This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
As we know, Wiki has strict policies on the use of images and only images from public domain or certain creative commons licenses can be used. The current image of the map of China, which is from Wiki Commons and originally sourced from CIA public domain, highlights areas within China that have territorial claim disputes. As it is NOT a map of India, regions in India claimed by China are NOT highlighted. Since the purpose of the map is to provide a good illustration on the relative locations of the cities, a decision has to be made whether the current image is inappropriate and hence removed. Please opine whether the image of the map should be Keep or Delete. Thanks PenulisHantu ( talk) 05:47, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Comment I would implore the use of a map with a balanced POV addressing disputed regions of Taiwan, South Tibet/Arunachal Pradesh and Aksai Chin. (Anyone, please replace current image if you know of one. Thanks) In the absence, we have to weigh between a politically imperfect map that provides useful geographical information for the topic (Keep) or do without one (Delete). Thanks. PenulisHantu ( talk) 17:20, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Comment I have replaced the map of "Greater China" with one of Mainland China, and my edit got reverted. Let me explain why I think a Mainland China map is more appropriate here:
This is a serious article, not a playground for PRC irredentism. The extent of the Greater China concept is uncertain- for instance, Mongolia would be part of Greater China in some definitions. I think an encyclopaedia should stick with the known quantities. Geographyinitiative ( talk) 00:10, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
Here's what I would like to see: @ PenulisHantu: and co.: we need to produce a map or set of maps for the Greater China page that describes the different interpretations of the concept. I would suggest working on that first and then coming back here. Geographyinitiative ( talk) 01:16, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
The table showing quarantined cities is a day or two outdated. It states a total of 30m quarantined but the current number is around 50m [1]. If no one can compile a list of cities I propose we remove the table and simply list the current number quarantined. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Colin dm ( talk • contribs) 17:04, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
The population of Wuhan listed in the casualty table is low. Wuhan is made up of 13 administrative districts. The combined population Of the thirteen districts was approximately 11.8M in 2019. The source for the higher number is [1] which is the source referenced in the Wikipedia article for Wuhan. That page also includes the population for the thirteen administrative districts and sub-districts. SmokeyShyla ( talk) 19:31, 25 January 2020 (UTC)SmokeyShyla (Susan Lozon)
I dissaprove of this, but meh. 2JWE ( talk) 22:38, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
What is the make and model of this hazmat apparel? Haven't seen it before. Why blue stripes?
A doctor wearing special protective suit for the Wuhan coronavirus outbreak treat patient in Hubei TCM Hospital, Wuhan.jpg
I guess that's made of nylon and the blue stripes are hook-and-loop zippers. -- Techyan( Talk) 21:26, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
Hello @ El C:, I just want to ask out of curiosity what was the reason for the page protection, that was implemented on the page yesterday to expire on the 31st of January, to be lifted? ( 2001:8003:4E48:8600:1DFF:8071:601E:451F ( talk) 02:49, 26 January 2020 (UTC))
Veteran editors probably know that already, but this starts to look suspiciously like the H1N1 article first drafts. The viruses are first tested on people extremely sick and dying. But as the tests become more widely available, the virus is detected literally everywhere in the world it's tested with lower and lower death rate as more people with less severe symptoms are tested. Keep an eye on this possibility.
67.68.202.134 ( talk) 03:17, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
If you look at the second citation of the amount of Chinese cases confirmed. Should it not be 2,013 Ask ehx udnd ( talk) 08:14, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
Due to the high connection to the China, Chinese media are coming as choices of sources. Given the controversial nature of Chinese media, should we discuss that when to use them and when not to use them? (When it comes to issue related to China, there are always political conflicts and other stuffs) Mariogoods ( talk) 09:02, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
The most current article relating to ages was http://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/23/world/asia/coronavirus-victims-wuhan.html and it'd be useful to know if this remains the case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.72.19.187 ( talk) 10:07, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
I guess we don't know, but any sources with prelim est? -- Green C 14:44, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
I found that two statements that was like this:
The warning is interesting to me, because all three cities are well known around the world. Why these names includes Chinese characters that doesn't includes romanization in pinyin or jyutping?. This is English Wikipedia, and all these places (HK, Taiwan, Macau) are well known place worldwide. IMO, including Chinese Characters without romanization will be confused, as many readers in languages of non-Chinese or Japanese characters (Kanji) doesn't know what it is. In addition, these characters like 例, 确诊, 疑似, 死亡 and 治愈 doesn't understand by billions on non-Mandarin speakers even if they knows that meaning. Should it include Pinyin romanization as well? these romanization needs to avoid Communal violence in China. the situations in China same as India with multilanguage society. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 36.76.226.238 ( talk) 07:45, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
I think the bar chart showing the number of cases was useful in visualizing the data, it seems to have been removed (unless there was a reason for it) Mealworm17704 ( talk) 13:44, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
I think that adding suspected cases would be helpful as the people would not be shocked if they were to see a jump of 400 cases in a day. I feel that it is needed to improve this page. Please take a moment to consider it and not reject it at first sight. Thank you! Wuhan2019 ( talk) 13:50, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
Canadian case is not fake, please check the other countries section of this page: https://3g.dxy.cn/newh5/view/pneumonia Eray08yigit ( talk) 11:37, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
Fewer headlines, I mean. Menah the Great ( talk) 14:26, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
can we delete subchapter by nations to have the index only in the form:
it is becoming very long. instead of ====Australia==== use ;Australia is it a good idea?-- Dwalin ( talk) 09:57, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
@ Spaully: does TOC works only in this subsection or in all subsections below TOC input?-- Dwalin ( talk) 15:23, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
The recoveries column is a little odd, and I wonder if this will be kept up to date by the authorities round the world - my experience of other recent outbreaks would suggest not. Counting confirmed cases and deaths is relatively easy, suspected cases and recoveries not so much. Some of the sources say "cured" which is also odd as there is no cure for the virus except ones own immune system. I propose removing the recoveries column altogether as a not very useful and likely out of date set of numbers. |→ Spaully ~talk~ 10:44, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
Somewhat off topic: the Chinese version of the wikipedia article says it does not affect strongly children and young adults. Which implies it is mostly killing those over 60. It would be interesting if we could track recoveries and deaths by age and whether they had pre-existing health issues. Daniel.Cardenas ( talk) 16:59, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
I've removed all the minutely-detailed coverage of cases that turned out to be false alarms. Do we want to add a single sentence to the effect that "Suspected cases in Foo, Bar, and Bas all turned out to be false alarms"? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:16, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
Can anyone help trim the lead? Whispyhistory ( talk) 10:24, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
What's happening on this page. Ask ehx udnd ( talk) 19:23, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
Does anyone have the text saved? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaisersauce1 ( talk • contribs) 19:24, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
This might not be the correct place for this but I often see outdated maps on this article and was wondering how I could help edit them. -- Colin dm ( talk) 01:44, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
CT student put into isolation.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.177.16.114 ( talk) 22:34, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
MOS:INFOBOXFLAG states, "Generally, flag icons should not be used in infoboxes, even when there is a "country", "nationality" or equivalent field: they are unnecessarily distracting and give undue prominence to one field among many." It continues, "Flag icons should only be inserted in infoboxes in those cases where they convey information in addition to the text." We've had flags added to the infobox, removed and re-inserted, most recently by Ratherous. The Manual of Style is not some optional extra: this is a basic Wikipedia guideline that all articles should follow. We should remove the flag icons in the infobox and keep them out. This is not somewhere where we can establish a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS: we should follow standard practice across Wikipedia, as described in the MoS.
