Wikipedia talk:WikiProject COVID-19/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

There cannot be a pandemic of a virus...

... only of a disease. If Wikipedia is to have any claim to have accuracy and precision as a goal, can we please try to correct this wherever we see it. There is not, and logically cannot be, a 'coronavirus pandemic': there is a pandemic of a disease carried by a coronavirus, and the name of that disease is 'coronavirus disease 2019' or, in abbreviated form, 'covid-19'.

Would all Wikipedians who believe that the project should have semantic accuracy and avoid displaying ignorance please do what they can to address this drop in standards. Kevin McE (talk) 08:08, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Once again, Wikipedia ins't about semantic accuracy, but about accurately conveying what our sources say and creating a repository of distilled knowledge. If reliable WP:MEDRS-compliant sources are stating that there is a coronavirus pandemic, then so do we. The World Health Organization is using the term "Coronavirus pandemic" in certain communications, it's only silly to question that. Carl Fredrik ^talk 08:12, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

"In certain communications" - are press releases and conferences actually WP:MEDRS? WHO is primarily a political organization that produces PR. They are not writing scholarly peer-reviewed journal articles here. If they are making rookie errors like "epicenter" and "virus pandemic" then it would seem they're not the MEDRS we thought they were. Press releases and journalist communications from an organization are, by nature, WP:PROMOTIONAL and we don't need to take them as a gold standard of medical usage. Elizium23 (talk) 08:29, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

WHO press releases are absolutely WP:MEDRS-compliant, and are not journalistic blurbs. You can also find both those terms littered all over the WP:MEDRS-compliant literature at pubmed. We don't judge MEDRS on arbitrary rules set up by laymen in the field, who might or might not be knowledgeable about other fields. Review articles in pubmed are MEDRS, WHO communications are MEDRS, it's not more complicated than that.
Your allegations of incompetence on their part — are NOT WP:MEDRS. Carl Fredrik ^talk 08:34, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

CFCF, The reliability of these sources ranges from formal scientific reports, which can be the equal of the best reviews published in medical journals, through public guides and service announcements, which have the advantage of being freely readable, but are generally less authoritative than the underlying medical literature. Elizium23 (talk) 08:40, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Your interpretation seems to be inaccurate, as the WHO Press releases are not of the same caliber as those from a university, where the press division is separate from the rest of the organizaiton. The WHO publishes its own work, which university researchers do not. Secondly, both terms are frequent in the WP:MEDRS-compliant "underlying medical and research literature". Carl Fredrik ^talk 08:44, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

I am not seeing where press releases of WHO are MEDRS. Could you please quote a discussion or guideline that specifically singles out their press releases as MEDRS. Elizium23 (talk) 08:44, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

The miss here in what you understand a WHO press release to be. In essence they release guidelines or position statements, where you can find the relevant passage of MEDRS here: WP:MEDORG.
This entire tangent is also irrelevant, as we have the usage in formal articles on pubmed, of which many are WP:MEDRS-compliant anyway. Carl Fredrik ^talk 08:52, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

I would also ask why you are advocating for usage of terms that happen to be found in literature or communications, when the terms that we know to be more correct are also found in equally- or more-reliable sources? "Epicenter" and "*virus pandemic" are not unanimously used by WP:MEDRS, far from it. So why should you seize on them as "the ones we are gonna use"? What makes them more correct than other terms found in WP:RS and WP:MEDRS? Elizium23 (talk) 08:38, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm not saying that we "should only use" those terms, but rather that they are accurate and found in the relevant and WP:RS-compliant literature — hence we have no argument to avoid them either. Wikipedia allows for a range of stylistic choices when expressing the same thing — and to systematically remove or discourage one form when it is used in reliable sources — is WP:DISRUPTIVE and not in accordance with policy. If the only thing you care about is semantic accuracy, go contribute at Wikidata. Carl Fredrik ^talk 08:39, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

We do have arguments to remove them - dictionary definition, nontechnical usage, fake-erudition. Elizium23 (talk) 08:44, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

The dictionary definition very clearly states that epicenter is a fully valid usage — and nothing indicates it is non-technical. As for "coronavirus epidemic" — you haven't shown those issues. And it is remarkable that you cite "dictionary definition" as an acceptable argument, here used against the terms — seeing as when I clearly showed this usage to be included in the dictionary definition: that was rejected as "only a dictionary definition". Carl Fredrik ^talk 08:49, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

CFCF, well, you were ready to apply it to jazz and Chicanos before I showed you it has a connotation of disaster and destructiveness... Elizium23 (talk) 08:51, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Not in the leastest bit true. I have never stated that I believe it to be proper usage there — and I was very clear about not standing by those edits. Carl Fredrik ^talk 08:57, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

CFCF, if I searched computer documents, I could find loads of people referring to gigabytes when they really meant gibibytes. Just because loads of people use an incorrect term does not mean they are correct. It just means that the industry has reluctantly accepted an incorrect term that people generally agree to have an ambiguous meaning because so many people use it correctly. What does Wikipedia do in our articles? We strive to use gibibyte where we mean it, because we are technically accurate. Elizium23 (talk) 08:49, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

:::::Not a relevant comparison in any sense — that is total gaslighting and disingenuous — and what is more you'd be hard pressed to find that error in high-impact WP:RS-compliant journal titles, or statements from the most authoritative bodies out there — which you can here. Carl Fredrik ^talk 08:55, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Not seeing this as a big deal. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:37, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

• Thanks for the timely reminder, Kevin McE; we could all be more careful about this one. I've checked the articles I edit, and we seem to be good. Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/Introduction to viruses (refer to the disease not the pandemic). Since the current name for the disease emerged after the name of the virus, we should expect to see some confusion in articles. In the same vein, we had highly reliable sources telling us only a week ago not to wear masks unless you had COVID, and now hospitals are calling for volunteers to make home-made masks and bring them to hospitals, so in a rapidly changing crisis, we should be suspect of even our best MEDRS sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:39, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

You say, "we seem to be good," but I cannot agree. We have the titles of 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic, a myriad of regional and industry specific sub pages of that, and the side bar template and most of the pages it directs to all attaching "pandemic", illogically, to the type of virus, not to the disease. To those who know the distinction between a virus and a disease, Wikipedia is looking ignorant: to those who don't, Wikipedia is failing to provide any example or meet the basic function of an encyclopaedia in explaining. Kevin McE (talk) 11:26, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

I am not quite sure why we are arguing. For illustration, influenza has caused pandemics. Influenza is caused by influenza viruses A, B and C. Only influenza virus A causes pandemic influenza. Viruses are not endemic or pandemic but the diseases they cause can be. If we confuse the virus with the disease by lazy writing, we will create problems for ourselves all over the encyclopedia. We can easily fix the places where this error has crept in by changing "coronavirus" to "coronavirus disease". (It should of course be "coronaviral disease" which I think we can safely disregard). Graham Beards (talk) 11:52, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) — I'm rolling back some or my arguments above, striking out my own responses above and hiding a tangential discussion that is better covered in another section above. Carl Fredrik ^talk 12:46, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Kevin McE we are in violent agreement. I should have more clearly stated that I've checked the articles where I am responsible for the wording, and we are good. (Specifically, White House Coronavirus Task Force, and I have helped prepare the TFA blurb linked above for Introduction to viruses, TFA 27 March.) You are correct that there remain problems throughout, but I doubt I can have much impact on the growing mess other than to agree with you and support Graham's solution. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:13, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

We're going to be wrong

The current situation demands that any action be thoroughly discussed, before we choose to do anything. The idea of a "coronavirus pandemic" has crept into the common consciousness, and beyond being referred to in the lay press it can even be found in the scientific literature, including in some not so obscure journals.

