Talk:Economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States

Requested move 17 April 2021

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 User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 22:15, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

---

Economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States → COVID-19 recession in the United States – Following naming convention of other articles about recessions in the economic history of the United States and Commonwealth of Nations countries. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 19:52, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

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

Requested move 14 May 2021

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 section.

---

• COVID-19 recession in the United States → Economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States
• COVID-19 recession in Canada → Economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic in Canada
• COVID-19 recession in India → Economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic in India

– The article titles should be moved back to their original titles for now. Not only were the WP:RM discussions for these articles closed and the titles moved without any sort of community discussion to be had in each of them, but it appears the user requesting the moves, CommonKnowledgeCreator, has been (and is currently) moving gradually through all of the articles detailing the COVID-19 pandemic's economic impact on individual countries and creating RM discussions for each of them, instead of bundling them together into one RM discussion, which seems to be the more proper and procedural way to go in this instance, from my perspective.

The reason for my concern is that there's an RM discussion ongoing at Economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic in the United Kingdom, and there's a user participating in that discussion who disagrees with the move. Since the discussions for the U.S., Canada, and India articles were closed without any editor participation, I wonder what the dissenting user would've thought of those moves had they been aware of it. Love of Corey (talk) 03:52, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Linked requested moves:

• New Zealand
• United Kingdom
• United States
• Ireland

• Support: The "Economic impact of" titles seem more objective and somewhat broader in scope. The "COVID-19 recession" titles seem to promote a name rather than simply being informative, and the word "recession" implies a specific definition and limitation of scope that is unnecessary. — BarrelProof (talk) 15:02, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Actually, not necessarily broader in scope, but broader in some ways and narrower in other ways. They would be narrower in the sense that if the subject of the article is the recession, then the article should also include a discussion of things that affected the economy that are unrelated to COVID-19. Otherwise, the article would be a gross oversimplification, as there are many factors involved in a recession. — BarrelProof (talk) 15:51, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
• Strongly Oppose: While the term "recession" has a specific definition, it is broad enough to include all of content that is cited. This is not about promoting a name but using the actual technical definition that does not limit the scope. It appears to me that the issue that other editors have had with the name change are based on misunderstandings of the word "recession". -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 16:56, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Even so, this is something that should've been taken care of through a bundled discussion and not through individual RM discussions. Love of Corey (talk) 22:17, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

@Love of Corey: That may be. I am not familiar enough with the bureaucracy of this website to know. However, I do not believe that justifies returning the article title to the previous one unless there is a larger discussion about the title of these Economic impact of COVID-19 by country articles. One is briefer, technically correct, and as far as I can tell, if just one section at the end of every article includes a section on the recovery period following the recession, then basically all of the content is accounted for because all sectors of the economy are part of real GDP in one way or another even if it isn't immediately evident from the GDP formula itself. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:35, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Well, I've sent you a link to the proper way to bundle discussions on your talk page, so now you should know. Please remove the ongoing RM discussions that you've created for other COVID-19 recession articles and redo it all with the process I've linked to you. Love of Corey (talk) 22:40, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose no need for wordy MOS:EUPHEMISMs—blindlynx (talk) 17:55, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

You're not concerned about the fact that multiple RM discussions were filed instead of one bundled RM discussion that would cover all of these topics? Love of Corey (talk) 22:17, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

A bunch of these were moved with consensus last month the fact that discussion wasn't centralized doesn't mean we should move them back. Start a centralized and we can move the outliers after it's closed rather than moving them back and forth—blindlynx (talk) 03:02, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Even though there are already individual discussions going on at the other articles? Love of Corey (talk) 03:51, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

I have seen a lot of RMs in the past that were unbundled that I would have preferred to be grouped. However, I have also seen complaints about bundling as well as those about holding separate discussions. I forget the shortcut name that talks about excessive bundling for RMs, but a similar one is WP:BUNDLE for deletion discussions, which says "If you're unsure, don't bundle it." That, in itself, does not seem like major grounds for complaint. — BarrelProof (talk) 16:03, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Obviously there wasn't anything to be "unsure" about with this mass renaming. Love of Corey (talk) 03:51, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't think "economic impact" is a euphemism. Economic impact can be severe – even more severe than a recession. For example, the Economics of climate change could involve devastation on a massive scale. — BarrelProof (talk) 16:08, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

• Support more appropriate title Games of the world (talk) 08:59, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support - More accurate and therefore preferred per WP:CRITERIA, embraces more of the article content, no evidence that "COVID recession" is a common name. FOARP (talk) 11:38, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support. The title makes no sense. The lead clearly says "The economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States has been largely disruptive, adversely affecting travel, financial markets, employment, shipping, and other industries." —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 16:19, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
• Comment - Just wanted to let everyone know that the RM discussion at the UK article, which I mention above, has just been closed as "Do not move". Love of Corey (talk) 04:05, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

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