Talk:2009 swine flu pandemic/Archive Name Change

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was wait a month. As this is a very recent phenomenon, the most commonly used name of this current event can and probably will change as time goes on. There is clearly no consensus to change the name at this time; let's all be patient and see where it goes before deciding where to put the article. Any plausible names should be created as redirects to this title. -- Aervanath (talk) 20:50, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

---

Requested Move

This requested move is for the page to be moved to 2009 H1N1 flu outbreak

I think the time has come to change the name to something like 2008 H1N1 Influenza A Outbreak. What does everyone else think? Hdstubbs (talk) 17:16, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with "2009 H1N1 influenza outbreak", with trigger finger on pandemic. Sceptre ^(talk) 18:34, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, for goodness sakes, could someone make this change, please? It's really a misleading title. Jwkpiano1 (talk) 07:30, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes; please change article title and official name to "2009 H1N1 Influenza Outbreak" per MOS:MED and [[1]][[2]]. I'll do it unless somebody objects with clear reasoning that Wikipedia guidelines should be ignored. Flipper9 (talk) 16:42, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes I agree as well, it was originally at "2009 H1N1 influenza outbreak" but I put up a reqested move to have it moved to the current title, because, at the time, it was the common name (per WP:COMMONAME). I agree it should be moved back, that the common name has changed, WHO and media sources are usings N1H1 now, when at the time of the last move, it was opposite. - Epson291 (talk) 17:36, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

The name of the article is discussed extensively above over the last few days. Please do not fracture the conversation, but instead make any comments above. see the archives linked to above. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:54, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

It seems like the author of this section is trying to break the conversation into something more targeted and fresher. The argument is already fractured, and hard to follow above. Flipper9 (talk) 19:30, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

That's exactly what I was doing, is was for the specific request of having it moved to "2009 H1N1 flu outbreak," which automatically links to "Requested Move" at the top of the page through the "Move" template. - Epson291 (talk) 01:02, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

The common name is swine flu. we use common names per wikipedias naming conventions that you should have read when you joined wikipedia. Following the simple math equation of if a = b and b = c then a = c, this means we should use swine flu. Sorry if this sounds like biting, but I'm tired of seeing the topic come up. D^rew S^mith 20:13, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Other than being uncivil, there is a good argument to make that H1N1 is now the common name. Other than the WHO, "H1N1" beats Swine flu in a Google News test, 696,021,627 to 268,012,009. - Epson291 (talk) 01:02, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

One of the points put forth by another editor, which I agree with, is that MOS:MED supersedes WP:NAME in the case of medical articles with regards to naming conventions. Flipper9 (talk) 20:16, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose, use the common name, what's wrong with the common name? It's what everyone knows it by. chandler ··· 20:23, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Common names should be used, but in the case of medical articles, MOS:MED says we should use the scientific name instead. My question would be more generally, why have Wikipedia Policies at all if we just have to invoke WP:IAR whenever it's convenient? Flipper9 (talk) 21:51, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Looks like someone moved the article to "2009 flu outbreak" which is even more confusing and inaccurate, since there are outbreaks of flu all the time in one year and is non-specific. I'd suggest that "2009 H1N1 Influenza Outbreak" is more scientific per PUBMED, GeneBank, and other sources tasked with identifying and naming the virus at hand. Flipper9 (talk) 20:31, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I did the move. See 1918 flu pandemic. Notice how that article is named? How many other notable 2009 flu outbreaks were there? Zero. This is the only one that has an article. When this gets upgraded to pandemic, the title can then be 2009 flu pandemic. How many flu pandemics are we expecting this year? One. Jehochman ^Talk 20:33, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Without commenting on the argument, this was an inappropriate use of administrative privileges. The move protecion was imposed to prevent such unilateral actions. --Zigger «º» 20:56, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree; while there wasn't an exact consensus on what name to move to, the name "2009 Flu Outbreak" wasn't one of them that stuck out from my reading. Flipper9 (talk) 21:06, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

On a side note, I moved the archives too. hmwithτ 21:01, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

There are seasonal outbreaks of H1N1 influenza not connected to this current outbreak. At least the new title does not confuse by attempting to be overly accuarate.--Pontificalibus (talk) 20:34, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

