From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Requested move 28 February 2023

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: Moved to 2022–2023 mpox outbreak, along with most per-country articles and stuff from Category:Monkeypox (to be submitted to WP:C2D). No such user ( talk) 18:05, 9 March 2023 (UTC) reply


The result of the move request was: Boldly putting this on hold as the result is basically contingent on the move request at the Mpox article. I'd encourage all interested to join the discussion there. Ajpolino ( talk) 20:48, 1 March 2023 (UTC) reply

2022–2023 monkeypox outbreak2022–2023 mpox outbreak – This was proposed last November, but rejected with some editors feeling it was premature. Time has moved on. Since then, the monkeypox article was moved to mpox and there has been discussion on the Talk page for that article that unanimously supports switching from "monkeypox" to "mpox" in this article too: see Talk:Mpox#Related articles. However, that discussion has only involved 4 of us and we should get consensus here. Mpox and mpox outbreak is the terminology now used in WP:MEDRS-compliant sourcing, by WHO, by Nature, by Science, by articles in The Lancet, by the CDC, by CNN, etc. etc. Bondegezou ( talk) 09:55, 28 February 2023 (UTC) — Relisting.  No such user ( talk) 08:57, 8 March 2023 (UTC) reply

I agree, and we should change the whole set of articles (apart from the virus). You will see I did place a "Rename proposal" earlier here and in every related article, directing discussion to the main mpox talk page. It is a shame that there wasn't more response, but I don't think we should need to do a rename proposal for each article, as my notice should be enough.
I was stalling making the change myself while the -23 issue was uncertain. While I continue to believe the renaming to add -2023 was premature, it now does look likely to be adopted and so we might as well keep that. So all these articles should be named "2022–2023 mpox outbreak" and variants on that theme, as well as their body text updated. -- Colin° Talk 10:27, 28 February 2023 (UTC) reply
Support, per nom. Ajpolino ( talk) 15:01, 28 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Strong oppose, the monkeypox page was moved early and controversially. I've opened an RM to get consensus on what the page should be. That should be settled before this is moved.-- Ortizesp ( talk) 16:38, 28 February 2023 (UTC) reply
Ortizesp is mistaken. The move for the main Monkeypox article to Mpox was done a month ago following extensive discussion: see Talk:Mpox#Update. There were 6 editors in favour of moving versus just one IP editor against. The move was not done controversially: I suggest Ortizesp strike that comment. Bondegezou ( talk) 17:03, 28 February 2023 (UTC) reply
But it appears there was no official WP:RM opened. Whatever discussion took place would have been only among those people watching that Talk page of the article, as the wider Wikipedia community was not informed that this was being considered. The fact that there was some further back-and-forth move activity for the article after that is evidence that the move was not uncontroversial. —⁠ ⁠ BarrelProof ( talk) 18:26, 28 February 2023 (UTC) reply
WP:RM is explicitly not mandatory. The move at mpox was uncontroversial: editors discussed the matter and came to a near unanimous decision. The move was made and no-one complained. Then, a month later, an editor apparently new to the article moved the page back yesterday with no discussion whatsoever, which I reverted. That editor has since acknowledged their error. Bondegezou ( talk) 18:56, 28 February 2023 (UTC) reply
And now an RM has been opened. It seems that you and I (and Ortizesp) may have a different understanding of what constitutes controversiality. Differences in perspective don't necessarily make people who have a differing view mistaken or mean that their comments should be struck. —⁠ ⁠ BarrelProof ( talk) 20:22, 28 February 2023 (UTC) reply
Ortizesp opened the RM. Ortizesp effectively saying the same thing twice is not corroboration of Ortizesp's position. Bondegezou ( talk) 22:08, 28 February 2023 (UTC) reply
Ortizesp has now acknowledged that they had missed seeing the earlier discussion when they opened the RM at mpox: see User_talk:Ortizesp#Close. Bondegezou ( talk) 09:02, 1 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Alternatively: returning the page whence it came, i.e. back to 2022 monkeypox outbreak as the end date of this disease is not known and it may extend into 2024 and beyond. There was no discussion to include 2023 as part of the title. Iggy ( Swan) ( Contribs) 21:45, 28 February 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Wait for the other RM to settle. Although the other request was created later (and as a direct response to this one), if it succeeds, it would resolve this one as well. O.N.R.  (talk) 00:03, 1 March 2023 (UTC) reply
    Are you happy either way? That is, if the decision is for mpox to stay at mpox, you would then support the corresponding change here? Bondegezou ( talk) 08:48, 1 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Procedural close It should follow the consensus at the other requested move, or stay where it is if there is no consensus. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ) 02:49, 1 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose per Ortizesp and per comment by BarrelProof. Monkeypox is indeed the WP:COMMONNAME — There are 457 inline cites and five external links at the bottom of this article and virtually all of those refer to the viral disease in question as "monkeypox", rather than as "mpox". — Roman Spinner (talkcontribs) 04:19, 1 March 2023 (UTC) reply
    As per the policy at WP:NAMECHANGES, Sometimes the subject of an article will undergo a change of name. When this occurs, we give extra weight to independent, reliable English-language sources ("reliable sources") written after the name change. This article has lots of citations from last summer, but the name was changed after those. As per policy, we should focus on recent usage. I gave examples of recent usage at the start of this discussion. Bondegezou ( talk) 08:48, 1 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • I don't think we should have an essentially identical discussion in two places. The main "mpox" article seems more appropriate than this one. Please discuss at the Talk:Mpox#Requested move 28 February 2023 but note that there are also important points made at Talk:Mpox#Monkeypox or Mpox?. Also note that at the tail end of that previous discussion, we did discuss the -2023 name change. I was initially opposed to it, but it does seem now that organisations responsible for declaring and handling the outbreak (and its end) are now including -2023 in the name. So we should follow them.
User:Bondegezou I wonder if you could make an admin request to close or suspend this discussion until the other one is over. Otherwise it will just be a mess. -- Colin° Talk 08:57, 1 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • I agree. We should close this request for the time being and focus on the discussion at Mpox, which is in danger of turning in to an ill-informed vote. Graham Beards ( talk) 10:31, 1 March 2023 (UTC) reply

