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 |
Hello, I've created a draft for COVID-19 Drug Repurposing Research as it is:
Can someone help me make the page better? Then potentially get it reviewed? Thanks folks ProbablyAndrewKuznetsov ( talk) 21:08, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
/info/en/?search=Draft:COVID-19_Drug_Repurposing_Research
This has been moved out of draft ProbablyAndrewKuznetsov ( talk) 23:21, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
There is an ongoing RfC that might be of interest to members of this project: Template talk:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data § New RfC on countries/dependencies. -- MarioGom ( talk) 13:09, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
Here. -- Zefr ( talk) 16:31, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
is getting HUGE. Split? cuddle? all is fine?-- Moxy 🍁 06:11, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
I'm not bothered by the template size in general, but I find all the region subsection headers unnecessary. Upmerge to simply Africa, Asia, Europe, etc. I do find the region subheads for N. America helpful, especially given the number of entries for the US. --- Another Believer ( Talk) 14:39, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
This has some useful myth busting. 2601:648:8202:96B0:386A:A40C:EBB1:ACC0 ( talk) 21:10, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi there, following the current Covid pandemics, a dived into early covid19 academic literature which since the starts refers heavily to influenza pandemics and seasonal flu.
The sources provide similar core dimensions for influenza pandemics and covid19 pandemics and, while virus and diseases are differents, frequently compared together (
0,
1,
2,
3,
4,
5,
6,
7,
8,
9...) based on their diffusion rate (R0), past or potential demographic impact (deathrate, economic). As I formerly gathered data in different pages, I lead this template from
initial "Notable flu pandemics" with 8 sources for 35 data-cells on influenza pandemics at creation, to
"Notable pandemics : influenza and coronavirus" with 29 sources, mostly academic, for 64 data-cells on both influenza pandemics and covid19 pandemic, so to inform the reader better. The change was progressive : I first documented covid while hidding in in noinclude wiki tag, waiting to be sure if i find enough data and if it fits in this table properly. When mature and judging it relevant, I removed the noinclude wiki-tags, changed the table-title to "Notable pandemics : influenza and coronavirus", announced the renaming rational on the talk page but waited discussion and feedbacks before actual renaming.
Few days ago an admin using
WP:TW tool and rapid reverts before engaging in discussions have jumped in,
instantly removed sourced data on coronavirus together with other relevant edits (with
WP:TW), reverting the ongoing scope change and in-template call for discussion, barely or non-constructively engaged in the scope-renaming discussion, and blocked me from editing that page when I put in place a noinclude-solution allowing me to continue to work on the data within the template page while in-article view for the public was the one he wanted and fully to his preference. There is presently IMHO a normal renaming/content opposition between 2 users, but an abnormal lack of discussion and abusive use of admin tool to impose one side of the dispute to the other side. This page is in no way my
own, I welcome edits and competition of opinions and submit to the community's consensus. But hasty jump-in and abusive blocks by overworking admins are counter productive. It also doesn't help the COVID topic argued for inclusion is a rapid-changes topic, while the 1 month-long blocks affects the editor
with most experience with that page and sources. It's counter productive. I would appreciate more people input for this matter. Admin review welcome as well, but please editors with able to communicate and build concensus (flash-like
WP:TW-based admins don't help).
PS: I would also appreciate if there is a way to ask some kind of wikipedia refraining order preventing this administrator from following me around and looking for trouble while he has clearly upper hand (admin) and proven will to abuse of such tool upon me. The way he has jumped in and blocked at light speed while ignoring ongoing discussion really makes me uncomfortable despite my 50,000 edits on wikimedia.