"2009 H1N1 Influenza Outbreak" Does not sepcify what strain of H1N1 this is. As H1N1 outbreaks occur every season, without specficity the name "2009 H1N1 Influenza Outbreak" violates MOS:MED andWP:NAME. The proper name of the disease per WHO ICD-10 standards is 'H1N1/Influenza/A/B96.3' --PigFlu Oink (talk) 20:38, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Then call the article "2009 H1N1/Influenza/A/B96.3 Outbreak", I agree. As it stands right now, this article covers all outbreaks of influenza in the year 2009 if you call it "2009 Flu Outbreak", which includes all strains. There are outbreaks all the time. Flipper9 (talk) 20:40, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Does adding "pandemic" instead of "outbreak" solve your concern? hmwithτ 20:47, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

No; because it's not a pandemic yet. In 1918, which is long since passed, it's clear that you are referring to the one big pandemic that occurred back then. It's like hurricane naming long ago, like the "Great Hurricane of 1918" or whatever. A title of "2009 Flu Outbreak" or "2009 Flu Pandemic" is way too generic. Even "2009 Swine Flu Outbreak" is better than something non-specific. With "2009 Flu Outbreak" that could refer to outbreaks of "regular" flu in January, or H1N1 "swine flu" today. Flipper9 (talk) 20:50, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I think it's fine to just say flu, as long as the swine flu names redirect here, and there's still a redirect on the actual swine flu article. People should be able to find this just fine. hmwithτ 20:38, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

This argument is equally valid for any arbitrary name. And using the 1918 article as the ruling precedent was highly selective as most other epidemic articles and mentions use different naming conventions. --Zigger «º» 22:19, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't like the new name as it is too ambiguous and I don't think the move was done through consensus either. We should change it back. --Tocino 22:08, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Just want to point out that no matter what the article is titled, accessibility won't be an issue since all the common and colloquial names (such as 2009 swine flu) will redirect to the page. My suggestion for the article's title is "2009 Influenza A H1N1 Epidemic" --Davidkazuhiro (talk) 22:55, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Which would be fine except 98% of all flu is A H1N1. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 22:57, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

So call the article "2009 H1N1/Influenza/A/B96.3 Outbreak" (as per PigFluOink's suggestion) which would be perfectly in-line with MOS:MED. Flipper9 (talk) 23:05, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I believe 2009 H1NA can be considered within WP:COMMONAME, see the Google test above for instance. - Epson291 (talk) 01:16, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

• My take on this is that this article is more regarding an event than something medical, so commonname should take precedent. Although I set the move protection over the initial dispute, I would prefer another admin to close this. –xeno ^talk 00:52, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

suggest keep article name using "swine flu" agreeing with comment in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions#Treatment_of_contradictory_naming_conventions that common name WP:NAME takes precedence over medical name WP:MEDMOS especially in this case

• WP:NAME says to favor easily recognized names for general audiences over vocabulary of specialists.
• WP:MEDMOS#Naming conventions says exactly the opposite - to favor specilist vocabulary over commonly used names.

My personal view on this is that WP:NC (this policy) takes precedence, since it represents community-wide consensus, and that other specialized naming conventions should be changed to recognize this. Often, with specialized projects, there IS no easily recognized name; millions of kinds of flora/fauna/fungus/disease/insert specialized topic here are not commonly known, and thus the "most commonly used name" is the one used by experts in the field. So the majority of the time, the MEDMOS naming conventions are probably correct. However, all naming conventions should contain an exception that if a particular subject is known to the general public by a name different than what experts call it, and this name is widely known, then the layman's term should be favored over the expert's. So, I would disagree with the example given at the top of the MEDMOS naming conventions: Myocardial infarction should redirect to Heart attack, not the other way around. WP:Naming conventions is policy, while all of the WP:MOS pages are just guidelines.--Aervanath (talk) 16:25, 14 April 2009 (UTC) 209.17.145.53 (talk) 01:46, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

