Talk:Spanish flu

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: not moved. per discussion consensus. As a virologist, I personally would have been inclined towards the more neutral titles per WHO conventions. But to allow such feelings to interfere with closing this discussion would be a WP:SUPERVOTE. Per wikipedia policy, I am bound to close this in favor of the consensus built here, without interference of my personal opinions. And in this case, the discussion consensus is in favor of keeping the current name per WP:COMMONNAME, WP:RECOGNIZABILITY, and WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. These were the arguments most convincing to naive participants and those weighing the policies, particularities, etc. So it goes, my friends. We are not here to "correct" history or make it more palatable, but to call spades spades. I also would like to gently remind User: Nabbovirus to avoid WP:BLUDGEONing discussions, as it often has the opposite effect of what is intended. WP:WALLOFTEXT often pushes people away from your position, not towards it, regardless of how meritorious the argument actually is. (closed by non-admin page mover) — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:37, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish flu → 1918 flu pandemic – Previous RM was opposed primarily on the basis on WP:COMMONNAME. However, I have looked at that guideline and it says 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 and later When there are multiple names for a subject, all of which are fairly common, and the most common has problems, it is perfectly reasonable to choose one of the others. "Spanish flu" is a misnomer (as mentioned in the first sentence of the article) so on the basis of WP:COMMONNAME, the article should NOT be titled "Spanish flu", but rather another common name e.g. "1918 flu pandemic". --TedEdwards 13:09, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support The July 2021 move discussion came out against this. Personally I would support 1918 flu pandemic, but others might still support Spanish flu citing COMMONNAME.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:22, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support enough recent mentions in reliable sources are using 1918 flu as the primary name to justify moving to the "better" title. Skynxnex (talk) 14:35, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. This is more in line with contemporary conventions of avoiding the naming of diseases by geographic location or ethnicity. WP:CONCISE. Shwcz (talk) 14:45, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Right, but we're not hopping into a time machine to tell people 100+ years ago what to call this flu. What, does Siege of Constantinople need to move, too? Red Slash 16:36, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per points already made. Readers searching for "Spanish flu" will be redirected here and might learn something as a result. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 15:41, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, n-grams show overwhelming century old and present day use of the term 'Spanish flu' compared with any variation of "1918 flu". WP:COMMONNAME should continue as the standard here and, in fact, this title is used as an example at WP:COMMONNAME of how to and how to not name a page. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:58, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Are you actually going to counter my initial argument where I pointed out that naming the article "Spanish flu" is not in line with WP:COMMONNAME, or are you going to say it is in line with it just because someone picked a poor example that is not in line with the policy it is included in? --TedEdwards 16:11, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, My grandfather was a doctor in the US Navy during the epidemic, and eventually came down with it himself. He called it the Spanish flu. That name is not ambiguous nor is it inaccurate. It's a name, that the flu did not originate in Spain doesn't matter. If I learned that Spanish rice was not from Spain I'd not be in favor of changing that name either. Carptrash (talk) 17:03, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In our article we include the painting by Edvard Munch, entitled "Self-Portrait with the Spanish Flu" in 1919. Spanish Flu is what it was called then, what it should be called now. Let's not be revisionists just for the sake of changing things. Carptrash (talk) 17:10, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So World War I should be moved to "The Great War", just because that's what it was called back then? --TedEdwards 21:27, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also funny example since spanish rice redirects to Mexican rice despite "spanish rice" being more frequently used in English according to NGrams... Ajpolino (talk) 22:35, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose move. We've been over this before; the majority of mentions appear as "Spanish flu". It's still the COMMONNAME, even if some people might have reservations. O.N.R. ^(talk) 17:14, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. I'm not buying the argument that "Spanish" is problematic, and it is undoubtedly the more WP:RECOGNIZABLE title. 162 etc. (talk) 18:19, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment If anyone's going to cite WP:COMMONNAME to oppose this move, please try to counter my initial arguement which was based on that policy. --TedEdwards 21:30, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  There's no real need, since you did't demonstrate that "Spanish flu" is ambiguous or inaccurate. It is certainly not ambiguous, and it is only "inaccurate" insofar it did not originate in Spain. Neither did Arabic numerals originate in Arabia, nor did Chinese whispers originate in China. As far as RM nominating statements for this article go, that one was rather deprived of substantial arguments in favor of the move. No such user (talk) 12:08, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Spanish flu" is inaccurate because it is regarded so by many sources, particularly medical ones who do not refer to it as Spanish flu except in quotes (e.g. [1]). The problem is it implies a disease first found in Kansas came from Spain, and the name "Spanish flu" is entirely based on that misconception. As for your examples, and the ones below, unless you can show there are other names for these things that are common names, they cannot be considered equivalent to "Spanish flu", where "1918 flu pandemic" is another common name for the pandemic.