Yug
(talk)
16:33, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
See Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/5#Add 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic for a proposal to add the pandemic or disease. Crouch, Swale ( talk) 22:16, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
Can I solicit input at Talk:Coronavirus_disease_2019#Forks_focusing_on_early_research? Bondegezou ( talk) 10:58, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
As the worst case scenario for COVID seems to get discarded, I do understand that the seasonal coronavirus that would have been expected, should account for 10% of influenza-like-illness (ILI) in the worst case scenario. From interpolation of France, Spain and Italy test here, I do believe I see 2/3 influenza, 1/6 pneumonia and 1/6 COVID. There is seem to be little to no place left for other coronaviruses. Does anyone have sources about the state of others non-flu, non-pneumonia, non-covid influenza-like-illnesses ? Iluvalar ( talk) 22:12, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
the presence of other coronaviruses will greatly affect the outcome of the outbreak and the crisis evaluationis not what your questions have been seeming to ask about, at all. If you were unclear and seem like a troll, that's not my fault. But, again, this is not a forum, it's a page to discuss the project. Go talk to a pathologist if you want to learn about the subject. Kingsif ( talk) 14:14, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi all, given the amount of WP:IAR being called for this unprecedented situation and unprecedented change, I've been thinking of drafting a new IAR-adjacent essay (with a fun title like WP:In the apocalypse, there are no rules) to discuss how rules and guidelines for any aspect of Wikipedia cannot apply when a situation so unexpected it couldn't have been factored in to the decision to apply those rules arises (like a pandemic, natch). This would be an extension of IAR (throw out a rule for an exceptional reason) to say 'assume all rules are thrown out now'. Would anyone support this/want to help contribute? Kingsif ( talk) 15:14, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
What is the standard way (if there is one) to edit and re-upload the SVG maps currently in use for pages related to COVID-19? Been on Wiki a long time, never really edited and uploaded a new version of an SVG map before though. -- (Moshe) מֹשֶׁה 19:50, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
{{u|
Mark viking}} {
Talk}
23:53, 22 March 2020 (UTC)This would be a good parsing -a lot of action is happening on the ground. E.g. just in Idaho yesterday Gov. Little put Blaine County on lock-down (home of Sun Valley and our COVID-19 cluster), and Mayor McLean has ordered every restaurant in Boise shut down except for deliveries. kencf0618 ( talk) 11:12, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
Just got this file sent to me by phone around 11pm. This concerns
Dallas County, Texas. To summarize it, everyone must be off the streets. Kind of like New York and Cali. Only essential persons may be permitted to move freely such as hospital workers and others etc. Here's a news article that discusses it:
[1].
Jerm (
talk)
04:37, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
Anyone able to help create a # cases timeline table for Texas at Talk:2020 coronavirus pandemic in Texas? --- Another Believer ( Talk) 21:06, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
can you add the Dominican Republic so I can adopt it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ymleon ( talk • contribs) 21:50, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
The COVID-19 Drug Repurposing Research and the COVID-19 drug development should be one page. And possibly merge the two with COVID-19 vaccine. I know "repurposing" "drug development" and "vaccine" are all different. I just think it would be more useful to be on one page instead of clicking here and there to get info. DustyGoliath 20:47, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
Allow me to share a personal pet peeve with you: the term ' epicenter' is technical jargon referring to a geographical point in an earthquake. It is not a formal term for the source of a jazz trend, a new culinary revolution, the Civil Rights Movement, or a coronavirus outbreak. I just went around modifying a few dozen articles that used this term incorrectly. Many journalists are using this word in an attempt to sound cool and hip. That's fine for informal news headlines, it's not OK for an encyclopedia. Let's tighten it up and avoid false jargon. Thanks, kids! Elizium23 ( talk) 04:20, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
I thought this debate was dead. Epicenter is totally acceptable way of expressing the location from which an epidemic is currently spreading. This isn't worth discussing, just see the dictionary definitions:
center sense 2a, e.g.: the epicenter of world finance — Merriam-Webster [2]
An epicenter is also the place that has the highest level of an activity. — Cambridge dictionary [3]
the place where something unpleasant is felt most strongly and from where it can spread to other areas — Macmillan [4]
Now, stop it, you're not going to say that the World Health Organization is using the wrong terminology:
"Europe has now become the epicenter of the pandemic, with more reported cases and deaths than the rest of the world combined, apart from China." — [WHO Director-General's opening remarks at the media briefing on COVID-19 - 13 March 2020 https://www.who.int/dg/speeches/detail/who-director-general-s-opening-remarks-at-the-mission-briefing-on-covid-19---13-march-2020
Carl Fredrik talk 06:09, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
I see that you are continuing to remove 'epicenter', Abductive. See above for why; when it comes to plague, epidemic, pandemic or outbreak of infectious disease: epicenter or epicentre is not only acceptable, but often technically far more specific and accurate and thus preferred to 'center'. Carl Fredrik talk 08:46, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi all! I'm collecting basic terminology that people would need in order to be able to write articles about this pandemic. If you'd like to add items to the table, all you need to do is add in the qid from Wikidata for the concept. If the concept doesn't have a qid, it can be added to the list below the table. I appreciate any and all help! - Yupik ( talk) 07:40, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
Speaking of notable flu pandemics, why is the article on the 1918-20 spanish flu pandemic part of this project?
Username
6892 16:58, 21 March 2020 (UTC) It's been removed.
