This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Are you talking about the Wiki community or about the Wikipedia? You're welcome to mention other wikis here, but the main focus is Wikipedia and the other WMF wikis, not wikis in general. The page you created is on the Wikipedia, not on a general wiki. Don't abbreviate "Wikipedia" as "Wiki"! There are other wikis out there – Wikipedia is just one of them.Boud (talk) 21:30, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
I'm not bothered by the template size in general, but I find all the region subsection headers unnecessary. Upmerge to simply Africa, Asia, Europe, etc. I do find the region subheads for N. America helpful, especially given the number of entries for the US. ---Another Believer(Talk) 14:39, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
Agree, only USA needs its subsection header. Yug(talk) 17:09, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi there, following the current Covid pandemics, a dived into early covid19 academic literature which since the starts refers heavily to influenza pandemics and seasonal flu. The sources provide similar core dimensions for influenza pandemics and covid19 pandemics and, while virus and diseases are differents, frequently compared together (0, 1,2,3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9...) based on their diffusion rate (R0), past or potential demographic impact (deathrate, economic). As I formerly gathered data in different pages, I lead this template from initial "Notable flu pandemics" with 8 sources for 35 data-cells on influenza pandemics at creation, to "Notable pandemics : influenza and coronavirus" with 29 sources, mostly academic, for 64 data-cells on both influenza pandemics and covid19 pandemic, so to inform the reader better. The change was progressive : I first documented covid while hidding in in noinclude wiki tag, waiting to be sure if i find enough data and if it fits in this table properly. When mature and judging it relevant, I removed the noinclude wiki-tags, changed the table-title to "Notable pandemics : influenza and coronavirus", announced the renaming rational on the talk page but waited discussion and feedbacks before actual renaming. Few days ago an admin using WP:TW tool and rapid reverts before engaging in discussions have jumped in, instantly removed sourced data on coronavirus together with other relevant edits (with WP:TW), reverting the ongoing scope change and in-template call for discussion, barely or non-constructively engaged in the scope-renaming discussion, and blocked me from editing that page when I put in place a noinclude-solution allowing me to continue to work on the data within the template page while in-article view for the public was the one he wanted and fully to his preference. There is presently IMHO a normal renaming/content opposition between 2 users, but an abnormal lack of discussion and abusive use of admin tool to impose one side of the dispute to the other side. This page is in no way my own, I welcome edits and competition of opinions and submit to the community's consensus. But hasty jump-in and abusive blocks by overworking admins are counter productive. It also doesn't help the COVID topic argued for inclusion is a rapid-changes topic, while the 1 month-long blocks affects the editor with most experience with that page and sources. It's counter productive. I would appreciate more people input for this matter. Admin review welcome as well, but please editors with able to communicate and build concensus (flash-like WP:TW-based admins don't help). PS: I would also appreciate if there is a way to ask some kind of wikipedia refraining order preventing this administrator from following me around and looking for trouble while he has clearly upper hand (admin) and proven will to abuse of such tool upon me. The way he has jumped in and blocked at light speed while ignoring ongoing discussion really makes me uncomfortable despite my 50,000 edits on wikimedia. Yug(talk) 16:33, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
It doesn’t really make sense to co-opt a template, change the scope of the template, and rename the template. If you want to add something that’s contentious, it’s up to the adding editor (in this case you) to gain consensus for the change. You can’t just add something and wait for consensus in order to remove it (WP:BRD). You were bold, Adrian J. Hunter reverted you, and then you were supposed to discuss. Instead you re-reverted. Per WP:BRDDISCUSS and WP:BRR, I don’t see anything wrong with the block imposed against you. Bait30 Talk 2 me pls? 17:34, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
Bait30 hello, Adrian J. Hunter revert was good face but upon the noinclude-hidden, work-ongoing row, while table title was still influenza only. It's confusing and my mistake : things were not aligned because I wanted to continue working without disturbing the article's viewvers before the thing get mature enough. Adrian came and revert, I'am pretty sure he didn't got that I was working in this discrete row before maturation. I don't doubt Adrian good will, but I think he lacked informations, and it defacto pushed me to "publish" the data I collected. So his edit encouraged me to get things aligned : change to an inclusive title, add the call for renaming discussion. That's how we move forwar. Also, if your opinion would be more welcome on the template talkpage so it adds a vote and breaks the current 1 vs 1 (with abusive admin powers) content-dispute stalemate. Yug(talk) 18:22, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
ok, so Graham reverted, and you went and re-reverted. You still broke WP:BRD. Bait30 Talk 2 me pls? 18:27, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
I will review this rule. (As of now I consider 1. Andrian arguably limited understanding of the ongoing work and no-include method ongoing; 2. the content's own legitimacy for inclusion, sourced; 3. my creation of space for scope discussion... to prove I was editing to the best interest and understanding of that page's and its content.) Yug(talk) 18:31, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
(Also, if I understand WP:BRD is optional "(BRD) is an optional method of reaching consensus"). Yug(talk) 18:40, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
(For my revert of Adrian, I seem to match "Bold, revert, revert: If you genuinely believe the reversion was a mistake you might try speeding things up by reverting the revert, but you should explain why you think the other editor made a mistake in a note or edit summary". I will review my reverts of Graham. Yug(talk) 18:50, 21 March 2020 (UTC) )
Bait30 Note: as an ex admin, I find it surprising that you point I failed to follow the optional WP:BRD but you seems to find it normal that an admin used his page-blocking power to settle a content (renaming) dispute. Teach me BRD is welcome, but if you denounce one then denounce both. Yug(talk) 19:52, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
@Yug: If you’re looking for actual policy (in other words, not optional) then take a look at WP:ONUS. You’re right, Graham probably should’ve gotten an uninvolved admin you take a look. You being an ex-admin doesn’t change the fact that you kept re-reverting to include material that you wanted to add, even though you didn’t achieve consensus. In fact, it’s interesting how an ex-admin does not know about WP:ONUS, which is part of WP:V (one of the most important policies of Wikipedia). Bait30 Talk 2 me pls? 20:43, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