I will also point out that "Spanish flu" sounds like the name of a strain of flu, not the name of a pandemic. --TedEdwards 19:03, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think we all can easily see your good faith point of view, but just disagree. Spanish flu has been the things common name since it came and went over 100 years ago, creating havoc and grief throughout the world, impacting college campuses and cities everywhere. What a tragedy to be placed atop a world war (and probably ended it). The illness and devastation has a known common name: Spanish flu. Always has had. Since the start and right through the latest pandemic. Where it actually came from has nothing to do with it, the name grew beyond that quickly, stuck, and has never changed. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:44, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You might say we all can easily see your good faith point of view, but in my previous message I made two points I had not made before, and you've addressed neither. --TedEdwards 18:01, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• And turkeys aren't from Turkey, and Panama hats, and French fries, and ... etc. Strong, consistent oppose because of common name. Red Slash 16:30, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. As per ptomaine poisoning redirecting to foodborne illness, German measles to rubella, etc. Per Category:Epidemics by century it is helpful to have a date attached to our various infectious disease outbreak cycles jengod (talk) 01:45, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "Ptomaine poisoning" was a myth. A fake name for a foodborne illness, not a real thing. Per ngrams Rubella is the common name, not German measles. Another look at the Spanish flu n-grams seems appropriate here. A real disease, and the common and most recognizable name for this destructive pandemic for 104 years. Randy Kryn (talk) 09:29, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. As noted above, the current name is the common name, and there is no special reason to avoid using it. Sure, it's technically not accurate, but it's what sources call it and we aren't here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS.  — Amakuru (talk) 18:57, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Although "Spanish flu" is not an accurate name, it unambiguously references this particular pandemic, and is the definite WP:COMMONNAME. Ngrams indicates that "Spanish flu" has a substantial usage lead over "1918 flu" and "1918 influenza" combined. Recent Google Scholar results do suggest that the usage gap has substantially narrowed in academic sources, but "Spanish flu" still leads there too. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 16:53, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I would like to make clear that I believe the term "Spanish flu" is not only inaccurate as I've mentioned, but also ambigious, because "Spanish flu" is a name of the strain of flu that caused the pandemic, not just the pandemic itself which is what the article's about. --TedEdwards 19:09, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as per previous discussions. Not saying it should never be renamed, but after two move discussions this should only be re-opened for significant new facts. Currently all I see is a new interpretation of WP:COMMONNAME, and that's not cutting it. Averell (talk) 08:58, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Clear common name. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:23, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, but preferably to "1918 influenza pandemic". Such a title meets the five criteria of a "good Wikipedia article title" and embodies a neutral point of view better than "Spanish flu". With respect to the criteria, "1918 influenza pandemic" is specifically more precise and more consistent than "Spanish flu". "Spanish flu" is ambiguous in that it seems to refer more to the disease than what the article is about, which is the pandemic as an event. When "Spanish influenza" was used at the time of the epidemic, it quite consistently referred to the disease; the "epidemic" or "pandemic" of it was specified using such words.[2][3][4][5][6] I believe the argument of WP:COMMONNAME falls short here because I do not believe it can be argued that "Spanish flu" is the common name of the pandemic, and sources such as Google Ngrams cannot so easily clarify this issue, since it returns only frequency of usage and not context of usage. "Spanish flu" may be a highly common name, but the question must then be asked — to refer to what? "1918 influenza pandemic" does not suffer from this problem, because it precisely conveys three crucial elements of the event — when it happened, what caused it, and what it was. (I might also note that this issue applies as well to the "Hong Kong flu" article, whereas the "2009 swine flu pandemic" article is decidedly more precise, at least in terms of describing the type of event discussed in the article.) On these grounds, the argument that "Spanish flu" is the common name of the pandemic itself may be based on flawed reasoning. I would encourage anyone citing WP:COMMONNAME in defense of "Spanish flu" to consider, at least, a move to "Spanish flu pandemic", which is at least more accurate with respect to what the article is about.