What we must also keep in mind is that there are literally hundreds or articles (Category:2019–20_coronavirus_pandemic_by_country_and_territory) on the pandemic over various regions that are using the form "2020 coronavirus pandemic in …". (Which rightly stated is a rest from when they were all titled "2020 coronavirus outbreak in …".) Add to that the hundreds of templates (Category:2019–20_coronavirus_pandemic_templates) — and it's quite clear none of this can be done in a hurry, even if we came to a decision now.

We have to decide whether this is an issue to cover, or whether we should frankly ignore it for the time being. The term is technically incorrect, yes, but as Graham Beards states above, so is "coronavirus disease pandemic"; which should be "coronaviral disease pandemic" — which frankly doesn't show up on Google search trends, and is therefore out of the question that we use per WP:COMMONNAME. With a current move moratorium in place (or soon to be in place Proposal:_Move_moratorium) at the main pandemic article, and a main disease article titled "Coronavirus disease 2019" with the WHO referring to the "Coronavirus disease or COVID-19" (not "Coronavirus disease 2019") and recently releasing official statements using "coronavirus pandemic" ([1][2]) — I think there is only one possible solution here:

• We need to accept that we're going to be wrong (at least for a while)

And that means allowing several reasonable combinations in article titles and in article text.

• If the World Health Organization isn't able to coordinate their releases with regards to this, neither will we, and we are wasting time and energy debating it.

To a certain degree this is about consistency and prioritizing what is important. For Wikipedia, getting the exact name right isn't important for now, and we have to weigh the amount of work needed to fix this against the amount of benefit it is going to give us (and our readers). Carl Fredrik ^talk 12:46, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Can you please stop shouting at us ? Graham Beards (talk) 13:25, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Even where the titles are wrong, we can immediately correct the text that links to the titles, as I did here. (And considering the conflicted WHO relationship with China, so we need to take greater care with preferencing them as a source.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:10, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

It is inaccurate and should be corrected.Graham Beards (talk) 13:55, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

URGENT collaboration on adding info on optimal EPA listed disinfectants for using against coronavirus

I've got what I think is highly helpful information I want to add to an article, but need collaborators who understand Wikipedia, science, & how to collaborate, & will thoroughly evaluate safety issues. And willing to search through data & such. Having OneNote 2010 would be helpful, tho not essential. I've collected a lot of linked information! This info needs sharing URGENTLY! It’s related to https://www.infectioncontroltoday.com/environmental-services/select-effective-disinfectants-use-against-coronavirus-causes-covid-19 and https://www.epa.gov/pesticide-registration/list-n-disinfectants-use-against-sars-cov-2 Please help out? Field In (talk) 12:04, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

No, you don't need to be a scientist or major expert on this stuff! If you can help figure out the structure the info should be put into & sift through sources to identify best ones, that'd be great!

We also need some people who have a feel for what people's reactions have tended to be in this crisis, and can consider very carefully what info should be included.

Field In (talk) 12:22, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Danger alert

There is a media report today of a man dying after ingesting chloroquinine intended for aquarium use. [3] Sheesh. Can we say something anywhere? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:41, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

I think we should be very strict about removing any mentions of WP:HOWTO, such as those which include dosages (e.g. [4]), but I don't think there is any way for us to influence whether someone takes prophylactic veterinary medicine or not. Carl Fredrik ^talk 14:38, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Requesting a fixed naming convention for COVID-19 related pages

I think we need to decide on a naming convention for articles under Wikiproject COVID-19 for consistency and ease of navigation to readers. The following nomenclatures are currently in use,

1. 2019-20 coronavirus pandemic in ...
2. 2019-20 coronavirus outbreak in ...
3. 2020 coronavirus pandemic in ...
4. 2020 coronavirus outbreak in ...

I want opinions on the matter. Thanks in advance for you opinions. Stay safe, DishitaBhowmik 16:33, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

The vast majority of pages are already with 2020 pandemic. The parts with 2019-2020 are the main page and page on mainland china. 16:44, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

• Article titles should always be consistent with each other if the subject is similar per WP:consistent. The term "Outbreak" usually means the start and spread of infection from a certain area via the place of origin. "Pandemic" means the infection/virus is now a major issue that goes far beyond its known point of origin to other regions far out. That's just me guessing though. Jerm (talk) 17:04, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

  There are also articles using COVID-19 --valereee (talk) 17:18, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

• Merge 2 into 1, and 4 into 3, for starters. I can understand the "2019-20" and "2020" differences: are we pointing out the year that it began affecting that region, or the entire pandemic from the beginning, back in December 2019 when China was hit? --Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 18:21, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
• Change them all to COVID-19, because that's the disease. We may as well get terms sorted out sooner rather than later. We look more credible by distinguishing the disease from the virus. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:43, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
• All four options are wrong: you have confused the virus with the disease. But option 4 with COVID-19 instead of coronavirus. Which is what I put into a RM at 2019-20 coronavirus pandemic three days ago, but it got little shrift. There are too many people who are more interested in making editors' lives easy and letting them feel good about their contributions than they are about encycloopaedic reliability. Kevin McE (talk) 14:56, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

MEDRS and COVID-19 claims

Could someone with a good understanding of WP:MEDRS and its application please keep an eye on Didier Raoult#COVID-19? The article seems to use mainstream sources to publicize claims of the efficacy of his cure, and doesn't seem to cover some of the concerns that have been raised over the study. --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:28, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, that page has major issues overall — with lots of cleanup needed. I removed some of the most egregious stuff, such as listing dosages — which is very much not allowed. The rest will have to follow later. Carl Fredrik ^talk 09:27, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks to you and others who heeded the call. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:24, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Shortages article ! Call for help

Main article: COVID-19 related shortages

Hi there, we see ton of news on medical material shortage these days. Be it masks for which the China-based supply-cain is affected or electronic devices. This Shortages article can become the problems statements of what we face and which must be solved. Your are welcome to visit this article to get a sense of what is going on there, and may want to drop some sources now and then. Sections are:

1 Groceries
2 Personal protective equipment: masks, clothes, reuse ?
3 Medical care devices: ICU beds, ventilation, ECMOs.
4 Medical personnel: exhausted, contaminated-isolated, sick, death.
5 Facilities: bedrooms / places for patients.

Yug (talk) 23:46, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

This shortages article is terribly written. Either there needs to be an effort to fix the whole thing or delete it. -DustyGoliath 14:03, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi, DustyGoliath! We don't delete articles because they aren't perfect, we try to fix them, and you can help! Go improve it! :D For future reference, here is a link to the reasons we would delete an article: Wikipedia:Deletion policy. --valereee (talk) 14:14, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

I think it would be better to turn this into a List of 2019-20 coronavirus-related shortages. DustyGoliath (talk) 15:45, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

DustyGoliath, I see you've suggested that at the article's talk page -- that's the way to go about these things! --valereee (talk) 16:13, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Global message from Wikimedia Foundation

The Wikimedia Foundation wrote a message which it intends to display to every reader globally. See at

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA?banner=programmatic_mlWW_rsp_covid19&force=1&country=US

The WMF gave notice at meta:Wikimedia_Forum#Message_to_readers_from_Wikimedia_Foundation.

copy of message 21 March 2020 version

A message to our readers about COVID-19 With the uncertainty surrounding the outbreak of the Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic, we want to reassure our readers across the globe that our volunteers are working to bring you a trusted source of unbiased information. Throughout these challenging times, knowledge must and will remain open for all. We find ourselves in remarkable circumstances this year. The COVID-19 pandemic makes clear our global human interconnectedness and the responsibilities we have to one another. We have no precedent for its challenges, but we do know that our best response relies on the sort of global empathy, cooperation, and community building that sit at the heart of our movement. I want to acknowledge the invaluable work of all the contributors on Wikipedia. Thank you for keeping a close watch and keeping misinformation at bay. Our coronavirus articles have received tens of thousands of edits by thousands of editors since the start of the pandemic. We are proving that, even in a time of social distancing, we can celebrate our human bond by coming together online to share facts and information. We will keep working around the clock to bring you reliable and neutral information. Now, as ever, our priority is to remain worthy of your trust. Take good care, Katherine Maher, Executive Director, Wikimedia Foundation