Flag icons don't add any information: we have names already. We already have a lot of political arguments in this article about China vs. Taiwan vs. Hong Kong etc. Flag icons just complicate matters further, they raise hackles and unnecessarily politicise an issue that should be about epidemiology, not politics.
In addition, use of the Hong Kong and Macau flags violates MOS:FLAGRELEVANCE and WP:SOVEREIGNFLAG.
Let's have an article about medicine, not flag-waving. Bondegezou ( talk) 13:41, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
I'm not sure how much discussion took place in the other articles, but I'd like to note that the MOS is not strictly followed across all articles regarding diseases, and if following the MOS really should be followed, then there is some work ahead.
The following use flags:
* /info/en/?search=Polio_eradication#2016
* /info/en/?search=2015%E2%80%9316_Zika_virus_epidemic#Epidemiology
* /info/en/?search=Kivu_Ebola_epidemic
The following do not use flags:
* /info/en/?search=Severe_acute_respiratory_syndrome#History
* /info/en/?search=Western_African_Ebola_virus_epidemic
An oddball is this article which features infoboxes with and without flags
* /info/en/?search=2009_flu_pandemic_by_country
The 2009 flu article which serves as a summary has no country-specific infobox but has continent/region-ish infobox. Since no continent other than EU (which also doesn't really cover all of Europe, nor is all of EU representing only Europe) has a real flag obviously it has no flags.
I'd like to note that MOS:FLAGRELEVANCE talks about political sensitivity, and is also used as part of WP:NPOV. However, there is no specific policy or discussion on MOS on health-related issues. Of note, Taiwan remains a politically sensitive topic but this has not been relevant thus far.
Personally I think that flags are not 'clutter.' I can agree with WP's need of NPOV, but from a design perspective icons are much more universal and are shorter than names. Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwllllantysiliogogogoch should represented with a flag if it has one. Real examples with similar sounding names include Australia and Austria, Togo and Tonga, Sweden and Switzerland, Slovakia and Slovenia. The flags refer to regions in a much quicker way than names especially so for Austria in Europe and Australia by itself or Oceania. Xenmorpha ( talk) 18:55, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
Re: Macau's flag: I think you'd need more than just stating that people don't know Macau's flag to make it true.I referenced a Wikipedia guideline. That is how we are meant to settle disagreements, with reference to policies and guidelines.
user design IS subjective and you do need reader/writer opinion.No, we can use the settled opinion of the Manual of Style, as I have referenced. I am glad you concur that the MoS is
more concretehere. Can I take it that you are withdrawing your objection to removing the flag icons?
Re: WP:OTHERSTUFF - It is with regard to deletion of articles, so I don't see why you use it.WP:OTHERSTUFF is commonly referenced more generally. The point is that poor behaviour elsewhere is not an excuse to repeat it.
I have already stated that MOS has no direct mentions of health incidents.No, it's a general guideline, applicable to all articles, including therefore this one.
Naming or pinging me will not do anything.It's polite when quoting someone on a Talk page to ping them, but I will not ping you in this discussion as that is your wish. Bondegezou ( talk) 18:35, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
Since there are many discussions here, should we uses the talk page archive? Mariogoods ( talk) 09:07, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
Keep the flags on the table, with more cases being confirmed, flags are easier to identify with. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaisersauce1 ( talk • contribs) 17:48, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
This page already has 146,969 bytes of markup; we need to trim a good deal of content, or split sections off into new articles. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:13, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
"There are three related measures of an article's size, and lists them as "readable-prose", "wiki markup size", and "browser-page size". SIZERULE, a subsection of that page, is concerned only with the first of these, and has nothing to say about the other two. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:35, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
After another 24 hours, now 196,145 bytes. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:13, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
Most of the reporting of suspected cases, in countries where there are also confirmed cases, is cruft. Consider, for example:
On 25 January 2020, the Malaysian Ministry of Health confirmed three cases of 2019-nCoV. All three patients have had close contact with the first case in Singapore. [1] Earlier on 23 January, a tourist from China has been placed in isolation ward at Queen Elizabeth Hospital in Sabah for suspected infection of the virus. [2] [3] They and three other suspected patients comprising one from Sabah and two from Selangor were later tested negative for the virus; one was diagnosed with Influenza A virus symptoms. [4] Eight Chinese nationals were quarantined at a hotel in Johor on 24 January after coming into contact with an infected person in neighbouring Singapore. [5] They tested negative for the virus. [6]
The entire second paragraph is unnecessary. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:32, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
I find the details of reported cases in every new region uninteresting. Should be moved to a separate article and a summary table kept. Daniel.Cardenas ( talk) 18:30, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
References
Malaysia25Jan
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).