• Please note that the Beatles White Album redirects to The Beatles (album). Will we accept your personal view and rename it? Do you really think that an encyclopedia should continue to promote ignorance? I use the word “ignorance” very precisely; it means that a person knows the truth, but ignores it. It is unlike stupidity or innocence, which are blame free; ignorance is willful and ugly. Nothing good can come from it, only evil. Resurr Section (talk) 02:38, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Swine flu or H1N1 article naming debate - am starting to be persuaded by those arguing for H1N1 - like User:Resurr Section above and the others scattered over the following naming pages but currently still leaning toward "swine flu" at the moment after trying to digess (phew) all the discussion on these types of article naming conflicts. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(medicine-related_articles)#Naming_conventions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2009_swine_flu_outbreak/Archive_4#Article_Name_-_ask_for_clarification_of_naming_conventions_from_naming_talk_pages http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Naming_conventions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions#Treatment_of_contradictory_naming_conventions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions/Archive_11#Rename_proposal_.28was_merge_proposal.29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions/Archive_12 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOV#Article_naming http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Naming_conflict http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conflict http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2009_swine_flu_outbreak#Article_name - some great ideas in the various places ( including rewriting and coalesing(sp) naming guidance into one article) for example protopolicy from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions/Archive_12 Section "Basic principle" Choose a title that most readers of the article would expect to be used by the encyclopedia that we aspire to be. Section "Values" Subsection "Accuracy" Why it is important that a title not be strictly incorrect. Example: gravitation not gravity, because in strictly scientific terms the latter is an incorrect title. Subsection "Precision" Why precision is important; why it should not be overdone. Subsection "Ambiguity"Explanation of why ambiguity should be avoided; explanation of the role of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Subsection "Bias"Explanation of why titles should avoid bias; bias pitfalls and how to avoid them. Explanation of special cases; such as the inevitable bias in using a national variety of English, and how it is handled by WP:ENGVAR. Subsection "Consistency"Explanation of why it is advantageous to use consistent titles across a block of articles; Subsection "Accessibility"The importance of using titles that are as accessible as possible, preferably because they are in common use and highly recognisable in the real world; Section "Striking the right balance"General comments on the ways in which these values can conflict. Advice on how to balance them; discussion of the role of specific naming conventions in recommending the right mix for a specific field. Mention that even within a field, the balance will vary from article to article; for example, for basic maths topics accessibility is more important than precision, but for highly advanced maths topics precision is more important than accessibility. - and a few comments back into the fray

- am starting to be persuaded by those arguing for H1N1
- the proto policy "Striking the right balance" seems to tilt in favour of "swine flu" because it is a topic of such wide ranging common interest but that might be changing

- the point that because so many sites are echoing wikipedia that the "Google Test" is being biased is something to consider as to how true echoing bias is in the "swine flu" case - it does not look like we will have clear guidance from WP policy pages as it appears to be an active discussion with some good work to do before a rewrite of the naming conventions and article name conflicts pages (the same issue is outstanding in a number of places [science/precision vs common useage/what wikipedia is trying to do...] - it appears that the editors of this article will basically have to "Choose a title that most readers of the article would expect to be used by the encyclopedia that we aspire to be" to quote a protopolicy that may be part of future guidance. - there is alot of good arguement but basically it seems that the title should be protected and not changed without good concensus especially from those who have done so much work keeping the article accurate and uptodate - as to what is the current name useage some media seem to be using H1N1 as the proper name and other media (CBC [canada]) are using "Swine Flu" so it looks like there are becoming two common names - as one of the mob I apologize for getting wikitis about the article name - encourage vigourous discussion about the name as it helps people learn more about what wikipedia is really about, the naming issue cuts deep - after all that, would for the moment suggest stay with "Swine Flu" but as suggested review regularly (in a week, then a month) or whenever its clear a name change is needed...209.17.145.134 (talk) 23:57, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Title Change

Change the title word outbreak to epidemic —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.66.113.153 (talk) 23:19, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Name Change to 2009 H1N1 outbreak

I propose changing the article name to 2009 H1N1 outbreak. The term swine flu is outdated and not used anymore by the US government, WHO, etc, as it has been proven not to only relate to pigs, so to reflect that change, I propose moving to 2009 H1N1 outbreak. Ideas? Messiisking (talk) 01:05, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

-We could make a redirect for 2009 swine flu outbreak to the 2009 H1N1 outbreak, anyways I agree that H1N1 is much more accurate than the swine flu.... Messiisking (talk) 16:52, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose-Kieran4 (talk) 01:10, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose - Another day, another move proposal (or are they semi-daily by now?). Per WP:COMMONNAME and the fact that nearly all media and many governments governments are still using this name most commonly. H1N1 is too vague as it also describes this year's seasonal flu. Oren0 (talk) 01:42, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose - because we shouldn't follow Wikipedia policy, other than WP:IAR. "Swine Flu" is what the common man uses, and that's how it should be represented in Wikipedia. Who cares what scientists or health organizations use? I prefer what they use on the evening news. Flipper9 (talk) 01:48, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