I have alerted all those Talk pages, and the Talk page for the navbox. Bondegezou ( talk) 12:01, 8 March 2023 (UTC) reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Discrepancy in count of deaths.

As of today, the article shows 280 total deaths. However WHO only reports a total of 112 (see link below). This is a significant difference. I understand that this is a discrepancy in sources, and we have no control over it - but should we highlight this in the article?

(Thanks User:INgIEroC for regularly updating the statistics)

https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/situation-reports/20230329_mpox_external-sitrep-19.pdf

Bob ( talk) 18:22, 9 April 2023 (UTC) reply

Suggested move: 2022-2023 global mpox outbreak

The current title only reflects the viewpoint of the global north; it is an outbreak from endemic areas in tropical Africa to other countries where the disease has not been seen before. It is not the only outbreak of mpox which has taken place during 2022 or 2023 - there have been other outbreaks during this period in endemic areas. [1] [2] [3] These areas are have poor healthcare infrastructure and outbreaks are rarely documented.

The WHO is very careful to refer to the outbreak as either "Global" or "Multi-Country" - we should do the same.

  1. ^ "Mpox (monkeypox)". WHO. p. Paragraph - Outbreaks. Retrieved 2023-05-30.
  2. ^ Kozlov, Max (2023-02-10). "WHO may soon end mpox emergency — but outbreaks rage in Africa". Nature. 614 (7949): 600–601. doi: 10.1038/d41586-023-00391-9.
  3. ^ "In Central Africa, a deadly monkeypox variant is surging". National Geographic. 2022-10-20. Retrieved 2023-05-30.

Bob ( talk) 13:31, 30 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Is the outbreak over or just the PHEIC?

Inspired by similar discussions related to the COVID-19 pandemic, do sources actually agree that the mpox outbreak, specifically, is over, or at least refer to it in past tense, or is it considered to be continuing at present? The PHEIC ended, yes, but so did the one for COVID-19, yet the COVID-19 pandemic article uses present tense and contains information up to the present. Normally I'd consider the PHEIC ending to be enough in the absence of anything indicating otherwise, but this article does contain case and death counts extending into March 2024. Therefore, we should either more clearly describe the outbreak as over and remove information about after that time as out of scope (perhaps belonging in the general mpox article), or a rename may be warranted, though I'd suggest "Mpox outbreak" over "2022-2024 mpox outbreak". Crossroads -talk- 05:26, 29 March 2024 (UTC) reply

As per the previous Talk section, maybe “Global mpox outbreak”. There have been other outbreaks.
Something like this implies the outbreak is ongoing, yes. Bondegezou ( talk) 06:39, 29 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Requested move 22 April 2024

2022–2023 mpox outbreakGlobal mpox outbreak – Please see the previous two brief headings on this page. The global outbreak did not actually end in 2023 (see also [1]), and it is more properly described as the global outbreak to distinguish it from outbreaks in previously endemic regions. There is no need for naming specific years in the title; other disease outbreak/epidemic articles do not do this. Crossroads -talk- 18:48, 22 April 2024 (UTC) reply

