Talk:COVID-19

RFD discussion: March–June 2020
English entry is redundant, because a Translingual entry already exists for these exact senses. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 22:12, 21 March 2020 (UTC)


 * The synonyms are not Translingual synonyms, they are English synonyms. Where does that information go then? -- 67.70.32.186 00:11, 22 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I'm divided. I don't think it's ideal to move synonyms etc out of what may be the most common name (and: move them to where? coronavirus, which is itself at RFD?); OTOH, one could add language sections with synonyms for several other languages as well. But, back on the first hand (we'll sure have to wash these hands after touching all these topics!), the same is true of coronavirus, that string too is used in lots of languages and yet also can have other synonyms in them: so it might be useful ask whether and on what basis either COVID-19 or coronavirus should be said to be, and especially to exclusively be, Translingual, vs to be words in various languages? Neither is used in all languages in that specific form, Portuguese accents the i in coronavírus, and French title-cases Covid-19, and languages that don't use Latin script seem to additionally (if not sometimes exclusively) use other things, like . And where would those translations be listed, if the English entry goes? Can translations be listed in Translingual entries that are not taxonomic names? So, I'm inclined to keep. Perhaps disease-outbreak names are theoretically Translingual, set by some authority for all languages to use without change, but this disease has clearly become so common and so notable than numerous languages have also "naturalized" the name into their own lects and preferred capitalizations and scripts and so on. - -sche (discuss) 15:17, 26 March 2020 (UTC)


 * There is also a pronunciation given now (unsourced though, and I don't know if there's consensus on it yet…) for the English, whereas obviously there is none for the “translingual” section”. I think it is fair to say the word has gotten a lot of usage in English already, so it's part of the language. Ajfweb (talk) 19:41, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * This is anecdotal evidence, but I've heard "COVID-19" a lot on the radio and in person and nobody has ever used a pronunciation other than /ˈkoʊ.vɪd naɪn.ˈtin/. —Tanner Swett (talk) 22:57, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. I don't think deleting all but the Translingual entry is practical because if this were done, the language-specific information on pronunciation and synonyms that would have to be awkwardly stuffed into the Translingual entry. — Eru·tuon 22:40, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep as it appears in English text. I have just entered a quote using it (but not for this term). One thing I have learnt with quotes is that words other than the quote-word can be linked to using square brackets, e.g. [[COVID-19]]. Very useful. DonnanZ (talk) 14:20, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I have since added a few more linked indirect quotes. DonnanZ (talk) 14:10, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. I think I've seen this primarily as "Covid-19" in French, but "COVID-19" in English. And pronunciations vary. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 00:40, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I should also mention that different languages have different genders for the term, and genders are not translingual. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 16:14, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. Why would it be removed? It is an English word, and having to merge everything into the translingual entry makes no sense! Hkbusfan (talk) 13:50, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep The English meaning "a species in family Coronaviridae ..." is included in the Translingual term, but any other meaning is likely to be specific to English unless we get attestation on other languages and/or change our habit to ignoring the translinguality of terms that are in use in multiple languages such as those from medical and legal Latins (or is that latins). DCDuring (talk) 23:03, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Kept: looks like there's a clear consensus for keeping. PUC – 10:18, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

RFV discussion: June–July 2020
Rfv-sense: weight gained during the DTLHS (talk) 16:36, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I dont know about 19, but I think we can find cites for the phrase COVID-15, which belongs to a pattern of phrases such as sober 15, freshman fifteen, and so on which are in common enough use that they can be used in connected speech without explanation. In our case, we found a variant where the number is 19 instead of 15 because it's a pun, but again, finding cites for this is going to be quite a chore, because it's spelled in exactly the same way as the name of the disease.   — Soap — 14:29, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I found one newspaper cite (published in two papers). The trick is to imagine some words that would likely collocate with the term in the sense challenged. I used "gain|lose|gains|loses|losing|gaining|lost|gained my|your|our|their|his|her|any|some|much COVID-19" at Google News and Google Groups. It will take some imagination to get some other collocations. DCDuring (talk) 23:10, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

RFV-failed Kiwima (talk) 01:19, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

COVID
"The time period marked by the COVID-19 pandemic, starting in early 2020 and lasting two or three years. Many diabetics have been dying, especially during COVID-19." Not a separate sense of the word. Could use e.g. "the Black Death" the same way. Equinox ◑ 20:07, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, you could use "the Black Death" the same way. That suggests that we should add a sense at the black death for the time period. If it's possible to say that something occurred "during the Black Death" which solely refers to that thing happening in that stretch of the mid-1300s, rather than occurring in connection with the disease, then it is a separate meaning. bd2412 T 20:18, 10 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Then we would need "time period" senses for things like "fascism" ("during fascism, Germany or Spain acted such-and-such a way"), and absurd numbers of other political periods etc. Not realistic. Also not helpful to users, clutter, because these "during X" cases always mean "during the time of X". They add nothing. Equinox ◑ 20:24, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * If you can find CFI-worthy sources generally using nouns to refer to time periods, then those are attested meanings of those nouns. For something like "during fascism", which could apply to different times in different places, we would need a demonstration of a fairly widespread adoption of the phrase for a single time period, but "during the Black Death" would fairly universally mean "from 1346 to 1353", and "during COVID-19" would probably be fairly universally understood to mean "from 2020 to 2022". bd2412 T 20:30, 10 May 2023 (UTC)


 * I'm undecided, leaning towards delete for the reasons earlier expressed in the Tea Room : you can also say something happened during the outbreak, during a surge, during a pandemic, during the pandemic, during the election, etc, etc, or as Equinox points out during fascism, during communism, etc. I also feel like we're still too much "in COVID" to be able to say that it only refers to some period of time in the past (as opposed to being ongoing). - -sche (discuss) 01:03, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @-sche But isn't defined as "the COVID-19 pandemic of 2020–". Wouldn't such a sense be necessary for your argument? I tend to think the sense should be reworded into this form, without the unnecessary "time period" bit. This, that and the other (talk) 06:59, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not seeing much point in such fine distinctions. Would a source stating that some “worked from home during COVID-19” mean that she did so during the pandemic or during the time period that the pandemic occurred over? The two are coterminous and it would be impossible to determine which source is supposed to be applying which sense of the term. — Sgconlaw (talk) 04:57, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment: I heard "during COVID" on BBC Radio this morning, so it does occur without the 19 at least. DonnanZ (talk) 09:30, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, see . I’ve added that entry to this discussion because it also has a “time period” sense. — Sgconlaw (talk) 11:31, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete * Pppery * it has begun... 20:02, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * To be clear, I vote keep but remove the phrase "The time period marked by" (and the comma) from the definition - or perhaps simply rephrase as "The COVID-19 pandemic that began in 2020". It's trivial to find uses like "during COVID-19", "when COVID-19 began in early 2020", "at the start of COVID-19"  which very clearly and specifically refer to the pandemic, not to the disease (sense 1) or pathogen (sense 2). This, that and the other (talk) 04:12, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

The discussion has stalled, so I have taken the liberty of enacting my proposal. Some users' votes, such as 's and, seem to be predicated on the assumption that the entry contains a separate "pandemic" sense alongside the "time period" sense, which it did not. This, that and the other (talk) 00:05, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

RFD-resolved This, that and the other (talk) 04:50, 15 August 2023 (UTC)