Username
6892
19:50, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi there, we need every good will to document the issue of hospital beds, ICU beds and ventilators. These are key elements of patients survival rates. (Oxygen for lighter patients, and ECMO for more severe patients are 2 required medical materiels not considered so far.)
We have most developed countries. More data welcome.
Mechanical ventilation are critical device generally associated with ICU beds and at high risk of shortage.
Sources (one):
There Aren’t Enough Ventilators to Cope With the Coronavirus
We need this information on as many countries as possible so pressure build uo on political leaders, lawsmakers, industrials, to produce or provide these devices THIS MONTH, before the wave.
Please help to find these data for your country and share on the template.
Help much welcome. Yug (talk) 12:44, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
I not sure what counts as ICU bed and what doesn't. May someone with medical background review the 2 sources, compare them, and refresh the calculations ? Yug (talk) 23:31, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
Hello,
I just tested today for COVID-19 and am awaiting results. In the event I test positive, I will probably not be active that much until I am better. As the virus spreads, there will probably be wikipedians who will contract the virus or currently have it. Could someone possibly make a banner saying something like "This user has COVID-19 and may be inactive for ..." or something similar? AmericanAir88( talk) 17:01, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
I've created Wikipedia:WikiProject_COVID-19/Sources as a collection of potential sources for use in project articles. Feedback welcome. Nikkimaria ( talk) 21:44, 22 March 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.
As we go about updating pages, can we please remove the awful "This article documents..." start to so many pages? Duh, we know it's an article and of course its contents relate to its title. It's an unnecessary and proscribed WP:SELFREF. It should be something like "The 2019-20 Coronavirus pandemic had impacts on PLACE", not "This articles documents the impacts of the 2019-20 Coronavirus pandemic on PLACE." Reywas92 Talk 07:18, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
I just posted this annoucement to WP:VPT; reposting here because this might be an especially useful resource for this WikiProject. - J
The WMF Research team has published a new report of inbound traffic coming from Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and Reddit.
The report contains a list of all articles that received at least 500 views from one or more of these sites (i.e. someone clicked a link on Twitter that sent them directly to a Wikipedia article). The report will be updated daily at around 14:00 UTC with traffic counts from the previous calendar day.
We believe this report provides editors with a valuable new information source. Daily inbound social media traffic stats can help editors monitor edits to articles that are going viral on social media sites and/or are being linked to by the social media platform itself in order to fact-check disinformation and other controversial content.
The social media traffic report also contains additional public article metadata that may be useful in the context of monitoring articles that are receiving unexpected attention from social media sites, such as...
We are currently actively seeking feedback on this report! We have some ideas of our own for how to improve the report, but we want to hear yours. If you have feature suggestions, questions, or other comments please add them to the project talkpage on Meta or ping Jonathan Morgan on his talkpage. Also be sure to check out our growing FAQ.
We intend to maintain this daily report for at least the next two months. If we receive feedback that the report is useful, we are considering making it available indefinitely. Cheers, Jmorgan (WMF) ( talk) 18:59, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
We need to develop some consensus around mortality. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 19:11, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
This looks very helpful: it's a searchable, up-to-date database of published studies on COVID-19. (COI statement: I know some of the team behind this at University College London.) You can also jump to the interactive bit here. Bondegezou ( talk) 11:42, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
I would like to propose a task force to update case counts with reliable sources. I have prepared a sandbox page (work in progress) with the info I think we would need for it: User:MarioGom/sandbox/Latest data sources. If the task force style doesn't stick, I think it would be worth to at least move the section about reliable sources to this project. -- MarioGom ( talk) 14:31, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
Should the translation work being done here be under the Case Count Task Force, or should there be a separate Translation Task Force? --- Another Believer ( Talk) 19:11, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
Believer ( Talk) 19:25, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
Imagine your house burnt down and everything in it was destroyed. Someone asks, "What happened?" You'd say, "My house burnt down and everything is gone." You would not list each and every DVD, each and every pair of socks, that was lost. Even a detailed insurance report wouldn't bother with that much detail.
Do you understand my metaphor? We have a plethora of articles listing every event that has been cancelled because of COVID-19. Why? In numerous countries (and more to come), every mass gathering has been cancelled. Do we need itemised lists?
Wikipedia is not a newspaper, it is not a blog, it is not a running news feed, it is not a cathartic outlet for editors who want to do something. There are good reasons why Wikipedia is not all these things. There are good reasons why we have longstanding community standards like WP:NOTNEWS, WP:NOTBLOG, WP:NOTCATALOGUE, WP:NOTSTATSBOOK, WP:MEDRS and even WP:PROSE. The COVID-19 pandemic is perhaps the biggest event in Wikipedia's history. Wikipedia has a hugely important role in helping and documenting, but we do that by using our basic principles, not by abandoning them.
