This article is within the scope of WikiProject COVID-19, a project to coordinate efforts to improve all
COVID-19-related articles. If you would like to help, you are invited to
join and to participate in
project discussions.COVID-19Wikipedia:WikiProject COVID-19Template:WikiProject COVID-19COVID-19 articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Disaster management on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Years, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Years on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.YearsWikipedia:WikiProject YearsTemplate:WikiProject YearsYears articles
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. No consensus for this move. Also noting that if a future RM is to occur, all relevant pages must be tagged for the consensus to apply (as there's only a few dozen pages, this is not unreasonable). (
closed by non-admin page mover)
Elli (
talk |
contribs)
00:09, 27 December 2021 (UTC)reply
Mild oppose, but disagree with RM premise - the word "in" has the effect that the prepositional phrase can only modify "responses" in this sentence. In order to modify "pandemic", "of" would have to be used instead. I think that's what you mean, anyway..if it's any more nuanced than that, I don't think many people would take the time to construe some slightly different semantic meaning other than the intended meaning, which seems to me the most obvious one.
2600:1702:4960:1DE0:6CAD:7C51:CA86:3A6A (
talk)
04:45, 13 December 2021 (UTC)reply
Mild oppose. Grammatically speaking, either bracketing is possible, but a typical reader is very unlikely to be confused by the ambiguity. Thus I'd prefer to preserve the naturalness of the current title.
Colin M (
talk)
16:37, 20 December 2021 (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.