The article says declaring a public health emergency is SOP and was done for the presidential inaguration and "flooding?" Why is an inaguration a health emergency? --Lucent (talk) 17:54, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
A consensus has emerged after discussion at the parent page of this article, 2009 swine flu outbreak, that areas should be sorted by severity of outbreak, NOT alphabetically. Please discuss format changes before applying them. Wine GuyTalk17:41, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
I agree there... Because its a Mexico centered Outbreak, I shouldn't have to scroll through 3 pages of 'Country_Z stopped importing Pork from North America'... But here its so small and sparsely done, and I do think 200 kids in a NY school is sparce. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 17:44, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure what scrolling has to do with the table, if anything it strengthens the argument for sorting the table by numbers. The article text is alpha, so that detailed info on a particular state may be found quickly and easily. The way the table is currently set up it imparts information at a glance, look at the table... boom, you immediately know where the most seriously affected areas are. In this case, an alpha listing serves no purpose other than being alpha. Also, since this is a sub-article, and the table is a similar element, consistency with the parent article should be considered. Wine GuyTalk18:13, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
My fault, I wasen't referring to the table but to the article itself... Concerning this table, is there there a way to put in those 'sort by' buttons I've seen elsewhere? --PigFlu Oink (talk) 18:15, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Great minds think alike;) I've just been looking into how to make the table sortable, and now I see someone has done just that on the main outbreak page. I'll see if I can make it happen here. Wine GuyTalk19:09, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
OK, table is now sortable, but still has a glitch or two. I thought using class="sortbottom" would prevent the totals from moving, but something is still not right. However, the same problem is plaguing the country table, so at least it's consistent;)
What is the criteria for yellow/suspected cases? I remember from the comments that the reason Minnesota was left off the TABLE was that State Health Officials hadn't confirmed the existence of a possible case. We added it to the map but not the table(this was also when US states were mentioned on the Main Article). Now we have evidence that South Dakota and South Carolina State Health Officials are 'looking into' possible cases there. Does this meet map or table criteria for possible cases?
My Questions
What is the criteria for yellow/suspected Map listing?
What is the criteria for suspected Table listing?
What is the criteria for yellow/suspected Map delisting? (All possible cases, come back as Negative?)
What is the criteria for suspected Table delisting? (All possible cases, come back as Negative?)
Display problems in IE8, any way of working around them?
I usually use Firefox or Chrome, but I wanted to try out the WebSlice feature (that I noticed this article among others is using) so I went to this page in IE8 and I noticed that the text doesn't wrap around the table and instead it only starts at the bottom of the table, leaving a massive void to the left. Is this just a (huge) bug that didn't get fixed for IE8, or is there any way to work around it? I have no idea if it affects other versions of IE, but it really sucks at least for anyone viewing this article in IE8. -Paul1337 (talk) 00:08, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Somebody else removed it from the table already, and I've changed the text to say that the test results came back negative. -Paul1337 (talk) 01:57, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
How do you not understand the need for an article that is in real time being a hub for all the information regarding a global crisis within a country? There is no other place on the web that is updated as frequently as these articles, and by not updating them you would be preventing the spread of information, which I thought was wikipedia's purpose. There may not be similar articles to these for the past flu pandemics, but thats rather common sense since the internet, wikipedia, and modern news outlets did not exist in 1918 so there was far less information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.121.96.112 (talk) 18:23, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Los Angeles Country Coroner is looking into possible deaths in Califonia
I put this over on the Main Article Talk page as well
[2] SF Chron quotes the LA Times ""Coroner's Capt. John Kades (KAY-dis) says tests are being run on two bodies to see if swine flu was a factor in their deaths, but there is no confirmation that the disease killed them. Kades offered no other details of the men.""--PigFlu Oink (talk) 18:07, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Bias in finding confirmed cases
Here is something to work into the article.
This source states that Mexico tested samples from hospitals but the US tested samples from routine surveillance, and suggests this difference explains the presence of confirmed deaths in Mexico but not in the US. That suggestion is wrong. The US also has ongoing, active surveillance in hospitals in 10 states, including New Mexico (bordering Mexico). If the virus had been present, it would have been found. The same goes for the US national surveillance, which prefers to test in cases of severe influenza-like illness; none of those have turned up this virus. --Una Smith (talk) 18:30, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Florida
The case in Florida was not confirmed, and the source article even says so, yet both the map and the table says a case was confirmed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.243.241.75 (talk) 16:55, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Juliancolton's link indicates that a culture from the person in question was sent to Jacksonville to be tested for swine flu, making it a possible case. --DavidK93 (talk) 18:26, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Every possible case in a table or a map should be cited. It is irresponsible not to have cited information about confirmed or unconfirmed cases in this article. I trust the Florida Department of Health, and since this event seems to be rapidly evolving we need to be very careful about what we're reporting. The Fox Orlando news story says there may be a case of some kind of influenza at Disney World. It will take 2 days before it is determined that it is a possible case, which I am taking as "unconfirmed". Then it goes to Atlanta to be confirmed as swine flu. What the Fox Orlando site says is a rumor, not an unconfirmed case. We need to have an agreed upon set of criteria for inclusion of states and cases. Quickly. --Moni3 (talk) 18:31, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
I would say that any instance of a culture being sent for testing, with no results yet available, is a possible case of swine flu. If someone was sick but doctors ruled out swine flu without sending a culture for testing, that wouldn't be what we're calling a "possible case," even if someone, like the patient or a media outlet, claims that swine flu had been a possibility (as happened in Brazil before actual possible cases surfaced). --DavidK93 (talk) 19:03, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Per the Fox Orlando story (at the bottom), I believe we should treat the cases as what follows:
Suspected case: Initial suspicions with no medical tests yet completed.
Unconfirmed case: Tested by a state agency and sent to the CDC.
I would say that Suspected Case and Unconfirmed are the same thing, and should correspond to someone having a sample being tested by the state/CDC. Reporting "suspected cases" as you outline above would include anyone with symptoms. I would only call a suspected case if the patient's history makes it likely they contracted swine flu, they have preliminarily been confirmed to have Type A Influenza, and a sample has been collected and sent for analysis. Reporting anything less than that would not be useful. Flipper9 (talk) 19:13, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
This is per the source, which is what we should be using to determine all edits. If information about someone with symptoms is printed in a very reliable source, then it should be considered a suspected case. Once testing is done, it should be termed an unconfirmed case. Once the CDC tests confirm the strain, it should be listed as confirmed. The Orlando Sentinel and the Miami Herald have both reported that a Mexican tourist at Disney World has Influenza type A, but these stories are based on emails from a doctor to a reporter. News sources are considering this information pre-unconfirmed. --Moni3 (talk) 19:19, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Particually one that gives the Directors name. Furthermore Google Ap sources become inaccessable only after a few days. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 18:56, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Agreed the NY Daily News is much better in mentioning the particular school and its location with regard to St Francis --PigFlu Oink (talk) 19:16, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Carefully, it should be stated that Mayor Michael Bloomberg said that hundreds of students are showing flu-like symptoms. --Moni3 (talk) 19:24, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
There has been many confirmed cases. Where I live in South Carolina there are two confirmed cases and a school in Newberry, South Carolina has been closed because of the outbreak. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.71.183.113 (talk) 22:03, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
The CDC source is already more than 15 hours old. How can this be a legitimate source anymore? Table should be reverted to how it was previously, as the CDC hasn't updated yet. 69.231.128.137 (talk) 06:35, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Why are there two death columns when nobody has actually died yet?
Is it really necessary to have 'Confirmed deaths' and 'Attributed deaths' columns when no deaths in the United States have even been attributed to swine flu? -Paul1337 (talk) 22:17, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
There is alredy an article about this new infuenza outbreak from a global perspective. Mexico is by far the most affected country, with more than 1300 cases reported, and at teast 80 deaths. In the U.S. there are like 10 - 20 cases, and there have not been any deceases. I think that an article about the outbreak in the U.S. is unnecesary, considering that there is no article about the outbreak in Mexico, and only reflects an american point of view bias in wikipedia. I suggest that this article should be merged with the 2009 H1N1 flu outbreak. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MiguelParamo (talk • contribs) 14:10, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
You're right but I think the bias would remain and just result in the main article having a disproportionate focus on the USA. Ideally a Mexico article should also be created, but at least at the moment the main article has some perspective. cyclosarin (talk) 14:52, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Wow, you just came right out and admitted the bias. You see, what you said doesn't excuse it. This article should be merged with the main one, because this article is freaking longer then the global outbreak article. How do we go about voting on this? Lemniwinks (talk) 20:39, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
The U.S. has greater media coverage of natural disasters than any other country in the world, so it's only natural for this article to be longer. –Juliancolton | Talk20:45, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
The reason for this article, is so it can be treated as an additional page to the main swine flu wiki page, providing more detailed information per region. In this case, the US, and the additional information is a break down of statistics by state. ;-)
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.