  Because they know what they're talking about. Financial crisis of 2007–2010 isn't at Credit crunch. And believe me, if I had a pound for every time I heard that phrase, I'd be worth more than my house (which, admittedly, is not a hard feat these days) Sceptre ^(talk) 01:57, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

  while my sarcastic comment was inappropriate, it doesn't matter anyways. This vote will devolve into fights over no voting, some people citing policy, people citing WP:IAR, people all over the place. This won't get resolved until the mob leaves the article, and cooler-heads prevail. Flipper9 (talk) 01:58, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

• Support; MOS:MED (which overrides WP:COMMONNAME) says that the current official names for medicine articles should be used. Sceptre ^(talk) 01:50, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

   see also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions#Treatment_of_contradictory_naming_conventions 
    with arguement that the deciding factor is what name ordinary readers would use
    which would argue that WP:COMMONNAME overrides MOS:MED in widely known topics

209.17.145.53 (talk) 02:25, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

How about renaming "myocardial infarction" to "heart attack" then. Go propose it be moved in order to better disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point. Resurr Section (talk) 02:44, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose; agree with Flipper9. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:53, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose per Flipper. Grsz¹¹ 01:57, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
• Support News sources, such as NBC and CNN in the US are referring to it as H1N1, along with the World Health Organization. Insisting on a quaint and folksy term is unencyclopedic. Encyclopedias use scientific terminology. This usage is in accordance with MOS:MED. Edison (talk) 02:11, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose as (1) H1N1 is too vauge and (2) the actual name is too cumbersome and is still being debated among health organizations. (3) This article records the event not the disease. North Korea is in reality the DPRK, but everyone knows it as North Korea including wikipedia. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 02:18, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
• Opposeper WP:COMMONNAME.D^rew S^mith 02:28, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

  COMMONNAME only applies if "other accepted Wikipedia naming conventions" don't contradict the common name. MOS:MED is one of them. Sceptre ^(talk) 02:31, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

  Comment There is no need to vote. MOS:MED must be followed. Eventually the article will have to be renamed. Resurr Section (talk) 02:42, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

  You can talk policy until you are blue in the face, but so many people follow WP:IAR] that policy is pointless when you have so many editors with differences. Flipper9 (talk) 03:55, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment: What we actually has is a legitimate disagreement about which policy is more relevant, not a clear cut case that one or the other is better. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:09, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Not most of the voters. Most just refer to COMMONNAME without knowing about (or failing to acknowledge) the exception in COMMONNAME for "accepted naming conventions" of which MOSMED is surely one. Resurr Section (talk) 05:58, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Exactly; people fail to realize that this article is under the Wikipedia Medical Articles project, which attempts to apply concepts that are commonsense in the medical and scientific field. [WP:COMMON] is more broad to apply to all articles on wikipedia, but [MOS:MED] apply more specific guidelines. Also, there are more stringent levels of evidence in the medical world (such as peer-review, meta-analysis), as opposed to generic topics where published opinion and any-article-will-do philosophy prevails. If people wish this article to be under WikiProject Medicine or other scientific projects, then I suggest that they try to adhere to it's policies. If they wish this article to just be an article about the outbreak as a "news story", then stop saying it's a medical article. Otherwise the reader might think that higher standards are in play. In either case [WP:IAR] trumps all policies, and mob rule continues. Flipper9 (talk) 13:27, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

• super strong oppose - primarily because it is silly to keep creating new sections every 12-24 hours with hopes of ignoring previous lack of consensus. Continue to debate above, or give at least give it some time before making the same suggestion yet again, please. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:02, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
  • The debate is changing as people learn more about the policy and with the passage of time, only the most stubborn "internet warriors" who can't bear to lose an argument will be left. Resurr Section (talk) 05:58, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
    • It is ridiculous to make everyone restate their opinion every 12 hours. Please see WP:There is no deadline and re-raise the issue when it hasn't been debated extensively for several days straight. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:10, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
• SUPPORT - I understand the reasoning of the common name but as it has been pointed out there is obvious consensus in the wikipedia community to name scientific articles after their scientific name and not their common name. AND the common name is changing. On Google news about half the articles call it swine flu and the other half call it H1N1.--62.69.130.82 (talk) 05:19, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I agree that the common name is changing. More and more people are knowledgeable and calling it H1N1 influenza A. I think that the page should be renamed when/if consensus shows that something else has become the common name. hmwithτ 06:04, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Please see this Google Trends graph for the terms "swine flu" and "H1N1" over the last 30 days. You will note the crossover in Google News. Overall usage still favors "swine flu" but it is trending downwards. Resurr Section (talk) 06:07, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
      • Comment: Why this in factual true, it is quite deceptive. A crossover in news articles did occur. However, in searches the "downtrend" is due entirely to less overall searches (H1N1 is also trending down slightly). Furthermore, the difference between the too is quite substantial and that is unlikely to change in the foreseeable future (based on trends). --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:50, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose Swine flu is far more specific to this outbreak, as well as common usage. H1N1 could refer to countless other strains, including many seasonal flu strains and the strain that caused the 1918 pandemic. This is not like H5N1 which can be understood to mean highly pathogenic H5N1 or "bird flu" because H5N1 does not typically infect humans. There was only one 2009 swine flu outbreak, as far as I know. - cyclosarin (talk) 12:04, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