Do we need to list each individual trade show cancelled as at List_of_events_affected_by_the_2019–20_coronavirus_pandemic#Conventions,_conferences,_and_trade_shows_2? Do we need to list every minor celebrity who catches the virus and then recovers? Do we need List of association football players diagnosed with COVID-19?! Do we need an article on every geopolitical subdivision (e.g. 2020 coronavirus pandemic in the Åland Islands)?
I suggest the answer is no. We are building an encyclopaedia. We should follow the same principles that has made Wikipedia one of the most used and trusted websites in the world. We should not be trying to record every news article. We should be covering the big picture well: in a clear and timely manner, citing the best quality sources.
I propose we trim back WP:CFORKs and unnecessary splits. Let's have more like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vietnamese heiresses with coronavirus! Do we need 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Akrotiri and Dhekelia separate to 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Cyprus? Do we need COVID-19 drug repurposing research in addition to COVID-19 drug development? I propose we trim back lists: if everything has been cancelled in a country, say that. Let's move beyond stuff like Impact_of_the_2019–20_coronavirus_pandemic_on_television#Affected_productions.
This WikiProject should be able to provide an overview of activity, and help maintain standards and commitment to policy and guidelines. Can we do it? Bondegezou ( talk) 20:42, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
Have it all for now, trim back later.It's the opposite of that. Bondegezou ( talk) 21:16, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
That rule would encourage WP to not have any coronavirus articles until the pandemic is over.Of course it wouldn't. I feel you are exaggerating there. But it might have stopped 2020 coronavirus pandemic in the Åland Islands, 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Akrotiri and Dhekelia, List of association football players diagnosed with COVID-19 and (now deleted) Vietnamese heiresses with coronavirus. Bondegezou ( talk) 21:28, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
What kind of ridiculous anglocentrism is it to say we shouldn't have an article on 2020 coronavirus pandemic in the Åland Islands!? It's practically an independent nation (see Åland Islands), which while small is certainly not irrelevant to the people living there, much like no one is saying that 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Rhode Island is less viable than 2020 coronavirus pandemic in New York (state). It's actually better than the Rhode Island article, which doesn't even have sources… Carl Fredrik talk 21:41, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
( ←) In support of what the other editors have suggested, hindsight is 20/20. Perhaps this WikiProject can properly format the pandemic pages after it is done and over with. Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 00:31, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
Yes, there is extreme cruft everywhere, and quite often, basic medical details are missing as well. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 14:30, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
I made a topicon for the project! {{ WikiProject COVID-19 topicon}} Prairie Astronomer Talk 23:04, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
In a meta-discussion at Talk:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic#RfC on first sentence on spread of the disease with User:SandyGeorgia, User:Almaty, User:Doc James and others, User:Magna19 wrote that "Nobody is willing to compromise anymore, that's part of the problem. I've followed the RFC process for years, and I would like to suggest that the main problem isn't a lack of compromise. The main problem is that that RFC is set up to be a vote rather than a discussion. This appears to be something of a pattern in this general subject area, so I'm bringing this here, in the hope that more of you will see it and hopefully be more successful with these many (many) RFCs.
If you want to produce a sentence that is supported by sources and well-written, then you need to set up the RFC in a way that discourages support/oppose responses. A voting format's fine if you want to know what's popular with editors. However, it's a very poor choice if you want to tweak the wording on a sentence.
There are hundreds of different ways to express this content, and you've tried to force editors into binary choices: you can support a sentence, or you can oppose that sentence, but you can't build on that without making a mess of the discussion (which is what happened here: the original two turned into seven options, which now ought to all be listed at the top, so editors have a chance of finding them, because otherwise the illegibility results in a sort of donkey voting: I read until I find the first acceptable one, vote for that, and ignore the rest of the page, and Heaven help us if someone creates an eighth option).