Comments here? Blue Rasberry (talk) 01:33, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

I've been thinking the community should have put up a banner a while ago. I appreciate this message. Thanks for the heads up. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 01:43, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

That message goes to far and gives the impression our articles are more accurate than they are. I don't know how to get this message to the right place, so will ping @WhatamIdoing: and ask her to convey my concern. Most of our COVID articles have problems, ranging from minor to extreme. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:28, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

I've passed a link along to someone on the team. In the meantime, you might be interested in https://www.vox.com/the-goods/2020/3/24/21192837/coronavirus-brand-emails and similar sources. I would not be surprised if this sort of action becomes a standard example in business school textbooks about marketing and branding during a crisis. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:37, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

The Toughest Triage — Allocating Ventilators in a Pandemic

Hello I found this Info about The Toughest Triage — Allocating Ventilators in a Pandemic. I don't know where this can be usefull. Pls somebody might check this. Regards --80.187.109.51 (talk) 19:35, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

It's probably worth mentioning somewhere that multi-patient ventilation has been used in both mass casualty events and also during the current outbreak. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:41, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

100 members

Wow, I've never seen so many editors join a project at once.

Who will be number 100 at Wikipedia:WikiProject COVID-19/Participants? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 00:08, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Couldn't resist ;-) --Gtoffoletto (talk) 00:12, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

We probably broke a Wikipedia record given the scope and speed of an unprecedented global crisis. kencf0618 (talk)

I am just leaving this here...

I am stating no opinion on whether this has been covered or whether this should be covered, but if somebody wishes to use it, here is an interesting source:

Techcrunch: Updated FDA COVID-19 testing guidelines specifically disallow at-home sample collection

--Guy Macon (talk) 04:02, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Template Death numbers incorrect

Hi all, I noticed that Washington death number at Template:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data/United States medical cases by state is incorrect. After looking at the history, I noticed User:StayingClean changed the column order. It should be U.S. state or territory, Cases, Recov, Deaths. |See Mar 25 15:46 diff here. That means numbers entered after this time could be in the wrong column. Thanks, SWP13 (talk) 04:32, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Non-wikipedian epidemiologist/virologist input for COVID19 articles

Cross-posting from WT:MED

Some suggested ways in which the WikiJournal User Group might be able to help:

• external peer reviews of core COVID articles (would be of a specific oldid but would likely be relatively rapid - would that be useful?)
• external authors to contribute articles on corona-related topics that are still stub/start (any topic ideas)?
• external contributors to help out on the core covid articles (but they'd need significant MEDMOS guidance)
• 'partner articles' that go into more detail than appropriate on a WP page (similar to Gene wiki reviews, example) would one be useful for any covid-related topics?
• translations of journal articles (and getting those translations checked for accuracy)

Question for the community:

1. Which (if any) of the above would be most useful?
2. Which specific pages, topics or papers would be most useful?

Discussion at this link if possible (to centralise). T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 11:29, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Protecting COVID-19 articles from April fools

April Fool's Day is in a week and Wikipedia editors have a history of messing with articles on that day. Such pranks are normally harmless. But at this time, this project's articles have an unusually large real-world impact and pranks on these articles would not do anybody any good. Could we, or should we, somehow protect or establish a policy to leave this project's articles alone on April 1st? --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 04:52, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Oh yikes, I forgot that that's coming up. As far as policy goes, I'm not sure what the exact shortcut is, but I'm pretty sure policy clearly dictates that you're not allowed to make April Fools jokes on mainspace pages likely to be seen by readers; it's clear-cut vandalism. So the question is what to do to prevent it. Speaking mainly for 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic, where I've spent most of my efforts, it currently often feels like it's barely hanging on at semi-protection. I'd support raising the protection level to EC-protected for the duration of April 1 anywhere on Earth. Again, I'm not sure how in-keeping with our normal policies on page protection that would be, but it seems the prudent thing to do, and these are extraordinary circumstances. Sdkb (talk) 08:00, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

@Mark viking and Sdkb: check out Wikipedia:Rules for Fools for the basic roles for 1 April. Not everyone abides by these rules, so we need to be watchful of vandalism. --awkwafaba (📥) 12:41, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Everything can be solved by blocks and reverts --In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 14:17, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks all for your advice, you have put my mind at ease. I will help patrol articles on April 1st. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 20:35, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

I will also help patrol articles on April 1st. DustyGoliath 12:49, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Biographies and deaths - multilingual list

detail of the list

Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject COVID-19/deaths. Thanks GerardM for setting up this list.

Here we have a list of the people who have a Wikidata item and who have have died of COVID-19. By Wikidata rules these people should have third-party media coverage, and I expect in most cases they will meet English Wikipedia's notability guidelines. The tool which generates this content, Listeria, is linking to Wikipedia articles when available preferring English but giving other ones or just Wikidata otherwise.

I am sharing this here to invite anyone to develop biographies of these people. For anyone who wants to develop COVID-19 content but who wishes to write something other than medicine, virus, or epidemiology, this list is a great option.

Also, for anyone who edits Wikipedia but who wants an entry into trying Wikidata, now is a great time to learn with lots of support from others. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:26, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Origin: "Unknown" or "Wuhan, China"

Should the origin of the outbreak be listed in infoboxes as "Wuhan, China" or "Unknown"? Reliable sources say that it is Wuhan, China, but User:Michael306 has been changing it to "Unknown" in some articles, especially 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic in mainland China and 2020 coronavirus pandemic in the United States. First he cited an old source saying the outbreak may not have originated at Huanan Seafood Market (not focusing on Wuhan overall); now that I've provided sources directly supporting Wuhan, he is justifying the change by saying "Descriptions kept in line with Chinese Wikipedia". I would appreciate other users' input on this disagreement. —Granger (talk · contribs) 13:57, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Mx. Granger, keep it as Wuhan, China. Multiple reliable sources have supported it as the origin, and Wikipedia (the English one, anyway) goes by that, not by what other wikis have said on the subject. Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 14:10, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

• Consensus is quite clear that we have enough reliable sources to state its origin to be Wuhan. We need to have some ground rules for reverting, and establish consensus that can be pointed to. It's the same thing with the "Wuhan pneumonia" name. There is nothing controversial in including the information in the article — and it's simultaneously: 1) impossible to protect the pages from all edits without strongly discouraging new WP:good faith editors that we wish to retain, and 2) not reasonable to apply WP:3RR.

We may need to spread the use of Current consensus-sections, and to include it where necessary. It might be time for an RfC, which we could have here. Carl Fredrik ^talk 14:18, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

See example:

NOTE: It is recommended to link to this list in your edit summary when reverting, as:
[[Talk:COVID-19 pandemic#Current consensus|current consensus]] item [n]
To ensure you are viewing the current list, you may wish to .