Bait30 Please don't assign me this ONUS position. Sources is not enough, content relevancy matters too and have been argued. I followed both, and following content went with it toward scope evolution. From March 8 to 15th, other parties have been invited to express their view and didn't. And I'am sincere, I think as hopeful admin you would gain to draw the limit of when using admin tools is abusive. Admins reducing discussion to settle personal content disputes with admin tools is abusive and toxic for the community. Yug(talk) 21:15, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
Yug, I have to agree with Graham Beards on this, as co-opting an existing template to arbitrarily include an unrelated virus is unnecessary. The burden of proof would have been on you to add something completely out of scope. Why wasn't a discussion initiated prior to making the change? Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 17:46, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
Tenryuu It wasn't discussed because back then because I didn't know if the data in the academic literature was sufficiently available for coronavirus: R0, death rate, mainly. Literature was evolving fast. I needed the data to open a serious discussion "do we include-keep THAT data". So I wrapped this row in a <noinclude> tag, so I (and other) could discretely research it, complete it, source it on the model of upper rows, while this back-office intermediate edits would be invisible for article-readers needing clarity. I worked cell by cell to get the row to maturity from an encyclopedic point of view. The row started to be mature for discussion but I wanted more time. Then, Adrian's revert come and surprise-push me to publish and open the discussion. It didn't went the way I wanted but it improved the information available on recent pandemics with the same dimensions for the 2020 one. Same as fir Bait30, please come to the template talkpage to give your input. Yug(talk) 18:22, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
Tenryuu On March 8th I opened the renaming discussion with a visible ribon on the template page with the covid row kept discrete and visible to template editors only (noinclude tag). On March 15th Andrian reverted the noinclude's work-in-progress content with no participation in the discussion (and leaving the empty tag there O.ô), I reverted on the line of good faith WP:BRD > "Bold, revert, revert" with suitable edit-summary. Given the current state confused template editor, I aligned the title and published the covid content. Wikipedia is wikipedia, we do as best as we can. And as long as it builds up, it should be sustained. Yug(talk) 19:45, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
As the worst case scenario for COVID seems to get discarded, I do understand that the seasonal coronavirus that would have been expected, should account for 10% of influenza-like-illness (ILI) in the worst case scenario. From interpolation of France, Spain and Italy test here, I do believe I see 2/3 influenza, 1/6 pneumonia and 1/6 COVID. There is seem to be little to no place left for other coronaviruses. Does anyone have sources about the state of others non-flu, non-pneumonia, non-covid influenza-like-illnesses ? Iluvalar (talk) 22:12, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
You can have them all at the same time if you work hard. Pneumonia is generally a complication of the others. Yug(talk) 23:06, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
Some points: 1. this is not a forum - if you have questions about disease stats, google them. 2. It seems that even merely stating 'there's no room in annual disease predictions for so many deaths from this' is an attempt at spreading misinformation that either it's not deadly or doesn't exist. 3. To answer your irrelevant (and really obvious) question: nobody predicted this. So it's not going to be accounted for in projections made years ago. Now stop posting about it. Kingsif (talk) 23:24, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
If you don't know the subject enough to know why the presence of other coronaviruses will greatly affect the outcome of the outbreak and the crisis evaluation, you don't need to be insulting about it. Being treated as a troll or a hoax is not pleasant. 2. I just said, COVID is at least as deadly as the H1N1 outbreak, it's horrifyingly deadly, never said otherwise. Iluvalar (talk) 02:55, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
Iluvalar, the presence of other coronaviruses will greatly affect the outcome of the outbreak and the crisis evaluation is not what your questions have been seeming to ask about, at all. If you were unclear and seem like a troll, that's not my fault. But, again, this is not a forum, it's a page to discuss the project. Go talk to a pathologist if you want to learn about the subject. Kingsif (talk) 14:14, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
New IAR essay
Hi all, given the amount of WP:IAR being called for this unprecedented situation and unprecedented change, I've been thinking of drafting a new IAR-adjacent essay (with a fun title like WP:In the apocalypse, there are no rules) to discuss how rules and guidelines for any aspect of Wikipedia cannot apply when a situation so unexpected it couldn't have been factored in to the decision to apply those rules arises (like a pandemic, natch). This would be an extension of IAR (throw out a rule for an exceptional reason) to say 'assume all rules are thrown out now'. Would anyone support this/want to help contribute? Kingsif (talk) 15:14, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
ETA: obviously only applying to situation-related things, we're not going to change all the biography footnotes because of this. Kingsif (talk) 15:17, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
I say: "Go", and do post here — I have a few comments of my own worth adding. This wouldn't be the first time rules had to be ignored because of a major event; both because the new editors who don't understand the editing process makes sticking to WP:3RR impossible, but also because the situation is unique and we don't have appropriate rules. Carl Fredrik talk 15:49, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
I'm not sure about how many rules should we ignore in this situation. What do you have in mind? Should we ignore WP:RS and WP:V just because we want Wikipedia updated one hour faster? I think WP:NOTNEWS still applies here. Maybe you had different rules in mind. --MarioGom (talk) 21:53, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
Yes, certainly not all the rules (fun title notwithstanding) - there's a line at the bottom about still being polite, please feel free to add other caveats about how RS is actually very important, etc. Kingsif (talk) 21:57, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
Updating SVG Maps
What is the standard way (if there is one) to edit and re-upload the SVG maps currently in use for pages related to COVID-19? Been on Wiki a long time, never really edited and uploaded a new version of an SVG map before though. --(Moshe) מֹשֶׁה 19:50, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
There is no standard. To do simple things like alter map colors, many people use Inkscape or Adobe Illustrator for editing SVG images. Inkscape is free, so may be the first thing to try. Look at Wikipedia:SVG help for more advice. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 23:53, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
Gubernatorial and Mayoral Orders