And then, instead of experienced editors coming to a consensus through discussion, the entirely predictable response to a vote is for someone to tot up the number of responses and assume that Wikipedia operates according to majority rule, and that the first votes, which were made fewer options existed, show a lack of support for later options, rather than figuring out which of the multiple tweaks is actually the best. If you can't remember it any other way, then remember that Wikipedia:Voting is evil, at least when you're talking about how to write a sentence. [1]
But when the question is about writing a sentence in an article, please choose a simple, non-voting format. In those, you will get higher quality responses from a discussion than from a vote. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 00:05, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
Some news articles [1] [2] [3] yesterday and today have been proposing the change of the term "social distancing" to "physical distancing" or practicing it. If this change persists, can we have a bot go through articles and change the term to reflect the new proposal? Currently Physical distancing and social distancing are terms that lead to the latter as an article. -- Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 02:54, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
Update: This is being discussed over at
Social distancing's talk page. If you have any thoughts on the matter, please contribute. --
Tenryuu 🐲 (
💬 •
📝)
16:37, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
References
This category was created today which I'd think was similar to what users did before with the deleted category "Category:People with coronavirus disease 2019". I doubt that this category would be listed indefinitely on the BLPs as the celebrities which are listed on there are likely to survive and are not as popular news as the ones who had died of the virus. There had been plenty of supports to delete the category I have linked in the first sentence. Iggy ( Swan) ( Contribs) 22:13, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
Courtesy link: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 March 23 § Category:People with COVID-19 -- Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 22:54, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
Update: the category has been speedily deleted. --
Tenryuu 🐲 (
💬 •
📝)
16:53, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
More discussion, that's been archived here, at the assessment subpage talk. Kingsif ( talk) 20:30, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
I'm a little hesitant to share (I can hear the calls of premature forking already), but I've started a draft about the pandemic's impact on Portland, Oregon, specifically. I believe doing so allow more detail than a single article about the entire U.S. state of Oregon. The only city-focused article I've seen is 2020 coronavirus pandemic in London, which has been nominated for merging but looks like will be kept. The London page doesn't have much content. I'd like to set a quality standard for other potential city articles, using Portland as a template. I've already added lots of text, but could use help with an infobox, introduction, and background section, if any project member are interested. There are also some bare URLs scattered throughout, which still need to be incorporated into the prose.
Thanks, and stay safe. --- Another Believer ( Talk) 02:39, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
I was bold and went live: 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Portland, Oregon --- Another Believer ( Talk) 18:37, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi all, I was talking to Connie Moon Sehat from the organization NewsQ today about Wikipedia's role in various COVID-19 global response efforts. She pointed me to a list of organizations ( Google doc) that have been vetted by the Vaccine Safety Net (a project of the World Health Organization) as sources of accurate vaccine information. Many of these organizations do not yet have Wikipedia articles. Over the coming months (years?) many people around the world are going to be looking for information about these organizations--and their decision about whether or not to get a COVID-19 vaccine may be influenced by whether they can find trustworthy information about these organizations on sites like Wikipedia. So, I present this list to you for consideration: if you feel an organization on this list that currently lacks an article meets notability criteria, consider creating an article for it. If the organization has an article already, consider improving it. Thanks! J-Mo 20:22, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#New_feature_-_pageviews_-_now_can_include_redirects
I do a lot of pageview tracking as a way to convince organizations to invest their communication resources in Wikipedia. This new feature saves me a lot of time. Because COVID-19 articles have been renamed so much and have so many alternative names, this is really helpful now. Blue Rasberry (talk) 23:32, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
There were 64 discussion threads here which is overwhelming for anyone checking in to see what's going on. So, I have archived any discussions that haven't had participation in four days. That's not a lot of time to resolve discussions! But many of the posts were just announcements that had no responses. There are links to the archives at the top of the page if you want to repost any that you think I archived prematurely. As it is now, there are 48 active discussions which is more than enough to keep us busy. Liz Read! Talk! 23:52, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 00:05, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
Is amazing. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 00:27, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
Just a reminder that Wikipedia:WikiProject COVID-19/Article report lists pageviews for the most-viewed COVID-19 pages. It can help us see where more work might be needed. The most-viewed articles may not be the articles getting the most attention now. Liz Read! Talk! 03:13, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
Please be aware that statement 1 is currently disputed as per warnings on the page and linked discussion which has been ongoing for days now with something like 20 editors involved. I would keep it there until discussion is over but be aware it is disputed. Please participate in the discussion actually. We need more votes. -- Gtoffoletto ( talk) 14:40, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 18:36, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
Result: RfC was closed with a clear consensus on "Option 3c":
The virus is typically spread during close contact and via respiratory droplets produced when people cough or sneeze. Respiratory droplets may be produced during breathing but it is not considered airborne. It may also spread when one touches a contaminated surface and then their face. It is most contagious when people are symptomatic, although spread may be possible before symptoms appear.