• Support - Considering that people are using "swine" flu as a false logical premise to slaughter animals and ban food imports, I feel it is the duty of Wikipedia to not cause undo alarm or promulgate a false nomenclature. Considering the present virus is a combination of swine, avian and human flu strains, the scientifically accurate "H1N1" is the only appropriate name to call it. While we can refer to the "swine" flu as a common parlance, it would be more specific and accurate to call it "H1N1." --Petercorless (talk) 02:20, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment wikipedia's only duty is to be a great encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not here to save animals or keep people from doing stupid stupid things. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 02:29, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment That may have been the rationale of the WHO, but it is their job to tell people how they should respond. Wikipedia just reports the facts. Of course there's no reason not to discuss the name debate, evidence of transmission or advice given by 3rd party sources such as WHO in the article. - cyclosarin (talk) 08:12, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Strong Support - the H1N1 designation is the correct designation; it is becoming commonly recognized as the media becomes more comfortable with it; a redirect from the current name will make the article easy to find regardless of the title. Also support the notion that the title should educate as much as the article itself. Incidentally, I work in emergency planning for a provincial health organization in Canada and part of our mandate is pandemic planning - I'm pleased with the level of information in the article and would love to see the title raised to the same level of quality.139.48.25.60 (talk) 15:04, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

• Strong Support - For most of the reasons already stated above, as well as my own reasons that have been previously stated on (archived) talk pages. Also, for those who "oppose" based on the idea that "H1N1" is inexact, I simply don't understand that argument. Yes, "H1N1" is not precise, but "swine flu" is certainly even less precise.66.30.15.98 (talk) 19:03, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
• Support - Cochonfou (talk) 10:06, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose Although i do agree that the H1N1 designation would be very correct i think that it could possibly cause some confusion for some who may not know that H1N1 is swine flu as it is not near as common of a name as just swine flu. Therefore i think it should just be called 2009 swine flu outbreak or epidemic whichever is prefferd by who ever may be making the changes to the artical name. The reason for thinking it should be swine flu and not just flu is because just saying flu epidemic is not very specfic, as maybe a few years from now when someone is looking it up they might need more clafification when searching articals so they know that that artical is the correct. I think that it would be a lot more clarical and also understanding.

All just IMO though its not going to make to much of a differnce what its called as long as it is based upon flu 2009. Thanks for your time Winston Slaughter (talk) 14:42, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose A(H1N1) is patently ambiguous. It refers to one of the two A strains already circulating and included in the seasonal flu vaccination each year.

Suggestion How about "hybrid" A(H1N1)? Avoids the ambiguity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.167.95.139 (talk) 01:18, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Page move RFC

Xeno has confirmed that their indefinite page move protection is there to prevent page move vandalism to a high visibility page.[3] We are free to move the page if there is a consensus. Jehochman ^Talk 17:30, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Move to 2009 flu epidemic

I propose to move the page to 2009 flu epidemic. This title is concise, accurate and cannot be conflated with any other article. It also mirrors the style of 1918 flu pandemic. If a pandemic is declared in 2009, we can do a second move to 2009 flu pandemic. This article is about a social phenomenon, not just a medical condition. Therefore, I think we should use common terminology, rather than medical terminology. However, I think we should avoid "swine flu" in the title because that is scientifically inaccurate. Jehochman ^Talk 13:29, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

First you guys must decide if the title is about the virus (H1N1) OR the disease (influenza A). BatteryIncluded (talk) 01:19, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Support