A name like "1918 influenza pandemic" is also more "consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles." It should first be noted that, when it comes to the articles related to the five most recent pandemics historically attributed to novel influenza (1889, 1918, 1957, 1968, and 2009), three of their titles follow a more "common-name" convention ("Spanish flu", "Hong Kong flu", "2009 swine flu pandemic"), while two depart from this convention ("1889–1890 pandemic", "1957–1958 influenza pandemic"). In the case of 1889, other concerns evidently took precedent over using the common name of that pandemic and its causative agent. In the case of 1957, there was strikingly little discussion regarding the use of "Asian flu" as a common name for that pandemic; rather, it was seemingly agreed upon, with relatively little discussion, that in fact some variation of "1957 influenza pandemic" is the common name, despite the fact that the name "Asian influenza" was the overwhelmingly preferred name by many, including the United States Public Health Service.[7][8] If there is any rebuttal specifically having to do with consistency, I would hope it takes into consideration the above inconsistencies. However, more broadly speaking, a format such as "1918 influenza pandemic" seems to be more consistent with the titles of other articles related to infectious disease outbreaks, such as those listed under the various "X-century epidemics" Categories. Relatedly, consistency in titling is facilitated by "topic-specific naming conventions". Accordingly, the MoS guidelines regarding Medicine-related articles state that "[t]he article title should be the scientific or recognised medical name that is most commonly used in recent, high-quality, English-language medical sources, rather than a lay term (unscientific or slang name) or an historical eponym that has been superseded." "Spanish flu" has not necessarily been superseded by any other particular name, but there is an argument to be made that it is being increasingly challenged in the literature, and by institutions such as the World Health Organization (one example of an "international standard" considered helpful in the MoS), by alternative variations of "1918–19/20 flu/influenza pandemic"; the article itself notes this development. With respect to authorities, professionals, and experts, I believe there is just cause to question just how common "Spanish flu" is in their writing.

I think it is also relevant to note, with respect to the terminology used within medical sources, that "Spanish flu" could not so easily be said to be "common" within the literature at even the time of the pandemic. First, again, let it be noted that to the extent the term was used, it referred to the pandemic disease, not the pandemic itself. The United States Public Health Service, in its Public Health Reports, and Surgeon General Blue would generally, at most, refer to "the so-called 'Spanish influenza'" or simply "'Spanish influenza'", but still in quotes. Besides the first PHR to address the "reported pandemic of influenza in various European countries", issued 13 September 1918,[9] PHS only ever referred to the disease as "epidemic influenza" during the course of the main epidemic in reports from 4 October[10] to 29 November,[11] before reports of a "recrudescence" began to appear. US health officials writing in the years following the pandemic, such as Vaughan,[12] Jordan,[13][14][15][16] and Collins,[17][18][19] quite consistently referred to "epidemic influenza" or "pandemic influenza", described the outbreak as "the epidemic of 1918" or "the pandemic of 1918", or some variation thereof; similar to the case of PHS at large, the term "Spanish influenza", or any other colloquial name for it, tended only to appear in quotes. In his 16 August 1919 report,[20] Frost never uses the name "Spanish influenza"; in their entire 1919 "Studies on Epidemic Influenza",[21] the members of the faculty of the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine use the name only once, in quotes; in its 1920 report,[22] the UK Ministry of Health recount "the pandemic of influenza, 1918–1919", also using "Spanish flu" just once, in quotes; and in various articles appearing in The Lancet beginning in 1918,[23][24][25][26][27] the name "Spanish influenza" is repeatedly eschewed. This is not to say that the name did not appear in medical journals from this time nor that health officials universally avoided it. However, I believe the evidence suggests that "Spanish influenza" was more commonly a colloquial term than one that experts were apt to use in a serious way. As this article from The New York Times, published 22 September 1918, indicates, it was not some widespread misconception that the disease originated in Spain. The name was more the result of political circumstance than any prevalent misunderstanding among experts.