This would be a good parsing -a lot of action is happening on the ground. E.g. just in Idaho yesterday Gov. Little put Blaine County on lock-down (home of Sun Valley and our COVID-19 cluster), and Mayor McLean has ordered every restaurant in Boise shut down except for deliveries. kencf0618 (talk) 11:12, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
Kencf0618, I'm not sure how that's different from "Government responses" that a lot of pages are currently incorporating. Could you explain further? Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 21:27, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
There's the federal level, the state level, and the municipal levels. kencf0618 (talk) 00:02, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
Kencf0618, we could mention municipal and state level responses under "Government responses". Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 06:59, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
That'll work for now. COVID19 is taxing even Wikipedia's protocols and resources, so I suspect that it'll all shake out in its aftermath. kencf0618 (talk) 21:29, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
I suspect this WikiProject will be active in the months after the pandemic to beautify everything before it can become defunct. Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 01:20, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
Dallas, Texas
Just got this file sent to me by phone around 11pm. This concerns Dallas County, Texas. To summarize it, everyone must be off the streets. Kind of like New York and Cali. Only essential persons may be permitted to move freely such as hospital workers and others etc. Here's a news article that discusses it: [1]. Jerm (talk) 04:37, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
The COVID-19 Drug Repurposing Research and the COVID-19 drug development should be one page. And possibly merge the two with COVID-19 vaccine. I know "repurposing" "drug development" and "vaccine" are all different. I just think it would be more useful to be on one page instead of clicking here and there to get info. DustyGoliath 20:47, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
DustyGoliath, what about one page titled "Medical responses to COVID-19"? It would cover any vaccines and other drugs used to combat the virus. Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 20:52, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
Tenryuu, that's a good title. Or maybe "COVID-19 Research & Development." ——DustyGoliath 21:00, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
Please don't use "epicenter"
Allow me to share a personal pet peeve with you: the term 'epicenter' is technical jargon referring to a geographical point in an earthquake. It is not a formal term for the source of a jazz trend, a new culinary revolution, the Civil Rights Movement, or a coronavirus outbreak. I just went around modifying a few dozen articles that used this term incorrectly. Many journalists are using this word in an attempt to sound cool and hip. That's fine for informal news headlines, it's not OK for an encyclopedia. Let's tighten it up and avoid false jargon. Thanks, kids! Elizium23 (talk) 04:20, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
I have been shooting that word on sight. Abductive (reasoning) 05:06, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
Epicenter is acceptable, end of discussion
I thought this debate was dead. Epicenter is totally acceptable way of expressing the location from which an epidemic is currently spreading. This isn't worth discussing, just see the dictionary definitions:
center sense 2a, e.g.: the epicenter of world finance — Merriam-Webster [2]
An epicenter is also the place that has the highest level of an activity. — Cambridge dictionary[3]
the place where something unpleasant is felt most strongly and from where it can spread to other areas — Macmillan [4]
Now, stop it, you're not going to say that the World Health Organization is using the wrong terminology:
Ping Elizium23 — Do not remove this terminology from infectious disease articles. Carl Fredrik talk 06:16, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
Discussion of the usage of "epicenter"
CFCF, so you're going to accuse me of vandalism over 2 dozen times, and revert constructive edits of unrelated articles, before even a discussion can develop? That's rude. Elizium23 (talk) 06:16, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
Yes, I accidentally reverted some things I shouldn't have – sorry about that. No, I'm not accusing you of vandalism, just of being wrong. Carl Fredrik talk 06:18, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
CFCF, you did accuse me of vandalism, by using the "minor" vandalism-style rollback, which is an abuse of the privilege. Elizium23 (talk) 06:20, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
Garner also refers to a William Safire article in which Safire quotes a geophysicist as attributing the use of the term to "spurious erudition on the part of writers combined with scientific illiteracy on the part of copy editors". Nevertheless, Garner has noted that these usages may describe "focal points of unstable and potentially destructive environments."
I suppose you concur with other editors that the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s was "an unstable and potentially destructive environment"? Are you sure you're going to stand by those edits? Elizium23 (talk) 06:21, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
I'm going to back off with regards to if one can speak of the epicenter of rave culture, as I do agree epicenter implies a negative connotation, see the Macmillan definition (and will restore on a case by case basis what I see as an overzealous defense of a pet-peave). However, I am still going to strongly contend that the use of epicenter within spread of disease — is correct. Carl Fredrik talk 06:26, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Elizium23 I have restored your edits from my overzealous defense of the word. My bad, most of your edits were benign. However, it should not be removed from articles on epidemics, outbreaks and plagues. Carl Fredrik talk 06:33, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
Well, that is very generous of you. Thank you for this compromise. I am sorry that I became irate in all of this. Elizium23 (talk) 06:51, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
CFCF, it may be possible to convince me that "epicenter" is used correctly in this narrower definition that we have found in its Wikipedia article, maybe. Even so, I am not convinced that it is necessary or prudent to use it. What is the utility of saying "epicenter" instead of simplying saying what we mean -- "center"? I'll say this - it adds a halo of drama and erudition to the prose, and that's not a good thing. I don't think we need to add drama to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is supposed to maintain a neutral point of view. And the neutral term for the center of something is "center". It would be frowned upon if we described an aircraft "slamming" into the ground or "plummeting" out of the sky. Those are non-neutral terms. In using "epicenter" the desire is to evoke a destructive earthquake, and that can be done for COVID-19 with sober methods, not fake science. Elizium23 (talk) 06:33, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
What I'm saying is not that it should be used indescriminately, but that it has a proper place when a location is acting as the center from which a disease spreads — which as you point out is a narrower definition.