1. Jehochman ^Talk 13:29, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
2. I agree with every single point Jehochman made. hmwithτ 14:57, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
3. I agree that the current title is less than accurate, and, as others have pointed out earlier, is unencyclopedic. Clinging to an inaccurate "common name" is ultimately not a good precedent. While Jehochman's proposal isn't as precise as some of the proposed medical-oriented titles, it is in line with other similar "event" articles, and an improvement to the current title. So, I support the move as proposed.   user:j    (aka justen)   16:19, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
4. Doesn't sound as commonplace, and is consistent with other articles. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:53, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

1. This article falls under the Wikiproject Medicine and Wikiproject Viruses which uses MOS:MED for naming conventions as policy. The 1918 article is called that for historical reasons, just like "The Great Hurricane of 1938" has an historical name rather than a proper name. We must follow the MOS:MED policy regarding the name of the article if it's going to be under these Wikiprojects, or call it whatever you want if it's just a news article. As for the proposed name, there many flu epidemics in the year 2009, and every year. There are also pandemics as well. If you want to make a general article called "2009 flu epidemic" then go ahead, and then list links to articles for every flu epidemic that occurs in 2009...which will be many. This article is about a specific strain of H1N1 virus. Flipper9 (talk) 14:00, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

   Hello. Wikiprojects don't own articles and don't get to pre-empt community policies with their own policies. Jehochman ^Talk 14:45, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

   Comment: So relevant guidelines such as MOS:MED are meaningless and should be ignored when an article is considered a part of a Wikiproject? I don't see the reasoning clearly. If it was simply a news article about how the media and various governments involved reacted to the epidemic, I could see that. But it's being written as a medically-related and science-related article. Flipper9 (talk) 14:53, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

   This is not strictly a medical article. Contrast: Influenza A virus subtype H1N1. Why do we have two articles? One is a medical article, the other is a social phenomenon. Jehochman ^Talk 15:13, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

   Well the only thing I can say is that that article is about the generic "Influenza A H1N1" virus sub-types, and this article is about the specific "2009 Influenza A (H1N1) virus" that is part of this particular outbreak or more specifically along MOS:MED guidelines would be "2009 H1N1/Influenza/A/B96.3 Outbreak" with appropriate redirects and disambiguation pages to route "swine flu outbreak" and other terms. Perhaps we need to move all of the science and medically related content of this article over to a new article, and just leave the news and reaction to the epidemic bits in this article as a reflection of the reaction to the outbreak? Flipper9 (talk) 15:23, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

   This seems to me to be the best suggestion I've seen so far. I would also suggest that there is no rush to do a renaming, and renaming will be a lot of work. I think reasons for a rename should be compelling, and a new name agreed on ahead of time before such action is taken. Victor Engel (talk) 20:39, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

2. Does this mean you expect everyone who commented and "voted" in #Article name for this same issue to do so all over again or are you going to count all those opinions above first?—Teahot (talk) 14:02, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

   Jehochman yesterday unilaterally changed the article name to what he is proposing above, against prior discussions and development of a consensus. He is just trying to get people to re-vote again rather than reading the prior consensus. Since only an administrator can rename/move the page, I'd think they'd want to have a more oganized and shorter list of consensus/opposition that is easier for them. Flipper9 (talk) 14:10, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

   (out of sequence threaded reply) If someone hasn't mentioned it already, please take a look at wp:agf. You seem to be assuming the worst possible intentions from others, and I think you're missing the actual ulterior motive of most of us here: to improve the project. It's a goal I'm sure you share, but assuming bad faith makes it more difficult for you and for all of us.   user:j    (aka justen)   16:27, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

   I apologize if I made any apparent accusation. I've been blocked and tag teamed by various editors here and on sub-templates of this page for trying to ensure that various vetted policies for scientific articles are followed (re: naming and sourcing) are followed as well as made edits myself, and have been accused point-blank of bad-faith by several (re: see comments made in table template) editors here, so I know that page quite well and I do assume good faith. I'm just describing to Teahot this history of yesterday's admin-move of the page against prior discussions and lack of consensus(as challenged by other users as well). I'm not passing judgment, just stating what happened and that with such a fractured discussion over the topic, it's easier to just have one organized discussion. Flipper9 (talk) 16:41, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

   Well, I can definitely see that you're genuinely concerned about this article and I hope we can all come to a consensus on how best to address the name. I do agree with you that it's important the discussion be centralized and organized, and hopefully that will be the case this time.   user:j    (aka justen)   16:48, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

   N In which case I agree with ThaddeusB, there's no harm in waiting a week and then asking for a vote rather than asking for a vote every 12 hours which seems an awful waste of time by ignoring the value of earlier discussions and expecting all editors to tediously duplicate the same points all over again.—Teahot (talk) 15:22, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