References and in-line comments removed. -- Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 04:41, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
This RfC at 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic isn't quite yet formally closed but has had a prevailing consensus for a week or so (which has been reflected in the article itself) to use a per capita count map first for its infobox, rather than a total count by country map first. The principles leading to that prevailing consensus (see that RfC for them to be spelled out, and if you have comments on those principles, please put them there to keep discussion centralized) apply to pretty much any geographic region, yet many articles, e.g. 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Europe, still list a totals map first, and in some cases a per capita map isn't even available. Can we issue some sort of guidance (I'm not sure exactly what form it would take) that, when adding/improving an article on the pandemic's spread in a region, per capita maps should be preferred for the primary spot in the infobox? Sdkb ( talk) 08:17, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
For those of us that have been updating pages with the confirmed cases (active, recovered, and deaths), should we include all official sources?
For example, I have mainly been updating 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Illinois and sticking to the Illinois Department of Public Health's official numbers that come out daily. However, their information is typically a day behind the local county health departments official numbers. Should we include both the local and the state numbers?
Thoughts? — Mr Xaero ☎️ 00:19, 25 March 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 |
Hello, I've created a draft for COVID-19 Drug Repurposing Research as it is:
Can someone help me make the page better? Then potentially get it reviewed? Thanks folks ProbablyAndrewKuznetsov ( talk) 21:08, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
/info/en/?search=Draft:COVID-19_Drug_Repurposing_Research
This has been moved out of draft ProbablyAndrewKuznetsov ( talk) 23:21, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
There is an ongoing RfC that might be of interest to members of this project: Template talk:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data § New RfC on countries/dependencies. -- MarioGom ( talk) 13:09, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
Here. -- Zefr ( talk) 16:31, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
is getting HUGE. Split? cuddle? all is fine?-- Moxy 🍁 06:11, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
I'm not bothered by the template size in general, but I find all the region subsection headers unnecessary. Upmerge to simply Africa, Asia, Europe, etc. I do find the region subheads for N. America helpful, especially given the number of entries for the US. --- Another Believer ( Talk) 14:39, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
This has some useful myth busting. 2601:648:8202:96B0:386A:A40C:EBB1:ACC0 ( talk) 21:10, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi there, following the current Covid pandemics, a dived into early covid19 academic literature which since the starts refers heavily to influenza pandemics and seasonal flu.
The sources provide similar core dimensions for influenza pandemics and covid19 pandemics and, while virus and diseases are differents, frequently compared together (
0,
1,
2,
3,
4,
5,
6,
7,
8,
9...) based on their diffusion rate (R0), past or potential demographic impact (deathrate, economic). As I formerly gathered data in different pages, I lead this template from
initial "Notable flu pandemics" with 8 sources for 35 data-cells on influenza pandemics at creation, to
"Notable pandemics : influenza and coronavirus" with 29 sources, mostly academic, for 64 data-cells on both influenza pandemics and covid19 pandemic, so to inform the reader better. The change was progressive : I first documented covid while hidding in in noinclude wiki tag, waiting to be sure if i find enough data and if it fits in this table properly. When mature and judging it relevant, I removed the noinclude wiki-tags, changed the table-title to "Notable pandemics : influenza and coronavirus", announced the renaming rational on the talk page but waited discussion and feedbacks before actual renaming.
Few days ago an admin using
WP:TW tool and rapid reverts before engaging in discussions have jumped in,
instantly removed sourced data on coronavirus together with other relevant edits (with
WP:TW), reverting the ongoing scope change and in-template call for discussion, barely or non-constructively engaged in the scope-renaming discussion, and blocked me from editing that page when I put in place a noinclude-solution allowing me to continue to work on the data within the template page while in-article view for the public was the one he wanted and fully to his preference. There is presently IMHO a normal renaming/content opposition between 2 users, but an abnormal lack of discussion and abusive use of admin tool to impose one side of the dispute to the other side. This page is in no way my
own, I welcome edits and competition of opinions and submit to the community's consensus. But hasty jump-in and abusive blocks by overworking admins are counter productive. It also doesn't help the COVID topic argued for inclusion is a rapid-changes topic, while the 1 month-long blocks affects the editor
with most experience with that page and sources. It's counter productive. I would appreciate more people input for this matter. Admin review welcome as well, but please editors with able to communicate and build concensus (flash-like
WP:TW-based admins don't help).
PS: I would also appreciate if there is a way to ask some kind of wikipedia refraining order preventing this administrator from following me around and looking for trouble while he has clearly upper hand (admin) and proven will to abuse of such tool upon me. The way he has jumped in and blocked at light speed while ignoring ongoing discussion really makes me uncomfortable despite my 50,000 edits on wikimedia.