And, yes the word has a certain negative tone, and ought not be overused. However, and this has been discussed elsewhere on medical articles, we must root our neutrality in some form of pseudo-pan-humanist position, where certain things are accepted as being universally bad. If we didn't take this stance we could never write any articles on human health, because it would not make sense to speak of a "good/bad prognosis" or a "optimal/suboptimal outcome" or even frankly of "treatment effect", because we need to take a stance when it comes to human health regarding what "treatment" is. I realize this might be getting overly-philosophical, but I think it's an important point to make. Plagues, epidemics and disease outbreaks are universaly bad, even from what is commonly referred to as a neutral perspective — therefor epicenter is acceptable. Carl Fredrik talk 06:44, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
The word also lacks a firm grip on tense; saying "Wuhan, the epicenter..." makes it seem like it is still experiencing cases. It is an imprecise word outside of earthquakes. Abductive (reasoning) 09:30, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
That's just nonsensical — how does "center", which you were replacing it with — better convey temporality? Of course we have to clarify when it was the epicenter, just as you have to clarify when a certain location was the epicenter of an earthquake... Carl Fredrik talk 09:32, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
Please don't remove epicenter
I see that you are continuing to remove 'epicenter', Abductive. See above for why; when it comes to plague, epidemic, pandemic or outbreak of infectious disease: epicenter or epicentre is not only acceptable, but often technically far more specific and accurate and thus preferred to 'center'. Carl Fredrik talk 08:46, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
What I see is one user trying to tell two editors what to do and reverting their edits, based on a dictionary definition. Abductive (reasoning) 09:24, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
Then you're being very biased about it. The definition is apparently used by the World Health Organization and is widely used in both lay and professional literature. It's fine for you not to use it, but it's not fine for you to systematically remove it.
The major reason why your take is wrong, is because I'm not the one going around inserting "epicenter" everywhere, whereas you have even admitted to removing it "on sight" and judging on your edit history have been going around looking for it. Pet peaves have no place on Wikipedia, especially semantic ones. Feel free to remove it where it is incorrect, but what you dismiss as a "dictionary definition" is clear evidence that it is widely used, and correctly so, including in the best professional sources. Carl Fredrik talk 09:28, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
You going around looking at my edit history is treading very close to WP:Wikihounding, and reverting people is edit warring. Abductive (reasoning) 09:33, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
No, it's not. Contibution histories exist for this very reason. If you've systematically been doing the same thing over many articles, then it is only appropriate to be as systematic in discussion and restoration if doing it was wrong. Carl Fredrik talk 09:39, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
But what if it's not wrong? What if a word was being (ab)used by third-rate headline writers for the tabloids that they work for, and then multiple editors on an online encyclopedia took notice and began making the encyclopedia better by editing out the word and replacing it with better words? Abductive (reasoning) 09:57, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
The WHO uses it in official statements. You empty-linking of what is here an irrelevant policy is not funny. Carl Fredrik talk 14:45, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
CFCF, are there any other terms used? Are there no alternatives to using "epicenter" in the literature? Is "epicenter" the only way to refer to "ground zero" (haha) of an epidemic or pandemic outbreak? Elizium23 (talk) 08:47, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
The World Health Origanization uses "epicenter" in their official statements. Plus, there aren't really any alternatives besides "ground zero" which is a media-ish hype way of saying "epicenter." It's best to go with WHO on terminology over anyone or anything else. Just my 2 cents. DustyGoliath 19:44, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
Basic terminology
Hi all! I'm collecting basic terminology that people would need in order to be able to write articles about this pandemic. If you'd like to add items to the table, all you need to do is add in the qid from Wikidata for the concept. If the concept doesn't have a qid, it can be added to the list below the table. I appreciate any and all help! -Yupik (talk) 07:40, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
The problem of that list is that most of them aren't official epidemiological terms or from reputable sources. -DustyGoliath 16:00, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
Speaking of notable flu pandemics, why is the article on the 1918-20 spanish flu pandemic part of this project? Username6892 16:58, 21 March 2020 (UTC) It's been removed. Username6892 19:50, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
Not strictly covid item. It's just interesting for historical perpective and forecasting. Yug(talk) 17:00, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
Or to be more "half full glass", 1918-20 spanish flu pandemic is the last time a fast running pandemic virus kicked our ***** into freaking out and faetal position. So it's good to have it near hands XD Yug(talk) 17:07, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
For that matter, polio used to shut down summer, as my 92-year-old father vividly remembers. A historic public health perspective shall be warranted eventually. kencf0618 (talk) 19:36, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
Shouldn't be included in the scope, but since it was a pandemic, active warnings will apply. Kingsif (talk) 19:08, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
It's seeing a sufficient enough spike in views right now that I do think it should be included. Many comparissons are being made, and there is cause of expansion of the Spanish flu article with a legacy section on how it impacted our COVID response. Carl Fredrik talk 19:48, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
There's no mention of this on that article at the moment, though. Comparisons may be improper, and given the length and detail of the Spanish flu article, anything on how it's impacted the current pandemic (as unlikely as that is given the much better medicine and global communication now) would be in a separate article. Kingsif (talk) 21:17, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi there, we need every good will to document the issue of hospital beds, ICU beds and ventilators. These are key elements of patients survival rates. (Oxygen for lighter patients, and ECMO for more severe patients are 2 required medical materiels not considered so far.)
Mechanical ventilation are critical device generally associated with ICU beds and at high risk of shortage.
Sources (one): There Aren’t Enough Ventilators to Cope With the Coronavirus We need this information on as many countries as possible so pressure build uo on political leaders, lawsmakers, industrials, to produce or provide these devices THIS MONTH, before the wave.
Please help to find these data for your country and share on the template.
