Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject COVID-19/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10

Reporting of deaths by country

Several sources are reporting how in many countries the overall mortality numbers of 2020 compared to 2019 indicate that the numbers of deaths are being substantially underreported. We should incorporate this point in several pages across the project.

Useful sources:

--Gtoffoletto (talk) 23:05, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes there is both an undercount of infections and of deaths. We mention this here 2019–20_coronavirus_pandemic#Deaths Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:31, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
Thanks I didn't know where to look. "There are indications of undercounting of deaths in Brazil,[392] China,[393] Iran,[394] North Korea,[395] Russia,[396] the UK,[397] and the U.S.,[398] and overcounting in Belgium.[399]" Belgium is false per sources above. And I would put something more general for most EU countries without listing them individually. I'll fix it. Any other places to look at that come to mind? --Gtoffoletto (talk) 08:38, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
Note that not all excess mortality is caused by COVID-19 itself, but also associated causes. There are documented cases of people going late to the hospital for myocardial and cerebral infarction out of fear of hospital collapses, infection risk, etc. It will take some time to have decent studies about the topic that can balance all factors. --MarioGom (talk) 08:56, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
By the way, strictly speaking, the claim that one country is overcounting is WP:EXTRAORDINARY. They might be overcounting relative to other countries, but absolute overcounting would be rare, unless they are actually reporting something like all excess mortality. --MarioGom (talk) 08:58, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
See diffs here [1]. And [2] --Gtoffoletto (talk) 20:41, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
Gtoffoletto, I think The New York Times article is pretty high quality. At least, it does not fall in the traps that other sources are falling continuously. For example, they state The totals include deaths from Covid-19 as well as those from other causes, likely including people who could not be treated as hospitals became overwhelmed. --MarioGom (talk) 13:15, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
@MarioGom: if you think about it, those deaths are still caused by COVID-19. --Gtoffoletto (talk) 18:18, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
@MarioGom: I agree that all related deaths should be counted. The question is if we are counting deaths caused specifically by the disease, or by disease event, ie epidemiological or historical. I maintain that we are recording this for historic purposes, not medical. Thummper (talk)

US state & county cases

Hello all! I'm looking to establish some kind of standard/consensus for how we handle US state cases by county, as User:Mr Xaero and I have been discussing over on my talk page. I know the California tables & articles have been using data from the county health departments rather than the state, Illinois has been the opposite, and Nevada has no data by county in the article yet. Is it appropriate to use county health department data for things not reported by the state health department? Thanks, Keilana (talk) 14:36, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Sure commented. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:48, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Impact on Disney

Hi all, I have started the Draft:Impact of the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic on Disney draft article, expanding on information from the events, film, TV and socio-economic impact articles. Any input would be appreciated, please edit, as well as any ideas on where this would sit, as Disney is less an industry than a giant company. I would also appreciate help sourcing information on Disney cruises and airlines. Kingsif (talk) 00:46, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

How long until we have Impact of the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic on Wikipedia?. --Animalparty! (talk) 07:45, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia's response to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic has already been the subject of articles in reliable sources... Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:37, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
Pigsonthewing, I created a stub. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:00, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

I say be bold and move the Disney page into main space when you feel ready! ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:06, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

I've added cruises and moved Impact of the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic on Disney to mainspace. Kingsif (talk) 17:46, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
👍 Like ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:47, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
Nice work, Kingsif. The article (now in mainspace and NPP patrolled) looks well-done and doesn't have any notability issues in my view.
Like with the Wikipedia article (but not as extreme), this does seem to be another instance of a specific article being created before we've gotten the more general articles all that fleshed out. For instance, do we have Impact of the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic on amusement parks yet? It doesn't seem to even be a full section at Impact of the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic on tourism yet, which it probably should be before becoming its own article. If you're interested in this area, I'd encourage you to broaden your scope a bit and help out more general coverage of the impact articles for Disney's businesses. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 17:49, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Outline of coronavirus?

There are so many coronavirus-related articles, and not all of them are necessarily easy to get to. Would it be helpful to have an outline such as Outline of the 2019-20 coronavirus pandemic or Outline of COVID-19?—Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 14:38, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

I think that could be beneficial. A draft exists at Draft:Outline of the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic if anyone wishes to contribute. MarkZusab (talk) 14:42, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
@Naddruf and MarkZusab: I'm not a huge fan of outlines. My general sense is that the way people navigate WP is by searching and using blue links, not by going to an outline page and scrolling until they find what they want. They also generally seem less well-maintained than navboxes. Would there be a benefit to Outline of the 2019-20 coronavirus pandemic over Template:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic (the navbox) and Template:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic sidebar? I think our efforts might be better spent maintaining and improving those, and building the web by improving wikilinking, {{Main}} hatnotes, and see also sections. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 17:55, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Easier template to update national maps

As we have articles per country and region, we have a lot of maps that must be updated frequently. I am not good with graphics so I wait for others to do it, but as information is rapidly varying and sources are sometimes inconsistent, it would be nice if we created maps that are manipulated by a template and wikicode. I would like to help with the creation of a country-regional version of Template:Graph:Map for different territories if possible.Template:Graph:Map (to my knowledge) only exist for a world map. But it would be amazingly useful, if we had one for each country were we can select the regions to get colored with code and not with external files and special software. Who has enough knodledge of templates to help me carry this out?--ReyHahn (talk) 10:31, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Not me, but I very much agree it'd be good to improve the workflow with this. For a lot of places, more specific data exists than the data we use (e.g. for the U.S. it'd be nice to have the map show by county rather than by state so that it doesn't look like upstate New York is getting devastated compared to Vermont), and automating some of the updating might make it easier to switch. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 18:12, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Do we have a COVID-19 pandemic article for the various legal cases (in many cases under criminal law) that have been started against government authorities either for what they failed to do, did incorrectly, or what they are planning to do? This should also include information about the punishments of lawyers (or others) who launch legal actions against governments (Polish case).