References
I believe China mainland infection is not counted right. In BNO news update, Macau, Hong Kong, and Taiwan are included in China. Please note this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luke Kern Choi 5 ( talk • contribs)
Hello there folks! I believe that we should put the flags back in the information table, since they don’t only make it more aesthetically pleasing, but they make for a faster way of recognition of where the virus has spread to (I believe they do). 2JWE ( talk) 22:17, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
UTC)
MOS:INFOBOXFLAG is clear that we shouldn't have flag icons in infoboxes. There is more leniency on flag icons elsewhere, but they are still discouraged in most cases. The claims that they support reading comprehension were rejected when the Manual of Style guideline was written on this. If you wish to dispute that, go discuss the matter at the Talk page for
MOS:FLAG, but we're meant to follow the Manual of Style, as all Wikipedia guidelines. We're not allowed to form our own
WP:LOCALCONSENSUS: Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale.
Compare other articles in Category:2010s medical outbreaks and Category:2000s medical outbreaks. They nearly all avoid flag icons in infoboxes, although some use flag icons in other tables. Bondegezou ( talk) 17:46, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
I've made an ANI post requesting outside input from admins and experienced editors: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Flags_on_2019–20_Wuhan_coronavirus_outbreak EvergreenFir (talk) 21:39, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
Indonesian Wikipedia now have discussion about should it update the cases reported in UTC time in Indonesian talk page. The statement stats because there are many complexity to update many cases because of different time zone for example China use UTC+8, France use UTC+1, etc. I know because there are many time zones to reported the cases. Should it agree to use UTC in id-wiki, English wiki should be also UTC time for update the cases. Any thoughts?
Why was this created? I don't remember a talk page being created or a consensus reached on the topic? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Colin dm ( talk • contribs) 00:00, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
It is distracting, alarmist, 9/10 times inaccurate, and has no informative value. Every country is going to screen suspected people at some point and most times they are going to come out negative. Just look at Brazil. It's been colored as suspected since the start of the epidemic. If there was a real case it would have been confirmed already, so it's probably not, but negative results make fewer headlines in English than suspicions and positive cases. Menah the Great ( talk) 13:41, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
Thank you! Wuhan2019 ( talk) 01:03, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
https://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2020/01/24/result-will-be-out-in-2-days-indonesia-puts-2nd-suspected-coronavirus-patient-under-close-observation.html TheMarsian ( talk) 05:29, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
I've seen several anonymous users manipulating the counter for confirmed cases with unreliable sources (they don't even read the comments) or some other stuff you'd expect an anonymous user would do such as this, this, this, and this. What those IPs did are mostly minor changes in numbers instead of chunks of new content to the article, and I suppose autoconfirmed users could make those minor changes as well, maybe just a bit slower. We still have editprotected for IP users if they want to add something. @ Acroterion: I think we need to reconsider semi-protection. -- Techyan( Talk) 00:17, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
{{
Hong Kong English}}
/ {{
Use Hong Kong English}}
-- Hong Kong English is the form of English used in Hong Kong, such as in legislation, schools, literature, media, and we have templates to handle that case. Same as {{
Singapore English}}
and {{
Use Singapore English}}
-- We should not be discriminating against all Englishes that are not British nor American. Your statement makes it seem that there are only two Englishes in the world, but the same statement with inpection, results in "what is British English or American English" (they are not static either) and not really separate then (afterall, "football" is changing in American to cover 'soccer', just look at MSL team names and media reports concerning the MSL; or the increasing use of Americanisms in Britain). This event is not something that is highly affecting the U.S. or UK, so neither of these Englishes are particularly tied to the event. --
67.70.33.184 (
talk) 02:54, 27 January 2020 (UTC)British English isn't widely spoken in the Asia-Pacific region. The official languages all use varieties of Commonwealth English while unofficially American English is the lingua franca.
I suggest that anyone who is able to understand the medical terminology used in this article would also be able to understand the differences between American English and British English. The locals would probably use whatever form of English they come across the most, meaning that there will be a mixture of spelling norms that lean towards American English.
Therefore the article should use whatever English norms that they naturally use, whether British or American or Commonwealth.
Tsukide ( talk) 07:17, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
"In that country they... have their own Wikipedia."To be clear; no they do not. There is a Chinese-language Wikipedia, not a China-country Wikipedia. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:53, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
Vote we get rid of the British English Zealots and just use the more common English. Daniel.Cardenas ( talk) 14:45, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
Agree. I'd rather take the WP:DATETIES and WP:TIES view on the primacy of those than the opinion of an IP on nebulously to conflating to a tangential alignment with British English, which WP:LANGVAR, by the way, does not unambiguously support as claimed. As the national dating format appears to be Y-M-D, the dating format will be changed to reflect the M-D style at the very least. Other reversions may come hereafter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sleath56 ( talk • contribs) 17:34, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
However, The Lancet says the incubation period (not exactly known yet) is 3-6 days [6]. This information comes from two recent Lancet papers: [7] where it says “the incubation period was estimated to be between 3 and 6 days” [8]. Another 5-6 day incubation is quoted in [9]. These papers are cited in news too. statnews says where it got its information from.
Wikipedia isn't a medical journal and this article is aimed at informing regular people. I think the more medically specific details can go in the main body or the actual virus article, whereas this lead should be more cautious at explaining how long the virus might linger in the body before showing symptoms. Several academic publications still list the 14 day incubation period:
I can understand that the shorter estimates should be used in medical literature and even the body of this text, but don't you think that the lead should provide safe advice?