Yug
(talk)
16:33, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
See Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/5#Add 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic for a proposal to add the pandemic or disease. Crouch, Swale ( talk) 22:16, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
Can I solicit input at Talk:Coronavirus_disease_2019#Forks_focusing_on_early_research? Bondegezou ( talk) 10:58, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
As the worst case scenario for COVID seems to get discarded, I do understand that the seasonal coronavirus that would have been expected, should account for 10% of influenza-like-illness (ILI) in the worst case scenario. From interpolation of France, Spain and Italy test here, I do believe I see 2/3 influenza, 1/6 pneumonia and 1/6 COVID. There is seem to be little to no place left for other coronaviruses. Does anyone have sources about the state of others non-flu, non-pneumonia, non-covid influenza-like-illnesses ? Iluvalar ( talk) 22:12, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
the presence of other coronaviruses will greatly affect the outcome of the outbreak and the crisis evaluationis not what your questions have been seeming to ask about, at all. If you were unclear and seem like a troll, that's not my fault. But, again, this is not a forum, it's a page to discuss the project. Go talk to a pathologist if you want to learn about the subject. Kingsif ( talk) 14:14, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi all, given the amount of WP:IAR being called for this unprecedented situation and unprecedented change, I've been thinking of drafting a new IAR-adjacent essay (with a fun title like WP:In the apocalypse, there are no rules) to discuss how rules and guidelines for any aspect of Wikipedia cannot apply when a situation so unexpected it couldn't have been factored in to the decision to apply those rules arises (like a pandemic, natch). This would be an extension of IAR (throw out a rule for an exceptional reason) to say 'assume all rules are thrown out now'. Would anyone support this/want to help contribute? Kingsif ( talk) 15:14, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
What is the standard way (if there is one) to edit and re-upload the SVG maps currently in use for pages related to COVID-19? Been on Wiki a long time, never really edited and uploaded a new version of an SVG map before though. -- (Moshe) מֹשֶׁה 19:50, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
{{u|
Mark viking}} {
Talk}
23:53, 22 March 2020 (UTC)This would be a good parsing -a lot of action is happening on the ground. E.g. just in Idaho yesterday Gov. Little put Blaine County on lock-down (home of Sun Valley and our COVID-19 cluster), and Mayor McLean has ordered every restaurant in Boise shut down except for deliveries. kencf0618 ( talk) 11:12, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
Just got this file sent to me by phone around 11pm. This concerns
Dallas County, Texas. To summarize it, everyone must be off the streets. Kind of like New York and Cali. Only essential persons may be permitted to move freely such as hospital workers and others etc. Here's a news article that discusses it:
[1].
Jerm (
talk)
04:37, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
Anyone able to help create a # cases timeline table for Texas at Talk:2020 coronavirus pandemic in Texas? --- Another Believer ( Talk) 21:06, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
can you add the Dominican Republic so I can adopt it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ymleon ( talk • contribs) 21:50, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
The COVID-19 Drug Repurposing Research and the COVID-19 drug development should be one page. And possibly merge the two with COVID-19 vaccine. I know "repurposing" "drug development" and "vaccine" are all different. I just think it would be more useful to be on one page instead of clicking here and there to get info. DustyGoliath 20:47, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
Allow me to share a personal pet peeve with you: the term ' epicenter' is technical jargon referring to a geographical point in an earthquake. It is not a formal term for the source of a jazz trend, a new culinary revolution, the Civil Rights Movement, or a coronavirus outbreak. I just went around modifying a few dozen articles that used this term incorrectly. Many journalists are using this word in an attempt to sound cool and hip. That's fine for informal news headlines, it's not OK for an encyclopedia. Let's tighten it up and avoid false jargon. Thanks, kids! Elizium23 ( talk) 04:20, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
I thought this debate was dead. Epicenter is totally acceptable way of expressing the location from which an epidemic is currently spreading. This isn't worth discussing, just see the dictionary definitions:
center sense 2a, e.g.: the epicenter of world finance — Merriam-Webster [2]
An epicenter is also the place that has the highest level of an activity. — Cambridge dictionary [3]
the place where something unpleasant is felt most strongly and from where it can spread to other areas — Macmillan [4]
Now, stop it, you're not going to say that the World Health Organization is using the wrong terminology:
"Europe has now become the epicenter of the pandemic, with more reported cases and deaths than the rest of the world combined, apart from China." — [WHO Director-General's opening remarks at the media briefing on COVID-19 - 13 March 2020 https://www.who.int/dg/speeches/detail/who-director-general-s-opening-remarks-at-the-mission-briefing-on-covid-19---13-march-2020
Carl Fredrik talk 06:09, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
I see that you are continuing to remove 'epicenter', Abductive. See above for why; when it comes to plague, epidemic, pandemic or outbreak of infectious disease: epicenter or epicentre is not only acceptable, but often technically far more specific and accurate and thus preferred to 'center'. Carl Fredrik talk 08:46, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi all! I'm collecting basic terminology that people would need in order to be able to write articles about this pandemic. If you'd like to add items to the table, all you need to do is add in the qid from Wikidata for the concept. If the concept doesn't have a qid, it can be added to the list below the table. I appreciate any and all help! - Yupik ( talk) 07:40, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
Speaking of notable flu pandemics, why is the article on the 1918-20 spanish flu pandemic part of this project?