Finally, before I continue to address the other three criteria, I would put forward the fact that there are some notable divergences from the "common name" even within the more "pop science" sphere. Three major histories of the pandemic specifically forgo the name in their titles: A Cruel Wind: Pandemic Flu in America 1918–1920 by Petit, America's Forgotten Pandemic: The Influenza of 1918 by Crosby, and The Great Influenza by Barry. This implies a class of laypeople who are familiar with the historical event of the 1918 pandemic but who may not necessarily associate it with that name.

This brings me to the other three criteria. First, with respect to recognizability, I would argue that neither name has a leg-up over the other; they are comparably recognizable. The criterion specifically states that "[t]he title is a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize." We might imagine such a person would have read such popular histories as the ones listed above. I argue that anyone "familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in," the pandemic would know that it began in 1918. Thus, nothing would be lost by making this move. To whatever extent that more people have "heard of" the Spanish flu than have "heard of" a "1918 influenza pandemic", this is irrelevant; such people are not considered when it comes to recognizability.

With respect to concision, I would argue that "1918 influenza pandemic" is as equally concise as "Spanish flu". The former may be literally longer than the latter, but both titles are "no longer than necessary to identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects." If anything, it could be argued that "Spanish flu" is too concise itself, because it arguably does not accurately represent the article's subject, which is the pandemic as a whole. In any case, again, at least nothing would be lost with respect to this criterion.

Finally, with respect to naturalness, I will concede that it is likely that "Spanish flu" is the "one that readers are likely to look or search for", given simply its popularity. However, what name "editors would naturally use to link to the article from other articles" seems more complicated a question, as evidenced by the diversity of opinion here. It could be argued that what "ought" to be the case is that, in the case of Talk-page disagreement, editors would default to the current title whenever linking from other articles, but this is by no means, to my understanding, mandatory. The MoS article on Linking states that "[t]he link target and the link label do not have to match exactly, but the link must be as intuitive as possible...". With respect to "Intuitiveness", the article states, "Per the principle of least astonishment, make sure that the reader knows what to expect when clicking on a link." I genuinely do not believe that any astonishment would result from a user clicking on a link labeled "1918 influenza pandemic" and being redirected to the "Spanish flu" article. Who, then, can say what exactly "editors... naturally use to link to [an] article from other articles"? For these reasons, I believe there is just cause to question how well the title "Spanish flu" adheres to this criterion, in addition to a title like "1918 influenza pandemic".

Finally finally, I believe an argument can be made with respect to certain aspects of neutrality. The article on this subject says that all content "must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV)". Now, there are certainly times when other considerations can take precedent over strict neutrality in the case of article titles; to cut to the chase, I will concede that this can be the case. Nevertheless, in the FAQ article on NPOV, a subsection is dedicated to the question, "English Wikipedia seems to have an Anglo-American focus. Is this contrary to NPOV?", and the answer, unequivocally, is, "Yes, it is, especially when dealing with articles that require an international perspective." It need not be pointed out that the 1918 pandemic was a global event. Just as the article eschews the narrative, however popular, that the pandemic consisted of precisely three waves between the spring of 1918 and the spring of 1919[28][29][30] (incidentally, the typical end of the flu season in the northern hemisphere) and, rather, seeks to encompass a pandemic period that persisted into 1920, I believe "Spanish flu" should be similarly avoided due to its more Anglo-American focus. "Spanish flu" was by no means the only appellation attached to the disease, as the article lays out. The various names reflect the political and cultural sensibilities of the time just as much as "Spanish flu" does, only they were used among groups that were, by happenstance, not in the political sphere or did not share the political sensibilities as those who used the term "Spanish flu". The article itself notes that the name "remains controversial" in Spain; the CBC describes it as a continued "source of irritation".[31] The NYT article linked above similarly notes how, at the time of the first epidemic, the name was "disclaimed" by the Spanish people, who sooner placed the blame for the disease on Germany. I think it's telling, as well, that the title of the article on the Spanish-language Wikipedia is "Pandemia de gripe de 1918" ("1918 flu pandemic"). As the NPOV article states, "Wikipedia describes disputes. Wikipedia does not engage in disputes." At what point does a "dispute" become settled? It could be argued that, at this point, "Spanish flu" is so far removed from its political and social context that to use the term is not to engage in any dispute over what it should be called. However, the naming of infectious diseases is perennially relevant, and, if the CBC article above is to be trusted, the naming of the 1918 pandemic disease remains a contentious issue specifically in one not insignificant place. For as long as there are those who believe that this issue is worth talking about, it will remain a dispute in which Wikipedia need not engage in. Why not remove the encyclopedia from the debate altogether by simply using a title like "1918 influenza pandemic"? Again, it could be argued that, at this point, to make the move for this reason is to take a position in the dispute — that "Spanish flu" is "problematic" —-- but this is simply unfair; it is practically an unfalsifiable claim. This is a matter of neutrality, plain and simple, and one name is clearly more neutral than the other. By the same token, the fact that the encyclopedia uses terms like "SARS-CoV-2" and "COVID-19" in the context of the current pandemic, rather than ones like "China virus", is no indication that its editors operate on behalf of WHO, which coined these terms, or even that they deny that the disease likely originated within China. It is simply a matter of neutrality, and it is better to preclude even the possibility of debate by opting for more neutral language.

To summarize, the two arguments in favor of a title like "1918 influenza pandemic" are that it better adheres to the five criteria of a "good title", in particular with respect to precision and consistency (and arguably concision as well), and that it is more neutral (less Anglo-American-centric, more considerate of the global experience of a global event, avoids even the appearance of wading into a dispute). In particular, I would be interested in a response to the contention that "Spanish flu" is arguably not a common name for the pandemic but rather only the disease. The notion that "Spanish flu" refers to the event as a whole and not just the causative disease is one that has persisted and been defended time and time again on this Talk page, but the evidence does not seem to encompass much more than frequency of usage, other than the observation that there is, apparently, "no clear consensus in dictionary definitions". If WP:COMMONNAME is the most persuasive argument in favor of using the term "Spanish flu", I believe it becomes incumbent upon those making it either to present evidence demonstrating its usage to refer to the pandemic as a whole or else to apply the argument in favor of a title like "Spanish flu pandemic". In any case, the issues described above demonstrate that a name like "Spanish flu" has its problems. As has been laid out above, WP:COMMONNAME also states, "When there are multiple names for a subject, all of which are fairly common, and the most common has problems, it is perfectly reasonable to choose one of the others." I therefore argue that "it is perfectly reasonable" to consider a title that is not "Spanish flu", and I put forward a title like "1918 influenza pandemic" as one that is also common but that avoids the "problems" associated with one like "Spanish flu". Nabbovirus (talk) 04:23, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