Saying that people die from the flu is not news. The U.S. has 800 influenza deaths a week during every year's flu season. So far, there has been one U.S. death from this outbreak of swine flu. The concern is that this is occuring out of season and with a novel virus. Rmhermen (talk) 13:13, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
All the news channels and online major sources here are reporting 1 case of probable Swine Flu in Cold Springs, MN - not the sensationalist 50 figure on the statistics !!!Thejohansenfamily (talk) 13:30, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
South Dakota is still showing up on the map as a state with suspected cases even though those cases were confirmed as unrelated to the swine flu several days ago. How is the map updated? 24.111.13.50 (talk) 17:36, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
The map hasn't been updated nearly fast enough for a few states. Can someone explain how to do it? → 17:55, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Referencing Hiccup
I'm not really sure how do mess with referencing correctly (my focus is more on fact checking) so I thought that I'd mention this:
The reference (currently #83) isn't working (the article appears not to exist) and thus we can't verify the claim of 3 people in Maine. I went looking and found a reference that we can use in the Boston Globe. It is good for verifying the two cases in Massachusetts (along with some details) and a mention of three cases in Maine.[1] I'm not really sure how to change this without royally screwing something up, so I'll leave it for the more technically inclined people to do that. Pharmaediting11 (talk) 20:11, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
...And second the death of the 23 month old baby in Texas - how can this be recorded as a death in the U.S. - it was a Hispanic child from Mexico coming over for treatment - so it should be classed as a Mexican death - as no human U.S. to U.S. case of death has been reported ...
Thejohansenfamily (talk) 13:30, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
I agree, it sounds like they came too late to save the child, I dont believe it should be considered a US death as the child was not a US citizen or long term resident of the US. --Bhockey10 (talk) 15:22, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia is descriptive - that is we condense the reports we read. And they all call this an American death so that is how we have to list it. Rmhermen (talk) 16:07, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
just watching the news and they called it a "so called US death" and since learning- stressed that the child came from mexico.--Bhockey10 (talk) 16:13, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
If they went up without a souce change or a comment: you can revert them. I automatticaly revert changes in confirmed and deaths that have no source. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 22:46, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
It has just been reported that there are 2 possible cases of swine flu in Colorado. Samples have been sent to federal labs for testing. Here is the link:
Conservitives recently complained that his polices are making the country into a Nanny state; having the president tell people to wash their hands takes a more literal sense of the metaphor. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 00:55, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
NBC Action News Kansas City is reporting that Governor Jay NIxon of Missouri is declaring that a probable case of swine flu has been found in Platte County, MO.
WP:Not probably covers this somewhere. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. I don't think we want to have articles for every state. It is too detailed, too quickly changing, too many articles to keep synchronized. There are already complaints on the main 2009 swine flu outbreak article that it is too long, especially compared to the less detailed treatment of the (so-far) far more deadly 1918 flu. This is an example of the problem of "recentism" that much of Wikipedia is subject to. Rmhermen (talk) 16:07, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
The article table has columns for "Laboratory confirmed," "Probable," "Suspected‡," (unconfirmed)‡," "Confirmed." How are these defined? Thanks to all for writing such a nice article!
WriterHound (talk) 03:34, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
I have set up automatic archiving to archive any threads with no comments for 48 hours in order to (hopefully) cut down on the clutter. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:44, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Change the time to EDT on Map
I think that the time shown when the US map is updated should be changed to Eastern Daylight Time. Considering that this is a current event that deals with the US it would be easier for people not to have to remember that it is in UTC. I know that my proposal goes against standard Wikipedia policy but, I find myself checking this page and the map at least daily. Thank You. 67.176.42.11 (talk) 05:15, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
New England
I am in the process of creating sub-sections for each individual state that has confirmed cases. Having looked at the table, then at the TOC, I saw that Maine and Massachusetts did not have entries. I did not even notice New England because that's not what I was looking for.
It's my feeling that, at least for the time being, states with confirmed cases should have their own sub-section, and information from other states can go in the Elsewhere section. Wine GuyTalk06:02, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
I've also renamed Affected regions to Affected states, and alphabetized them. Please keep the state sections in the body of the article in alpha order. Elsewhere is now Other states. Wine GuyTalk07:38, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Louisiana added on chart, please update in article and map
Added the 6 cases being looked at in Louisiana at the moment. Listed them as probable based on CDC guidelines as all 6, at the current time and time of the news articles, are testing positive for Influenza A.
If someone could update the map and add a wikified section for Louisiana in the main article it would be greatly appreciated. Don't have the time at the moment, all resources needed should be contained in the citations which I added to the state chart.
Der.Gray (talk) 07:24, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for adding the Louisiana info to the table, and double thanks for going ahead and adding info to the body of the article. I touched it up a bit, and looking at the various sources it seems that all of the relevant info was in the NOLA article. But, it's late (or early?) and I may have missed something. If so the other refs can be found here. Wine GuyTalk08:39, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for helping, not reliable internet at the moment. All 4 articles seem to mention about the 8 year old in New Orleans and the other possible and probable cases, along with the additional testing of 62 students in Lafayette, might be of some relevance in the body content, probably not needed in the chart though. Thanks again for helping. It was a bit of a bad feeling to have to put up the news about louisiana, but good to get the word out as much as possible. Der.Gray (talk) 09:15, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Oh !#$&. We have to do something.
The USA is lighting up like a fricken Christmas Tree! This disease is spreading fast and is very easy to transfer... We have to try and prevent other states from getting it! =(
This isn't the place to discuss things like this. The talk pages are not a forum. 03:33, 30 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobwrits (talk • contribs)
... found the linked article in the map - maybe sleep's making me groggy- what I should have said was within the 'other states' section NigarashiRyuni (talk) 10:46, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Arizona and Nevada have confirmed cases, but do not yet have any info in the body of the article. Could someone please add these under affected states? (I'm done for the night... or is it morning;)) Wine GuyTalk08:52, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Can't find anything. Only thing I see is this. Georgia Health offical says no cases yet, but has tested 13 samples in recent days, and has sent one to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for further testing. Since the article says nothing of the samples being from humans, I'm not going to list these as possible cases. I'll try to find something better though. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 15:24, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
CDC rolling out test kits to state health agencies
Per todays webcast: Acting Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Dr. Rich Besser, says they have rolled out test kits to NewYork and Califonia: They expect to be able to roll out testing kits to other states on Monday. Prior, testing was only avaliable at CDC headquaters in Atlanta. The new kits are expected to be able to speed up the testing process. Dr Besser also said that Mexico has just now been able to do their own testing. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 17:36, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Sensationalism
The article is beginning to take on a sensationalist tone. Deaths are being listed (even though there is a *), when there is no confirmation that they are attributed to swine flu. Also, possible cases is too broad. The article should only include verified infections, those infections that are truly suspected of being due to swine flu (and not just random counts of people with a fever) and are being tested specifically by the state/CDC for swine flu, and those deaths that are confirmed to be by swine flu. Any other speculative information is sensationalist in tone and shouldn't be in an encyclopedic article. Flipper9 (talk) 19:25, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
I agree. I think we should be both cautious and vigilant about reporting from only the best reliable sources. --Moni3 (talk) 19:28, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
I think we should include only reliable sources, and only reports of cases that have been confirmed as swine flu by laboratory testing. Including every media report of a suspected case wastes our resources because so many of them have to be removed again, and serves mainly to frighten readers. --Una Smith (talk) 20:19, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
This would mean drastically cutting all the widely reported on Mexican deaths. The standard for reporting we adopt on any one of these pages has to apply the same to all of them. rootology (C)(T) 20:20, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
I would suggest that the main article and all sub-articles on swine flu should read like an encyclopedic article, and not a news article. We are listing suspected cases, suspected deaths as if the reader should return later for an update...as if it were the evening news. I would suggest that we only list confirmed infections, and confirmed deaths. Flipper9 (talk) 19:39, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
What about reporting suspected deaths cases in the article text in the relevant section for each state, but only increase the numbers in the table once they have been confirmed? -Paul1337 (talk) 22:28, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
It's not very encyclopedic to be putting in "rumor" or suspected information in an encyclopedia article. If I read the 1976 article on pandemic flu, and they listed "suspected", or number of people who had a URI that year but "might have pandemic flu", then it only serves to make the article more suspensfull. This is not a news article, or a daytime talk show...this is an encyclopedia, which should be presenting verifiable facts, not some "suspected infection"-of-the-hour from a fluid news source. Just my $0.02 70.127.66.110 (talk) 13:48, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Additionally the Los Angeles coroner is now saying that at least one of the "reported" deaths is not due to swine flu but rather pneumonia. --75.190.179.49 (talk) 20:15, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