01. Superseded by #9

The first few sentences of the lead's second paragraph should state 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 the virus 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. (RfC March 2020)

02. Superseded by #7

The infobox should feature a per capita count map most prominently, and a total count by country map secondarily. (RfC March 2020)

03. Obsolete

The article should not use {{Current}} at the top. (March 2020)

04. Do not include a sentence in the lead section noting comparisons to World War II. (March 2020)

05. Cancelled

Include subsections covering the domestic responses of Italy, China, Iran, the United States, and South Korea. Do not include individual subsections for France, Germany, the Netherlands, Australia and Japan. (RfC March 2020) Include a short subsection on Sweden focusing on the policy controversy. (May 2020)

Subsequently overturned by editing and recognized as obsolete. (July 2024)

06. Obsolete

There is a 30 day moratorium on move requests until 26 April 2020. (March 2020)

07. There is no consensus that the infobox should feature a confirmed cases count map most prominently, and a deaths count map secondarily. (May 2020)

08. Superseded by #16

The clause on xenophobia in the lead section should read ...and there have been incidents of xenophobia and discrimination against Chinese people and against those perceived as being Chinese or as being from areas with high infection rates. (RfC April 2020)

09. Cancelled

Supersedes #1. The first several sentences of the lead section's second paragraph should state The virus is mainly spread during close contact and by small droplets produced when those infected cough, sneeze or talk. These droplets may also be produced during breathing; however, they rapidly fall to the ground or surfaces and are not generally spread through the air over large distances. People may also become infected by touching a contaminated surface and then their face. The virus can survive on surfaces for up to 72 hours. Coronavirus is most contagious during the first three days after onset of symptoms, although spread may be possible before symptoms appear and in later stages of the disease. (April 2020)

Notes

On 17:16, 6 April 2020, these first several sentences were replaced with an extracted fragment from the coronavirus disease 2019 article, which at the time was last edited at 17:11.

010. The article title is COVID-19 pandemic. The title of related pages should follow this scheme as well. (RM April 2020, RM August 2020)

011. The lead section should use Wuhan, China to describe the virus's origin, without mentioning Hubei or otherwise further describing Wuhan. (April 2020)

012. Superseded by #19

The lead section's second sentence should be phrased using the words first identified and December 2019. (May 2020)

013. Superseded by #15

File:President Donald Trump suggests measures to treat COVID-19 during Coronavirus Task Force press briefing.webm should be used as the visual element of the misinformation section, with the caption U.S. president Donald Trump suggested at a press briefing on 23 April that disinfectant injections or exposure to ultraviolet light might help treat COVID-19. There is no evidence that either could be a viable method. (1:05 min) (May 2020, June 2020)

014. Overturned

Do not mention the theory that the virus was accidentally leaked from a laboratory in the article. (RfC May 2020) This result was overturned at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard, as there is consensus that there is no consensus to include or exclude the lab leak theory. (RfC May 2024)

015. Supersedes #13. File:President Donald Trump suggests measures to treat COVID-19 during Coronavirus Task Force press briefing.webm should not be used as the visual element of the misinformation section. (RfC November 2020)

016. Supersedes #8. Incidents of xenophobia and discrimination are considered WP:UNDUE for a full sentence in the lead. (RfC January 2021)

017. Only include one photograph in the infobox. There is no clear consensus that File:COVID-19 Nurse (cropped).jpg should be that one photograph. (May 2021)

018. Superseded by #19

The first sentence is The COVID-19 pandemic, also known as the coronavirus pandemic, is a global pandemic of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). (August 2021, RfC October 2023)

019. Supersedes #12 and #18. The first sentence is The global COVID-19 pandemic (also known as the coronavirus pandemic), caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), began with an outbreak in Wuhan, China, in December 2019. (June 2024)

That's a good idea. In the meantime, could one of you edit the mainland China article to correct this in the infobox? I'm getting close to 3RR on that article. —Granger (talk · contribs) 14:32, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

There are thousands of articles out there reporting Wuhan as the origin of the epidemic. Almost everyone except the Chinese Communist Party agrees with it. Saying that the origin of the virus is "unknown" is misleading. Last Contrarian (talk) 18:45, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

I see a lot of debate over the origin of COVID-19. I've seen "unknown", "Wuhan," and "Wuhan pneumonia" in infoboxes. The first reported cases have been Wuhan. Reliable sources have said this including UptoDate, the CDC, and WHO. Yes, some have gotten sick from the seafood market and some haven't but that's not a reason to put "unknown." Most of the problem is semantics. I believe that it's best to change "Origin" to "First Reported in Wuhan", "Emerged in Wuhan", or something similar because "first reported" isn't technically "origin." One more thing to point out, "origin" denotes "source" or "reservoir" which isn't the same as where it came from. COVID-19 (SARS-CoV-2) origins is a batcoronavirus. To say where the virus came from, the term "endemic" is appropriate, however, there hasn't been enough research into that. -DustyGoliath 16:50, 24 March 2020

There is debate about whether or not the virus originated at Huanan Seafood Market specifically, so we should not put "Huanan Seafood Market" in the infoboxes. But reliable sources consistently report that the outbreak originated in Wuhan. —Granger (talk · contribs) 17:11, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, we should not put "Origin: Huanan Seafood Market" in the infoboxes, nor "Origin: Unknown." It should be "First Reported: Wuhan" because of my reasons above. —DustyGoliath 17:22, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

DustyGoliath — It isn't useful to state that it was first reported in Wuhan, because the Spanish flu was first reported in Spain, yet those cases are extremely different. The first outbreak was in Wuhan for COVID-19, whereas the first outbreak of the Spanish flu was certainly not in Spain. Carl Fredrik ^talk 18:22, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Voting in talk page that "we have enough source" is not how wikipedia works. I've been in the main article editing the text back to what the source that we actually have in text says. And what they actually say is "unknown origin". As said in Talk:Coronavirus_disease_2019#Origin, I'm actively in search of source to NPOV the other point of view (that the origin would be Wuhan wet market) in the article. But we need sources... Not just voting that we have them in talk page. Iluvalar (talk) 17:39, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Here are a few of the sources: [5] [6] [7] [8]. Again, no one here is arguing we should say that the virus originated in Huanan Seafood Market. The point is that reliable sources agree the outbreak originated in Wuhan. —Granger (talk · contribs) 17:50, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

This is literally a discussion about a missing link and is not scientific. You will always find a point where the origin isn't known, be it stall 46B, or rack 128, or for the 2009 bird flu, which specific duck.

That said, DustyGoliath does make a good point. "Origin" could also mean which animal, such as: bats, or pangolins, or civets, all of which have been implicated as reservoirs of the virus. There is enough to implicate the Huanan Seafood Market in the spread of the disease, whether the virus recombined into its human pathogenic form there or not is largely irrelevant, and something we will never know.

That said, the origin is certainly not "Unknown", no matter how we put it. If we interpret "Origin" to mean from which animal — which we don't know: it's enough to put zoonosis.

This seems to be more about defining what the different parameters in the Template:Infobox epidemic mean.

The following need to be defined:

• First case

• Origin

• Source (Should we add a new parameter for animal source? or zoonosis?

Carl Fredrik ^talk 18:07, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Source: The source of the organism is the site from which it is transmitted to a susceptible host, either directly or indirectly through an intermediary object. Such As -- Fecal-oral, fecal-soil, excreta, tissue, food, seafood/shellfish, dairy, edible plant, water. First Case Reported In...: put a geographical area (such as city, state, province, territory, country, continent) here. So "origin" should be left out. It would also be good to put the disease category as zoonoses, which is a category diseases that "normally exists in animals but that can infect humans. Here is another good definition in the difference between "source" vs "reservoir." DustyGoliath 20:42, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

DustyGoliath — You're missing what I pointed out in my text immediately below this — that "first reported" isn't the right approach to solve this — because the Spanish flu was first reported in Spain, whereas we know there were outbreaks before that. The first known outbreak of COVID-19 was in Wuhan, and we need to express that somehow. Carl Fredrik ^talk 21:16, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

A little further along the same line of thought, this is definitely an issue where the infobox-template needs to be clearer — and we have to compare it to other uses of the infobox. For the Spanish flu, the source was truly unknown (even though it has also be proposed to have come from Asia), however it was first reported in Spain. Yet, that is very different, because there is quite a lot to indicate that the Spanish flew was circulating long before it came to Spain. There is very little, if anything to indicate that COVID-19 circulated to any significant degree before Wuhan. I suggest we fix it with something the following lines, using new parameters:

• Initial outbreak: Wuhan, China
• Source: Zoonosis, presumed civet (or whatever we get reliable sources to)

Carl Fredrik ^talk 18:19, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

@Mx. Granger,I have sources from the CCDC and CDC, your WHO source is fine, but journalistic sources such as NYT and CNN (unless they provide solid sources themself) have to be discarded at this point. WHO : "This new virus and disease were unknown before the outbreak began in Wuhan, China, in December 2019." Interesting, but does it really mean what we are trying to make it say ?

@CFCF, if we are going to settle on "bat" as the origin, I'm fine with it, but the underlying question I have about the starting point to fill the articles is still pending. Iluvalar (talk) 18:22, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with using the NY-Times according to the relevant policy: WP:RS. It isn't a health-related statement, so WP:MEDRS doesn't apply. CDC or WHO are of course better sources than the NY Times, but if they don't touch upon the subject that doesn't matter.

I don't understand your question about a "starting point to fill the articles" — what does that mean? Carl Fredrik ^talk 18:27, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

CFCF's suggestion seems fine to me. (I don't think there are reliable sources for "civet", there may not be reliable sources for any specific animal at this stage, but "Zoonosis", "Presumed zoonosis", or something like that works for me.) CNN and NYT are reliable sources for this claim, by the way. —Granger (talk · contribs) 18:34, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm looking for sources for the first human to human infection. Iluvalar (talk) 18:55, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Iluvalar — That's not relevant. The outbreak started in Wuhan, regardless of where the first human to human infection started. As more facts materialize we may need to append it with whatever creature or forest was the source of the virus, but it won't matter as to whether or not we include Wuhan in the infobox, because the source/origin of the outbreak is Wuhan. Carl Fredrik ^talk 19:55, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, there was AN outbreak in Wuhan where the first KNOWN case as been found. That's what our sources actually in the article says. Now, it's seems that you claim that ALL infections must have a link with Wuhan ? I'm looking for sources for that. Iluvalar (talk) 21:14, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Iluvalar — think very carefully about what you are insinuating here. With the literally thousands of sources claiming that it is beyond any shred of doubt that ALL cases are linked to Wuhan, that suggestion is WP:FRINGE to the point that pushing it any more is likely to result in some form of action being taken against you. I don't think it's very far from a potential WP:BLOCK if you continue to push this in WP:DISRUPTIVE ways. Carl Fredrik ^talk 21:35, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Read what I say calmly please. The sources we DO HAVE right now. Claim the opposite. Please, since you have thousands of sources, can you share a few of them with me ? So I can NPOV the sources we have on the article. Iluvalar (talk) 21:43, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

I think a topic ban is due about now; this is the same user who was at best playing devil's advocate asking "but how does this factor into annual predicted deaths from coronavirus", at worst, deliberately disrupting by asking stupid questions that push fake news. Now, they're being deliberately contrary saying "all our sources say X, but I want you to give me sources that explicitly say NOT Y, or I'll keep suggesting Y could be true". This isn't helpful. Kingsif (talk) 21:47, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

That's not what I said. I start to believe you two are pushing your point of views, but I will repeat in good faith. The sources i already provided as well as the sources already in use in the articles are saying black on white "unknown origin". Here is one of them : [9]. I'm fully aware that the Wuhan hypothesis was plausible until now and it was a common view, now I need sources to represent that point of view in the articles with proper attribution. But i'm still waiting from you guys any of those sources. The NYT article from Mx. Granger is fine, i guess, but I don't see myself attributing the POV to the NYT against the joined opinions of the CDC, WHO and CCDC. Iluvalar (talk) 23:46, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

First of all, the NYT is not the only source saying the origin is Wuhan. I listed multiple sources, including the WHO. Second of all, the source you linked does not say what you're claiming it does. It says "A cluster of pneumonia cases of unknown origin in Wuhan, China caused concern among health officials in late December 2019." In other words, the origin of the pneumonia was unknown in late December. (You can confirm this interpretation by looking at the first reference in the source you linked.) Now it is known that the pneumonia was caused by COVID-19. All of this has no bearing on the issue we're discussing here. I'm starting to agree with Kingsif that this is no longer helpful. —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:21, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Okay, I see how if you squint very hard you can interpret that this way. How about this one :

Lucey says if the new data are accurate, the first human infections must have occurred in November 2019—if not earlier—because there is an incubation time between infection and symptoms surfacing. If so, the virus possibly spread silently between people in Wuhan—and perhaps elsewhere—before the cluster of cases from the city’s now-infamous Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market was discovered in late December. “The virus came into that marketplace before it came out of that marketplace,” Lucey asserts.

— https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/01/wuhan-seafood-market-may-not-be-source-novel-virus-spreading-globally

I'm ready to accept the idea that, as of now, the main POV is that the virus all came from Wuhan. But being tagged as "devil's advocate" and fringe without further effort is disruptive. Iluvalar (talk) 16:25, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

... you don't know what playing devil's advocate means? Perhaps a comprehension issue is the real problem here. Iluvalar, do you speak English to the kind of level needed to understand idiom and nuance? Kingsif (talk) 17:12, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, when I joked about Italy's death rate about to curve out in march 21, you immediately censored me and accused me of "fake news". Can you take a minute to appreciate that it happened and give me some slack. I know there is no amount of numbers or estimation that i could throw at you to convince you that the virus MUST have been around before Wuhan. Regarding epidemiology you couldn't really tell the difference between a fringe conspiracy theory WP:OR or an evident simple rule of three. You do your best, it's ok. I'll quietly wait for sources to follow. But I hold my ground, regarding scientific evidence, the origin at Wuhan is not proven and least and least plausible. Iluvalar (talk) 20:35, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Oh look a source from italy ^^ .

“None of these cases have been documented as COVID-19 because there was no evidence yet of the existence of COVID-19,” he said. Remuzzi said that if evidence of COVID-19 cases in Italy as far back as November was confirmed, this may signal that the virus can go undetected for months.

— [10]

He must be part of the conspiracy too. Iluvalar (talk) 18:47, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

EDIT: This part is also hilarious to me :

The World Health Organization has said the new coronavirus and COVID-19, the respiratory disease it causes, were unknown before the outbreak was first reported in Wuhan, in central China, in December.

And yes the opposite opinion is also expressed in that article :

“I think it extremely unlikely that the virus was present in Europe before January,”

This source is reuter, can we use it in the articles ? Iluvalar (talk) 19:13, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Problem: NOT Using the Correct Terminology

If the idea is to strive for accuracy, we need to use actual epidemiological terms. Not what the media posts. Yes, media is good on day-to-day reporting, but not for medical information about COVID-19/SARS-CoV-2. Good links to those are: Cornell; Northwest Center for Public Health; USA's CDC; MedicineNet and IDdx's website is a goldmine (and their app which I use daily). -DustyGoliath 21:18, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

You're probably right about this. Some quick observations:

Your first link lists:

SOURCE. The object, animal, or person from which infection is acquired.

So we can add that to the infobox with a clarification.

First case should be replaced with index case per:

INDEX CASE. The first case to come to the attention of a disease investigator.

Carl Fredrik ^talk 21:23, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

The Wiki page on Index Case is the more accurate definition than on the first link I posted (lol). For the infoboxes, I really think it should be "First Case/Reported: Wuhan." And I like the longer definition of "source" I had above (haha). Probably a pet peeve. All and all, I agree with what you've said.

Maybe the better thing to do is have a List of Epidemiological Terms page. It will be a long list but very, very useful. -DustyGoliath 21:35, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

So what we need to do is differentiate between national index cases, and the international index case. I'm going to take a crack at adapting the infobox here, but I think it will have to wait until tomorrow, I'm too tired right now. Carl Fredrik ^talk 21:43, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

References

COVID-19 in the workplace

I've just added the article Workplace hazard controls for COVID-19, which highlights occupational safety and health approaches to COVID-19 prevention. Right now it's based mostly on OSHA and CDC sources, and I welcome further additions, especially for the "medium-risk" workplaces that are a significant part of Wikipedia's audience, and non-U.S. perspectives. John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 01:01, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Takeaways so far from this experience

Following up on Another Believer's post above about the unprecedentedly rapid growth of this project, I think we'll definitely be able to step back once this is over and take away some big generalized lessons on how to handle a rapidly ballooning page or set of pages. I wanted to open up a space here to start collecting some of those. Here are some of my early takeaways:

• Importance of edit notices Talk page conversations inevitably get buried, whereas edit notices are persistent, so we need to get good ones up quickly that are both bold and readable (i.e. not bloated!).
• Consensus trackers I think if we had implemented the "current consensus" list at 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic sooner and developed it more fully we'd have saved ourselves a lot of headaches. Since, as mentioned, talk page conversations are getting buried, it's important to have a repository of key decisions that have been made so that continuity of conversation can be maintained.
• Reducing inter-article redundancy (this may be a little more pandemic-specific) A lot of effort was wasted writing out the same things and rehashing the same debates for each of the country-specific articles. It would have been better to have created early on a "how to" example of a country article reflecting best practices hosted at this project. Debates about that example could have then taken place here in a centralized way, and the less-trafficked country pages would be expected to abide by the consensuses reached, resulting in greater consistency. Additionally, the {{excerpt}} template being promoted by Sophivorus, while still somewhat in development this time, could be used in the future to good effect.

The flood of edits seems to have calmed down a little bit in the past few days, at least at 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic, perhaps reflecting that it's reached a more mature state. Hopefully things will become a little smoother from here out (the pandemic may get way worse, but for our concerns, we'll at least have mature articles to build on), but we'll want to keep the lessons learned here in mind for when the next big global occurrence (hopefully a more positive one) comes about. What are the big themes or new best practices you all have gleaned so far? Sdkb (talk) 23:54, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Sdkb, today I learned the {{Consensus}} template exists. I propose that we could create a {{Consensus/covid19}} and transclude it to all COVID-19 article talk pages. Alongside edit notices we could maybe use some of the {{sticky}} family templates such as {{post-it small}} to keep information fixed with {{DNAU}}. Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 01:17, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

@Tenryuu: Hmm, {{consensus}} is interesting. Its documentation says it can be used on talk pages to introduce discussions about a page or topic for which the objective is to reach consensus. Since such a substantial fraction of talk page discussions are about achieving consensus, I'm not fully sure what the distinction in use case would be between that and just normal discussions or RfCs. As for creating a project-wide current consensus list, I'd support that. It could probably be modelled after the one currently being implemented at 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic. That list still needs some development, though, both in terms of adding items (we need objective editors capable of gauging consensus to expand it!) and in terms of format (see WP:AN#Request_review_of_my_page_protection, where discussion will take place on the appropriate protection level). Sdkb (talk) 01:37, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Sdkb, I feel that if we're already working the proper channels to gain consensus via standard discussion and RfCs, we could... repurpose that template: all it does is create a message box for any text with a consensus icon.

That list still needs some development, though, both in terms of adding items [...] and in terms of format. Maybe a to-do list would be helpful? Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 01:44, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

RfC: Default sort column

There is an ongoing RfC that may be of interest to members of this project: Template talk:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data#RfC: Default sort column. --MarioGom (talk) 11:19, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Please review a map of cases per capita

Editors asked for a per capita map of cases by county for 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Massachusetts. I had been producing charts and a map, so I produced a new map for that request. However, I've made two mistakes now, so I've temporarily reverted to article to use the map of raw counts by county until I can get another's review on the amended map of per capita counts.

Could someone please review the described calculation method and legend at File:COVID-19_cases_in_Massachusetts_per_capita_map.svg? Thanks, Emw (talk) 12:18, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

For convenience, the figure, legend, and method for which I seek review are below:

COVID-19 cases in Massachusetts per capita by county   1-9 cases per 100,000 people   10-24 cases per 100,000 people   25-49 cases per 100,000 people   50-99 cases per 100,000 people   ≥ 100 cases per 100,000 people

Method: Derived by dividing number of cases in county by the number of people in each county, and multiplying that quotient by 100,000. E.g. for Suffolk county, 2018 population is 807,252 people and number of cases as of 3/20 is 72. So (86/807252)*100000 = 10.7 cases per 100,000 people for Suffolk county as of 3/20.

If someone could lend a second pair of eyes and give a "looks good to me" or "needs changes", I'd appreciate it! Emw (talk) 22:27, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Emw, I think this is a good idea. Otherwise, 'heat maps of cases' become 'heat maps of population' (a common problem). WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:38, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks WhatamIdoing, I restored the chart in the article. (The legend above now differs from the map; see image up-to-date legend.) Emw (talk) 12:48, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

3rd task force : /Equipments

Hello all !

As governments and supply chains are taken of guard by this epidemics, the question off existing (medical) equipment, supply chain, shortage is everywhere.

Inventory of existing equipment is important to assess needs, anticipate actions to lead, build public pressure for drastic actions (ventilators!), and later on held public officials accountable if necessary.

The flow of equipment and shortages related news is important and steady from various high quality sources identified in WikiProject_COVID-19/Sources#News. The matters really needs more attentions and editors. In invite people who want to know or raise awareness on how many ICU beds are available in their country or state, how many ventilators, how many ECMOs or how the medical teams face 50% staff fall in the first weeks of the epidemic, and what are the various critical shortages we are facing and their current responses to join into this task force and expand the documentation on these matters. Every bits of information, awareness we can spread is good. Yug (talk) 13:12, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

missing countries

can you add the Dominican Republic so I can adopt it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ymleon (talk • contribs) 21:50, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Ymleon, Do you mean 2020 coronavirus pandemic in the Dominican Republic? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:53, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Another Believer in this project there is a table listing countries and asking people to adop a country. I think he talks about that. Yug (talk) 17:36, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Yug, Makes sense now, thanks. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:39, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

At this stage, Template:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data table should start being sorted by total deaths

Some countries such as South Korea or Germany have tested at a very large scale, even people with very mild symptoms or no at all [11]. However, in many other countries such as Italy, Spain, France or the UK, healthcare systems are totally overwhelmed and the testing capacity is saturated. Testing is limited only to the most serious cases and healthcare workers [12]. As a result, the number of confirmed cases reported daily remains steady, not because we're nearing its peak but simply because there's no testing capacity to report more. Using this metric as the main one can easily lead to very fallacious conclusions about the maturity and intensity of the epidemics from a country to another.

Obiously reported deaths has its own bias as well [13], yet, very sadly, the number of deaths will never reach any saturation point like testing does. As such, reported deaths remain, despite its flaws, a much better metric to get an idea about the intensity of the epidemic in each country. Therefore, it would seem wiser to use the deaths metric as the ranking by default on Template:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data table. Metropolitan (talk) 23:36, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. I support this, and suggest we similarly start using deaths per capita maps as our primary maps rather than cases per maps, as has prior to now been the consensus. Sdkb (talk) 03:41, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Update: I've started a discussion on this at the pandemic article if anyone wants to weigh in. Sdkb (talk) 19:44, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

People who contracted COVID-19

A number of Wikinotable people (i.e. those notable enough to have their own Wikipedia article) have contracted COVID-19, and some of them have died from it. Is there any merit in a List of people who contracted COVID-19? Such a list to be strictly confined to Wikinotable people and strictly fully referenced. Mjroots (talk) 12:04, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Mjroots, An equivalent article with a slightly different name was deleted and that deletion is likely to be upheld at DR. So, don't. buidhe 12:30, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

We now have a category which basically does that listing. Yug (talk) 12:58, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

@Buidhe: - I wasn't going to. Just thought it might be worthy of discussion. Was unaware that it had been discussed elsewhere. Mjroots (talk) 13:10, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