N-grams favor Spanish flu as common name over your preferred title, "1918 influenza pandemic", by a lot. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:35, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Now, could you tell me how "Spanish flu" is used in each of those instances collected by Ngrams? Because that was my contention. Does "Spanish flu" refer to the disease or the pandemic as a whole? The evidence I presented, actual texts that demonstrate how the word is used in context, indicates that it was the name of the disease rather than the event that was occurring. On this basis, there is reason to take issue with a title like "Spanish flu"; if anything, "Spanish flu pandemic" would better align with how the name was used historically. Nabbovirus (talk) 04:44, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Predictably we are going through the arguments from the previous move discussions. Yes, it's easy to use WP:GOOGLE to say that there are more hits on Spanish flu. However, medical and academic sources have preferred 1918 flu pandemic for a long time and this hasn't filtered through to the entire web.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:36, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Since it seems the opponents of this move are either unwilling or unable to provide any actual evidence demonstrating specifically that "Spanish flu" was commonly used to refer to the pandemic as a whole and not just the disease (the crux of the WP:COMMONNAME argument, it would seem), I figured I would provide some sources for others to consider, if only for posterity.

Here are some examples of "Spanish flu/influenza" being used to refer to the disease;[32][33][34][35][36] the first three are specifically from the time of the epidemic. Relatedly, here are some examples of "Spanish flu/influenza" being used specifically alongside the word "pandemic" or "epidemic",[37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45] similarly demonstrating that the term is conventionally used to refer to the disease rather than the event as a whole.

On the other side, here are a couple of examples in which "Spanish flu" is used to refer to the pandemic as a whole.[46][47] Notably, the sources, respectively, state: "Nearly 90 years later, although virologists and epidemiologists worldwide agree that the influenza virus did not originate in Spain, the name remains: the 1918–1920 influenza pandemic will always be known as the Spanish flu." and "Despite not originating in Spain, the 1918 influenza pandemic is commonly known as the 'Spanish flu'...". It should be noted that neither claim has a citation attached to it. Of course, who are we to question these experts in the field? But I don't believe it's unreasonable, given what has been laid out in this discussion, to expect some specific substantiation of these claims, such as in the form of actual examples. It should also be noted that, in the second article, the author goes on to use "Spanish flu" only in reference to the disease.

Finally, here are some examples of "Spanish influenza" being used to refer to both the disease and the pandemic.[48][49]

What I think these show is that the notion that "Spanish flu" was specifically a term that was used commonly to refer to the ongoing outbreak of the disease is, at best, "iffy". Let us of course not be misled by the quantity of sources I've provided for each usage; these were the ones easily accessible to me at this time. I encourage others to supply more sources, for whatever usage, so that we have a solid foundation of evidence on which to base our arguments. However, if the insistence continues to be that frequency of usage is "good enough" as a piece of evidence for context of usage, I fear this decision will once again be made based on flawed reasoning. Nabbovirus (talk) 18:00, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, n-grams showing Spanish flu is the common name when compared to your common name, and is the common name whatever combination thrown up against it. There is no argument, which is why nobody is giving you one. Randy Kryn (talk) 19:21, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How. do. you. know. how. it's. being. used? That is the question. If it's so obvious to see, spell it out, because I cannot determine context based solely on the information that you're providing. I see that "Spanish flu" is used more frequently than "1918 influenza pandemic". That is a fact. But again, is it being used, in all that frequency, specifically to refer to the pandemic, or merely the pandemic disease? Thus far you have provided nothing that hasn't been posted a dozen times already, with no further analysis of the data. Nabbovirus (talk) 23:35, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies if I've irritated you, and was too short in my response. To explain further, the only issue of this Requested Move is to ascertain the common name of the event itself, its most recognizable name. N-gram usage seems prevalent and lopsided enough so that the WP:COMMONNAME (where 'Spanish flu' is literally used as an example of a common name!), Spanish flu, covers both the illness and the event with room to spare. The name Spanish flu seems so obviously the common name that "nothing broken" can also apply - at least from my point of view. And that's all I can offer and comment on, my point of view. I really don't want to argue further, although your response is welcome (maybe others will join in), because my mind is pretty much made up. The n-grams, and the name 'Spanish flu' used as a literal example of a common name at WP:COMMONNAME, apply reassurance that my point of view is not coming out of left field. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:27, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]