I not sure what counts as ICU bed and what doesn't. May someone with medical background review the 2 sources, compare them, and refresh the calculations ? Yug(talk) 23:31, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
Wikibreak banner for COVID-19 idea
Hello,
I just tested today for COVID-19 and am awaiting results. In the event I test positive, I will probably not be active that much until I am better. As the virus spreads, there will probably be wikipedians who will contract the virus or currently have it. Could someone possibly make a banner saying something like "This user has COVID-19 and may be inactive for ..." or something similar? AmericanAir88(talk) 17:01, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
Take my sympathy, and this rough draft. Kingsif (talk) 17:22, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
We already have the longstanding template {{User health inactive}}. I imagine this should sufficiently convey the salient message (i.e. that a user is inactive and may not respond swiftly to queries). Mz7 (talk) 18:04, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
Thank you @Kingsif:. I appreciate it. I do not have a result yet. Also @Mz7: “health issues” is very vague in my opinion. This is a pandemic that is affecting thousands, especially where I live. AmericanAir88(talk) 18:32, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
@AmericanAir88: I am aware that this is a pandemic; I suppose I just don't really see the need for specificity here, especially as one's health is typically a private thing. Please accept my sympathies as well, and I hope that your test comes back negative. Mz7 (talk) 18:39, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
@Mz7: Thank you. I appreciate it. What I meant is that as this virus spreads and possibly infects millions, there will possibly be a ton of wikipedia users who have it. Instead of stating "Wiki break" or "health issues", the virus can be used for better clarification. Health issues can indicate something as small as a cold to something like cancer. Thank you again for the well wishes. AmericanAir88(talk) 18:42, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
This seems like it's more likely to spread panic than be a benign note that some will be less active on wikipedia. Natureium (talk) 18:46, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
I was also thinking, for what could be my case, if I'm supporting at-risk relatives it might be useful. Busy doesn't seem right. Kingsif (talk) 18:48, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
Nikkimaria, I support this; the formatting looks great! Would you also be including the Worldometers Coronavirus Live Update page? Granted, it's used in a lot of templates already across many pages, but it also sources where it gets new numbers from. Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 00:35, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
Ah yes, I was just skimming through the main 2019-20 coronavirus pandemic talk page and there was some mild dispute there as well. Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 01:17, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
This is awesome. I think it would be a good idea to add WP:MEDRS and WP:RS/PS as well to the respective subheadings. Bait30 Talk 2 me pls? 01:37, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
Hey folks - in addition to the Sources page, I just wanted to remind everyone that we have a bunch of research available for free at The Wikipedia Library. If there's anything else we can do to help the WikiProject with research and references, please let me know! Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 10:38, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
Fixing first sentences of articles
The following discussion 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.
As we go about updating pages, can we please remove the awful "This article documents..." start to so many pages? Duh, we know it's an article and of course its contents relate to its title. It's an unnecessary and proscribed WP:SELFREF. It should be something like "The 2019-20 Coronavirus pandemic had impacts on PLACE", not "This articles documents the impacts of the 2019-20 Coronavirus pandemic on PLACE." Reywas92Talk 07:18, 23 March 2020 (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.
New traffic report: Daily article pageviews from social media
I just posted this annoucement to WP:VPT; reposting here because this might be an especially useful resource for this WikiProject. - J
The WMF Research team has published a new report of inbound traffic coming from Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and Reddit.
The report contains a list of all articles that received at least 500 views from one or more of these sites (i.e. someone clicked a link on Twitter that sent them directly to a Wikipedia article). The report will be updated daily at around 14:00 UTC with traffic counts from the previous calendar day.
We believe this report provides editors with a valuable new information source. Daily inbound social media traffic stats can help editors monitor edits to articles that are going viral on social media sites and/or are being linked to by the social media platform itself in order to fact-check disinformation and other controversial content.
The social media traffic report also contains additional public article metadata that may be useful in the context of monitoring articles that are receiving unexpected attention from social media sites, such as...
the total number of pageviews (from all sources) that article received in the same period of time
the number of pageviews the article received from the same platform (e.g. Facebook) the previous day (two days ago)
The number of editors who have the page on their watchlist
The number of editors who have watchlisted the page AND recently visited it
We are currently actively seeking feedback on this report! We have some ideas of our own for how to improve the report, but we want to hear yours. If you have feature suggestions, questions, or other comments please add them to the project talkpage on Meta or ping Jonathan Morgan on his talkpage. Also be sure to check out our growing FAQ.
We intend to maintain this daily report for at least the next two months. If we receive feedback that the report is useful, we are considering making it available indefinitely. Cheers, Jmorgan (WMF) (talk) 18:59, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
We need to develop some consensus around mortality. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:11, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
Based on best students for lower end (lot of testing, HC system standing): Korea, Taiwan, Germany. And on worst students for higher end (low testing, overwhelmed HC system): Italy, Iran. But it's original research. Yug(talk) 19:36, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
Doc James thinking again, I'am not sure citing these 2 extremes to establish a range is WP:OR. Yug(talk) 23:36, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
A true mortality rate will be tough to generate based on the lack of testing, proof of recovery, and reported figures. There could be millions of cases that are very mild, which would cause the mortality rate to plummet. It also varies based on country and HCs. AmericanAir88(talk) 19:55, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
Lots of cases may also be written off as something else if not sufficient testing. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:05, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
New resource collating published literature
This looks very helpful: it's a searchable, up-to-date database of published studies on COVID-19. (COI statement: I know some of the team behind this at University College London.) You can also jump to the interactive bit here. Bondegezou (talk) 11:42, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
Case Count Task Force
I would like to propose a task force to update case counts with reliable sources. I have prepared a sandbox page (work in progress) with the info I think we would need for it: User:MarioGom/sandbox/Latest data sources. If the task force style doesn't stick, I think it would be worth to at least move the section about reliable sources to this project. --MarioGom (talk) 14:31, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
I fully support a task for dedicated to updating the case counts. Lots of people want to update but a few dedicated pool of infomration can be super duper useful. Starzoner (talk) 16:07, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
Maybe just a subpage with helpful resources and a place for editors to collaborate instead of an actual task force? Just trying to reduce administrative overhead here, but also not opposed to task force creation if there's enough editor interest. ---Another Believer(Talk) 16:50, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
Yes, I don't think we need to do anything that requires too much overhead. A list of resources per-country will do. And if there is enough interest, the column for people to add themselves to certain countries so we can spread the workload. --MarioGom (talk) 17:23, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
Another Believer: Ok, done. Feel free to move it if another name seems more appropriate. --MarioGom (talk) 19:11, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
I have noticed that there is a difference in the statistics on CDC and on state government websites. I have been using the state statistics. Prairie Astronomer (talk) 19:27, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
Prairie Astronomer: What CDC? There are a few countries with disease control agencies with the same name. --MarioGom (talk) 19:36, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
It would be extremely valuable to maintain a list of reputable sources and encourage editors to either use them or add to the list every time they update the case stats - especially on the main template. There have been many instances of un-cited numbers, including once today where a jump of ~7,000 cases in the USA was not confirmed by any reputable source that I could find (the only source with that number was Worldometers). Eitan1989 (talk) 20:55, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
Translation Task Force?
Should the translation work being done here be under the Case Count Task Force, or should there be a separate Translation Task Force? ---Another Believer(Talk) 19:11, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
I think they are quite different efforts. I don't care much whether both are organized under the same page or two separate ones though. --MarioGom (talk) 20:03, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
I agree with User:MarioGom. Right now it is only me working on this, but I would like more people to join the effort. If many people do join, we'll need a separate page. --Netha(talk) 20:55, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
Imagine your house burnt down and everything in it was destroyed. Someone asks, "What happened?" You'd say, "My house burnt down and everything is gone." You would not list each and every DVD, each and every pair of socks, that was lost. Even a detailed insurance report wouldn't bother with that much detail.
Do you understand my metaphor? We have a plethora of articles listing every event that has been cancelled because of COVID-19. Why? In numerous countries (and more to come), every mass gathering has been cancelled. Do we need itemised lists?
Wikipedia is not a newspaper, it is not a blog, it is not a running news feed, it is not a cathartic outlet for editors who want to do something. There are good reasons why Wikipedia is not all these things. There are good reasons why we have longstanding community standards like WP:NOTNEWS, WP:NOTBLOG, WP:NOTCATALOGUE, WP:NOTSTATSBOOK, WP:MEDRS and even WP:PROSE. The COVID-19 pandemic is perhaps the biggest event in Wikipedia's history. Wikipedia has a hugely important role in helping and documenting, but we do that by using our basic principles, not by abandoning them.
I suggest the answer is no. We are building an encyclopaedia. We should follow the same principles that has made Wikipedia one of the most used and trusted websites in the world. We should not be trying to record every news article. We should be covering the big picture well: in a clear and timely manner, citing the best quality sources.
This WikiProject should be able to provide an overview of activity, and help maintain standards and commitment to policy and guidelines. Can we do it? Bondegezou (talk) 20:42, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
We don't have historical perspective to tell us the most pertinent parts yet. Have it all for now, trim back later. Good? Kingsif (talk) 20:54, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
WP:DELAY says, "It is wise to delay writing an article about a breaking news event until the significance of the event is clearer as early coverage may lack perspective and be subject to factual errors." So the agreed community standard is not Have it all for now, trim back later. It's the opposite of that. Bondegezou (talk) 21:16, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
That rule would encourage WP to not have any coronavirus articles until the pandemic is over. I'm going to go ahead and ignore it. Kingsif (talk) 21:25, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
This is the most widespread, global issue, since World War II, certainly the largest in Wikipedia's history. Our rules weren't built for this. See also Wikipedia:In the apocalypse, there are no rules. ɱ(talk) 21:33, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
(←) In support of what the other editors have suggested, hindsight is 20/20. Perhaps this WikiProject can properly format the pandemic pages after it is done and over with. Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 00:31, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm not even that big a fan of the Wikipedia:In the apocalypse, there are no rules essay, but I do have to agree that for such an important event that developing so quickly and so rapidly that it would be easier to have the articles and text and stuff added first, and have the discussion of inclusion to be had after the fact. The processes for deleting non-notable articles still exist. There's nothing stopping you from AFDing articles when you see cruft. Bait30 Talk 2 me pls? 01:48, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
In times of crisis, having policies and guidelines helps. We can use years of experience editing Wikipedia to make our lives easier, to make pandemic-related articles better. Now is not the time to throw out the rules. If you throw out the rules, then Wikipedia stops being the useful resource it has been. So, I think that essay makes some important points (e.g., handling an influx of new editors), but I oppose a general WP:IAR approach.
What can this WikiProject do? I don't think putting out a message of "Do whatever and we'll tidy it up later" is helpful. This WikiProject should lead. It's for us all to work out how best to do that. Are there areas/issues/problems that the WikiProject can identify where we can coordinate or offer guidance? I've suggested some areas above, but if others think other areas are of more importance, then let's work on those.
(I'm not picking on 2020 coronavirus pandemic in the Åland Islands out of Anglocentrism. I question its value because it's a stub and it's only ever had one substantive edit. If it attracts lots of WP:V-compliant content and develops, great, but for now I think it's making useful information harder to find.) Bondegezou (talk) 12:10, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
Yes, there is extreme cruft everywhere, and quite often, basic medical details are missing as well. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:30, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
In a meta-discussion at Talk:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic#RfC on first sentence on spread of the disease with User:SandyGeorgia, User:Almaty, User:Doc James and others, User:Magna19 wrote that "Nobody is willing to compromise anymore, that's part of the problem. I've followed the RFC process for years, and I would like to suggest that the main problem isn't a lack of compromise. The main problem is that that RFC is set up to be a vote rather than a discussion. This appears to be something of a pattern in this general subject area, so I'm bringing this here, in the hope that more of you will see it and hopefully be more successful with these many (many) RFCs.
If you want to produce a sentence that is supported by sources and well-written, then you need to set up the RFC in a way that discourages support/oppose responses. A voting format's fine if you want to know what's popular with editors. However, it's a very poor choice if you want to tweak the wording on a sentence.
There are hundreds of different ways to express this content, and you've tried to force editors into binary choices: you can support a sentence, or you can oppose that sentence, but you can't build on that without making a mess of the discussion (which is what happened here: the original two turned into seven options, which now ought to all be listed at the top, so editors have a chance of finding them, because otherwise the illegibility results in a sort of donkey voting: I read until I find the first acceptable one, vote for that, and ignore the rest of the page, and Heaven help us if someone creates an eighth option).
And then, instead of experienced editors coming to a consensus through discussion, the entirely predictable response to a vote is for someone to tot up the number of responses and assume that Wikipedia operates according to majority rule, and that the first votes, which were made fewer options existed, show a lack of support for later options, rather than figuring out which of the multiple tweaks is actually the best. If you can't remember it any other way, then remember that Wikipedia:Voting is evil, at least when you're talking about how to write a sentence.[1]
But when the question is about writing a sentence in an article, please choose a simple, non-voting format. In those, you will get higher quality responses from a discussion than from a vote. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:05, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
^A vote-oriented RFC is okay if the options are obviously binary: We do X, or we do not-X, and there are no other options. Voting is fine for "ban the user, or don't ban the user", because there's no halfway position for a ban. Voting is also fine when the opinions of editors actually matter. If you want to change the talk page aesthetic from WP:COFFEEROLL to something else, then it's okay to vote on it. It's even functional to vote on whether to include a picture, or which picture to put first. You cannot put a picture halfway to first in an article; one of them must come before any others. But that's none of those considerations are true for writing a sentence.
@WhatamIdoing: Laudable approach, but not completely practical IMO. A long discussion is great and all, then what? Who decides which edit is made after a whole range of opinions have been shared? There has to be some form of tangible vote alongside the discussion so that consensus can be gauged. Magna19 (talk) 00:15, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
Absolutely. The format was horrible, and only got worse as it progressed. And there will no usable conclusion, so that even if a longer discussion had ensued, it at least might have reached a conclusion. Alarmingly, this very important discussion has now moved to the talk page of one editor, which is utterly inappropriate. And even worse still, we keep parroting the CDC and the WHO, and finding out even they don't really know the facts (face masks as an example), so we shouldn't be saying anything on these topics in Wikipedia's voice, and should be cutting most of the COVID articles to a bare minimum. We don't have good sources, we don't know the facts, we should stop pretending we do. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:32, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
@SlimVirgin: who has been part of the discussions but not a WT:MED follower. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:34, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
And here is an example of an even worse RFC, complete with the claim that "any source that gets more than 50% support can be used". Is that how we build responsible medical content? I daresay MEDRS has flown completely out the door with the COVID challenge. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:50, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
@SandyGeorgia: How do you propose the way that consensus is reached? Magna19 (talk) 00:56, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
Also, users such as @Gtoffoletto: and others were quite involved in the above discussions, so their opinions on this will be valuable also. Magna19 (talk) 01:15, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
Not sure how we got into this mess. I'm just trying to get us out of it as fast as possible to fix the misleading sentence in the lead (see [5] and please support it so we can move on). Probably agree that "when the question is about writing a sentence in an article, please choose a simple, non-voting format." is the best course of action in the future. As well as explicitly closing old discussions so that they don't flare up again.--Gtoffoletto (talk) 01:31, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
Well, for starters, the urge to "get us out of it as fast as possible" is actually slowing down the process and making things worse. Also, please stop canvassing RFCs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:53, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
Magna19, Welcome to Wikipedia. I see that your account is 16 days old. There are people editing that article who have been editing Wikipedia for 16 years. If the result of a discussion isn't obvious to you in the end, maybe you could just ask one of them? I know that the idea that we make decisions by having a discussion, just like we're all mature adults with the same ultimate goals at heart, can take a little getting used to – it's not the way social media works – but the results really are superior, and it's how Wikipedia developed into what it is today. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:43, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
@WhatamIdoing: I have been editing Wikipedia for much longer (approx 3 years), due to a long break I could not find my other details. As evidenced by the mess that this section is about, unfortunately discussion can only go so far. There probably has to be discussion alongside a clear and tangible voting mechanism, and then a definitive way of gauging consensus IMO. Magna19 (talk) 02:09, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
If you think that's how Wikipedia should work, then you need to go to WP:Consensus and get the policy changed to work your way. In between now and then, these are the rules that we operate under. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:19, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
I agree with WhatamIdoing, Magna19. If you don't like how Wikipedia operates, you need to suggest change on a policy page and see if you can get a consensus to change Wikipedia policies or guidelines. If you keep insisting that the way we come to decisions here isn't how you would run things, your editing will begin to be seen as disruptive and you'll might be facing a block. We call that "I didn't hear that" behavior. We are guided by consensus through discussion, not by which editor is the most persistent. LizRead!Talk! 02:59, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
@Liz: It's positive that these things are discussed as much as possible IMO. I respect the current rules and make edits according to these rules. Magna19 (talk) 03:05, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
Perhaps, then, someone needs to state this more directly here. There are multiple editors, new to medical editing (and even several who are well established long-time editors who should know better about how to craft an RFC), who are disrupting and slowing down the process, even if their intentions are the best. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:56, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
Terminology change: "social distancing" to "physical distancing"
Some news articles [1][2][3] yesterday and today have been proposing the change of the term "social distancing" to "physical distancing" or practicing it. If this change persists, can we have a bot go through articles and change the term to reflect the new proposal? Currently Physical distancing and social distancing are terms that lead to the latter as an article. --Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 02:54, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
Update: This is being discussed over at Social distancing's talk page. If you have any thoughts on the matter, please contribute. --Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 16:37, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
This category was created today which I'd think was similar to what users did before with the deleted category "Category:People with coronavirus disease 2019". I doubt that this category would be listed indefinitely on the BLPs as the celebrities which are listed on there are likely to survive and are not as popular news as the ones who had died of the virus. There had been plenty of supports to delete the category I have linked in the first sentence. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 22:13, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
I'm a little hesitant to share (I can hear the calls of premature forking already), but I've started a draft about the pandemic's impact on Portland, Oregon, specifically. I believe doing so allow more detail than a single article about the entire U.S. state of Oregon. The only city-focused article I've seen is 2020 coronavirus pandemic in London, which has been nominated for merging but looks like will be kept. The London page doesn't have much content. I'd like to set a quality standard for other potential city articles, using Portland as a template. I've already added lots of text, but could use help with an infobox, introduction, and background section, if any project member are interested. There are also some bare URLs scattered throughout, which still need to be incorporated into the prose.
I think it is a bit premature and might be of local interest only. But it's still a draft and it's clear you've put a lot into its creation. I've seen that you've posted about it at WikiProject Oregon which was my only suggestion. I'm not sure of the importance of case at the Wells Fargo Center, it seems like we have moved so far beyond first cases to city shutdowns. LizRead!Talk! 02:46, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
Liz, Thanks for your feedback. I figured mention of WFC was ok given location of Davis Wright Tremaine office, but I understand what you mean. I think I first need to flesh out the Cases section before converting into an appropriately detailed summary. ---Another Believer(Talk) 03:12, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
Liz Of local interest perhaps, but there is some coverage of PDX in national publications. Here for example. ---Another Believer(Talk) 13:19, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
Another Believer, as a reverse WP:OTHER, my city of Vancouver doesn't have its own article, and an argument for notability can be made that it is also where the first death of the country occurred and where the Pacific Dental Conference that was rumoured to be a spreading vector was held. Anything of national importance happen primarily in Portland or started there?
The article looks pretty detailed! Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 03:21, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
Tenryuu, No, nothing started in Portland and impacted the nation. Thanks, yes, still working to expand further. ---Another Believer(Talk) 03:28, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
The article seems a bit premature splitting from the main article (rps is below 40 kb), but the level of detail in the article is good (certainly better than what I forked). If this were submitted to AfC, I would expect it to quickly be approved. Username6892 04:04, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
New source of potential COVID-19 related articles for creation (or improvement)
Hi all, I was talking to Connie Moon Sehat from the organization NewsQ today about Wikipedia's role in various COVID-19 global response efforts. She pointed me to a list of organizations (Google doc) that have been vetted by the Vaccine Safety Net (a project of the World Health Organization) as sources of accurate vaccine information. Many of these organizations do not yet have Wikipedia articles. Over the coming months (years?) many people around the world are going to be looking for information about these organizations--and their decision about whether or not to get a COVID-19 vaccine may be influenced by whether they can find trustworthy information about these organizations on sites like Wikipedia. So, I present this list to you for consideration: if you feel an organization on this list that currently lacks an article meets notability criteria, consider creating an article for it. If the organization has an article already, consider improving it. Thanks! J-Mo 20:22, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
Jtmorgan, Thank you. If anyone's able to create a list of red links to be displayed on-wiki, that'd be super helpful! ---Another Believer(Talk) 20:23, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
I do a lot of pageview tracking as a way to convince organizations to invest their communication resources in Wikipedia. This new feature saves me a lot of time. Because COVID-19 articles have been renamed so much and have so many alternative names, this is really helpful now. Blue Rasberry (talk) 23:32, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
Archived discussions
There were 64 discussion threads here which is overwhelming for anyone checking in to see what's going on. So, I have archived any discussions that haven't had participation in four days. That's not a lot of time to resolve discussions! But many of the posts were just announcements that had no responses. There are links to the archives at the top of the page if you want to repost any that you think I archived prematurely. As it is now, there are 48 active discussions which is more than enough to keep us busy. LizRead!Talk! 23:52, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
High quality review article on experimental treatment
Just a reminder that Wikipedia:WikiProject COVID-19/Article report lists pageviews for the most-viewed COVID-19 pages. It can help us see where more work might be needed. The most-viewed articles may not be the articles getting the most attention now. LizRead!Talk! 03:13, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
Concerns about the "Current consensus" sections
Please be aware that statement 1 is currently disputed as per warnings on the page and linked discussion which has been ongoing for days now with something like 20 editors involved. I would keep it there until discussion is over but be aware it is disputed. Please participate in the discussion actually. We need more votes. --Gtoffoletto (talk) 14:40, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
I don't see how that has anything to do with the discussion above… Carl Fredrik talk 14:44, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
I've split this off into a separate section to avoid confusing the two issues. —Granger (talk·contribs) 17:09, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
Update: We have seemingly come to a new consensus on the statement in question. Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 04:28, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
RfC regarding the contagiousness of simple breathing
Resolved
– RFC was archived with a clear consensus. --Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 04:41, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
MOST of these proliferating RFCs relate to ALL of the COVID articles; can we not centralize them here ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:46, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
Result: RfC was closed with a clear consensus on "Option 3c":
The virus is typically spread during close contact and via respiratory droplets produced when people cough or sneeze. Respiratory droplets may be produced during breathing but it is not considered airborne. It may also spread when one touches a contaminated surface and then their face. It is most contagious when people are symptomatic, although spread may be possible before symptoms appear.
References and in-line comments removed. --Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 04:41, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
Standardizing use of per capita maps rather than totals maps
This RfC at 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic isn't quite yet formally closed but has had a prevailing consensus for a week or so (which has been reflected in the article itself) to use a per capita count map first for its infobox, rather than a total count by country map first. The principles leading to that prevailing consensus (see that RfC for them to be spelled out, and if you have comments on those principles, please put them there to keep discussion centralized) apply to pretty much any geographic region, yet many articles, e.g. 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Europe, still list a totals map first, and in some cases a per capita map isn't even available. Can we issue some sort of guidance (I'm not sure exactly what form it would take) that, when adding/improving an article on the pandemic's spread in a region, per capita maps should be preferred for the primary spot in the infobox? Sdkb (talk) 08:17, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
Questions on Official Sources for Confirmed Cases
For those of us that have been updating pages with the confirmed cases (active, recovered, and deaths), should we include all official sources?
For example, I have mainly been updating 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Illinois and sticking to the Illinois Department of Public Health's official numbers that come out daily. However, their information is typically a day behind the local county health departments official numbers. Should we include both the local and the state numbers?
.png)
Resolved
Courtesy link: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 March 23 § Category:People with COVID-19
--Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 22:54, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
Implemented....just need some GA/FA reviews done.-Wikipedia:WikiProject COVID-19/Assessment--Moxy 🍁 17:45, 24 March 2020 (UTC)