   I'd have to agree as well as, referring to the prior discussion and this one, consensus is a long way off anyways. Flipper9 (talk) 15:32, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

3. This is really boring. The common-name (that used by a lot of governments, most media outlets, and the majority of ordinary human beings) is swine flu. end of. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 17:33, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
4. In favour of "2009 Influenza A(H1N1) epidemic". Sceptre ^(talk) 17:49, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

   Hey, Will. :) Question: Okay, but is the suggested name better than the name now? No one's saying it can't be moved again later. I know that this idea isn't your first choice, but again: is 2009 flu outbreak better than 2009 swine flu outbreak? If you think it's not, then keeps your vote. I'm just trying to figure out how many people don't favor the new name change because they like what is currently here, and how many dislike it because they think there's another, better name out there. hmwithτ 18:55, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

   I'm not particularly fussy; I'd support anything which has "H1N1" and "influenza" in the title. But just "flu epidemic" is a bit ambiguous for the current year. Sceptre ^(talk) 18:58, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

5. Oppose - 2009 flue epidemic is too ambiguous. The title needs a descriptive word before the word "flu". Swine flu is more common than H1N1 flu, so we should stick with the current title. And I agree with the Voting is Evil people. This is getting tedious. --Tocino 17:53, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

   What article could this be confused with? I am interested to know so that a better proposal can be crafted. Jehochman ^Talk 19:34, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

6. Oppose at this time. WP:DEADLINE; we can afford to wait until the world's terminology has stabilized. It may very well stabilize to "2009 swine flu panic". --Alvestrand (talk) 17:57, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
7. Oppose again and again and again. Asking such a question so often is likely to build less consensus rather than more. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 17:59, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
8. Oppose - I like this name better than most accept 2009 Influenza A(H1N1) Epidemic), but I agree that we should wait one week. Currently the media seems about fifty fifty between H1N1 and Swine flu and the medical community still doesn't have a consensus on a name (at least not one that has been brought to my attention). So I say we wait until things calm down a bit and try to come to a consensus. --Hdstubbs (talk) 18:23, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
9. Oppose. Too ambiguous, per Tocino, and the current title still seems to reflect the most common usage. The H1N1 alternative may be misleading; see below. Try again in a week. -- Avenue (talk) 02:06, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
10. Oppose. The H1N1 title is correct and preferable - see comments above.139.48.25.60 (talk) 15:07, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
11. Oppose. This is still raging on? There is still no change in the public's perception of this flu to justify changing the name of this article. Renaming would just serve to confuse the vast majority of users who are searching for "Swine Flu" as it is overwhelmingly known as. It should be noted that the WHO's decision to use different terminology in their own press releases is purely due to political pressure due to isolated religions and financial concerns. Lets not let a non-neutral point of view dictate article titles. I think it is important to keep perspective here... the title only refers to the common name of the current outbreak. The virus itself already has its own page - H1N1. It makes no more sense to rename this page than it does to rename the H1N1 page to Swine Virus. This page is not about the virus - its about the outbreak. 24.222.54.66 (talk) 15:42, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Voting is evil

1. PLEASE STOP RE-ASKING THE SAME QUESTION EVERY 12 HOURS!! There is no consensus to move at this time, and constantly making everyone (on both sides) restate their position is a tremendous waste of time. Wait a week and then ask again!--ThaddeusB (talk) 14:39, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

   Perhaps whomever set the auto-archive bot to 12 hours could either turn it off or have it autoarchive based on size or a longer time period? Might help keeping new sections from popping up every 12 hours. Nobody reads archived discussion, especially when they get as long as this topic has. Flipper9 (talk) 14:43, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

   Someone manually archived (part of) the old discussion. The bot would not have done so on its own since conversation was still ongoing. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:59, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

   Yes although I'm firmly against renaming the article, the use of archiving is the most undemocratic and evil method used to stifle debate on Wikipedia. Senior members having hijacked a topic love that tool.--Wikiqueb (talk) 23:58, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

   Changed autoarchive to 5 days.—Teahot (talk) 14:49, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

   5 days is way too long. This page gets out of control very quickly, size-wise. No one is reaching the discussions at the beginning of this page either, as it comes up multiple times a day. hmwithτ 14:53, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

   See also Wikipedia:There is no deadline --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:59, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

2. Hash out a name and stick with it. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:31, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