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Requested move 28 February 2023

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: Moved to 2022–2023 mpox outbreak, along with most per-country articles and stuff from Category:Monkeypox (to be submitted to WP:C2D). No such user ( talk) 18:05, 9 March 2023 (UTC) reply


The result of the move request was: Boldly putting this on hold as the result is basically contingent on the move request at the Mpox article. I'd encourage all interested to join the discussion there. Ajpolino ( talk) 20:48, 1 March 2023 (UTC) reply

2022–2023 monkeypox outbreak2022–2023 mpox outbreak – This was proposed last November, but rejected with some editors feeling it was premature. Time has moved on. Since then, the monkeypox article was moved to mpox and there has been discussion on the Talk page for that article that unanimously supports switching from "monkeypox" to "mpox" in this article too: see Talk:Mpox#Related articles. However, that discussion has only involved 4 of us and we should get consensus here. Mpox and mpox outbreak is the terminology now used in WP:MEDRS-compliant sourcing, by WHO, by Nature, by Science, by articles in The Lancet, by the CDC, by CNN, etc. etc. Bondegezou ( talk) 09:55, 28 February 2023 (UTC) — Relisting.  No such user ( talk) 08:57, 8 March 2023 (UTC) reply

I agree, and we should change the whole set of articles (apart from the virus). You will see I did place a "Rename proposal" earlier here and in every related article, directing discussion to the main mpox talk page. It is a shame that there wasn't more response, but I don't think we should need to do a rename proposal for each article, as my notice should be enough.
I was stalling making the change myself while the -23 issue was uncertain. While I continue to believe the renaming to add -2023 was premature, it now does look likely to be adopted and so we might as well keep that. So all these articles should be named "2022–2023 mpox outbreak" and variants on that theme, as well as their body text updated. -- Colin° Talk 10:27, 28 February 2023 (UTC) reply
Support, per nom. Ajpolino ( talk) 15:01, 28 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Strong oppose, the monkeypox page was moved early and controversially. I've opened an RM to get consensus on what the page should be. That should be settled before this is moved.-- Ortizesp ( talk) 16:38, 28 February 2023 (UTC) reply
Ortizesp is mistaken. The move for the main Monkeypox article to Mpox was done a month ago following extensive discussion: see Talk:Mpox#Update. There were 6 editors in favour of moving versus just one IP editor against. The move was not done controversially: I suggest Ortizesp strike that comment. Bondegezou ( talk) 17:03, 28 February 2023 (UTC) reply
But it appears there was no official WP:RM opened. Whatever discussion took place would have been only among those people watching that Talk page of the article, as the wider Wikipedia community was not informed that this was being considered. The fact that there was some further back-and-forth move activity for the article after that is evidence that the move was not uncontroversial. —⁠ ⁠ BarrelProof ( talk) 18:26, 28 February 2023 (UTC) reply
WP:RM is explicitly not mandatory. The move at mpox was uncontroversial: editors discussed the matter and came to a near unanimous decision. The move was made and no-one complained. Then, a month later, an editor apparently new to the article moved the page back yesterday with no discussion whatsoever, which I reverted. That editor has since acknowledged their error. Bondegezou ( talk) 18:56, 28 February 2023 (UTC) reply
And now an RM has been opened. It seems that you and I (and Ortizesp) may have a different understanding of what constitutes controversiality. Differences in perspective don't necessarily make people who have a differing view mistaken or mean that their comments should be struck. —⁠ ⁠ BarrelProof ( talk) 20:22, 28 February 2023 (UTC) reply
Ortizesp opened the RM. Ortizesp effectively saying the same thing twice is not corroboration of Ortizesp's position. Bondegezou ( talk) 22:08, 28 February 2023 (UTC) reply
Ortizesp has now acknowledged that they had missed seeing the earlier discussion when they opened the RM at mpox: see User_talk:Ortizesp#Close. Bondegezou ( talk) 09:02, 1 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Alternatively: returning the page whence it came, i.e. back to 2022 monkeypox outbreak as the end date of this disease is not known and it may extend into 2024 and beyond. There was no discussion to include 2023 as part of the title. Iggy ( Swan) ( Contribs) 21:45, 28 February 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Wait for the other RM to settle. Although the other request was created later (and as a direct response to this one), if it succeeds, it would resolve this one as well. O.N.R.  (talk) 00:03, 1 March 2023 (UTC) reply
    Are you happy either way? That is, if the decision is for mpox to stay at mpox, you would then support the corresponding change here? Bondegezou ( talk) 08:48, 1 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Procedural close It should follow the consensus at the other requested move, or stay where it is if there is no consensus. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ) 02:49, 1 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose per Ortizesp and per comment by BarrelProof. Monkeypox is indeed the WP:COMMONNAME — There are 457 inline cites and five external links at the bottom of this article and virtually all of those refer to the viral disease in question as "monkeypox", rather than as "mpox". — Roman Spinner (talkcontribs) 04:19, 1 March 2023 (UTC) reply
    As per the policy at WP:NAMECHANGES, Sometimes the subject of an article will undergo a change of name. When this occurs, we give extra weight to independent, reliable English-language sources ("reliable sources") written after the name change. This article has lots of citations from last summer, but the name was changed after those. As per policy, we should focus on recent usage. I gave examples of recent usage at the start of this discussion. Bondegezou ( talk) 08:48, 1 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • I don't think we should have an essentially identical discussion in two places. The main "mpox" article seems more appropriate than this one. Please discuss at the Talk:Mpox#Requested move 28 February 2023 but note that there are also important points made at Talk:Mpox#Monkeypox or Mpox?. Also note that at the tail end of that previous discussion, we did discuss the -2023 name change. I was initially opposed to it, but it does seem now that organisations responsible for declaring and handling the outbreak (and its end) are now including -2023 in the name. So we should follow them.
User:Bondegezou I wonder if you could make an admin request to close or suspend this discussion until the other one is over. Otherwise it will just be a mess. -- Colin° Talk 08:57, 1 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • I agree. We should close this request for the time being and focus on the discussion at Mpox, which is in danger of turning in to an ill-informed vote. Graham Beards ( talk) 10:31, 1 March 2023 (UTC) reply