Tsukide ( talk) 05:31, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12303690
There are suspected cases, as three tour members are hospitalised: "It comes as three members of a tour group of 19 have been assessed at Rotorua Hospital out of concern they may have become infected with the deadly novel coronavirus infection." ~From the article's URL above Lord A.Nelson ( talk) 08:00, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
I'd like consensus or discussion here if possible, as I find MOS:OL (do link other MOS parts if applicable) difficult to interpret with its list including 'countries' and 'locations.' What I think means is that for general Wikipedia articles, it does not make sense to link to China. It also does not make sense to link to China for the Infobox. Unfortunately for this event, locations don't just matter, but they matter to the point of deciding on policy and administration on human lives. The MOS also writes on duplicate links, which I generally agree with. Concretely, I think
This linking is independent of whether there should be flags for each region. Xenmorpha ( talk) 08:21, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
Please replace word "Origin: Wuhan, Hubei, China" to just "Wuhan, Hubei, China" in infobox location because in Indonesian version of this article, (id.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wabah_koronavirus_baru_2019–2020) they doesn't including word Origin (Asal in Indonesian) which the term was ambigous (Former form:Asal:Wuhan, Hubei, Tiongkok; current form:Wuhan, Hubei, Republik Rakyat Tiongkok). Placing word origin with name of cities was confusing because they already know what the origin of the cities. Word "Origin" should be removed in order to easily navigate the virus origin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 36.76.226.238 ( talk) 08:27, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
The patient who came to Turkey was never tested/confirmed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Colin dm ( talk • contribs) 03:48, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
First case in Canada. Source Sesved ( talk) 13:59, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
It's on island tv Channels as a breaking news Nickayane99 ( talk) 15:37, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
I think it's better to place the table beside the infobox and move the maps of China somewhere else (as it was before), since the infection has international status and the very presense of this table at the top of the article allows for a quick analysis of the international situation and severity of the outbreak, which are, probably, the main two things people expect from reading this article in those times of ambiguity and showers of press reports. -- Nicholas Velasquez ( talk) 12:26, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
We now have two cases in Canada, yet the first one was removed from the casualties total. Maplesyrupcan ( talk) 12:40, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
I seem in English wiki, the confirmed Case totaled at 2,809. but in Chinese (and possibility Indonesian) Wiki, the Cases totaled at 2,802. Where is the correct number? If 2,809 is true, which country that confirmed 7 Cases? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 36.76.226.238 ( talk) 04:38, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
Numbers are much larger than what Chinese censorship allows to publish.
So why is it not back at the top? Maplesyrupcan ( talk) 17:07, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
The table as it currently stands inside the infobox is already cluttered and has formatting issues. As more countries and sources pile up it will be a matter of time before it becomes a disorganized eyesore. Thus I propose moving the table to section "Countries with confirmed and suspected cases and country prevention" as currently that section has nothing but a main article link to a separate article detailing each country's specific situation with maps and whatnot, so I think this would be extremely fitting, as the table would serve as a quick rundown of each country and it's right next to a map of the world. Should users want to see more, they can click the main article link. As for the infobox, we can simply link to the section with a "See below" type of comment. Edit: I have made a demonstration edit to show what this might look like. Admanny ( talk) 07:57, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
They should be included back in the total. The first case was on the list yesterday when it was still at the top of the page where it belongs. Maplesyrupcan ( talk) 17:06, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
https://news.ontario.ca/mohltc/en/2020/01/ontario-confirms-second-presumptive-case-of-wuhan-novel-coronavirus.html As cited here, 1 person is positive(second case) Luke Kern Choi 5 ( talk) 14:24, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
And Canada was removed again. 170.225.9.141 ( talk) 17:23, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Specialty hospitals
China is building at least four coronavirus hospitals in a desperate bid to curb the spread of the life-threatening disease. Two of the urgent projects are in Wuhan, one in nearby Huanggang city and one in Zhenzhou in central China's Henan Province.
Source: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7933719/Incredible-footage-shows-Chinas-1-000-bed-coronavirus-hospital-taking-shape-four-days.html Rebelbear ( talk) 18:56, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change confirmed cases in Mainland China to 2863 because Jiangxi province is reporting 24 new cases. Here is the source: http://hc.jiangxi.gov.cn/doc/2020/01/28/137758.shtml
For more updates you can follow my spreadsheet at -> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1fgSAvyLrLSaV5bkRl8Ju7Xc0bdoXJu1yKMhVVLjYLpM/edit?usp=sharing CryticalOG ( talk) 20:02, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
With each country commencing repatriation of its citizens from China, are we going to include those? Example: http://www.adaderana.lk/news_intensedebate.php?nid=60459 – NirvanaToday t@lk 20:50, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
There are now 2 cases in Canada not 1. 142.55.0.13 ( talk) 20:46, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
Nguyen QuocTrung
-- Discern irony ( talk) 19:59, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Jabo-er, stop changing map without consensus.-- Ratherous ( talk) 00:38, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
For the record, Re: The so-called greater China is the concept invented by People's Republic of China
. Given the
sourcing on the history of the term, this conspiracy-theory-like, outlandish claim itself is a fabrication indicative of a hyper-partisan, racist, ultra xenophobic pan-Green-ite mindset. CaradhrasAiguo (
leave language) 19:42, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
Taiwan has been placed under administration of Chinese government since 1945, Hong Kong since 1997, and Macau since 1999. Change of regime within a certain country will not affect its territories; for example, can you say since Benghazi is not currently under control of Libyan central government in Tripoli, Benghazi is not part of Libya? Or Abkhazia not part of Georgia; Transnistria not part of Moldova, for that matter? Taekhosong ( talk) 21:12, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
As we know, Wiki has strict policies on the use of images and only images from public domain or certain creative commons licenses can be used. The current image of the map of China, which is from Wiki Commons and originally sourced from CIA public domain, highlights areas within China that have territorial claim disputes. As it is NOT a map of India, regions in India claimed by China are NOT highlighted. Since the purpose of the map is to provide a good illustration on the relative locations of the cities, a decision has to be made whether the current image is inappropriate and hence removed. Please opine whether the image of the map should be Keep or Delete. Thanks PenulisHantu ( talk) 05:47, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Comment I would implore the use of a map with a balanced POV addressing disputed regions of Taiwan, South Tibet/Arunachal Pradesh and Aksai Chin. (Anyone, please replace current image if you know of one. Thanks) In the absence, we have to weigh between a politically imperfect map that provides useful geographical information for the topic (Keep) or do without one (Delete). Thanks. PenulisHantu ( talk) 17:20, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Comment I have replaced the map of "Greater China" with one of Mainland China, and my edit got reverted. Let me explain why I think a Mainland China map is more appropriate here:
This is a serious article, not a playground for PRC irredentism. The extent of the Greater China concept is uncertain- for instance, Mongolia would be part of Greater China in some definitions. I think an encyclopaedia should stick with the known quantities. Geographyinitiative ( talk) 00:10, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
Here's what I would like to see: @ PenulisHantu: and co.: we need to produce a map or set of maps for the Greater China page that describes the different interpretations of the concept. I would suggest working on that first and then coming back here. Geographyinitiative ( talk) 01:16, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
The table showing quarantined cities is a day or two outdated. It states a total of 30m quarantined but the current number is around 50m [1]. If no one can compile a list of cities I propose we remove the table and simply list the current number quarantined. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Colin dm ( talk • contribs) 17:04, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
The population of Wuhan listed in the casualty table is low. Wuhan is made up of 13 administrative districts. The combined population Of the thirteen districts was approximately 11.8M in 2019. The source for the higher number is [1] which is the source referenced in the Wikipedia article for Wuhan. That page also includes the population for the thirteen administrative districts and sub-districts. SmokeyShyla ( talk) 19:31, 25 January 2020 (UTC)SmokeyShyla (Susan Lozon)
I dissaprove of this, but meh. 2JWE ( talk) 22:38, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
What is the make and model of this hazmat apparel? Haven't seen it before. Why blue stripes?
A doctor wearing special protective suit for the Wuhan coronavirus outbreak treat patient in Hubei TCM Hospital, Wuhan.jpg
I guess that's made of nylon and the blue stripes are hook-and-loop zippers. -- Techyan( Talk) 21:26, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
Hello @ El C:, I just want to ask out of curiosity what was the reason for the page protection, that was implemented on the page yesterday to expire on the 31st of January, to be lifted? ( 2001:8003:4E48:8600:1DFF:8071:601E:451F ( talk) 02:49, 26 January 2020 (UTC))
Veteran editors probably know that already, but this starts to look suspiciously like the H1N1 article first drafts. The viruses are first tested on people extremely sick and dying. But as the tests become more widely available, the virus is detected literally everywhere in the world it's tested with lower and lower death rate as more people with less severe symptoms are tested. Keep an eye on this possibility.
67.68.202.134 ( talk) 03:17, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
If you look at the second citation of the amount of Chinese cases confirmed. Should it not be 2,013 Ask ehx udnd ( talk) 08:14, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
Due to the high connection to the China, Chinese media are coming as choices of sources. Given the controversial nature of Chinese media, should we discuss that when to use them and when not to use them? (When it comes to issue related to China, there are always political conflicts and other stuffs) Mariogoods ( talk) 09:02, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
The most current article relating to ages was http://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/23/world/asia/coronavirus-victims-wuhan.html and it'd be useful to know if this remains the case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.72.19.187 ( talk) 10:07, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
I guess we don't know, but any sources with prelim est? -- Green C 14:44, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
I found that two statements that was like this:
The warning is interesting to me, because all three cities are well known around the world. Why these names includes Chinese characters that doesn't includes romanization in pinyin or jyutping?. This is English Wikipedia, and all these places (HK, Taiwan, Macau) are well known place worldwide. IMO, including Chinese Characters without romanization will be confused, as many readers in languages of non-Chinese or Japanese characters (Kanji) doesn't know what it is. In addition, these characters like 例, 确诊, 疑似, 死亡 and 治愈 doesn't understand by billions on non-Mandarin speakers even if they knows that meaning. Should it include Pinyin romanization as well? these romanization needs to avoid Communal violence in China. the situations in China same as India with multilanguage society. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 36.76.226.238 ( talk) 07:45, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
I think the bar chart showing the number of cases was useful in visualizing the data, it seems to have been removed (unless there was a reason for it) Mealworm17704 ( talk) 13:44, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
I think that adding suspected cases would be helpful as the people would not be shocked if they were to see a jump of 400 cases in a day. I feel that it is needed to improve this page. Please take a moment to consider it and not reject it at first sight. Thank you! Wuhan2019 ( talk) 13:50, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
Canadian case is not fake, please check the other countries section of this page: https://3g.dxy.cn/newh5/view/pneumonia Eray08yigit ( talk) 11:37, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
Fewer headlines, I mean. Menah the Great ( talk) 14:26, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
can we delete subchapter by nations to have the index only in the form:
it is becoming very long. instead of ====Australia==== use ;Australia is it a good idea?-- Dwalin ( talk) 09:57, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
@ Spaully: does TOC works only in this subsection or in all subsections below TOC input?-- Dwalin ( talk) 15:23, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
The recoveries column is a little odd, and I wonder if this will be kept up to date by the authorities round the world - my experience of other recent outbreaks would suggest not. Counting confirmed cases and deaths is relatively easy, suspected cases and recoveries not so much. Some of the sources say "cured" which is also odd as there is no cure for the virus except ones own immune system. I propose removing the recoveries column altogether as a not very useful and likely out of date set of numbers. |→ Spaully ~talk~ 10:44, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
Somewhat off topic: the Chinese version of the wikipedia article says it does not affect strongly children and young adults. Which implies it is mostly killing those over 60. It would be interesting if we could track recoveries and deaths by age and whether they had pre-existing health issues. Daniel.Cardenas ( talk) 16:59, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
I've removed all the minutely-detailed coverage of cases that turned out to be false alarms. Do we want to add a single sentence to the effect that "Suspected cases in Foo, Bar, and Bas all turned out to be false alarms"? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:16, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
Can anyone help trim the lead? Whispyhistory ( talk) 10:24, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
What's happening on this page. Ask ehx udnd ( talk) 19:23, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
Does anyone have the text saved? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaisersauce1 ( talk • contribs) 19:24, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
This might not be the correct place for this but I often see outdated maps on this article and was wondering how I could help edit them. -- Colin dm ( talk) 01:44, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
CT student put into isolation.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.177.16.114 ( talk) 22:34, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
MOS:INFOBOXFLAG states, "Generally, flag icons should not be used in infoboxes, even when there is a "country", "nationality" or equivalent field: they are unnecessarily distracting and give undue prominence to one field among many." It continues, "Flag icons should only be inserted in infoboxes in those cases where they convey information in addition to the text." We've had flags added to the infobox, removed and re-inserted, most recently by Ratherous. The Manual of Style is not some optional extra: this is a basic Wikipedia guideline that all articles should follow. We should remove the flag icons in the infobox and keep them out. This is not somewhere where we can establish a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS: we should follow standard practice across Wikipedia, as described in the MoS.
Flag icons don't add any information: we have names already. We already have a lot of political arguments in this article about China vs. Taiwan vs. Hong Kong etc. Flag icons just complicate matters further, they raise hackles and unnecessarily politicise an issue that should be about epidemiology, not politics.
In addition, use of the Hong Kong and Macau flags violates MOS:FLAGRELEVANCE and WP:SOVEREIGNFLAG.
Let's have an article about medicine, not flag-waving. Bondegezou ( talk) 13:41, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
I'm not sure how much discussion took place in the other articles, but I'd like to note that the MOS is not strictly followed across all articles regarding diseases, and if following the MOS really should be followed, then there is some work ahead.
The following use flags:
* /info/en/?search=Polio_eradication#2016
* /info/en/?search=2015%E2%80%9316_Zika_virus_epidemic#Epidemiology
* /info/en/?search=Kivu_Ebola_epidemic
The following do not use flags:
* /info/en/?search=Severe_acute_respiratory_syndrome#History
* /info/en/?search=Western_African_Ebola_virus_epidemic
An oddball is this article which features infoboxes with and without flags
* /info/en/?search=2009_flu_pandemic_by_country
The 2009 flu article which serves as a summary has no country-specific infobox but has continent/region-ish infobox. Since no continent other than EU (which also doesn't really cover all of Europe, nor is all of EU representing only Europe) has a real flag obviously it has no flags.
I'd like to note that MOS:FLAGRELEVANCE talks about political sensitivity, and is also used as part of WP:NPOV. However, there is no specific policy or discussion on MOS on health-related issues. Of note, Taiwan remains a politically sensitive topic but this has not been relevant thus far.
Personally I think that flags are not 'clutter.' I can agree with WP's need of NPOV, but from a design perspective icons are much more universal and are shorter than names. Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwllllantysiliogogogoch should represented with a flag if it has one. Real examples with similar sounding names include Australia and Austria, Togo and Tonga, Sweden and Switzerland, Slovakia and Slovenia. The flags refer to regions in a much quicker way than names especially so for Austria in Europe and Australia by itself or Oceania. Xenmorpha ( talk) 18:55, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
Re: Macau's flag: I think you'd need more than just stating that people don't know Macau's flag to make it true.I referenced a Wikipedia guideline. That is how we are meant to settle disagreements, with reference to policies and guidelines.
user design IS subjective and you do need reader/writer opinion.No, we can use the settled opinion of the Manual of Style, as I have referenced. I am glad you concur that the MoS is
more concretehere. Can I take it that you are withdrawing your objection to removing the flag icons?
Re: WP:OTHERSTUFF - It is with regard to deletion of articles, so I don't see why you use it.WP:OTHERSTUFF is commonly referenced more generally. The point is that poor behaviour elsewhere is not an excuse to repeat it.
I have already stated that MOS has no direct mentions of health incidents.No, it's a general guideline, applicable to all articles, including therefore this one.
Naming or pinging me will not do anything.It's polite when quoting someone on a Talk page to ping them, but I will not ping you in this discussion as that is your wish. Bondegezou ( talk) 18:35, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
Since there are many discussions here, should we uses the talk page archive? Mariogoods ( talk) 09:07, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
Keep the flags on the table, with more cases being confirmed, flags are easier to identify with. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaisersauce1 ( talk • contribs) 17:48, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
This page already has 146,969 bytes of markup; we need to trim a good deal of content, or split sections off into new articles. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:13, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
"There are three related measures of an article's size, and lists them as "readable-prose", "wiki markup size", and "browser-page size". SIZERULE, a subsection of that page, is concerned only with the first of these, and has nothing to say about the other two. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:35, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
After another 24 hours, now 196,145 bytes. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:13, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
Most of the reporting of suspected cases, in countries where there are also confirmed cases, is cruft. Consider, for example:
On 25 January 2020, the Malaysian Ministry of Health confirmed three cases of 2019-nCoV. All three patients have had close contact with the first case in Singapore. [1] Earlier on 23 January, a tourist from China has been placed in isolation ward at Queen Elizabeth Hospital in Sabah for suspected infection of the virus. [2] [3] They and three other suspected patients comprising one from Sabah and two from Selangor were later tested negative for the virus; one was diagnosed with Influenza A virus symptoms. [4] Eight Chinese nationals were quarantined at a hotel in Johor on 24 January after coming into contact with an infected person in neighbouring Singapore. [5] They tested negative for the virus. [6]
The entire second paragraph is unnecessary. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:32, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
I find the details of reported cases in every new region uninteresting. Should be moved to a separate article and a summary table kept. Daniel.Cardenas ( talk) 18:30, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
References
Malaysia25Jan
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).
References
I believe China mainland infection is not counted right. In BNO news update, Macau, Hong Kong, and Taiwan are included in China. Please note this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luke Kern Choi 5 ( talk • contribs)
Hello there folks! I believe that we should put the flags back in the information table, since they don’t only make it more aesthetically pleasing, but they make for a faster way of recognition of where the virus has spread to (I believe they do). 2JWE ( talk) 22:17, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
UTC)
MOS:INFOBOXFLAG is clear that we shouldn't have flag icons in infoboxes. There is more leniency on flag icons elsewhere, but they are still discouraged in most cases. The claims that they support reading comprehension were rejected when the Manual of Style guideline was written on this. If you wish to dispute that, go discuss the matter at the Talk page for
MOS:FLAG, but we're meant to follow the Manual of Style, as all Wikipedia guidelines. We're not allowed to form our own
WP:LOCALCONSENSUS: Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale.
Compare other articles in Category:2010s medical outbreaks and Category:2000s medical outbreaks. They nearly all avoid flag icons in infoboxes, although some use flag icons in other tables. Bondegezou ( talk) 17:46, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
I've made an ANI post requesting outside input from admins and experienced editors: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Flags_on_2019–20_Wuhan_coronavirus_outbreak EvergreenFir (talk) 21:39, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
Indonesian Wikipedia now have discussion about should it update the cases reported in UTC time in Indonesian talk page. The statement stats because there are many complexity to update many cases because of different time zone for example China use UTC+8, France use UTC+1, etc. I know because there are many time zones to reported the cases. Should it agree to use UTC in id-wiki, English wiki should be also UTC time for update the cases. Any thoughts?
Why was this created? I don't remember a talk page being created or a consensus reached on the topic? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Colin dm ( talk • contribs) 00:00, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
It is distracting, alarmist, 9/10 times inaccurate, and has no informative value. Every country is going to screen suspected people at some point and most times they are going to come out negative. Just look at Brazil. It's been colored as suspected since the start of the epidemic. If there was a real case it would have been confirmed already, so it's probably not, but negative results make fewer headlines in English than suspicions and positive cases. Menah the Great ( talk) 13:41, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
Thank you! Wuhan2019 ( talk) 01:03, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
https://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2020/01/24/result-will-be-out-in-2-days-indonesia-puts-2nd-suspected-coronavirus-patient-under-close-observation.html TheMarsian ( talk) 05:29, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
I've seen several anonymous users manipulating the counter for confirmed cases with unreliable sources (they don't even read the comments) or some other stuff you'd expect an anonymous user would do such as this, this, this, and this. What those IPs did are mostly minor changes in numbers instead of chunks of new content to the article, and I suppose autoconfirmed users could make those minor changes as well, maybe just a bit slower. We still have editprotected for IP users if they want to add something. @ Acroterion: I think we need to reconsider semi-protection. -- Techyan( Talk) 00:17, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
{{
Hong Kong English}}
/ {{
Use Hong Kong English}}
-- Hong Kong English is the form of English used in Hong Kong, such as in legislation, schools, literature, media, and we have templates to handle that case. Same as {{
Singapore English}}
and {{
Use Singapore English}}
-- We should not be discriminating against all Englishes that are not British nor American. Your statement makes it seem that there are only two Englishes in the world, but the same statement with inpection, results in "what is British English or American English" (they are not static either) and not really separate then (afterall, "football" is changing in American to cover 'soccer', just look at MSL team names and media reports concerning the MSL; or the increasing use of Americanisms in Britain). This event is not something that is highly affecting the U.S. or UK, so neither of these Englishes are particularly tied to the event. --
67.70.33.184 (
talk) 02:54, 27 January 2020 (UTC)British English isn't widely spoken in the Asia-Pacific region. The official languages all use varieties of Commonwealth English while unofficially American English is the lingua franca.
I suggest that anyone who is able to understand the medical terminology used in this article would also be able to understand the differences between American English and British English. The locals would probably use whatever form of English they come across the most, meaning that there will be a mixture of spelling norms that lean towards American English.
Therefore the article should use whatever English norms that they naturally use, whether British or American or Commonwealth.
Tsukide ( talk) 07:17, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
"In that country they... have their own Wikipedia."To be clear; no they do not. There is a Chinese-language Wikipedia, not a China-country Wikipedia. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:53, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
Vote we get rid of the British English Zealots and just use the more common English. Daniel.Cardenas ( talk) 14:45, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
Agree. I'd rather take the WP:DATETIES and WP:TIES view on the primacy of those than the opinion of an IP on nebulously to conflating to a tangential alignment with British English, which WP:LANGVAR, by the way, does not unambiguously support as claimed. As the national dating format appears to be Y-M-D, the dating format will be changed to reflect the M-D style at the very least. Other reversions may come hereafter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sleath56 ( talk • contribs) 17:34, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
However, The Lancet says the incubation period (not exactly known yet) is 3-6 days [6]. This information comes from two recent Lancet papers: [7] where it says “the incubation period was estimated to be between 3 and 6 days” [8]. Another 5-6 day incubation is quoted in [9]. These papers are cited in news too. statnews says where it got its information from.
Wikipedia isn't a medical journal and this article is aimed at informing regular people. I think the more medically specific details can go in the main body or the actual virus article, whereas this lead should be more cautious at explaining how long the virus might linger in the body before showing symptoms. Several academic publications still list the 14 day incubation period:
I can understand that the shorter estimates should be used in medical literature and even the body of this text, but don't you think that the lead should provide safe advice?
Tsukide ( talk) 05:31, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12303690
There are suspected cases, as three tour members are hospitalised: "It comes as three members of a tour group of 19 have been assessed at Rotorua Hospital out of concern they may have become infected with the deadly novel coronavirus infection." ~From the article's URL above Lord A.Nelson ( talk) 08:00, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
I'd like consensus or discussion here if possible, as I find MOS:OL (do link other MOS parts if applicable) difficult to interpret with its list including 'countries' and 'locations.' What I think means is that for general Wikipedia articles, it does not make sense to link to China. It also does not make sense to link to China for the Infobox. Unfortunately for this event, locations don't just matter, but they matter to the point of deciding on policy and administration on human lives. The MOS also writes on duplicate links, which I generally agree with. Concretely, I think
This linking is independent of whether there should be flags for each region. Xenmorpha ( talk) 08:21, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
Please replace word "Origin: Wuhan, Hubei, China" to just "Wuhan, Hubei, China" in infobox location because in Indonesian version of this article, (id.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wabah_koronavirus_baru_2019–2020) they doesn't including word Origin (Asal in Indonesian) which the term was ambigous (Former form:Asal:Wuhan, Hubei, Tiongkok; current form:Wuhan, Hubei, Republik Rakyat Tiongkok). Placing word origin with name of cities was confusing because they already know what the origin of the cities. Word "Origin" should be removed in order to easily navigate the virus origin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 36.76.226.238 ( talk) 08:27, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
The patient who came to Turkey was never tested/confirmed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Colin dm ( talk • contribs) 03:48, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
First case in Canada. Source Sesved ( talk) 13:59, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
It's on island tv Channels as a breaking news Nickayane99 ( talk) 15:37, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
I think it's better to place the table beside the infobox and move the maps of China somewhere else (as it was before), since the infection has international status and the very presense of this table at the top of the article allows for a quick analysis of the international situation and severity of the outbreak, which are, probably, the main two things people expect from reading this article in those times of ambiguity and showers of press reports. -- Nicholas Velasquez ( talk) 12:26, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
We now have two cases in Canada, yet the first one was removed from the casualties total. Maplesyrupcan ( talk) 12:40, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
I seem in English wiki, the confirmed Case totaled at 2,809. but in Chinese (and possibility Indonesian) Wiki, the Cases totaled at 2,802. Where is the correct number? If 2,809 is true, which country that confirmed 7 Cases? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 36.76.226.238 ( talk) 04:38, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
Numbers are much larger than what Chinese censorship allows to publish.
So why is it not back at the top? Maplesyrupcan ( talk) 17:07, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
The table as it currently stands inside the infobox is already cluttered and has formatting issues. As more countries and sources pile up it will be a matter of time before it becomes a disorganized eyesore. Thus I propose moving the table to section "Countries with confirmed and suspected cases and country prevention" as currently that section has nothing but a main article link to a separate article detailing each country's specific situation with maps and whatnot, so I think this would be extremely fitting, as the table would serve as a quick rundown of each country and it's right next to a map of the world. Should users want to see more, they can click the main article link. As for the infobox, we can simply link to the section with a "See below" type of comment. Edit: I have made a demonstration edit to show what this might look like. Admanny ( talk) 07:57, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
They should be included back in the total. The first case was on the list yesterday when it was still at the top of the page where it belongs. Maplesyrupcan ( talk) 17:06, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
https://news.ontario.ca/mohltc/en/2020/01/ontario-confirms-second-presumptive-case-of-wuhan-novel-coronavirus.html As cited here, 1 person is positive(second case) Luke Kern Choi 5 ( talk) 14:24, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
And Canada was removed again. 170.225.9.141 ( talk) 17:23, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Specialty hospitals
China is building at least four coronavirus hospitals in a desperate bid to curb the spread of the life-threatening disease. Two of the urgent projects are in Wuhan, one in nearby Huanggang city and one in Zhenzhou in central China's Henan Province.
Source: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7933719/Incredible-footage-shows-Chinas-1-000-bed-coronavirus-hospital-taking-shape-four-days.html Rebelbear ( talk) 18:56, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change confirmed cases in Mainland China to 2863 because Jiangxi province is reporting 24 new cases. Here is the source: http://hc.jiangxi.gov.cn/doc/2020/01/28/137758.shtml
For more updates you can follow my spreadsheet at -> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1fgSAvyLrLSaV5bkRl8Ju7Xc0bdoXJu1yKMhVVLjYLpM/edit?usp=sharing CryticalOG ( talk) 20:02, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
With each country commencing repatriation of its citizens from China, are we going to include those? Example: http://www.adaderana.lk/news_intensedebate.php?nid=60459 – NirvanaToday t@lk 20:50, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
There are now 2 cases in Canada not 1. 142.55.0.13 ( talk) 20:46, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
Nguyen QuocTrung
-- Discern irony ( talk) 19:59, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Jabo-er, stop changing map without consensus.-- Ratherous ( talk) 00:38, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
For the record, Re: The so-called greater China is the concept invented by People's Republic of China
. Given the
sourcing on the history of the term, this conspiracy-theory-like, outlandish claim itself is a fabrication indicative of a hyper-partisan, racist, ultra xenophobic pan-Green-ite mindset. CaradhrasAiguo (
leave language) 19:42, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
Taiwan has been placed under administration of Chinese government since 1945, Hong Kong since 1997, and Macau since 1999. Change of regime within a certain country will not affect its territories; for example, can you say since Benghazi is not currently under control of Libyan central government in Tripoli, Benghazi is not part of Libya? Or Abkhazia not part of Georgia; Transnistria not part of Moldova, for that matter? Taekhosong ( talk) 21:12, 27 January 2020 (UTC)