I think we need to remove the information from the article when it has been determined that it is unrelated to the subject of this article. I also do not think suspected cases belong until they have been proven. Alanraywiki (talk) 17:47, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
The reason the article may be taking a sensational tone is due to the media reports we are using quoting and refering to. Like many stories the media has overblown the whole situation 30,000-40,000 people die from the regular flu every year and personally the swine flu won't be anything special until it eqals or surpasses those numbers!!!--Bhockey10 (talk) 15:46, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
The purpose of Wikipedia is for encyclopedic articles, not news articles. I would say IMHO that the news articles referenced are not verifiable information, but fluid information that is likely to change. They are written with less stringent controls as would be published, peer-reviewed articles. A better place for all of this fluid and dynamically and increasingly "speculative" info should be placed in Wikinews, and not Wikipedia. We should be posting only verifiable information, which would include laboratory-confirmed cases and confirmed cause of death due to swine flu. Other information is just not encyclopedic. Flipper9 (talk) 16:01, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
To be clear about the inappropriate tag I added to the main article: all of the "suspected cases", "probable cases" and "probable deaths" are unverifiable information. Just because a news article says it, that is more speculative information and has no basic in something that can be verified. For example, news articles are regularly updated, retracted, and sometimes based on the flimsiest of evidence. The information gleaned from the popular press IMHO is not verifiable in the strictest sense. Yes; you can lookup the article and see that some guy at a news organization wrote it, but it's not verifiable by any authority. The only verifiable information is confirmed cases of infection and confirmed cases of death. The other columns of possible or probable cases and deaths is not something you would expect to find in an encyclopedia article; but in a dynamically updated news article or site, hence why that unverifiable information should be placed in Wikinews or some other wiki site. Flipper9 (talk) 16:41, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Well is seems like certain editors don't want to discuss whether this article is encyclopedic, and repeatedly resort to removing the unencyclopedic tag without disscussion. Why not follow proper procedure? Flipper9 (talk) 18:49, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Florida
The test results have not come yet. There is one case on April 28th they reported they sent it to a state lab to be tested and that the results were expected in 48 hours. WHY people keep changing it to zero I don't know. At least they let 80 suspected cases stay, because that's what the sourced article said. Now please show me where the sourced article, which is not new by the way, says that the potential case has been tested negative? I think there may be some confusion here - since it was initially reported that there was a confirmed case, and then that was cleared up, but that doesn't mean this one case has been resolved. --Revolucióntalk05:18, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
I propose we move this to its own section at the bottom of the article, since it's overlapping with text and images in its current location. –Juliancolton | Talk19:10, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
I disagree, I think it's best to have this at-a-glance information at the top. I have made the table a bit narrower, I hope that helps some. I would suggest collapsing the unconfirmed states, but that would not be possible with a sortable table. Wine GuyTalk20:56, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
I think that the state table at the top of the article should have the states alphabetized. Readers can then very simply check to see which states are having reported and/or suspected cases. I'm afraid that I might mess it up if I did it but someone really ought to. --Navy II (talk) 20:26, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Severity is a relative term. Texas is huge both geographically and by population, but Rhode Island is tiny. Hypothetically speaking, if 2 days from now Texas has 30 confirmed cases and Rhode Island has 10, is it really more severe in Texas, of course not. Alphabetization, or a table that can be sorted with a click, are the ways to go. --Navy II (talk) 20:53, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
I disagree with this changes as well. The extra states (with no cases) add nothign to the chart and take up a ton of extra room. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:04, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Also, previous consensus on the main chart was to sort by "severity" - that is deaths, then confirmed cases, then suspected cases, then alphabetical in case of a tie. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:10, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Previous Consensus was on a table that had sort by buttons and was at a time when there were fewer states. Under the argument of navigation and information for the masses; I support Alphabetization of all states including '-' for no-cases. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 21:22, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
I agree with the "severity" sorting...it keeps the table from being fairly unreadable and/or bloated. CB...(ö)21:26, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
I agree. I think it's a shame to resort back to the previous order. The sort order provides no meaning other than to the few people attempting to preserve the old sort order. As this unfolds, outbreaks will begin occuring throughout the nation, making a "severity" sort difficult if not impossible to maintain. Having all states alphebetical provides clear guidance to other contributers on where to place their information and is the simpelist way for people to zero in on the state they are interested in.128.138.82.193 (talk) 21:29, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Actually it wouldn't unless all the headers were 1 row in size - in other words it would have to be "confirmed cases" as one line "suspect cases" as one line, etc. This would have the chart very wide (and the sort icon would add more width) and isn't practical. (tables with multiple line headers improperly) --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:12, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
You couldn't have any header span more than one column, so each would have to be written out: "labratory confirmed cases", "suspected cases", etc. The writing wouldn't have to be on one line, though. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:44, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, without reading the detailed discussion, there is no indication on why a state like Texas, with only 1/4 of the number of cases as a place like New York, appears first on the list. And it provide absolutely no guidance to others as they update the table on if/when they should move states around the list. The old sort order has outlived its usefulness. Even if states with 0 outbreak at this time are removed, to keep the table clean, the remaining infections should be listed in alphabetical order to keep the table useful and meaningful.128.138.82.193 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:59, 29 April 2009 (UTC).
I think there's certainly a consensus that it should not be sorted by an invented severity heuristic. Put it by severity when the CDC publishes a list, which they may. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 23:46, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
No consensus for currently version doesn't equate with consensus for change. Be patient, perhaps one will form. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:55, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
I do not believe that it should be alphabetized. As I stated in a previous discussion on this topic, the article text is alpha, so that detailed info on a particular state may be found quickly and easily. The way the table is currently set up it imparts information at a glance, look at the table... boom, you immediately know where the most seriously affected areas are. In this case, an alpha listing serves no purpose other than being alpha. Also, since this is a sub-article, and the table is a similar element, consistency with the parent article should be considered. Wine GuyTalk00:50, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
My 2c: Both the current and alphabetized table have advantages: the current table (as WineGuy notes) shows which states are most affected most easily; while an alphabetized table will be most useful to a reader looking for information about their state. I prefer the alphabetized table since it is easier to maintain (since we don't need to repeatedly update the order), doesn't involve coming up with our own ranking scheme, and because CDC takes that approach. Abecedare (talk) 02:11, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
The CDC does not attempt to judge severity. They present their data in alphabetical order (see http://www.cdc.gov/swineflu/). Why does this table continue using a subjective, ambiguous sort order that has no meaning to anyone other than the handful attempting to maintain the sort order? What constitutes severity: the severity of consequences, indicating a by death rate sort order, or perhaps severity of public health threat, in which case deaths don't matter as much as infection rate. There clearly is not a "consensus" about severity. If we are truly seeking consensus before making a change, then present the information in an unbiased format (i.e. alphabetical order, or by proven infection discovery order) until "consensus" can be reached on severity.128.138.112.248 (talk) 14:25, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Because this is how Wikipedia works. We had previous consensus on this sort order (albeit in a slightly different context [worldwide chart]) and we shouldn't change until we have some sort of consensus that another order is superior. If everyone just changed it because they felt it was better one way or the other it would just keep getting changed around indefinitely. Just be patient - with more input it will become clear which version is preferred. Until that happens it should stay as is (and I would say that even if the current version was not a version I liked). --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:41, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
The list should be in alpha order. As it is now, it assigns an artificial ranking. It's supposed to be a quick-glance case-by-State visual, nothing more. --Elliskev14:55, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
ThaddeusB you are incorrect that this is how Wikipedia works. The default setting for lists as per WP:MOS is alphabetical. Since there exists no consensus on THIS LIST as to how states should be listed, then an alphabetical order should be used. --Navy II (talk) 14:58, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Here's my summary on the current status of this issue. The original "consensus" for this article involved a discussion between Wine Guy and PigFlu Oink and a third anonymous person who does not appear to have continued interest in maintaining the article (the discussion has been deleted from this chain, but is archived in history). PigFlu Oink has weighed in and agrees severity order no longer makes sense. So of the original "consensus", 1/2 of the active and at least 1/3 of the total users no longer concurs. In this discussion topic, I count 7 people weighing in on a preference for alphabetical order and 4 people for severity order, and 1 that doesn't indicate a preference but discusses the format of the table. As for an external reference, the CDC does not attempt to maintain any type of severity indication; they organize their information in alphabetical order. At what point does this become enough of a “consensus” to change the table?128.138.82.193 (talk) 15:16, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
"Consensus" summary: Here is the way I view the opinions expressed so far. Three clearly for alphabetization (Navy II; 128.138.82.193; Mendaliv), four clearly against (76.216.84.2; CB...(ö); Wine Guy; ThaddeusB), one neutral (Abecedare), and four with no clear opinion (PigFlu Oink, Titoxd, Parker1297, Elliskev). As such I do not think consensus has been reached. Thus we need more time for input, IMO. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:01, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
I counted Parker1297's comment as a vote for alphabetizing (it appeared to question the return to severity order), but you are correct, it is not clear. I believe that leaves the official count at 5 for alphabetization and 4 for severity.128.138.82.193 (talk) 16:10, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
The previous discussion on this topic was rendered moot because the table was made sortable. However, that was using wikitable as opposed ti the current navbox style, and I don't believe the navbox can be made sortable. If we were able to make this sortable, would that satisfy those who are calling for alpha? Wine GuyTalk16:15, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes I believe so. I don't care about the default sort. I just want to people to quickly find how many in their state. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 16:16, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
FYI, It will be difficult to make it sort correctly and leave the format looking nice (due to bugs it the sort function). --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:19, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
I will support the clickable list if the default setting is alphabetical. To argue that a death makes it more severe is arbitrary and opinion as well as it violates WP:OR. What if New York had 500 cases and Texas had only 26 (but has the only death), does that mean the outbreak is more severe in Texas? I think not. Also the death in Texas was of a Mexican national who didn't even live in Texas and had contracted the flu in Mexico. --Navy II (talk) 16:29, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Similary the international table now has the US with more lab confirmed cases than Mexico. Now who actually thinks the US has more infections? --PigFlu Oink (talk) 16:58, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Just for the record, I agree with Navy II on that issue, I think the table should be sorted by confirmed cases without regard to number of deaths. I'm going to ask at [[Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)|WP:Village pump (technical) if there is a way to make this sortable without going back to a wikitable. Wine GuyTalk16:50, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
According to WTVR-TV[4] and the Virginia Governor's Office, there are two confirmed cases of Swime Flu in Virginia. One in Eastern Virginia and one in Central Virginia. Both people were recently in Mexico. Probably need to create a section for Virginia as well. - NeutralHomer • Talk • April 30, 2009 @ 23:59
Reference for California
There's no reference yet for the 16th case in California, here it is, and there are 57 cases of swine flu in California with 16 confirmed and 41 probable.[5] --Vrysxy¡Californication!01:40, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
No, if you look at them on the CDC MMWR pages which are linked from the files, you'll see that the April 30 version is cases in Mexico. The April 28 version (which is in this article) is for the US. Wine GuyTalk08:14, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
That souce takes its numbers from the CDC page, which has not been updated since 10:30 am. April 30th We know those numbers are out of date because of other reptuable sources. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 04:50, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
We have reputable sources that state the CDC has confirmed these cases as positive. With regard the CDC table is not intended to be all inclusive source but to keep us from having 5000 diffrent sources. Technically any reputable source can be used. As to why the CDC page doesn't have these cases.... its a government agency, they have to do a lot of things before they tell the public things (tell the patients doctors, tell the hosipital, tell the govonor, tell DHS, tell the president...) but if anyone of those people talk to the media, we have a source. (Also their page was out of date for about 24 hours, so expect it to happen again today) --PigFlu Oink (talk) 16:33, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
It seems that ABC jumped the gun on reporting CDC confirmed cases for Maine: This is the Maine DOH report as of Thursday, April 30, 2009, 4 PM (No report for friday as of yet) This is the source we currently use for 3 Maine cases. This mornings CDC report didn't include any numbers for Maine. If I don't see any objections in the next 30 minutes I'm going to move the 3 confirmations back into the suspected column using the DOH source.--PigFlu Oink (talk) 21:23, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Please re-use or replace sources
While I could understand maybe 80 refs (1 for each state in the chart, DC and PR, and 28 more for other statements throughout the article), from an accessibility standpoint alone, 190 references is just way too much. If you are adding something, please see if there are other items in the article which your source supports. If so, and no other statements depend on the old source, replace it. If you get a chance, take a look at the article and find places where refs from the chart support the article and vice versa, and replace the weaker reference with the better one. Let's all pull together to not only keep the article up to date, but readable and quickly downloadable too. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 21:32, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Since most states are now reporting numbers, should we consider those (or CDC numbers) preferable (when available) to news report numbers? --Elliskev01:46, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
I went though the table and changed most of the refs to the state sources where they existed for confirmed and probable cases. Most of the states now have daily PDF reports or tables with timestamps on their pages here --PigFlu Oink (talk) 07:14, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Reports of Flu-Related Scam
Scammers reportedly have called people in Indiana in an effort to sell “mandatory swine flu kits,” claiming that the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention or the U.S. Department of Homeland Security are requiring their purchase. [7] Has anyone seen reports like this anywhere else? If so, perhaps this merits inclusion in the article. Wine GuyTalk07:50, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
It's extremely outdated at this point. There are 3 new states that need to be shaded yellow and Michigan needs to be shaded red as the cases there have been confirmed. [2]TheCoolOne99 (talk) 19:01, 29 April 2009 (UTC) I agree, the chart is reflecting far more confirmed, probable, and suspected cases than the map. I am not talented enough to fix it, but if anyone knows how, it would be greatly appreciated. --Trendguy18 (talk) 19:25, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm going to request it from someone in the main article. TheCoolOne99 (talk) 19:27, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
I've put each on the other's "Alt" version, so that they can be interchanged if needed, but the SVG one is preferred. Please edit that one if possible (in inkscape you can do it) CB...(ö)21:22, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
The problem is that nobody is updating the SVG version. The PNG version can be updated by anyone with MS Piant (and it's more up-to-date than the SVG right now). --Elliskev21:25, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Comment: Please don't use the instructions I wrote above to update the map any more. It now uses CSS, and it is much easier to use a text editor to add/move states from one category to another. Abecedare (talk) 17:48, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
I moved this section here from the main article as it was not particularly relevant to the outbreak and was US-centric. If it should be kept in any 2009 flu outbreak article it should be this one I guess. Pontificalibus (talk) 09:29, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Now that this has been dumped into this article, I agree that this is not relevant to the current outbreak. I've removed it. Wine GuyTalk20:12, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Connecticut
Connecticut should have it's own section, because it has had the most stories and it already has a confirmed case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.86.58.199 (talk) 20:51, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Wisconson and Rhode Island DOH officals have reproted confirmed cases with the CDC (see template for sources). I've tried editing the map svg but I can't figure out how to upload it. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 20:07, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Question has been asked and answered repeatidly, trying to develop 'consensues' on sub articles is a 'go ask the other parent' approach to renaming the main article. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 20:04, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
New Mexico DOH has a map of counties reporting probable or confirmed cases of this flu. (No change at present: 9 probable and 0 confirmed.) As I read it, the site copyright statement would permit using the map on Wikipedia but it cannot go on Commons. --Una Smith (talk) 19:54, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
We don't need individual maps for each state. This page is already nearly 80KB. If we start adding images for each state the page will explode. See WP:SIZERULE for guidelines on page size. This article needs to be pared down, not expanded with images of questionable utility. Wine GuyTalk20:25, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
According to the CDC, the Georgia confirmed case is a resident of Kentucky, but hospitalize in Georgia. CDC lists the confirmed case under Kentucky. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.42.229.193 (talk) 02:38, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Puerto Rico has officially a new 'possible case', and my question is, how do we add PR to the US map?? Is it possible to add it? like in the right bottom? reference (is in Spanish).--Vrysxy¡Californication!04:05, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Seriously, they're becoming the focus of the section. As such, I've created the table, at right, from the Texas Education Agency's website, so that we can remove all of the school closures that are minor/not top priority for this article right now. If anyone wants to help me add, just edit the table at right. CB...(ö)16:41, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Just got off the phone with Maine state CDC; they stated as yet they have no confirmed cases. I've asked them to include a statement in todays Press Release expected at 4PM ET. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 16:13, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Update map
Hi. After looking at the table, the map needs the folowing updates:
And Washington too, id do it, and i download the software, inkscape, but for somereasons when i upload it to commons, it doesnt work, it doesnt show off. Maybe someone can help me?? I got too much time over here, and maybe i can help u with the updates, because i followed the directions posted here, but when i save the file from common the map automatically saved it as .svg.png and thats weird.--Vrysxy¡Californication!02:55, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Confirmed on Texas DHSS. Older woman, lived in border town, traveled to mexico, had other chronic health problems and died last week. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 20:40, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Someone altered the data on the dead ones and the suspected, writing them to be up to 10000 dead. It's been corrected.
Tiny Maps
Are these completely necessary? Also, wouldn't the states with the most cases be more deserving of maps than the ones currently represented? 70.129.20.202 (talk) 11:14, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
I think they are no more necessary than the 50+pr state map; imho a picture is worth a thousand words, or roughly one WikiPedia section. As to which state gets the maps first: probably comes down to individual priorities. Myself, I am more interested in Oregon than, say, Texas but since I was born in Texas it is probably in the top 100 somewhere etc etc.. The maps are dreadfully easy to make though, try it! Zab (talk) 12:01, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't think these are strictly necessary, but they certainly do provide something more interesting than unbroken text all the way down. I'd agree that only the states with the most confirmed cases should have them, or in states where outbreaks are spatially separated such that a map makes things easier to understand. However, if people are willing/able to maintain these maps, then I don't see why they should be asked to stop.Banjaloupe (talk) 08:35, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
If we're going to use mini maps we should use a standard look. Right now none of the state maps use the same format, and the Texas and Massachusetts maps don't use the same color as the National Map. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 09:02, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Let's standardize those county sections!
Is it just me, or do the sections that break down cases by county clash unbearably? Specifically I'm looking at Massachusetts, Michigan, New York, and Oregon, who list county cases in entirely different ways (with New York taking the cake for egregious space-wasting and sub-section overload). Does Wikipedia have some sort of standard we can apply here? If not, I suggest using Oregon's system, as it takes up the least amount of space and is the least offensive to the eye. If states must have a section for each county, it seems only Massachusetts deserves it, as the others are just making glorified lists (which Oregon does much more compactly). Besides, wouldn't it make the most sense to list counties only in states that actually have a sizable number of actual cases (aka Illinois, California, New York, Texas, etc). I would make these changes myself but I know a lot of people must have put a lot of work into making these huge sections; it seemed polite to bring this up here first. If no one else cares, I'm going to try and transform the county sections to conform with Oregon's style, as it seems the most reasonable of the bunch. Banjaloupe (talk) 08:31, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
I went a little bold on the New York section since it was largely unsourced and and inconsistant. I used the confirmed county map and set it up like Oregon. My personal feelings on this are we should only list individual cases and counties that are notable enough to be written in the text. However since its hard to keep people from adding things, small county maps could be a way to avoid large text blocks of non notable cases. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 09:15, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
References help requested for introductory section
I rewrote the introduction to provide a better summary and hopefully in a more encyclopedic manner. Also, I tried to avoid using numbers that are changing rapidly, since these are provided in the table and the details in the article body. Hopefully others can further improve it.
I’m having trouble with the references, even after reviewing the Wikipedia help. The introduction just needs to reuse the existing references, but I can’t get the ref name= to work properly, and I didn’t want to duplicate a bunch of references. Can someone help fix this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.209.144.202 (talk) 16:05, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Specifically, do we really need an entire section devoted to individual counties in Massachusetts? I was tempted to simply remove that, but I'll ask here first. –Juliancolton | Talk22:34, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
I noticed above that some on has requested the artical moved to 2009 H1N1 flu outbreak in United States. I beleave that since they are no longer calling it Swine flu that the move sould go happen. What do you all think--Dcheagle (talk) 00:59, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Conversations on Naming are happening on the main page, once consenus is achieved it will be applied to all subpages. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 01:58, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
The discussion on the main page resulted in no consensus and a "restriction" against further discussion for 30 days. Therefore it is pointless to discuss renaming this article as it should definitely match the main page's title. (I am also against renaming that page). --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:07, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
This site is hanging me here! I am growing nervous, and you don't have a county map for California!! Especially when some other states have one, California was the first to have the swine flu (H1N1) incident in the U.S., two schools in my county were closed down (as of 5/8/2009), etc. (!!!) I'm going to say this calmly, but this webpage should find and post a county map for California. I highly recommend it. Typingwestern015 (talk) 15:42, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
San Diego County's nice, but I'm from Tulare County. Do you know how many cases are in Tulare County? I would like to find out. Typingwestern015 (talk) 02:39, 9 May 2009 (UTC) P.S. Thanks, Parker1297. I wanted to fix that two-column problem.
I added a map. The list of cases is here. I can't guarantee I will keep it as updated as I would the Oregon map but we'll see. Zab (talk) 05:03, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks to everyone who helped me out. Now I can rest easier knowing that... Wait. Now I'm worried. What's going to happen to me? Typingwestern015 (talk) 02:11, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
I have created a special barnstar for swine flu related articles. I felt a special award was warranted due to the unusually large amount of effort required to keep these page up to date. Any user is welcome to award this barnstar to whomever they think has contributed a great deal to the various swine flu related articles.
I do not think the source for the confirmed cases in Florida is clear because it does not give locations of where so for all I know the county map could be outdated. Parker1297 (talk) 00:12, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
I was right the map is outdated check out this link http://cfnews13.com/swineflu/default.aspx . Can someone update the Florida map. Parker1297 (talk) 00:18, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Date of Onset Chart Obsolete?
The little chart that shows the number of cases by date of onset of symptoms was published on April 27, and is now very out-of-date. A chart like this would be useful to be able to tell if the updates of total cases reflect new cases, or are the results of tests clearing out the backlog of samples gathered earlier. Is the date of onset information published anywhere, so the chart can be updated?Chuck Y (talk) 02:50, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Removing xenophobic reference to pestillent illegals
I'll be happy to replace it as soon as shown a study that swine flu is careful never to attack legal aliens -- or tourists. Or really, and credible study that supports this piece of ethnic calumny.
The deleted "some claim" text is below
Some have claimed that illegal immigrants without health care may also be contributing to the spread of the swine flu.[6]
Apology for idiot sentence
I appreciate the article improvement made by PigFlu Oink in removing my "idiot" sentence, although it might have been more polite to call it an "unnecessary" sentence. I wasn't trying to be an idiot. At the time, the introductory section included the number of confirmed cases, which was changing very quickly and often didn't match the table. I replaced it with a sentence to see the table, which I thought was an improvement over the out-of-date numbers. However, I agree that it would have been better to leave it out altogether since the table is so prominent. Sorry. 199.209.144.202 (talk) 14:55, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Srry but we try to be encylopedic in our language. Our articles don't refer to themselves. "This article is about the..." "See the table over..." Its a little strange to have a sentance in the introduction telling people to look at the table on the right when the table is right there, taking up half the page --PigFlu Oink (talk) 15:03, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Can I Get a Case-Reporting Map Here?
I was wondering, I'll need some help. I looked at the 2009 swine flu outbreak page, and I saw that they have a map which actually reports the number of cases per country. Can we have one for this page, too, for the states? Here's my recommendation of categories:
Sorry to intrude, but I saw that the California map was last updated in 5/8/2009, but the text article going with it goes all the way to 5/3/2009. Can someone update it for the sake of almost 37 million people? We would like that. Typingwestern015 (talk) 15:01, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Easy to say, but it is not that easy to find instructions for modifying such a file. The image file does not have an "edit" button. Edison (talk) 21:40, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
The map has not been revised since May 7, but the number of cases has increased vastly. I suspect that some of the cases are in new counties. If the map is outdated by several days, and states incorrect information, it is misleading and should be removed. In the meantime, I will note that it is only as of May 7. Edison (talk) 03:30, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
The map does not show that AP reports confirmed cases in Boone, Sangamon, Winnebago, and Rock Island. At least I don't think they are indicated: it is hard to verify what counties are colored in. I have no idea how to edit the map. Edison (talk) 04:09, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Could someone link to a page which tells how to modify the stale map?There should be a way to edit the file by county. Thanks. Edison (talk) 21:39, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
I removed the outdated map. If someone could steer me to instructions for updating, I would add the new counties.
The real number of swine flu cases in the United States could be “upwards of 100,000,” a top public health official estimated on Friday — far higher than the official count of 7,415 cases confirmed by laboratories.
The official, Dr. Daniel Jernigan, head of flu epidemiology for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, said at a news conference that the official number gave an inaccurate picture of the outbreak because so few mildly sick people were being tested.
1, 2, 3, 4 (or was it 5?), 6? That Can't Be Right... (U.S. version)
This article displayed information for only the first, second, third, fourth (or was it the fifth?), and sixth deaths in the U.S. Can we please put in information about death 5 (or was it death 4?)? I highly recommend it. Typingwestern015 (talk) 15:46, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Missouri death
I added the Reuter's report of a death in Missouri of a patient suffering from A/H1N1 to the template/chart for the US numbers. If someone could add this information to the main article I feel this would be helpful. At the moment I do not have the time to write a proper addition to cover this. The article I used as ref can be found here : http://www.reuters.com/article/asiaCrisis/idUSN19445658 Also, can someone update the applicable maps? Der.Gray (talk) 21:34, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
New Mexico New Cases
Hey guys. I've got some more cases for Nex Mexico. So can someone edit because i dont know how :/
If no one has by the time I check the link I will update in the template chart, however maps and individual state entries I'll leave to those who are taking care of those. Der.Gray (talk) 05:20, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Suggestion for Update Plan
This is just an idea, apologies if it has been presented already or goes beyond the scope of what is here. However if we could have people who are able to, have the time to, and reliable enough internet to do so, perhaps we can have users who specifically check on what's going on in certain states daily? Or any wikiGnomes that would care to take on such tasks. Everyone's been doing great but thought if we had specialized tasks such as that we could make this more helpful as a resource for people to find updated information and links to news resources they might not otherwise find. I can take care of Louisiana when I have reliable internet, however I do not have stable internet connection so cannot maintain it on a daily basis. Der.Gray (talk) 05:20, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
I agree. California has over 50 counties, and Texas (sorry, Californians) has over 200. We should put them up, for the sake of Californians, Texans, and New Yorkers alike. Typingwestern015 (talk) 15:48, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Nah, we should split the article in two, like the main article but, by state, that's what i was going to do in the Spanish Wiki since is over 140kb :S--Vrysxy! (talk) 20:21, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
The number of counties is irrelevant. A common sense approach based on the amount of information in the parent article is the only reasonable way to judge whether or not a sub-article is warranted. California and Texas both have large sub-sections with considerable amounts of information and given the size of the main article it may make sense to split them off. Massachusetts also has a long section and it may be wise to consider splitting it (or at least condensing it). New York, on the other hand, is a fairly small section and probably does not warrant a whole article at this point, as it would barely be a stub. Shereth14:37, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Missouri
File:H1N1 Missouri map by county.svg
File:H1N1 Missouri map by county-2009-19-05.svg
Can someone update the other map with the new map? (the one without the date) The map is used in several different languages. Having to update each different language Wikipedia to a new map name each time it is updated would be very tedious. 76.66.202.139 (talk) 06:05, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
um why don't you just edit the map image rather than creating a new file? Then there would be no reason to change the image links. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 06:09, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Because I didn't make the map? (Did you check the histories?) Someone made a new map, and then changed this page to the new dated map, meaning that it's not updated across multiple languages. 76.66.202.139 (talk) 15:35, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
I Update the map, and btw we should considred a standar name for those maps, like H1N1 Utah Map, H1N1 California Map etc. --Vrysxy! (talk) 21:22, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Number of confirmed (N = 394) and probable (N = 414) cases of novel influenza A (H1N1) virus infection with known dates of illness onset. (United States, March 28 - May 4, 2009).
The chart Image:H1N1 virus infection in USA 2009-05-06.gif is 2 weeks out of date, quite unacceptable for coverage of a rapidly expanding epidemic, since it gives undue weight to the first few cases, and no argument has ben made that those days are somehow more important than later periods. If someone is aboe to update the chart on a daily or even weekly basis, it would be a useful part of the article, but that is outside my experience. Edison (talk) 17:20, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
There are two versions of this map... the one on Commons isn't being updated as the one on English Wikipedia is updated... 76.66.202.139 (talk) 05:10, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Washington Maps?
Would someone please put a map up for the State of Washington? Since over 500 cases in 17 counties have been confirmed, not to mention one death, I think it would be important to make one. Also, there is a map located at the Washington State Depart of Health's website under swine flu. --98.225.48.221 (talk) 00:24, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Missouri
File:H1N1 Missouri map by county.svg
File:H1N1 Missouri map by county-2009-19-05.svg
The maps have gone out of sync again. AND the "county-2009-19-05.svg" now no longer makes sense, since it was updated on the 22nd. 76.66.196.85 (talk) 05:43, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
There are two versions of this map... the one on Commons isn't being updated as the one on English Wikipedia is updated... 76.66.202.139 (talk) 05:10, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Cluebot archival
Unresolved
Is this still necessary? Activity on this talk page is lower now... perhaps it should be increased from 48hrs to 10 days? or inactivated? 70.29.208.129 (talk) 10:03, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
I changed it to 5 days instead of 10 because a consensus has not been reached but yes it needs to be longer. ZabMilenko09:00, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
More NYC deaths and Louisiana confirmed cases
updated information in the template regarding 2 newly reported deaths in NYC, and 9 new confirmed cases in Louisiana.
If someone could create a map of Louisiana to show cases by Parish I think that would be great. Not a cartographer here :(
Also if people could update on the state entries regarding these two this would be appreciated also. Trying to do what I can to help. Der.Gray (talk) 21:04, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
The Wisconsin map hasn't been updated in a really long time, even though Wisconsin has one of the highest number of cases. I'm not sure about the others. Hpswimmer (talk) 13:55, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
The Wisconsin map is a PNG file, so most paint programs should support it... ('course, I can't tell one county from another, so I can't update it) 70.29.208.129 (talk) 06:19, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
I updated the CDC confirmed cases for Illinois earlier, still trying to find all other CDC confirmed numbers are for the states since the CDC updates their numbers released more often then they update the website that is currently ref 1 in the template right now. Der.Gray (talk) 07:41, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
CDC is not confirming all cases but instead waiting for the individual states to update them, which in turn are waiting for counties. The number of cases reported nationally is apparently a few days behind the truth so I do not think you will actually find sources to add up to the precise number. Compare this with this to see what I mean. This situation is probably going to get worse. ZabMilenko08:51, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Illinois Confirmed Cases / Deaths / Missing Map
Illinois topic is out of date, there's been two confirmed deaths by Illinois State health agency in Chicago and suburbs as reported by the Chicago Tribune on May 27. This is now reflected in the CDC's published tables as of 5-29-09. Correct numbers are now 1002 confirmed cases, 2 confirmed deaths according to CDC as of 5-29-09.
User:GCMS1 split Kentucky off into a breakout article. I have remerged the contents here, since I believe it is insufficient to support a separate subarticle. 70.29.208.129 (talk) 08:14, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Missouri
File:H1N1 Missouri map by county.svg
File:H1N1 Missouri map by county-2009-19-05.svg
The maps have gone out of sync again. AND the "county-2009-19-05.svg" now no longer makes sense, since it was updated on the 22nd. 76.66.196.85 (talk) 05:43, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
I modified the map by User:Allstrak to meet the updated information of confirmed cases in West Virginia and deaths in California. Used citations from the article for basis. Not very familiar with dealing with images on Wikipedia or Wikimedia commons, so if this should be added to the article in some other way than I did please let me know and feel free to fix. Der.Gray (talk) 01:07, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
California
2009 swine flu outbreak in California.png
H1N1 California Map.svg
The old PNG and the new SVG don't seem to match... in particular, a red area on the old PNG is now yellow on the SVG... 70.29.208.129 (talk) 05:12, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Sorry for the alarm, but the California part of this article has not been edited for a month. Edit it now, because I don't know what has happened so far, please. For example, when did the first Californians die? Please add that. Typingwestern015 (talk) 16:52, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps you could look at Google News, the state health department, or the CDC and add the information yourself. Lots of flu cases, the first 2 deaths in the state reported June 1. Also, in the early days of coverage of something, people rush to add the latest news item about some child at some school being thought to have the disease, but when there are 800 confirmed or probable cases widely distributed in the state, more reports of individual cases just do not seem that important to add. The early breathless additions should eventually be cleaned up in favor of a more encyclopedic summary style. There is a table and county by county graph with the latest official numbers. Edison (talk) 17:37, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Updated map
Number of H1N1 cases reported to the CDC for June 1st, 2009.[7]
I created an updated cases map. I see an older one in the article of a different color, so I'll let someone else decide if they want to use this one, or stick with the dramatic red and black. ;-) I'll leave it on the article for now. --Falcorian(talk)04:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
If you did update it, it would still need to be confirmed only, or you'd have to update the descriptions across many languages, and then the filename would not match the contents... 70.29.208.129 (talk) 09:13, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
File:H1N1 USA Map.svg update for 4 June needs fixing. It has Massachusetts in black, but the description says that Connecticut is the one with the death. The data table here says Mass. has 0 deaths, while Conn. has 1.
With the death of a lady in Warren (Macomb County), Michigan, it is high time an updated map be put up. I am not good with such things, so if someone else could do it it would be greatly appreciated.Johnpacklambert (talk) 17:48, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
I am the author of the Michigan map. I have plans to update it, but my computer with Adobe Illustrator and the map is currently unusable, as I am waiting for a new power cord. The power cord should arrive tomorrow, at which time I should be able to update the map. Phizzy18:46, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
There are two versions of this map... the one on Commons isn't being updated as the one on English Wikipedia is updated... this means that this article in other languages is getting out of date if they use the commons image.
I Have updated the one in commons, because thats the only one that works on ther wikipedia like the Spanish one, thats why i updated that one and not the one on the en Wiki, because it doesnt work in the spanish article. --Vrysxy! (talk) 20:24, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Total cases maps
File:H1N1 May 7 2009 USA.svg
File:H1N1 May 8 2009.svg
File:H1N1 May 9 2009.svg
File:H1N1 May 10 2009.svg
File:H1N1 May 11 2009.svg
File:H1N1 May 13 2009.svg
File:H1N1 June 1 2009 USA.svg
File:H1N1 June 3 2009 USA.svg
There seems to be a rather lot of these maps lying around...
Is there a freeware program similar to GIMP which can be used to edit vector graphics (.svg) that works on *nix and windows platforms? I would attempt to update the national map and local but I am unable to save as an .svg .
In that vein, can someone add the new states with deaths in them to the map? If I have time on my next few days off I'll try to map the counties in those states so any 'route' can be pieced together or predicted. Der.Gray (talk) 20:32, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
You can actually edit it in Notepad / Wordpad / Write / vi / vim / ed / jed / pico / xwrite ... SVG files are just text files. 70.29.210.130 (talk) 08:42, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
The most recent reference I see to the U.S. Federal Government Response Stage in the Response section of the article does not appear to have been updated since early May/late April. At that time the U.S. Response Stage was still at 0. However I cannot find a source for such and am not finding any recent sources via web for updates to this. With talk of the WHO going to Pandemic Phase 6 in the news I was wondering if anyone can find a source for the current U.S. Response Stage/CDC alert levels/etc.
Also, has the government stated what it will do if a pandemic is officially declared? This may be a good sub-article. Der.Gray (talk) 12:26, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
I just read an article called Wikipedia:Splitting it and it displayed this table:
Readable prose size
What to do
> 100 KB
Almost certainly should be divided
> 60 KB
Probably should be divided (although the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading time)
> 40 KB
May eventually need to be divided (likelihood goes up with size)
< 30 KB
Length alone does not justify division
< 1 KB
If an article or list has remained this size for over a couple of months, consider combining it with a related page.
After looking at the table I pressed edit page on the 2009 swine flu outbreak in the United States and it said this page is 138kbs long. So we should start making articles by state!!
NO, even now most of those sections by states are outdated, and if we split those into articles, they will be even more outdated, what if we create an article by state like 2009 swine flu outbreak by country? --Vrysxy! (talk) 20:36, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
That (swine flu outbreak in the United States by state) may work, but there is still the issue of most of the article still not updated. I cracked my chair just adding info about all of the deaths in California. We need a large scale update first, and then we'll worry about moving state info. --Typingwestern015 (talk) 21:12, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
I also think we need to make sure updating continues. As long as the situation is developing, making more articles will just mean that they are less likely to be updated.Johnpacklambert (talk) 17:01, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Splitting the article also offers us a chance to start returning some sections of it to a more traditional Wikipedia writing style. We should remember that keeping up-to-the-minute information is not how Wikipedia usually works (see the policy "WP:NOTNEWS") - we're just intentionally breaking this rule (see "WP:IAR") to make the information more useful. But there will have to be a reckoning sooner or later. For example, the Pennsylvania section contains an old list of case counts from May, and the impulse may be simply to delete this outdated information - but from the perspective of an encyclopedia article about how a flu pandemic reaches Pennsylvania and begins to spread, this is actually fairly interesting information. Once the pandemic begins to stabilize, people will have to revisit these questions, perhaps rescuing details from the article history, and decide how to cover the story in retrospect. Mike Serfas (talk) 01:23, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Level 6 Is Here!
Do something! The World Health Organization declared a Level 6 pandemic today. I have the source from a website I found [13] , but I don't know where to put the info. Can someone do it for me? Besides, I'm busy typing info about all of the deaths in California. Typingwestern015 (talk) 20:59, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
I put it in where seemed most logical, with the discussion of the levels of the pandemic alerts. Going to try and sort through and wikifi the whole article later today and bring everything more or less up to date and easier to parse as a whole. Also placed "Article is about a current pandemic" and "article is about a current event" at the top Der.Gray (talk) 23:34, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Work on updating and improving
I've been working on updating and improving the entire article as I am able to. As of writing this I've gone over the introduction and eliminated information that is better covered in other areas and outdated information along with adding some references and working on compacting the information. Now on to the rest and some more caffeine. If anyone wants to help please let me know. I'll try and update my personal progress here so no one will have to worry about overwriting a chance I'm in the middle of vice versa or seeing wondering where everyone else and myself are in progress. Clearing out the spiderwebs and putting the article on a treadmill - Der.Gray (talk) 06:24, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
An Error in Statistics?
I happened to be reading up on the number of deaths and confirmed cases in the United States. Now as I can recall, I don't remember Puerto Rico being a state in the U.S. If there is a reason to why its there then I would love to know because it is kinda bugging me. Thanks--KingRatedRIV (talk) 15:36, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Puerto Rico is a Commonwealth of the U.S., and in most things their statistics and such are listed with those of the U.S.Biosci01 (talk) 21:34, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
I've been trying to look through news sources when I can, but I can't find anything which states that the SD death was a misdiagnosis or error in reporting. Perhaps it should be placed back into the template until a resource is found which contradicts it? Der.Gray (talk) 21:34, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
There are two Utah maps... by the same author... the older one has been updated once, by the author... one wonders why s/he didn't continue. In any case, the older map is used in other language Wikipedias....
Nevada has reported a death, which originally was added to the template, however [[14]] is reporting that the death was of an out of state resident. I noticed this after the death was removed from the total for Nevada. Also Maine is reporting cases in regards to citizens and out of state residents. How should these cases be reported/handled? Since they happen in the geographic area of a particular state but are not of residents of that state (this was the case for one of the first deaths in Texas) I feel these should be counted in the geographic area but annotated to the geographic origin of the victim. This seems logical as there is no way to discern if the initial infection took place in the geographical location of the victim or in the geographical region of reported infection and/or death. I will not adjust the template to fit with my idea until there is some discussion on the matter. Der.Gray (talk) 22:08, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Shall We Talk Tables?
Guess what! I decided to add a table of swine flu deaths by county to the California section of this article: 2009 flu pandemic in the United States#California. Before you shoot me off, I need to tell you that it could be a great plan. We could take track of all of the deaths in California this way, and I hope to expand on this project. Typingwestern015 (talk) 03:24, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
California Should Be Split into a New Article? Who Said That?
I was wondering. Look at the California section of this article. It says: ((It has been suggested that this section be split into a new article.)) Who said that? I an neutral in this issue. I want California to have its own article, but California should have a massive upgrade first. Typingwestern015 (talk) 16:14, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
No, we dont have enough information, in that case, NY should have its own article, because they have more deaths. --Vrysxy! (talk) 08:39, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
I've gone forward with the split I suggested above, creating 2009 flu pandemic in the United States by state. (It is my position that the dyseuphony should be blamed on those who named the country, not my naming of the article. ;) ) This article was up to 151 kb raw (as indicated on the edit page), there were frequent requests for splits, and I was noticing an increasing delay in rendering time. Though this was an unequal 30kb - 120 kb split by the edit summary numbers, this remaining portion references a larger number of templates, tables and figures that consume browser memory.
Considering that they lie next to Puerto Rico, perhaps someone should rejigger the map so that PR and VI are shown in context with one another, instead of independently. 70.29.212.226 (talk) 23:16, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm working on a county-by-county map of swine flu cases, but Alaska isn't giving me any info with regard to its counties and Virginia is driving me nuts, mainly because of all of the independent cities!
Anyone have any ideas for those two states? Your help is appreciated. Mudkip201 (talk) 17:18, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
I suggest that you just mark those two states in purple (or some other unused color) and then indicate that those states are not broken down into counties. 70.29.212.226 (talk) 05:27, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
File:Swine flu infection exponent by county June 2009.svg
File:Swine flu infection exponent by county FluTracker June 2009.svg
File:Swine flu infections and deaths by county June 2009.svg
It's odd that we both started this at the same time, but I suppose there's a reason: more and more states have stopped posting county statistics, making this about the last moment that this can be done. I didn't actually solve Mudkip's problem - I just divided the cases in larger districts evenly between the component counties. I didn't find county by county data for Utah or Minnesota, either. For Alaska I used a few extra sources to narrow down the counties affected.[16][17][18] If you'd like to compare notes, I've added the dataset I used in tabular form to the text associated with Swine flu infection exponent by county June 2009.svg (the image on the left above) Mike Serfas (talk) 08:56, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
File:Swine flu infections per employee June 2009.svg
[19] and [20] both discus this from the issue from the CDC. This should be added somewhere, and probably mentioned in the template, similar to when the CDC was saying there were more than 100,000 cases in April/May. Der.Gray (talk) 22:26, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
New Resistance to Tamiflu & 'No underlying health issues' death in Nevada
[21] and [22] discuss the first discussed cases of resistance to the antiviral tamiflu, which had previously been mentioned to work on the virus.
Also, [23] mentions the death of a 33 year old man in Nevada who had no underlying health issues other than contracting the Novel 09/A(H1N1) virus.
Suggesting that both of these should be mentioned in article, with further developments as more news comes out in those areas. Already updated state template to reflect the above mentioned death in Nevada but not enough time to do more research/editing at the moment. Der.Gray (talk) 21:42, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Cases by death rate
I just made a table for the Spanish Wikipedia (based on the Canadian table) about the death rate in each state, it's in Spanish, but i think the translation into English is obvious, i dont know if u guys wanna use it. I used the latest data of each state and in some states i used the CDC numbers because they havent updated its State Health department page. --Vrysxy! (talk) 04:10, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
1st Nevada death now counted as (additional) NY case
Someone has found a statement of Nevada health authorities (http://www.southernnevadahealthdistrict.org/press_releases/2009/061609.html), that they will not count the first death of a NY resident. Hence the first Nevada case has been removed in our table. Consequently it had to be checked, whether this case has to be added as a NY case or it had already been included in the NY count.
Our counting (32 NYC, 43 NY state, as of July 1) included only cases, which had been reported by NYC officials or other NY county officials.
When Nevada is saying 'NY resident' it could mean NYC resident, but also NY state resident. So we had to check all cases in NY state, whether there is an identity.
There are three cases where the age (range) and the gender (if given) is fitting:
* 1. An elderly person in Onondaga county, officially reported on June 2, being the first victim outside NYC or the 8th in New York state (http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wire/newyork/ny-bc-ny--swineflu-newyork0603jun03,0,6596349.story)
* 2. A person >65 yrs in NYC, officially reported on June 5, being the 8th victim in NYC and the 9th in New York state
(http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/06/nyregion/06flu.html?ref=nyregion)
* 3. A person >65 yrs in NYC, officially reported on June 10, being the 10-12th victim in NYC or the 12-14th in New York state
(http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/11/nyregion/11flu.html?ref=nyregion). CDC then confirmed only two out of these three last cases on June 12 (a total of 13 victims for New York state).
There have been two possibilities:
* The case has been reported in New York several days before it has been reported in Nevada.
* The case has been 'deliberately' forgotten.
The former did not really look sensible, the latter would fit in with the overall strategy of the public authorities to "disappear" the fatalities in the public perception. Hence this case has been added as another case in New York (July, 1).
As it is now (July 2) we have counted the 'Nevada case' as a case, which is different from the three mentioned above and we assume, that it has not been officially reported by NY authorities.
FHessel (talk) 06:59, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Nevada: 0 (not counting the 'Nevada case' and also missing the recent 2nd case in Nevada)
New York: 44 (when I add up this 44 and the cases of July 1st - 2 in Orange county and 6 by NYC DOHMH - I end up with 52, that is what we have. Perfect!)
I ended up updating the style of text in the chart (someone had already updated the numbers) and BELIEVE I have brought the map to current. Apparently I was sleepier than I believed while making previous edit to talk page. Der.Gray (talk) 07:25, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
On the map of states with reported cases and states with reported deaths Wyoming is being shown as having reported death(s) related to Novel 09/A(h1n1), however the table of reported numbers is not reflecting this. Was there a report that was pulled? Or did it no make it to the numbers yet? Der.Gray (talk) 05:45, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
how about adding a section to the graph or a map? deaths per million people? right now the current information that way it is presented exaggerates the situation for states with large populations. if you were to factor in population states like utah would rank near the top. 66.182.89.5 (talk) 02:20, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
It's Over 9000
hmm I notice that one section of the article says:
"On June 25th the CDC released information revealing that there were more than likely over nine thousand (9,000)"
It use to say that it was over one million. Is this vandalism? Also in the 'reported cases by state/territory' chart the total for state-reported confirmed cases reads "over nine thousand". Editors should be wary of "It's over 9000" vandalism. New Order (talk) 01:35, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
U.S. Influenza and Pneumonia-Associated Hospitalizations
and Deaths from August 30 – September 5, 2009
Posted September 11, 2009, 6:00 PM ET
Data reported to CDC by September 10, 2009, 12:00 AM ET
Cases Defined by
The article says that the mortality rates for common flu and H1N1 are 18% and 5%, respectively. This is completely wrong, and was probably calculated using the death rates for hospitalized cases only instead of all diagnosed cases. The actual death rates are both less than 1%. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.68.93.230 (talk) 22:45, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
55 million / 8000 - 16000 : how to integrate into article
per [26] and [27] the CDC is now reporting estimated infections at over 55 million (55,000,000) and deaths at anywhere between 7,500 to 16,000 in the US as of January 15, 2010.
Being as we're basing the numbers for much of this off of the CDC data : how should we incorporate this into the article and tables?
[28] template and others use the statistics as a source, the 100,000 infected we are now reporting on here really seems very pale if the estimated is anywhere close to 55,000,000!!! Same with the deaths. A bit out of my depth here since I haven't been around this project for so long. Der.Gray (talk) 01:19, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Map and its legend do not match
{{2009 US swine flu outbreak image}}
This map and its legend don't match. The map has 5 shades of grey; the legend has 4 values, including 1 green.
The map was maintained on Commons, and the legend changed, but no one updated the legend on the template here on En.Wiki. The person on Commons who updated the map seems to have done something weird as well... 65.92.182.197 (talk) 11:31, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on 2009 flu pandemic in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
I have just modified 7 external links on 2009 flu pandemic in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
YAn editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
I have just modified 8 external links on 2009 flu pandemic in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
I have just modified 2 external links on 2009 flu pandemic in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
I have just modified 5 external links on 2009 flu pandemic in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
¡Californication! 18:00, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Done. Wine Guy Talk 01:40, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
¡Californication! 21:48, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
April 30
April 28
Done Adds up to 146, the old source (CDC-Page) for NewYork said 50 instead of 51 so I changed that too. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 15:40, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Death(s) confirmedCase(s) confirmedCase(s) unconfirmed (probable)Illinois. Data as of May 7, 2009, not up to date
File:H1N1 Missouri map by county.svg
File:H1N1 Missouri map by county-2009-19-05.svg
Unresolved
2009 swine flu outbreak in California.png
H1N1 California Map.svg
18:46, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
File:H1N1 May 7 2009 USA.svg
File:H1N1 May 8 2009.svg
File:H1N1 May 9 2009.svg
File:H1N1 May 10 2009.svg
File:H1N1 May 11 2009.svg
File:H1N1 May 13 2009.svg
File:H1N1 June 1 2009 USA.svg
File:H1N1 June 3 2009 USA.svg
Swine Flu Florida.PNG
Swine Flu Florida2.PNG
Swine_Flu_Wisconsin.PNG
Swine_Flu_Wisconsin2.PNG
File:Updated 2009 Swine Flu outbreak in Utah.png
File:H1N1 USA Map.svg
File:H1N1 USA Map by confirmed cases.svg
File:H1N1 USA deaths - CSS map.svg
File:Swine flu infection exponent by county June 2009.svg
File:Swine flu infection exponent by county FluTracker June 2009.svg
File:Swine flu infections and deaths by county June 2009.svg
File:Swine flu infections per employee June 2009.svg
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.