I have alerted all those Talk pages, and the Talk page for the navbox. Bondegezou ( talk) 12:01, 8 March 2023 (UTC) reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Discrepancy in count of deaths.

As of today, the article shows 280 total deaths. However WHO only reports a total of 112 (see link below). This is a significant difference. I understand that this is a discrepancy in sources, and we have no control over it - but should we highlight this in the article?

(Thanks User:INgIEroC for regularly updating the statistics)

https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/situation-reports/20230329_mpox_external-sitrep-19.pdf

Bob ( talk) 18:22, 9 April 2023 (UTC) reply

Suggested move: 2022-2023 global mpox outbreak

The current title only reflects the viewpoint of the global north; it is an outbreak from endemic areas in tropical Africa to other countries where the disease has not been seen before. It is not the only outbreak of mpox which has taken place during 2022 or 2023 - there have been other outbreaks during this period in endemic areas. [1] [2] [3] These areas are have poor healthcare infrastructure and outbreaks are rarely documented.

The WHO is very careful to refer to the outbreak as either "Global" or "Multi-Country" - we should do the same.

  1. ^ "Mpox (monkeypox)". WHO. p. Paragraph - Outbreaks. Retrieved 2023-05-30.
  2. ^ Kozlov, Max (2023-02-10). "WHO may soon end mpox emergency — but outbreaks rage in Africa". Nature. 614 (7949): 600–601. doi: 10.1038/d41586-023-00391-9.
  3. ^ "In Central Africa, a deadly monkeypox variant is surging". National Geographic. 2022-10-20. Retrieved 2023-05-30.

Bob ( talk) 13:31, 30 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Is the outbreak over or just the PHEIC?

Inspired by similar discussions related to the COVID-19 pandemic, do sources actually agree that the mpox outbreak, specifically, is over, or at least refer to it in past tense, or is it considered to be continuing at present? The PHEIC ended, yes, but so did the one for COVID-19, yet the COVID-19 pandemic article uses present tense and contains information up to the present. Normally I'd consider the PHEIC ending to be enough in the absence of anything indicating otherwise, but this article does contain case and death counts extending into March 2024. Therefore, we should either more clearly describe the outbreak as over and remove information about after that time as out of scope (perhaps belonging in the general mpox article), or a rename may be warranted, though I'd suggest "Mpox outbreak" over "2022-2024 mpox outbreak". Crossroads -talk- 05:26, 29 March 2024 (UTC) reply

As per the previous Talk section, maybe “Global mpox outbreak”. There have been other outbreaks.
Something like this implies the outbreak is ongoing, yes. Bondegezou ( talk) 06:39, 29 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Requested move 22 April 2024

2022–2023 mpox outbreakGlobal mpox outbreak – Please see the previous two brief headings on this page. The global outbreak did not actually end in 2023 (see also [1]), and it is more properly described as the global outbreak to distinguish it from outbreaks in previously endemic regions. There is no need for naming specific years in the title; other disease outbreak/epidemic articles do not do this. Crossroads -talk- 18:48, 22 April 2024 (UTC) reply


Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook