![]() | 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 5 | ← | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 |
This news story suggests that there may be a new flare-up in Liberia. I can't immediately find any other corroborating stories. -- The Anome ( talk) 11:34, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
latest WHO situation report still not out(usually every two weeks) [5]-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 11:56, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
The page says that there was a case mortality rate of 70%, but the info box says that only 11,000 died out of 28,000 total cases, which is much less than 70%. Why the discrepancy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.6.161.242 ( talk) 12:20, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
@ Ozzie10aaaa: I'm going to question this revert: "Reverted to revision 881309900 by Himomitsmedannyb (talk): Article is being published will reflect these changes and more in a few days". Could you clarify? Is the article essentially now locked? Will "peer review" be required to make further non-trivial changes to it? I'm trying not to overreact, and I'm not concerned about my recent edits, rather the general principle that this seems wholly contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia. I had assumed that when the Med Project journal published something that just meant a peer-reviewed copy was archived elsewhere for reference, but this seems not to be the case here? Espresso Addict ( talk) 00:21, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
The last listed archive in the archive box ends in November 2014. But the oldest sections on this page are from April 2016. Where are the missing 2 years of discussion? The {{ Old moves}} template has a number of links that use numbered archives (e.g. Talk:Western African Ebola virus epidemic/Archive 4#First USA case), but they're all red. Anyone know what's going on? Colin M ( talk) 23:02, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
@ Ozzie10aaaa: I think the current use of collapsing and archiving templates on this page is confusing, to the point of looking malformed. The {{ archive top}} template (which puts its contents in a lavender box labeled "The following discussion is closed... No further edits should be made to this discussion") is placed so that it swallows up the table of contents, the archives box, and the first three top-level discussions. I've never seen the template used this way (I've only ever seen it used when closing a formal discussion like a requested move or RfC). The other issue is a mysterious {{ collapse}} box labelled "answered/1 (90 day)", which by default hides the other top-level sections on the page. This is confusing and makes navigation difficult, because it breaks links to those discussions, including the links generated in the table of contents (e.g. Talk:Western_African_Ebola_virus_epidemic#Clarifying_reason_for_reversion) and makes the discussions hard to find. I tried to express these issues in my edit summaries when I removed these templates. I'm not satisfied with the message you wrote when you reverted my changes, "Better version, and has had no issues till now", so I'm hoping you can explain in more detail why you think these uses of templates are helpful. Colin M ( talk) 23:27, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
Seem to have been inadvertently caught in this. Must I make mention of WP:TPG#YES which encourages keeping a clear talk page layout? In any case, using {{archive}} for more than one section is non-standard, to say the least, and using it for an entirely unrelated discussion and simultaneously swallowing the table of contents seems bad practice if it is not merely an error. Same for using {{collapse}} to hide a section (it is typically used to hide off-topic discussions or lengthy examples/proposals/...), let alone multiple sections. 107.190.33.254 ( talk) 13:36, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
This has been subject to some back and forth, so I figure per WP:BRD it may be time to discuss. Pinging @ Bondegezou, 107.190.33.254, and Ozzie10aaaa: (not sure if pings work for IP editors - worth a try I guess). Context for anyone else: for a while, this article has had flag icons in the table of casualties in the infobox. Recently, Bondegezou removed them citing MOS:INFOBOXFLAG. Since then, the article has flip-flopped with reverts 6 times on this. Ozzie favours the flags, indicating that they had been there since 2014, and that other articles use flags in infoboxes. IP editor favours keeping the flags, at least pending the outcome of this discussion.
My preference is to remove the flags. I think the
MOS:INFOBOXFLAG guideline makes sense, and I have no wish to
WP:IGNORE it. And I don't think the exception ("in those cases where they convey information in addition to the text") applies here. IP editor mentioned that in this case, the flags serve as visual aids to quickly identify countries
, but that could be said of any use of flags in infoboxes. I also don't see the outcome of the
discussion on
Template talk:Infobox election being particularly relevant here - at best it might resolve into some consensus about whether to show flag icons in the election infobox. But it's not going to result in abolishing or rewriting
MOS:INFOBOXFLAG - that would need to happen somewhere more centralized.
Colin M (
talk)
21:15, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
I have given plenty of reasons why flags are OK. If you personally find them distracting, there's always the instructions at WP:WORDPRECEDENCE on how to remove them. And in this particular case, they do not give undue prominence to "one field among many" - the proper identification of the countries is not "undue prominence" (and the flags are relatively small, so again that argument falls flat on its face). Your argument, on the other hand, that there is one policy which states that flags should be "avoided" and that we must ipso facto follow it unconditionally, does seem like rules lawyering. And please, WP:AFG - discuss the message, not the messenger. 107.190.33.254 ( talk) 13:47, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
Flag icons may be relevant in some subject areas, where the subject actually represents that country or nationality – such as military units or national sports teams.... I think this article ( Western African Ebola virus epidemic) would be below all those other articles you cited. Most of them are about nations themselves or national political offices. The following are more questionable, but...
Motivated, especially inappropriately, by political (electoral or other party political) calculation.. I was talking about definitions 1 and 2 - i.e. relating to politics or a wikt:polity. I'm not saying flags are necessarily politically inflammatory or partisan. I'm just saying that they refer to political entities. 'Cause that's what nations are: polities. And politics are relevant to this article, but not of absolutely central importance (unlike Canada, or List of sovereign states). Colin M ( talk) 23:50, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
In which case we agree that politics are relevant but not of central importance (whether them being of "central importance" is a requirement for using flags [in what I consider a reasonable manner] remains a question, on which I think my position is rather clear). 107.190.33.254 ( talk) 03:16, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
In the title should be a capital from what I understand. So restored to that. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 16:56, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
This page states that Emile Ouamouno's age at the time of infection (and death) is one year, as according to citation 62, however the page Ebola virus epidemic in Guinea instead states he is two years old at the time of infection and subsequent death.
While it seems that majority news outlet consensus leans towards Emile being two years old at the time of contracting Ebola, I am going to include both ages here and include the CNN article from the aforementioned page. Both are reliable news sources so I cannot rule either of them out here. I reckon I'll do the same for Ebola virus epidemic in Guinea.
Please archive the old GAs so this talk page can become usable.
Regarding this revert, the external source is clearly not a reference for this article, so does not belong in references, and the external source breaches WP:ELNO, so the template doesn't belong their either. The template belongs on talk, if anywhere, although it should possibility be deleted in lieu of a standard sister project template. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 15:47, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
The fact that this article's GA banner was substituted is messing up various queries; could this please be remedied? {{u| Sdkb}} talk 20:05, 21 September 2021 (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 5 | ← | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 |
This news story suggests that there may be a new flare-up in Liberia. I can't immediately find any other corroborating stories. -- The Anome ( talk) 11:34, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
latest WHO situation report still not out(usually every two weeks) [5]-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 11:56, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
The page says that there was a case mortality rate of 70%, but the info box says that only 11,000 died out of 28,000 total cases, which is much less than 70%. Why the discrepancy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.6.161.242 ( talk) 12:20, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
@ Ozzie10aaaa: I'm going to question this revert: "Reverted to revision 881309900 by Himomitsmedannyb (talk): Article is being published will reflect these changes and more in a few days". Could you clarify? Is the article essentially now locked? Will "peer review" be required to make further non-trivial changes to it? I'm trying not to overreact, and I'm not concerned about my recent edits, rather the general principle that this seems wholly contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia. I had assumed that when the Med Project journal published something that just meant a peer-reviewed copy was archived elsewhere for reference, but this seems not to be the case here? Espresso Addict ( talk) 00:21, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
The last listed archive in the archive box ends in November 2014. But the oldest sections on this page are from April 2016. Where are the missing 2 years of discussion? The {{ Old moves}} template has a number of links that use numbered archives (e.g. Talk:Western African Ebola virus epidemic/Archive 4#First USA case), but they're all red. Anyone know what's going on? Colin M ( talk) 23:02, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
@ Ozzie10aaaa: I think the current use of collapsing and archiving templates on this page is confusing, to the point of looking malformed. The {{ archive top}} template (which puts its contents in a lavender box labeled "The following discussion is closed... No further edits should be made to this discussion") is placed so that it swallows up the table of contents, the archives box, and the first three top-level discussions. I've never seen the template used this way (I've only ever seen it used when closing a formal discussion like a requested move or RfC). The other issue is a mysterious {{ collapse}} box labelled "answered/1 (90 day)", which by default hides the other top-level sections on the page. This is confusing and makes navigation difficult, because it breaks links to those discussions, including the links generated in the table of contents (e.g. Talk:Western_African_Ebola_virus_epidemic#Clarifying_reason_for_reversion) and makes the discussions hard to find. I tried to express these issues in my edit summaries when I removed these templates. I'm not satisfied with the message you wrote when you reverted my changes, "Better version, and has had no issues till now", so I'm hoping you can explain in more detail why you think these uses of templates are helpful. Colin M ( talk) 23:27, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
Seem to have been inadvertently caught in this. Must I make mention of WP:TPG#YES which encourages keeping a clear talk page layout? In any case, using {{archive}} for more than one section is non-standard, to say the least, and using it for an entirely unrelated discussion and simultaneously swallowing the table of contents seems bad practice if it is not merely an error. Same for using {{collapse}} to hide a section (it is typically used to hide off-topic discussions or lengthy examples/proposals/...), let alone multiple sections. 107.190.33.254 ( talk) 13:36, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
This has been subject to some back and forth, so I figure per WP:BRD it may be time to discuss. Pinging @ Bondegezou, 107.190.33.254, and Ozzie10aaaa: (not sure if pings work for IP editors - worth a try I guess). Context for anyone else: for a while, this article has had flag icons in the table of casualties in the infobox. Recently, Bondegezou removed them citing MOS:INFOBOXFLAG. Since then, the article has flip-flopped with reverts 6 times on this. Ozzie favours the flags, indicating that they had been there since 2014, and that other articles use flags in infoboxes. IP editor favours keeping the flags, at least pending the outcome of this discussion.
My preference is to remove the flags. I think the
MOS:INFOBOXFLAG guideline makes sense, and I have no wish to
WP:IGNORE it. And I don't think the exception ("in those cases where they convey information in addition to the text") applies here. IP editor mentioned that in this case, the flags serve as visual aids to quickly identify countries
, but that could be said of any use of flags in infoboxes. I also don't see the outcome of the
discussion on
Template talk:Infobox election being particularly relevant here - at best it might resolve into some consensus about whether to show flag icons in the election infobox. But it's not going to result in abolishing or rewriting
MOS:INFOBOXFLAG - that would need to happen somewhere more centralized.
Colin M (
talk)
21:15, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
I have given plenty of reasons why flags are OK. If you personally find them distracting, there's always the instructions at WP:WORDPRECEDENCE on how to remove them. And in this particular case, they do not give undue prominence to "one field among many" - the proper identification of the countries is not "undue prominence" (and the flags are relatively small, so again that argument falls flat on its face). Your argument, on the other hand, that there is one policy which states that flags should be "avoided" and that we must ipso facto follow it unconditionally, does seem like rules lawyering. And please, WP:AFG - discuss the message, not the messenger. 107.190.33.254 ( talk) 13:47, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
Flag icons may be relevant in some subject areas, where the subject actually represents that country or nationality – such as military units or national sports teams.... I think this article ( Western African Ebola virus epidemic) would be below all those other articles you cited. Most of them are about nations themselves or national political offices. The following are more questionable, but...
Motivated, especially inappropriately, by political (electoral or other party political) calculation.. I was talking about definitions 1 and 2 - i.e. relating to politics or a wikt:polity. I'm not saying flags are necessarily politically inflammatory or partisan. I'm just saying that they refer to political entities. 'Cause that's what nations are: polities. And politics are relevant to this article, but not of absolutely central importance (unlike Canada, or List of sovereign states). Colin M ( talk) 23:50, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
In which case we agree that politics are relevant but not of central importance (whether them being of "central importance" is a requirement for using flags [in what I consider a reasonable manner] remains a question, on which I think my position is rather clear). 107.190.33.254 ( talk) 03:16, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
In the title should be a capital from what I understand. So restored to that. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 16:56, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
This page states that Emile Ouamouno's age at the time of infection (and death) is one year, as according to citation 62, however the page Ebola virus epidemic in Guinea instead states he is two years old at the time of infection and subsequent death.
While it seems that majority news outlet consensus leans towards Emile being two years old at the time of contracting Ebola, I am going to include both ages here and include the CNN article from the aforementioned page. Both are reliable news sources so I cannot rule either of them out here. I reckon I'll do the same for Ebola virus epidemic in Guinea.
Please archive the old GAs so this talk page can become usable.
Regarding this revert, the external source is clearly not a reference for this article, so does not belong in references, and the external source breaches WP:ELNO, so the template doesn't belong their either. The template belongs on talk, if anywhere, although it should possibility be deleted in lieu of a standard sister project template. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 15:47, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
The fact that this article's GA banner was substituted is messing up various queries; could this please be remedied? {{u| Sdkb}} talk 20:05, 21 September 2021 (UTC)