So far we have at least:

  • France - 5 legal cases (more) (en) against the prime minister and individual ministers for failing to help a person in danger (in France that's a crime)
  • Poland - criminal enquiry 23 April against the govt for planning to hold the 10 May presidential election during the pandemic; this case was opened by one prosecutor, Ewa Wrzosek, and closed by another prosecutor 3 hours after being lodged; the following day (today), a disciplinary action was opened against Wrzosek (she's being punished for having opened the criminal enquiry);
    • a case by Polish mayors against Poczta Polska for requesting 30 million or so Polish voters' private data to be sent within two days by unencrypted plain-text email to satisfy a not-yet-existing law in violation of the GDPR may be added to that;
  • UK - legal challenge, not criminal case;

I seem to remember quite a few other places where legal cases have been launched against authorities.

Any suggestions for a good title? Or proposals for integrating this as a section in an existing article? It's not "criticism" - the topic is legal cases, not just comments thrown into the public debate. Boud (talk) 21:55, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Boud, question mark Suggestion: COVID-19-related litigation against government authorities —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:04, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
Boud: There are some lawsuits in Spain too: one by Abogados Cristianos ([3]) and one by Vox ([4]). --MarioGom (talk) 07:20, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
There's several in the U.S. as well (civil law, criminal law), I noticed them from these YT vids [5][6]; you can probably use them a a starting point to find real refs (these vids are not suitable for purpose) -- 65.94.170.207 (talk) 09:21, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

New article: Impact of the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic on journalism

I'd love help expanding this page (and the related Media coverage of the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic)! {{u|Sdkb}} talk 19:50, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

NPOV noticeboard discussion on SARS-CoV-2

Consensus reached
 – "Wuhan virus" and "China virus" not to be mentioned in lead. Item added to SARS-CoV-2's consensus. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 22:40, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#"China virus" and "Wuhan virus". Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 04:11, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Those are the kind of useless discussions we should be avoiding with centralised discussions at project level... or they will go on forever. --Gtoffoletto (talk) 07:45, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
Once it is done let's include it in something like this: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_COVID-19#Proposal_for_handling_general_consensus --Gtoffoletto (talk) 08:10, 21 April 2020 (UTC)


Result: A consensus has been reached: "Wuhan virus" and "China virus" will not be mentioned in the lead section. Terms may still be mentioned in a naming history section. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 22:40, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Note that I have closed the NPOV/N discussion here. A slightly related suggestion: it might be helpful to add a short 1-2 paragraph "terminology" or "nomenclature" section immediately after the Lead to explain things a bit more in depth than the Lead does. I stumbled a bit when I read the first sentence here...in my mind "COVID-19" was the name of the virus so I had some cognitive dissonance when I read that SARS-CoV-2 was the virus that causes COVID-19. The "terminology" section would also provide a convenient place to discuss the "Wuhan virus" history outside the Lead. ~Awilley (talk) 22:47, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Agree. Thanks for closing User:Awilley --Gtoffoletto (talk) 23:39, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Added to page consensus for SARS-CoV-2 --Gtoffoletto (talk) 00:14, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Unfortunately, Symphony Regalia (the user who single-handedly started this colossal 2 month time waster) is up to his old ways, and is disguising his direct reverts of my edits to attempt to make the "China virus" discussion more nuanced. Can we communally write a section on the terminology of the virus that everyone is happy with? Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:26, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
You are clearly WP:CANVASSING by attempting to present a distorted version of what is happening. Your recent attempts to remove primary sources concerning "China virus" so that only secondary sources about someone using it remain, is an attempt to insert a WP:POV. I do suggest you stop trying to interfere with the outcome of the NPOV noticeboard discussion. Symphony Regalia (talk) 22:52, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Big spike in views of blood irradiation therapy

I posted the following yesterday at WikiProject Medicine:

Circulating on Facebook are what look like (but aren't) screenshots of a Wikipedia article entitled "ultraviolet blood irradiation", and they are being used to suggest that Trump's statement yesterday that UV might be a cure for Covid-19 is more sensible than he is being given credit for. We don't have an article by that name but the term is a redirect to blood irradiation therapy, which may now see an increase in traffic. It is not the most polished article on the 'pedia, and I can see from the talk page there has been discussion before about how credible a technique this is. I have no medical background but if someone does and can take a look at it, it would be good to weed out any overblown claims, and clarify when and for what purposes UV irradiation of the blood might be indicated.

User:WhatamIdoing, who has made some helpful edits, has pointed out that pageviews for that article have gone from 50 a day to 29,000. My concern that a substantial number of people are now looking to this article for information about what they see as a potential treatment for COVID-19 has only heightened. The article is in a better state now then when I first noticed it, thanks to other editors, but I want to bring it to your attention as well as WikiProject medicine because it is clearly relevant to your whole topic. Beorhtwulf (talk) 22:06, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

@Beorhtwulf: Thanks for the notice. To keep discussion centralized, I'm going to copy my comment over to the discussion at WikiProject Medicine and suggest others comment there. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 02:31, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Proposed changes to the COVID-19 discretionary sanctions editnotice

Hi all, just a heads up that I've proposed some changes to the editnotice that currently goes on COVID-19 related articles to inform users about the discretionary sanctions in place.

I've done this to try and make the notice more accessible for new users trying to edit in good faith, who may not yet be familiar with Wikipedia policy.

You can read more about my proposal and comment on it over at the Village Pump.

Cheers! | Naypta✉ opened his mouth at 22:13, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Bumping this. Anyone else want to weigh in and help us reach consensus on a template to use? The discussion has also broadened a bit to possibly include a general edit notice for all our pages. Here's a sneak preview of my proposal for that, although please direct any comments to the pump to keep things centralised.
{{u|Sdkb}} talk 06:20, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Proposal for handling general consensus

This should maybe be in a different discussion but I think we should:

  • Change name to "Current General Consensus" or "Current COVID-19 Project Consensus"
  • Transclude it together with the specific page consensus in the main (all?) article pages covered by the project so that those pages will have specific article consensus AND general project consensus.

This way we avoid repetition of the same arguments across pages and useless discussions (e.g. unnecessary page moves and inconsistent naming etc.). Is this ok in general or is there a different best practice for similar situations? Doc James, Moxy, Tenryuu --Gtoffoletto (talk) 20:59, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

I would have no problem with it on talk pages.....or better yet we make a guidelines page ( not just a list of talks but actual Style Guidelines). But as of now the current template just list a few talks involving the same people who are maintaining a template for the few pages they edit. We have consensus forming on hundreds of pages that others feel would be just as important to list. It should be reserved for contentious debates. ....not list a talk involving 4 or 5 editors.--Moxy 🍁 23:33, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
True but unless we centralise that discussion it is not helpful to have hundreds of discussions on different pages. Adding the template in those talk pages in addition to the "local" consensus can give visibility to those issues and we can "broaden" the consensus. If the topics are contentious we will have more discussions in a centralised way (the template links here) and the whole project will benefit. It's a chicken and egg kind of problem. Agreed? Style page would be nice for things like naming convention but not for stuff like not using worldometers which may change in the future. --Gtoffoletto (talk) 17:56, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
Gtoffoletto, I like this idea. My current issue is that the project encompasses many pages that editors who never visit this one or only check the main page here never see the general consensus; as long as people are made aware wherever they are I'm fine with it.
Idea: for more exposure perhaps we can append the general consensus (or whatever we decide to rename it to) on the discretionary sanctions notices? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:06, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
Absolutely we are saying the same thing. I'm clearing up my proposal above because maybe it was confusing. I propose adding the general consesus in all the article pages covered by the project. Any proposal on HOW to do it is fine by me including adding it to the general sanctions template. Although it might be best to have it together with the page specific consensus so both can be found in the same place? --Gtoffoletto (talk) 18:36, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Talk page banner is best to use...set up now of Talk:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic#Current consensus will be missed by most as noone readers old tlak page posts..its why we made Template:Consensus many years ago. Management of tlak pages should follow Wikipedia:Talk page layout and WP:CROSS-POST.

--Moxy 🍁 13:41, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
Perfect let's do this. Something like this? Where is this banner normally displayed?
--Gtoffoletto (talk) 11:12, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
Looks good..but #1 is about one of a thousand points that has been discussed with no out come...#2 does not link to any talk and #3 leads to a small talk that no one anywhere has contested....best just link project page. Is this worthy of inclusion everywhere....should be asked.--Moxy 🍁 04:28, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
Num 1 provides a general guideline. Number 2 has a link. Maybe it should be more appropriate to call those "general guidelines" since some of those topics are not contentious such as #3? Also the content should probably be transcluded from the consensus of this page since a new item has been added #4 on the virus origin. User:Tenryuu what do you think? Any other editors with more experience than me? Isn't there already a standard for this? Or is this COVID demonstrating once again it is unique and unusual. --Gtoffoletto (talk) 18:58, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
I've made an attempt at transcluding just the items so that we may change the disclaimer above freely. We can transclude all of it if we prefer.--Gtoffoletto (talk) 19:13, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
Gtoffoletto, I'm not sure the point containing {{Current}} needs to stay on there; depends on if we've been running into issues with that template being posted where they're not supposed to. As an aside, what happened to Rich Farmbrough's {{Current COVID}} template? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 22:30, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
@Tenryuu: Moxy suggested this different visual treatment to give it more visibility. It is harder to miss than the normal consensus discussion which is easy to miss. We should probably place it above the discussions in the general sanctions area so that it is fixed. Not sure how to do that though. --Gtoffoletto (talk) 09:25, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
Gtoffoletto, I'm not arguing against the use of the {{Consensus}} template which, from the looks of things, appear heavily under-utilised. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:25, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
I think I didn't get your previous comment then maybe. Or do we agree? Not sure how to proceed from here though. Someone with more experience in templates etc. is needed. --Gtoffoletto (talk) 22:20, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
Sorry User:Tenryuu now I see what you meant. You were talking about the specific item regarding the use of {{Current}}. I would post a separate discussion for that one and I would support mentioning {{Current COVID}} as it's more precise. --Gtoffoletto (talk) 22:50, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
Started relevant discussion here: [7] --Gtoffoletto (talk) 00:03, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

@Tenryuu: @Moxy: @Doc James: The template is done! Template:Current_COVID-19_Project_Consensus. Comments? First time creating a template so might be completely off base. But looks good to me. And if it's good for you guys it might be time to add it to the talk pages of the main project pages. The contents are transluded from the consensus on this talk page. We can clean it up here directly and changes will reflect on all pages. --Gtoffoletto (talk) 22:47, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Gtoffoletto, I like the whole idea of having a prominent {{Consensus}} template in talk pages with common items. In principle. However, I still have some doubts. For example, most of the points are not very relevant to {{2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data}}, except point 3 (Worldometer) which is already listed there. They seem very relevant to per-country articles though. Maybe we should use {{Current_COVID-19_Project_Consensus}} in core COVID-19 articles like 2020 coronavirus pandemic in the United States and just replace it with a specific one where it makes sense, like {{2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data}} or 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic. That way we would not duplicate the whole boilerplate (i.e. The following is a list of material maintained...). --MarioGom (talk) 23:12, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
Might be hard to distinguish where to post and where not to post the template. It's just easier to reach something we can just place in all articles in the project. Not all points will be relevant everywhere but as long as most pages are covered by at least one point then it will be worth it to spread the consensus around. We can definitely reduce and even remove the boilerplate. The content is transcluded so if one wants to edit it they will see the boilerplate anyway.
Let's remove the note and substitute it with just: The following is a list of material that represents current consensus for the articles under the scope of this project. It is recommended to link to this list in your edit summary when reverting, as Wikipedia talk:WikiProject COVID-19#Current consensus, item [n]. To ensure you are viewing the current list, you may wish to purge this page. (see preview in template above) --Gtoffoletto (talk) 23:22, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
If you mean getting rid of the link to the talk page here, then I'll disagree as it works to centralise discussions. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:33, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
The link is still there (I've updated the template which you can see above so we can have a better sense of how it would look). Here is the diff [8] Basically I just removed the section on general sanctions if one edits the consensus since that is already available if one tries to edit the tanscluded consensus items. --Gtoffoletto (talk) 23:38, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
Talk with 3 or 4 people should not be listed.... this is not a form of consensus of a contentious issue. We have many many RFC ongoing.....listing pointless talks is pointless and distracting.--Moxy 🍁 00:22, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
Wait User:Moxy. That's a separate topic to this. If we all approve the template structure and where to deploy we can then move on in separate discussions (we have several in this talk page) where we can discuss the individual consensus points.
In general I would say: this should also be used for guidelines which may not be so contentious but should be uniformly applied (e.g. naming convention we agreed on). The template will raise awareness for the topic and more discussion may follow once we deploy it across pages but at least it will be centralised here. Obviously we should use it very sparingly and not for every tiny piece of consensus. The individual items should be of very broad and general interest to all project pages. Agree? --Gtoffoletto (talk) 10:31, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

So how ready is this consensus? I think it should start being displayed at pages like Talk:2019-20 coronavirus pandemic. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:54, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Just coming across this now. I like the general idea of it (I've mentioned before that I think we ought to start creating templates to help with implementing current consensus lists). I think we can think perhaps bigger still — there are a lot of WikiProjects that have consensuses that would be helpful to transclude to all their articles, so this isn't COVID-19-specific. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 07:23, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Excellent. That's 3 in favour. I think also Doc James, Moxy and MarioGom are generally in favour of the idea and no-one seems against it so far (can you confirm guys?).
Some had some comments on specific items of the list. I would like remind everyone that the specific items of the list are transcluded from this talk page consensus so any change there will reflect in all the articles automatically and any change will require centralised discussion.
I would move on inserting the template in the main project articles if we all agree. We also have some open discussions on this page regarding specific items on the list which we should address quickly so that the template will go "live" with a good list of initial items. See: Consensus on not using Current in articles and adding naming guidelines for SARS-CoV-2
I agree we could expand it to other projects. Seems a reasonable and effective way of doing this to me. We can use COVID-19 as a pilot and then extend it. --Gtoffoletto (talk) 08:16, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Sure Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:28, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
As long as the consensus gets transcluded to other major article talk pages it works for me; I'm seeing questions being asked that would have been answered by the consensus (with sources). —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:12, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
ADDED to Coronavirus disease 2019, Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 and 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic as a soft launch. We might need a bot to propagate this in all country pages. We should probably request it. --Gtoffoletto (talk) 12:56, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Implementation and deployment

@Gtoffoletto: Plenty of experience - what template do you want added, what pages do you want it added to, and what consensus or discussion, if any, supports this? --DannyS712 (talk) 23:57, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
@DannyS712: The template is over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject COVID-19/Current consensus. Links to discussions establishing consensus are already included. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:01, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
@Tenryuu: So transclude Wikipedia talk:WikiProject COVID-19/Current consensus? To what pages? --DannyS712 (talk) 00:04, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
DannyS712, that's essentially all the bot needs to do. As for exact pages or page range... Boud — MarioGom — Doc James — Gtoffoletto — Another Believer — Sdkb — Elizium23 — Vchimpanzee: able to specify? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:11, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
DannyS712 To be more exact the template is {{Current_COVID-19_Project_Consensus}}. Which translcudes the items from the list above. Discussion and consensus is here: [9]. Basically the point is we want to show in a clear and visible manner in all pages which are under this project what the general project consensus is. The scope should be all pages in the project adding it in the talk page like so Talk:Coronavirus disease 2019. If you have any comments about how we could improve the template they are more than welcome. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 02:15, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
@Gtoffoletto: Why not just add it to {{WikiProject COVID-19}} if it should be included on all pages? --DannyS712 (talk) 02:19, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
DannyS712, the project banner is often collapsed under the banner shell, which would defeat the purpose. It it is also redundant in some pages. Given that there was not so much input on the proposal, I would do a trial run with, let's say, the top 20 countries listed at {{2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data}} (2020 coronavirus pandemic in the United States, 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Spain...) and wait some days for any reactions. --MarioGom (talk) 07:16, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
@MarioGom: Sorry, but I'm not comfortable going around adding transclusion of the template. Sorry --DannyS712 (talk) 07:18, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
DannyS712, makes sense. Also for a small trial run we could do it manually anyway. --MarioGom (talk) 07:22, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
DannyS712 Yeah I was thinking of adding it to the project template but as was said above it's often collapsed and that would defeat the point. An idea could be placing it within the {{WikiProject COVID-19}} but outside of the "collapsible zone"? I assume that's possible. Also it may not be a bad thing if it collapses in the future. We could choose to collapse it in a second moment phase once the initial influx of new editors has subsided. Any idea on how to do this in practical terms? -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 09:53, 25 April 2020 (UTC)


Agree standalone version would be best. Added to project page will amend if need be...Wikipedia:WikiProject_COVID-19#Consensus.--Moxy 🍁 17:32, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Looking for something to do

Hi. Are there any user scripts that would be helpful for this wikiproject? --DannyS712 (talk) 09:14, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Helper for data table

DannyS712, here's another proposal. {{2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data}} involves hundreds of repetitive edits per day. These edits are very structured and fast, but also prone to edit conflicts. I think a helper script would be very useful if it could:

  1. Select a country.
  2. Edit the values of number of cases, deaths and recoveries, and possibly editing the references column.
  3. On save, move the row up or down in the table to maintain sorting.
  4. On conflict, cancel or, what's even better, reload the content and apply the update again.

Does that look interesting or feasible? --MarioGom (talk) 07:28, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

@MarioGom: The updating part sounds feasible, the reordering of rows doesn't, since for that the script would have to parse the entire table and identify each row and its count. Sorry DannyS712 (talk) 10:24, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
Why did I get a ping?— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 15:18, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
Vchimpanzee, no idea, wrong thread? MarioGom (talk) 17:06, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
DannyS712: Thanks anyway! --MarioGom (talk) 17:06, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
Tenryuu didn't even post here.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 17:20, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
Vchimpanzee, I originally pinged you but another editor deleted a reply chain. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:46, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
Got it.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 19:12, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Comment by Prof. Chris Whitty (UK Chief Medical Officer), 22 April 2020, on long-term future of pandemic

As reported, the UK CMO made an announcement on the likelihood of the virus being "eradicated", saying: "This disease is not going to be eradicated, it is not going to disappear" and "So we have to accept that we are working with a disease that we are going to be with globally... for the foreseeable future." I haven't checked if it's already included, but wouldn't this count as a significant thing to include (on one page or another) as an official announcement on the long-term global future of the pandemic, even on the main COVID-19 page? | BBC report. GPinkerton (talk) 23:45, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

People are going to bring up WP:CRYSTAL, but I don't think that applies, since it doesn't cover speculation that is itself notable, as is the case here. I'd support inclusion of some coverage of this topic, with attention given to WP:DUEWEIGHT of course. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 18:16, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
"official announcement"? Whitty isn't a spokesperson for the virus. It's one of many predictions people all over the world made. The prediction that we won't eradicate it worldwide soon is too trivial to include this specific statement. --mfb (talk) 01:54, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Timeline

Is the November-December timeline page coming back? The new stand-alone January page has been created by a split, but the November-December months article is now redirected to 'January'. [EDIT: Found it, and fixed the link in the two templates and added it to the January page.] Randy Kryn (talk) 02:40, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:2019–20_coronavirus_pandemic_deaths#Requested_move_27_April_2020

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:2019–20_coronavirus_pandemic_deaths#Requested_move_27_April_2020. Soumyabrata stay at home 🏠 wash your hands 👋 to protect from COVID-19 😷 04:51, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Request for help re NY state mortality rate graph

Last week a user added a Mortality Rate graph to 2020 coronavirus pandemic in New York (state) showing the COVID-19 mortality rate surpassing 40%. I believed this inflate rate was due either to incomplete reporting of recoveries among the confirmed cases, or to an artifact from death occurring earlier than recoveries amongst a cohort, so I removed it and asked to editor to discuss it on the talk page. They've done so, but I won't have time to address it for several days, and would appreciate some informed assistance there.

See: Talk:2020 coronavirus pandemic in New York (state)#Mortality Rate graph

Thanks! -- ToE 08:48, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Just a note: this is the CFR for New York, as defined by ("confirmed") Deaths / Outcomes, per AJE[1]. I recognize many sources are still reporting Death / Infected, this is incorrect as it assumes the recovery of all active cases. I think this is an important statistic to include, as it may be used to see the effectiveness of treatments over time and (rough as it may be) estimate the outcome of the remaining (majority) of confirmed cases.Thanks Thummper (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:24, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://academic.oup.com/aje/article/162/5/479/82647

New supercomputer-assisted research into COVID-19

Hello all,

I contributed the section "Supercomputer-assisted research" to the page COVID-19 vaccine a while back, with work on the Summit supercomputer and Blue Waters having piqued my interest. I relied extensively on press releases and news articles for sourcing, however; the sources contained no indication of vaccine research, but rather were focused on the discovery of drug candidates, forecasting, and medical protocols. Therefore, the section was removed. (I highly recommend going over the version history for the page.)

If I may ask, where might any information on the effects of COVID-19 on computing research be located? More pertinently, would it be acceptable to create a new article on the effects of COVID-19 on computing? Perhaps as a new section on Impact of the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic on science and technology? COVID-19 drug development? Jarrod Baniqued (talk) 01:47, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Might want to include a not on efforts like 'fold at home'[1], using crowd sourced compute to simulate COVID-19 protein folding. Thummper (talk)
Done. See Citizen science, COVID-19 drug development#Efforts to streamline drug discovery, and Impact of the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic on science and technology. Jarrod Baniqued (talk) Jarrod Baniqued (talk) 20:14, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://foldingathome.org/

Discussion at Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2#Accidental leakage hypothesis

 You are invited to join the discussion at Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2#Accidental leakage hypothesis. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 07:44, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Wikidata redlist for COVID-19 women healthcare workers

Women in Red will be focused on creating new articles about women healthcare workers, including those associated with COVID-19, during the month of May. This is a month-long online event and all are welcome to participate. In preparing for it, we currently have 4 "redlists" but these aren't enough:

Here, I've requested one more Wikidata redlist for healthcare workers associated with job titles such as those found in these categories: Category:People in health professions. But I'm here because I'm wondering if there could be yet another Wikidata redlist created for women healthcare workers specifically associated with COVID-19? If yes, would someone please create it for Women in Red using the Wikidata lists I've linked in this post as 'style guides'? Thanks in advance, and please do consider joining the women healthcare workers editathon next month. CC: Sadads/Astinson (WMF). --Rosiestep (talk) 09:09, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

@Rosiestep: Thanks for pinging me -- I have been exploring recommendation strategies for related to the pandemic, and I haven't anything that fully tackles women's biographies (if we wanted to do something more like the effects on Women in the Pandemic -- I am publishing information on a strategy that could work well for that with Research today or tomorrow).
You could leverage the tool that we deployed for meta:WikiGAP which recommends who to translate based on a "seed" article, and the -- for example, if you search COVID-19 in Spanish and want to translate to English you get this result which is 5 Spanish language women who are related to the pandemic. For more documentation on the tool, see meta:WikiGap_Challenge/WikiGapFinder. This is probably the best strategy at the moment.
The other strategy I would use is kindof dependent on ORES's ArticleTopic model, which works in English, Arabic, Czech, Korean and Vietnamese, the result is something like: this result in English. However, to turn that or the redlists about healthcare workers into something actionable (i.e. what articles are missing), you would need Petscan which is currently down frequently. I tried running something similar in the query service, but that seemed to have failed at finding anything. Maybe I am doing that wrong? Astinson (WMF) (talk) 11:38, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
Are you looking to highlight a disproportionate effect of COVID-19 on women, or a disproportionate interest in the stories of women? I think any kind of gender related disparity in the effect of COVID-19 should definitely be noted and linked to, I haven't heard anything in this regard on the standard discussions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thummper (talk • contribs) 15:24, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
@Thummper: see Gendered_impact_of_the_2019–20_coronavirus_pandemic, Sadads (talk) 15:29, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
@Sadads: so are the articles about disproportionate representation in COVID-19 response leadership or the delay in Argentinian abortion rights? I'm not trying to throw a wrench in, just understand the focus (if we are highlighting disparities or creating a women's interest page).Thummper (talk) 15:38, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
My intent is to include lists of notable missing women healthcare workers (including any associated with COVID-19 work) on the May 2020 Women in Red healthcare editathon page. Maybe the 5 current redlists (Healthcare (WD), Medicine (CS), Nurses (CS), Nurses (WD), Physicians (WD)) include women healthcare workers associated with COVID-19 work, or maybe not; I don't know. Maybe someone is aware of a list on-wiki or elsewhere which includes healthcare workers of all genders associated with COVID-19, in which case, I'd be grateful for a link. Also, to be clear, I'm not suggesting that women healthcare workers are more or less represented, important, associated with COVID-19, and/or etc. than any other gender. Thanks! --Rosiestep (talk) 18:34, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying, I wasn't clear on the focus or what you meant by 'missing' at first. I'm not aware of any existing lists like that or prominent nurses from the COVID-19 response, but will keep a look out.Thummper (talk) 21:52, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
There is a crowd-sourced Redlist, Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/COVID-19#Health_professionals_and_researchers, which I added to the May 2020 Meetup. I also added psychology/psychologists, which was in a 2017 Meetup. StrayBolt (talk) 00:26, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Hello.

Please consider WP:BIDIRECTIONAL and don't routinely add navboxes to articles where they don't belong. For instance, I just removed two templates from the USS Theodore Roosevelt (CVN-71) article. They belong on the 2020 coronavirus pandemic on USS Theodore Roosevelt article, which already has them.

Remember, if an article is not linked in a template, it shouldn't transclude it.

Otherwise, incredibly impressive work here in the project.

HandsomeFella (talk) 11:39, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Am I doing something wrong?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Whywhenwhohow

The above user deleted my edits in 6 pages. He stated that it was NOT NEWS OR NO MEDICAL ADVICE. I have had made sure there were legit references to my contributions. Please guide me.

Can you see his edits? If not then here's one of the pages that was changed (View Edit History)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bezafibrate

TheNavedKhan (talk) 14:30, 29 April 2020 (UTC) 29/04/2020

Yes. You need to read WP:MEDRS. Any COVID article edit is being held to strict standards because of their significant implications. MartinezMD (talk) 14:40, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Reader Vector Insight on Covid readership

Hi all, I wanted to highlight another piece of data that we were able to develop within the Foundation. Collaborating with User:MGerlach (WMF), we were able to develop a list that helps us learn from reader behaviour, which articles that folks are likely to engage with beyond the “obvious” topics related to Covid. By tracing the paths that readers take while reading Wikipedia, we can see that a lot of readers are asking a lot of questions about contextual topics related to the public health response to the pandemic.

We published this data on a page on meta, and we would appreciate any feedback on how such information might be useful for you as editors or organizers. Astinson (WMF) (talk) 18:21, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

We're missing good Oceania and Africa photos

The photo we had used at 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic for the Oceania section was recently deleted as a copyright violation that was actually from Italy 🤦. And we don't really have a good one for Africa — when I dug through Commons, the best I could find was File:Woman washing hands in DRC - Covid-19.jpg, and I didn't include it since it seems a bit stereotypical. Anyone want to try to find/upload better options? It'd be nice to have a photo of an African hospital, perhaps, and a photo representing what life is like on one of the Pacific islands that are comparatively well off. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 18:35, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you

COVID-19 Barnstar
I just want to say thank you to the many editors who are doing great work here. I don't know if User:Jimbo Wales will be announcing a Wikimedian of the Year for 2020 or not, given postponement of Wikimania, but in my mind the editors of WikiProject COVID-19 are the winner. :)

Stay safe, --Another Believer (Talk) 19:01, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Hear, hear, HandsomeFella (talk) 19:12, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

New pages to help collate information and to make expert contribution easier

Hi all

Following this community discussion I've added 3 new pages to the Wikiproject with the aim of making it easier to collate information and missing topics on the wide impacts of the pandemic and for making expert contribution easier from people who are not in the existing Wikimedia community.

For some background I'm currently working as Wikipedian in Residence at UNESCO (funded by different Wikimedia orgs) where I've been for 5 years helping UN organisations share their knowledge on Wikipedia, I also write a lot of documentation for Wikipedia and Wikidata (which you can see on my WP user page). Like with many organisations most of the UN system is now focused on COVID-19 response in their area of work. The UN is producing very high quality overviews of how COVID-19 is impacting different aspects of life, not just health but also education, agriculture, gender, domestic violence etc. I have contact with several senior people and experts in UN organisations who are really interested in sharing their knowledge on Wikipedia and I think their knowledge could really help. I've been thinking about how I could help them and other organisations do this. The UN staff (like many other orgs) have limited time to share their knowledge because of the pandemic so currently its not realistic to give them training to edit Wikipedia directly, I am working with some of them on open licensing the content, which will happen but not in the short term. I can act as an intermediary, working with them to collate information which I can share and I've been thinking about how best to do this, after talking to them and looking at their resources it seems like the best way to do it (for an org which offers reliable sources) is to create areas on this Wikiproject to share information from them, specifically these pages which I've created these pages and which could easily be used by any other organisation producing reliable sources.

  • Missing topics: Which topics related to COVID-19 should Wikipedia cover? (working with experts to identify topic which aren't yet included in Wikipedia), I think this page can be an effective way for the community to collaborate on identifying missing topics and collating resources before creating articles.
  • Main messages: What are the main messages organisations have on COVID related topics? These messages would come from organisations websites and also from the staff directly. I've already been given messages from experts at UNFPA and UN Women with references.
  • Reference sources: What references sources are available on COVID-19 related topics? I've already gone through UN agency reference sources which include references from their sources.

I've also created a different header and 'background' because the setup of many of the pages was prohibiting the use of Visual Editor which makes using complex tables possible.

Please let me know your thoughts.

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 20:18, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

P.s I've collated a large amount of references and messages on those pages on gender and sexuality education, @Netha Hussain: and @Bluerasberry:. John Cummings (talk) 20:30, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
It's good to centralize things of that sort — please integrate them into Wikipedia:WikiProject COVID-19#Resources. One resource I think we're still missing is just a basic starting point how-to guide for writing and improving COVID-19 articles. It could be linked from the general edit notice I'm hoping we'll be adding soon (see above/below) as a "learn more" link. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 21:49, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic

 Courtesy link: Talk:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic § Requested move 26 April 2020

All of you may want to go there and discuss the pending RM, if no one already knows. Starzoner (talk) 23:53, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Added courtesy link to the mentioned section. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:27, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

New article: Immunity passport

I was surprised to find that Wikipedia didn't appear to have any content about the idea of Immunity passports, so I've gone ahead and kicked off the page. Contributions and links to/from relevant pages welcome. Jpatokal (talk) 14:02, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

New article tips

I created a page on this project, Wikipedia:WikiProject COVID-19/Tips, which contains some tips for new COVID-19 articles. Please let me know if there's anything big missing! (Although try not to add general editing advice not specific to this project; we already have general help pages for that, and we don't want to duplicate them.) {{u|Sdkb}} talk 19:01, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Is a physician suicide a death from the pandemic?

Should Lorna Breen be listed in the category Category:Deaths from the 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Virginia? ☆ Bri (talk) 18:09, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

That's tragic to hear. I have to say no, since I think expanding that category to anything other than deaths caused by the disease itself will get messy. There are just too many second-order effects that get too blurry. Would we include someone who, say, starved to death because they lost their job from the pandemic? {{u|Sdkb}} talk 18:54, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
@Bri: you'd probably get some responses to this on the talk page here: List of deaths due to coronavirus disease 2019. Multiple users have had similar questions (for other individuals) and it seems to depend on the exact circumstances. TJMSmith (talk) 19:06, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Reassessing importance of covid in Ghana

Edit: Sorry, 8000 throughout West Africa but only 1000 in Ghana

I'm going to be editing the coronavirus in Ghana article for a class project and I noticed that it is currently rated low-importance. Not sure if this is the right way to do this, but I'd like to propose that we raise its importance level. Criteria are, "Locations with articles in this category should have at least 20,000 cases or 500 deaths. Non-country locations (e.g. states and cities) with major outbreaks are mid importance. Other locations with smaller outbreaks but greater risk factors or contextual significance are mid importance." Ghana currently has only 8000 cases, but they are high-risk because of ongoing water and sanitation issues. Ghana also has the most rapidly growing case rate in West Africa, giving it special contextual significance. Slrosen (talk) 20:29, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Template:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data

Hello Guys, I need your help to update this template Template:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data/Mauritius medical cases chart. I want to include that 3 active patients left the country as from 13 April 2020. This is not reflected in this table. Maybe we can add a new color which will show that 3 patient left which makes the number of active cases less as at date. Thanks Yash400 (talk) 20:33, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

UK (and other) editors

As part of the Wikipedia:WikiProject COVID-19/WMUK-WPMEDF Joint Support Task Force initiative, Wikimedia UK is going to provide resources to make available online training for editors who wish to get up to speed on the finer points of medical articles. Although the original target audience was UK editors who wanted to join in tackling the issues arising from our COVID-19 articles, I'm sure other will be welcome.

The Task Force is still encouraging UK editors to help out with the myriad of tasks and Wikimedia Medicine is interested in how we can mobilise geographical areas to tackle issues most relevant to them. --RexxS (talk) 20:51, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Header icons

I like the header at the top of this page, but could we perhaps find a way to display all the icons on a single row? ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:43, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Seconded. It'd also be nice if there was a little more indication of the page you're on, besides just purple->black coloring (which isn't always visible depending on the screen). But overall, it looks great! {{u|Sdkb}} talk 17:31, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Another Believer: and @Sdkb: thanks, I created the new header for a couple of reasons:

  1. The current header simply doesn't work on those pages because it breaks Visual Editor and VE makes it possible to edit the tables, I'm currently working with several UN agencies who want to share their knowledge of COVID-19 related topics and we can't really do that without tables.
  2. Some pages simply didn't have a header (talk page and find sources).

Can you explain what is meant by 'on a single row'? I think it would not work to put the icon next to the text because horizontal space is really limited in a header with so many tabs, especially for people with lower resolution monitors. What colour do you think should be used to indicate which page you're on, I think black would make most sense (I really would not use red). I'm not super good with templates, any idea how to do it, I looked in the documentation but I don't get it? I created a copy of the header to play around with here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:John_Cummings/header .

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 20:41, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

@John Cummings: The header currently goes onto a second line for the last icon (portal) for me, and presumably for Another Believer as well. And for indicating the page you're on, I like the solution of the "tabs" header, which uses the green background coloring. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 20:47, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Thanks @Sdkb:, the issue with using the green colouring is it breaks Visual Editor (you just get source editor in a box because it is transcluding something), VE is a key functionality for pages with tables. How can we split the header and the green colouring of the page into two templates or something? That way will can separate the discussion of the header layout and the green background breaking some of the pages. John Cummings (talk) 20:56, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
@John Cummings: I don't think it would be advisable to split off the green coloring into a separate template, but I'll add a parameter to suppress it; hopefully that'll work for your needs. VisualEditor overall is a beta editor with a ton of bugs/missing functionality; I'd expect that most editors deep enough into Wikipedia to be editing a WikiProject page will be using the source editor. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 21:05, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
It looks like adding a parameter won't be easily possible, since the functionality with the tabs template comes from Template:Start tab, a deeper-level template. You could propose fixes there, but I'm guessing the response would be "not worth it, VisualEditor needs to fix itself". {{u|Sdkb}} talk 21:14, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Hi @Sdkb: Visual Editor works fine for what is needed on the pages that it is needed for, the issue is that the green background uses transclusion which doesn't play nicely. Can you explain why you don't think it would be advisable to split the template and the background colour? I seems like the only viable option if the deeper level template is difficult to change (I don't have the technical knwoledge to do it myself) and you are unhappy with having two header files. Not being able to use VE on those pages will lead to less contribution of experts on COVID-19 related content. I'm sure we can find a solution that works for everyone :) John Cummings (talk) 21:28, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Just so your aware VE causes us to lose editors VisualEditor's effect on newly registered editors just as non standard multiplte pages do like the WP:Adventure. That said if it works better with VE it should be implemented for the 10 percent that use it.--Moxy 🍁 21:33, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
@John Cummings: splitting would have to be done at Template:Start tab; it's not technically possible at {{WikiProject COVID-19 tabs}}. I'll bring it up there, but I'm guessing it won't be the highest-priority fix. And yeah, the lack of solid VisualEditor functionality is constantly losing us editors, but that's a larger problem. Perhaps we'll be able to create some workaround here, but otherwise we may just have to ignore VE. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 21:42, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Fight against the spread of covid-19 Ukraine.

OFF-TOPIC
WP:NOTFORUM. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:04, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


I believe that the decision to completely stop production in our country to combat the spread of covid-19 was in vain and criminal.It’s absolutely correct that restaurants were closed that forbade walking in the park to play sports but stopping production completely; closing the market is stupid; I think that it was necessary to limit movement between regions and districts what was essentially done. Was necessary if tearing areas of the towns of the city of which covid 19 was most widespread from another part of the country. Not to allow a meeting of people not to allow any public shares but to shut down production to close the market and stop trading was completely optional. Of course, it was necessary to isolate even entire settlements. Perhaps even whole cities. But, by no means, in that part of the country where there are literally isolated cases of the disease, or a hundred and 100,200 diseases in the entire region, stop the production of millions, to leave people without money, given that the people and so there is no accumulation it, was absolutely not necessary. Maybe it was necessary to close the borders maybe it was necessary not to let anyone from abroad even our citizens Let them stay where they were at the time of quarantine but inside the country to forbid people to leave home , not to go to work in completely vain. Maybe it was necessary to stop public transport here some other measures are possible but just copying the actions of other governments was completely stupid. And now there is no plan to get out of this quarantine, no measures are being taken; there is no money for all this, in contrast to those countries that did not look at. Victor7Tim (talk) 10:37, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Editors of the Week

Editor of the Week
Your ongoing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed: As a group, you have been selected as Editors of the Week in recognition of maintaining the high standards of editing for all to see. Thank you for the great contributions! (courtesy of the Wikipedia Editor Retention Project)

The clerks of the Editor of the Week Award submitted the following nomination for Editor of the Week:

We have chosen the members of WikiProject COVID-19 to receive this week's award. Since the onset of the worldwide coronavirus pandemic, Wikipedia has been one of the "go-to" choices for individuals who are searching for clarity in a muddled and constantly evolving universe. Wikipedia influences and informs the media and the public by way of dedicated editors. The researchers and readers of Wikipedia face the challenge of finding a reliable source for the urgent informational needs that are in high demand during a crisis. These demands for coronavirus-specific content and the natural magnet quality of "Hot Topic" articles show the importance of having a high quality community of editors who can generate and manage such content. The 150+ members of the COVID-19 project do their very best to protect the over 900 important articles related to COVID-19 by striving to consistently protect the articles from vandalism and bias, organizing reliably sourced data into a readable format and, most importantly, instilling and maintaining accuracy amongst all edits. These editors provide factual reliable data for public consumption and do so with the expertise and professionalism that is expected by the Wikipedia community. Of course, it is acknowledged that a multitude of editors take part in creating and nurturing into being the close to 1000 virus articles, and many of them are not formal members of the COVID-19 project. This Award encompasses all the editors who have worked toward the goal of focussed collaboration. The three most edited articles are 2020 coronavirus pandemic in the United States, 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic and 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Africa.

You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week: 

{{User:UBX/EoTWBox}}
Wikipedia:WikiProject COVID-19
 
Editor of the Week
for the week beginning May 3, 2020
Wikipedia influences and informs the media and the public by way of dedicated editors who provide reliable sources for coronavirus-specific content. The 150+ members of the COVID-19 project consistently protect these articles from vandalism and bias, organize reliably sourced data into a readable format and, most importantly, instill and maintain accuracy amongst all edits with the expertise and professionalism expected by the Wikipedia community. This Award encompasses all the editors (members or not) who have shown focussed collaboration.
Recognized for
continuous dedication to Wikipedia's coverage of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, the COVID-19 disease, and the 2019–20 COVID-19 pandemic.
Submit a nomination

Thanks again for your efforts! ―Buster7 ☎ 15:27, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Congratulations to all for your tireless effort! Keep up the good work. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 15:42, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
Well deserved! I've watched the nonstop hard work on these articles that past few months in admiration, and this project's accomplishments have done the whole Wikipedia community proud. Schazjmd (talk) 16:43, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
Thank you, EOTW folks! It's unusual to give the award to a project rather than an individual, right? Has it happened before? {{u|Sdkb}} talk 16:48, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
This is the 353rd EDDY Award. The others have always been individual editors and are are listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/Editor of the Week#Recipients of Editor of the Week aka The Eddy. ―Buster7 ☎ 16:59, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
Yes, Editor of the Week was designed to recognize specific efforts by a single editor, so this week is a departure to recognize many unsung heroes collectively rather than just one. Thanks to everyone who is contributing towards improving articles on this important topic area. isaacl (talk) 17:02, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the award, Buster7! We are glad to see that our efforts are being appreciated.
​—Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:06, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps rename Category:COVID-19 to Category:Coronavirus disease 2019

Hi,

I am proposing this category renamed to Category:Coronavirus disease 2019. I'm proposing it to be there as to match the main article page. I had nominated it to be renamed but came back "no consensus", thus I am here. Starzoner (talk) 22:18, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Date of updated source

There may be a better place to ask this question, but since this is COVID-19 related, what do you do when a source is dated March 16 but updated March 30? A lot of the information in the source was not known before March 30. I didn't get very specific where I used the source, but the article Socio-economic impact of the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic‎ didn't have updated information.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 17:25, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Symposium on Wikipedia and COVID-19 on May 9

Hello WikiProject!

Next Saturday, May 9, at 6:00 PM Eastern Time, Wikimedia New York City is hosting a Symposium on Wikipedia and COVID-19.

Four speakers, Netha Hussain, Another Believer, TMorata, and Bluerasberry, will present about different aspects of the pandemic's coverage on Wikipedia and Wikidata, including time for audience questions.

It will be streamed live on YouTube and Facebook. Find more information here: Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Symposium on Wikipedia and COVID-19. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 01:58, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Discussion on how to describe Hubei in article leads

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:COVID-19 pandemic#Hubei description in the lead. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 04:53, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_COVID-19/Archive_7&oldid=1045699039"