No, Yug, there were two categories about this and they have both been deleted. It was judged to be inappropriate to keep tracking of mere testing and results. This is not done for any disease or medical condition. We are just tracking actual deaths. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:19, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Monster Jam World Finals cancellation

Not sure if I'll get any response looking at the previous two discussions on the talk page, so looking for help over on Talk:Impact of the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic on sports#Monster Jam World Finals cancellation. Thanks. Magitroopa (talk) 20:40, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Blog post mentioning WP:COVID-19

I wrote a blog post for Wikimedia Sverige on how is the Wikimedia community responding to COVID-19 crisis, and I have mentioned about this Wikiproject there. Here is the link. --Netha (talk) 20:48, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Netha. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:00, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Texas

Anyone able to help create a # cases timeline table for Texas at Talk:2020 coronavirus pandemic in Texas? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:06, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Another Believer - Do you mean like the Wyoming chart I made here? If so, I can make a table if the Texas Health website has the county data. Prairie Astronomer ^Talk 22:01, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Prairie Astronomer, I assume the editor was looking for something like Template:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data/United States/Texas medical cases chart, which has now been created. But thanks for asking. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:04, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Another Believer - Should I make one anyway? Prairie Astronomer ^Talk 22:22, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

I changed my mind. There are 254 counties in Texas. That is to much to make a table for. Prairie Astronomer ^Talk 22:24, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

COVID-19 CFD

Most of the deletion or rename discussions have involved COVID-19 articles or templates but right now there is one involving a category that you might want to weigh in on: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 March 27#Category:Deaths from the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:01, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Foreign cases linked to Italy

I just looked at the 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Italy article and found a horrendous WP:OR section, Foreign cases linked to Italy, which was made more grotesque by the addition of those awful flagicons. I am going to remove this section, and it would be nice if other editors would keep an eye out for similar WP:OR cruft. Abductive (reasoning) 05:46, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Good spot. I've done a bunch of MOS:FLAG clean-up on other articles. If flag icons are present, people keep using them. If you remove them where not appropriate, people tend not to re-add them. Bondegezou (talk) 11:50, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

The section WP:OWNER will likely keep reverting me. I'd appreciate some assistance explaining it to him/her. Abductive (reasoning) 00:03, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

First of all, this discussion should have been properly linked in the involved article's talk page. But this has not been the case. Why? As far as I can see, Abductive is an expert editor, so I am very disappointed.

Second, as I wrote in the talk page of the article, and I copy my intervention: There is no obvious original research in the section, because the text (or at least the vast majority the text that was deleted) does not imply that the cases were infected in Italy, but states that they are merely linked to Italy (hence the section title), i.e. involving Italian nationals abroad or people travelling to Italy. This is a statement of sourced facts, not original research. One can discuss about whether this kind of list is redundant on this page, but this surely deserves a debate, since the section has been on this article for virtually all its existence.

Finally, there is no OWNER here. Abductive could have checked the number of edits done by myself with respect to other editors for that section, and find that I am indeed not the only nor the majority contributor. Nor am I interested in keeping the whole section at all costs (we can discuss removing parts of it, for example). I simply don't think the procedure applied by Abductive (i.e. starting writing here, without communication on the main article's talk page, then remove a 90 KB section with little explanation, get reverted, and then remove it again) was acceptable for this situation. Again, there is no obvious OR justifying this, and frankly I didn't even reply on the flagicon issue because it makes no sense at all: flags make it much easier to navigate that list, and there is no big scandal because it's a list of countries and territories, each having its own official flag. --Ritchie92 (talk) 08:43, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

• The whole idea of cobbling together a list of transmission events from Italy to elsewhere from primary sources is the worst kind of WP:OR. Two people here have already stated that flagicons are undesirable; you think you can simply hand-wave away the objection, betraying your disdain for consensus. Abductive (reasoning) 18:54, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

"Two people here" is indeed two people, and consensus is not a count of people (which would still be 2-1, not a great majority). Also, what you are doing is certainly not looking for consensus, you are imposing your opinion. "Stating" something is not enough to prove yourself right. No matter how aggressively you write it.

The whole idea of cobbling together a list of transmission events from Italy to elsewhere from primary sources is the worst kind of WP:OR, says who? Then analogously multiple kinds of list on WP would be OR based on your standards. Even the main article 2020 coronavirus pandemic shows a list of countries, each coming with a different source, e.g. the health ministries of each country. Putting this data together in a list of countries with coronavirus outbreaks is then also OR. Why not? So, I have not seen any reasonable argumentation about why to remove the entire section altogether (and without even attempting at discussing first), and I am still waiting for an attempt to reach a consensus (e.g. removing only parts of that section). --Ritchie92 (talk) 19:14, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

@Abductive: you are keeping your edit-warry behaviour without even bothering to reply in the talk page first, and this is not acceptable. Please discuss first, find a consensus for your edit, and then proceed. --Ritchie92 (talk) 14:07, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Having the discussion here rather than at the article talk where there is a sufficiant number of editors shows actually an attempt to circumvent the already existing consensus, which again is based on sources. Agathoclea (talk) 10:23, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Category for people who spread misinformation about COVID-19?

I was wondering if we need to have a dedicated category for people who deliberately spread misinformation about COVID-19, or for people who were arrested for spreading COVID-19 related fake news? At least two popular figures have been arrested in Kerala, India and I am sure many other countries are taking similar strict actions too. --Netha (talk) 11:55, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

It would be lovely ! (could be tricky at time) Yug (talk) 12:59, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

That would be a mess. Imagine the people trying to add every politician on either side, and how do you add the World Health Organization and China? The idea would be hopelessly POV impossible to police. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:11, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Netha Hussain, I oppose this per SandyGeorgia. The category would have to be constantly patrolled. I think a small section on these people on their articles would work for now. Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 15:19, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

That category would be guaranteed to be a shitshow of edit warring, POV and WP:BLP issues. --MarioGom (talk) 15:30, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Strong no. It would almost certainly attract every troll out there to add anyone on the main page to such a category, one that could also carry heavy consequences in some countries (and in any case would be a BLP nightmare) Kingsif (talk) 16:26, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

After the discussion, I think that creating such categories would require immense patrolling, and might carry consequences in some cultures. Right now, we are all busy with a lot of constructive work, and we don't have time to spare for responding to and resolving controversies. So, I think it is best that we don't have these categories. --Netha (talk) 13:03, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Lockdown - how it should work

Is there an article explaining how a lockdown might be effective, and how long one might have to wait before the effects start to show? Nothing obvious in the navbox. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 10:44, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

My understanding is that it is very difficult to know how long one might have to wait to see an obvious slowing down of the number of cases. I can't see any good references predicting this. So, I think we can't yet say anything concrete about this aspect of the pandemic. We should consider creating an article section once we have some solid data. --Netha (talk) 13:07, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

I have read all kinds of (unfounded) guesses in the press. Nothing that looks noteworthy for Wikipedia standards yet. --MarioGom (talk) 14:00, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

"2020 coronavirus pandemic in North Korea"

Resolved

Hi, I have started an AfD about coronavirus pandemic in North Korea. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2020 coronavirus pandemic in North Korea. If anyone wants to participate in that discussion.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 01:08, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Update: The article was kept. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:19, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Deaths from coronavirus subcategories

Hi,

I initially wrote this at WP:TH and was told to bring it here, so I am. My question kind of dovetails off of Liz's notice too

I'm writing this to get some feedback. From what I understand, there's the parent category of Deaths from the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic and then multiple subcategories based on nationality. Being as this is a worldwide pandemic are the different subcats necessary? By rationale, the countries that have been more impacted, i.e. China, Iran, Italy, etc make sense as a subcat but I'm seeing some categories for Brazil or Turkey or the Netherlands that only have one page associated so far and a Cameroon subcat was created with with no affiliated pages (at the time of this writing). Shouldn't the parent category be used more than the smaller subcategories that have one article? Snickers2686 (talk) 02:36, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

My opinion is that, unfortunately, pretty soon there will be more than one article in each of these categories. Most of the world is only 2-6 weeks into what I've heard will be a months long pandemic. I'm sure there will be many more deaths to come. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:39, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Snickers2686, per Liz and at the risk of sounding WP:CRYSTAL, we haven't reached the height of the pandemic yet. Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 15:27, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Press mention of WikiProject COVID-19

• https://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/Hochzeiten-fuer-Wikipedia-Dauerhafte-Coronavirus-Updates-4689416.html

Perhaps we should start a press section for the project page, and include Netha's blog post as well? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:17, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

@Moxy: Thoughts? You've been doing lots of project page organizing. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:20, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Like Wikipedia:WikiProject COVID-19/Press coverage?--Moxy 🍁 15:38, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

@Moxy: What about just a Press section at Wikipedia:WikiProject COVID-19? There's only 2 entries so far, so no need for a separate page. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:50, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

lets do it....--Moxy 🍁 15:52, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Dininfecting - vinegar

This article manages to be negative about using vinegar without actually giving reasons. There is a study cited which shows it it be effective against flu, and it's less of a fire risk than alcohol. It was also used in the Plague in England in the 1660s, when transactions were carried out at boundary stones, and the money left in a bowl of vinegar.

This may be a bit more general than COVID-19, but there is some relevance, if anyone has time to research that would be great.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough (the apparently calm and reasonable) 15:41, 28 March 2020 (UTC).

Here's an interesting article - 5 pages. All the best: Rich Farmbrough (the apparently calm and reasonable) 17:44, 28 March 2020 (UTC).

RfC on mentioning incidents of racism/xenophobia

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:2020_coronavirus_pandemic_in_the_United_States#RfC. Sdkb (talk) 10:45, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Why did you start this RFC? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:46, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: It seemed necessary; the prior context is in the section immediately above the RfC. I'm not sure I fully understand your question — is there something about my user page that makes you think it'd be unlikely I would? Sdkb (talk) 17:18, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Sdkb, I'm assuming WhatamIdoing pinged you like that to make the sentence flow; it very likely has nothing to do with your userpage, though I can see why you would think that.

I've added my thoughts to the matter. Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 18:03, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

I want to know what made you think it was "necessary" to start yet another vote less than five hours after the first question about it? Interrupting a brand-new, functional discussion to hold a vote is usually a bad idea. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:13, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

It seemed like an issue that was inevitably headed toward an RfC, and for those issues, starting one quickly can help centralize discussion in one place rather than splitting it between the discussion and the RfC. Should I have waited longer? Sdkb (talk) 19:51, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Sdkb, I'd like to know how you concluded that a functional conversation that is just five hours long will "inevitably" need to be settled by soliciting comments from editors beyond the 266 (!) who have already engaged on that talk page since its creation last month. Did you assume that the lack of instant, unanimous agreement meant that the existing pool of (hundreds of) editors wouldn't be able to come to an agreement without asking outside editors to provide their input? Did you feel like talking about the subject was a waste of effort and you just wanted to make people start voting instead? WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:05, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: I'm honestly a little perplexed at what's leading you to believe that I'm trying to do anything other than build consensus. The question had to do with racism in America, which is an incredibly fraught topic, so I judged that having additional input would help increase participation to a level that would make consensus clearer (yes, the page has tons of commenters, but tons of conversations also get buried, and I didn't want this to be one of those). My interpretation of the guidelines around RfCs is that the line about when in the course of a discussion to start them has always been a bit fuzzy; if you think I'm applying the guidelines wrong, I would appreciate your AGF advice on what a better approach would be. Sdkb (talk) 19:23, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

This doesn't look like building consensus. This looks like trying to prevent a consensus-building discussion by replacing it with a hasty vote. Consensus building takes time and patience. You have to let people talk to each other, sometimes at great length, even about incredibly fraught topics.

By jumping to an RFC, IMO you had two negative effects on this particular discussion. The first is that you reduced a general question (should this information be in the lead?) to a highly specific question (should this exact sentence be in the lead?). It's possible that another sentence would be better, but your RFC question encourages people not to notice that possibility. Narrowing it to a binary yes/no discourages the spirit of compromise and harms Wikipedia in both this instance and in general. The other effect is that what was previously a conversation between people (M asks, L agrees, X provides a related link, you disagree with M, M disagrees that the link is relevant, S agrees with M, X offers another related link) has now become mostly a non-interactive, non-responsive list of votes. People post their view and leave. Nobody changes their minds as a result of discussion, because there is almost no discussion any more (especially if you discount your posts against editors who voted against you, and the posts complaining about your posts, which aren't exactly helpful). I really do think that this conversation would have gone better if you'd left it as a normal/unadvertised conversation.

On the more general point, you have been starting a lot of RFCs. That means you're requesting a lot of attention from your fellow editors. The more RFCs we open, the fewer RFCs will get thoughtful responses. We should all be cautious about how much burden we put on the RFC process. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:56, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

I replied to the post you left on my talk page about this. Thoughts from others would be welcome there too. Sdkb (talk) 23:11, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Timeline diagram of managing methods

@TedjevanE: @MSG17: @Juxlos: @Wekpidea:

I could not find a timeline diagram of how the largest countries have responded to the pandemic, so please edit the Sandbox draft over there and/or copy to other sandboxes until a reasonable version occurs. Or edit the small version here.

As you can see, it needs YOU to work on it, and there are many ways to expand scope and add details. See The Rolling Stones#Timeline for examples.

Colours are preliminary, fx what is the difference between Quarantine and Lockdown (and which should carry the reddest colour?)

How to define Travel ban: internal, entry only, exit only,

How to define Quarantine: home, work, leisure, group size. City or nationwide.

How to add dates? How do we copy sources from the articles to this template? Where does the template fit within the main template ?

Data sources and relevant pages for inclusion :

National responses to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic

Travel restrictions related to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic

Evacuations related to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic

Timeline

TGCP (talk) 15:35, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

I changed from USA to US, but might be better to have "United States". All the best: Rich Farmbrough (the apparently calm and reasonable) 15:43, 28 March 2020 (UTC).

• A very neat visualization. It's also quite compact, so I would question the reason to only include so few countries. We could quite easily expand it with, say all countries with 5+ million people. If someone wanted to it could be made into a general template where on could enter which countries to show, we could use it over many articles. What would take a little more time is to agree on what "lockdown" is, and what "quarantine" is — because different countries are applying different measures, and "some restrictions is very vague". South Korea certainly has "some restrictions" in Daegu. Do we only mean movement restrictions? Iran also certainly recommends not traveling across the country and was quite clear about that when people were going to their summer homes by the Caspian Sea. Carl Fredrik ^talk 19:30, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Omg this is such a nice start ! cc TGCP Yug (talk) 00:00, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Giant tables need to go

Many of the articles are becoming unwieldy to navigate, cluttered up with tabular information that seemed like a good idea early on, but are now useless—and require massive daily updating and maintenance. Tables and lists especially need to be removed and perhaps replaced with maps and graphs. Any disagreement? Abductive (reasoning) 19:37, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Raw numbers should be limited to the most notable. The large tables should be preserved (and maintained) in separate templates, as now. See "Timeline diagram" above for a way to display some of the tables, in this case, Quarantines and Lockdowns. TGCP (talk) 20:24, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

This needs to be a discussion brought to the articles where you think this is a problem. There can't be a decision here on this talk page about major changes that will affect hundreds of articles. This kind of standardization happens with specialized task forces, like Wikipedia:WikiProject COVID-19/Case Count Task Force. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:31, 29 March 2020 (UTC)