If someone posts an unnecessary extra section, WP:TALK would encourage you to prune it or move it under the early section, so long as the discussion is preserved. If Jehochman has no substantial objection, perhaps that should occur here?—Teahot (talk) 15:01, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I object. The prior discussions are fragmented severely. I am hoping to get everything together in one place. Furthermore, events have changed rapidly since the earlier discussions. Jehochman ^Talk 15:10, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

How about changing the bot to 24 hours? Things are slowing down here compared to the start of the article. Flipper9 (talk) 15:02, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)x2 I could do 24 hours. I doubt it will start getting out of control. If it does, it can always be changed back. 5 days was just a big change with no discussion. hmwithτ 15:15, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I didn't edit the bot, so there is no (edit conflict) with me. I have only commented and suggested a change, not made one. Flipper9 (talk) 15:28, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

"Edit conflict" means the user tried to put something here at the same time as someone else and got an edit conflict error message. Sometimes people use it to explain why their point doesn't follow the natural flow of the conversation. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:31, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, sorry. I thought it was one of those 3-conflicts WP:3RR and you are blocked from the discussion tactics. Flipper9 (talk) 15:35, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Haha, NP. I just saw a had an EC. I didn't look if it was a comment before mine (must have been somewhere else on the page). I usually just put it there to be safe. If you click on the (edit conflict) link, it explains it further. hmwithτ 18:50, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

It is already at 24h. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:11, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Title options

After thinking about this issue and reading through the discussions, the options we have before us is to use one of the following titles:

1. "2009 flu outbreak"

2. "2009 swine flu outbreak"

3. "2009 Influenza A(H1N1) outbreak"

4. "2009 H1N1/Influenza/A/B96.3 outbreak"

5. "2009 Mexican flu outbreak"

...and other variations, and substituting Flu/Influenza and Outbreak/Epidemic/Pandemic as needed.

Discussion

While #1 is too broad, I will agree #4 (at this time) is too technical. #2 is misleading. My POV is that #3 (there are variations on this one) is a good compromise as many scientific (such authorities as PUBMED and GeneBank), government (WHO and CDC), and news organizations (take your pick) use it and it represents a balance between something that a common person could understand (and even pronounce) and also reflects better accuracy and balance. Flipper9 (talk) 15:39, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I edited those titles that you posted to be how they'd actually be (capitalization/spacing) & made this section a subtitle. I hope you don't mind. :) But thanks for laying out all of the titles in front of us. Someone has been needing to do that. hmwithτ 18:06, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

No problem! Thanks :) Flipper9 (talk) 18:15, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Added "2009 Mexican flu outbreak"--86.25.54.96 (talk) 19:11, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

mmmm, not sure what to say about #5, though I understand that in countries such as the UK that one is used, might be others. Matches the historical names of other famous pandemics, but isn't very scientific and not supported by MOS:MED Flipper9 (talk) 19:32, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually the UK government uses Swine Influenza/Flu [4].--Pontificalibus (talk) 19:49, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

5 would be supported under MOS:MED if it was in the form "A/Mexico/(strain number)/2009/(H1N1)" see International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses. However taxon's aren't offical until they are approved by the committee, which would possibly leave us using the decimal code in the meantime. 2009 00.046.0.01.001.00.001.001. flu outbreak doesn't seem all that useful to me. So 'swine flu' is the worst possible choice; except for all the others. Winston is back--PigFlu Oink (talk) 20:01, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I made all of these redirect to the article in the meantime. hmwithτ 20:45, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

On a lighter note, a Nebraska senator has suggested adopting human given names, as is done for cylones. Clay Masters (6 May 2009). "Dislike Swine Flu's Name? How About Calling it Jake?". NPR. I must say, the idea just may catch on.LeadSongDog come howl 22:29, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I like how Nebraska sometimes thinks the whole world revolves around them and their corn. A few words from a Senator I've never heard of could likely change the whole way infectious diseases are named in the United States. Ok Nebraska, don't call us we'll call you. I'll give Nelson some points for not being a beaucratic weeniee though. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 22:38, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

So...any consensus on which one to pick or any other suggestions, comments, changes to the list? Flipper9 (talk) 15:53, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Wait. I'm not sure why people are so interested in the article name, but let's not move it again until at least after the vaccine advisory board gives its advice on vaccine production (May 14). Once the vaccine has a name widely agreed upon in the press (and a new article of its own) the media consensus should be a little more clear. Mike Serfas (talk) 00:40, 9 May 2009 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.