in these years.--Eostrix (talk) 15:08, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
• Support split to discuss the global outbreak. It should be recalled that the primary story is in Wuhan. There should be a subpage discussing the outbreak in Wuhan primarily. 199.66.69.88 (talk) 15:27, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
• Comment - The virus is not called "severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2" per ICTV. So either 2019–20 severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 outbreak or 2019–20 SARS-CoV-2 outbreak would be best. Of if you prefer the name of the disease and not the virus, 2019–20 COVID-19 outbreak. --Nessie (📥) 16:35, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
• Support per WP:COMMONNAME, everybody just knows it as the coronavirusPancho507 (talk) 16:41, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
• Support It seems that the significant impact is to the world, not just in Wuhan any longer. Peterwu2019 (talk) 16:44, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
• Strong Support The outbreak has spread worldwide and even though it originated in Wuhan, it isn't just Wuhan that has to deal with it anymore. Mase268 (talk) 17:14, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
• Strong Support It would have been appropriate to call it the Wuhan Coronavirus outbreak when it was contained in Wuhan, sadly, this isn't the case anymore ShiberToast (talk) 17:38, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
• Strongly support per all reasons, well stated above, especially WP:PRECISION. Holy (talk) 18:35, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
• Support per above reasoning. The outbreak is extending itself far beyond Wuhan. --LiamUJ (talk) 18:37, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
• I support removing "Wuhan" from the title (and that must be WP:SNOW by now), but I would prefer "2019-20 Covid-19 outbreak" or "2019–20 SARS-CoV-2 outbreak". While sources often just say "coronavirus", it would not contravene WP:COMMONNAME to be more specific. Bondegezou (talk) 18:58, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
• Strong support Thank you for submitting this. I hope we can do this as early as possible and then have the extended discussion of possible long-term solutions (2019–20 COVID-19 outbreak vs. 2019–20 Covid-19 outbreak vs. COVID-19 outbreak vs. 2019–20 coronavirus disease 2019 outbreak vs. coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak vs. 2019–20 SARS-CoV-2 outbreak), which will to take two weeks. - Wikmoz (talk) 19:06, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
  • @Wikmoz: I completely agree (also thank you for starting the informal discussion!). After this move request, we can again start a similar informal discussion like this for long-term solutions to evaluate all options available before creating a new formal RM. --Efly (talk) 19:16, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
• support. Makes sense as its no longer restricted to Wuhan. Starzoner (talk) 19:19, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
• Strong support Yes lets move it already. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:30, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
• support perWP:PRECISION--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:53, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

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

• 2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak by country and territory → 2019–20 coronavirus outbreak by country and territory
• Timeline of the 2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak → Timeline of the 2019–20 coronavirus outbreak
• Timeline of the 2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak in December 2019 – January 2020 → Timeline of the 2019–20 coronavirus outbreak in December 2019 – January 2020
• Timeline of the 2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak in February 2020 → Timeline of the 2019–20 coronavirus outbreak in February 2020
• Mainland China during the 2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak → Mainland China during the 2019–20 coronavirus outbreak
• Evacuations related to the 2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak → Evacuations related to the 2019–20 coronavirus outbreak
• 2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak → 2019–20 coronavirus outbreak

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

Sure and done. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:54, 18 February 2020 (UTC)