Username
6892 16:58, 21 March 2020 (UTC) It's been removed.
Username
6892
19:50, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi there, we need every good will to document the issue of hospital beds, ICU beds and ventilators. These are key elements of patients survival rates. (Oxygen for lighter patients, and ECMO for more severe patients are 2 required medical materiels not considered so far.)
We have most developed countries. More data welcome.
Mechanical ventilation are critical device generally associated with ICU beds and at high risk of shortage.
Sources (one):
There Aren’t Enough Ventilators to Cope With the Coronavirus
We need this information on as many countries as possible so pressure build uo on political leaders, lawsmakers, industrials, to produce or provide these devices THIS MONTH, before the wave.
Please help to find these data for your country and share on the template.
Help much welcome. Yug (talk) 12:44, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
I not sure what counts as ICU bed and what doesn't. May someone with medical background review the 2 sources, compare them, and refresh the calculations ? Yug (talk) 23:31, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
Hello,
I just tested today for COVID-19 and am awaiting results. In the event I test positive, I will probably not be active that much until I am better. As the virus spreads, there will probably be wikipedians who will contract the virus or currently have it. Could someone possibly make a banner saying something like "This user has COVID-19 and may be inactive for ..." or something similar? AmericanAir88( talk) 17:01, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
I've created Wikipedia:WikiProject_COVID-19/Sources as a collection of potential sources for use in project articles. Feedback welcome. Nikkimaria ( talk) 21:44, 22 March 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.
As we go about updating pages, can we please remove the awful "This article documents..." start to so many pages? Duh, we know it's an article and of course its contents relate to its title. It's an unnecessary and proscribed WP:SELFREF. It should be something like "The 2019-20 Coronavirus pandemic had impacts on PLACE", not "This articles documents the impacts of the 2019-20 Coronavirus pandemic on PLACE." Reywas92 Talk 07:18, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
I just posted this annoucement to WP:VPT; reposting here because this might be an especially useful resource for this WikiProject. - J
The WMF Research team has published a new report of inbound traffic coming from Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and Reddit.
The report contains a list of all articles that received at least 500 views from one or more of these sites (i.e. someone clicked a link on Twitter that sent them directly to a Wikipedia article). The report will be updated daily at around 14:00 UTC with traffic counts from the previous calendar day.
We believe this report provides editors with a valuable new information source. Daily inbound social media traffic stats can help editors monitor edits to articles that are going viral on social media sites and/or are being linked to by the social media platform itself in order to fact-check disinformation and other controversial content.
The social media traffic report also contains additional public article metadata that may be useful in the context of monitoring articles that are receiving unexpected attention from social media sites, such as...
We are currently actively seeking feedback on this report! We have some ideas of our own for how to improve the report, but we want to hear yours. If you have feature suggestions, questions, or other comments please add them to the project talkpage on Meta or ping Jonathan Morgan on his talkpage. Also be sure to check out our growing FAQ.
We intend to maintain this daily report for at least the next two months. If we receive feedback that the report is useful, we are considering making it available indefinitely. Cheers, Jmorgan (WMF) ( talk) 18:59, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
We need to develop some consensus around mortality. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 19:11, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
This looks very helpful: it's a searchable, up-to-date database of published studies on COVID-19. (COI statement: I know some of the team behind this at University College London.) You can also jump to the interactive bit here. Bondegezou ( talk) 11:42, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
I would like to propose a task force to update case counts with reliable sources. I have prepared a sandbox page (work in progress) with the info I think we would need for it: User:MarioGom/sandbox/Latest data sources. If the task force style doesn't stick, I think it would be worth to at least move the section about reliable sources to this project. -- MarioGom ( talk) 14:31, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
Should the translation work being done here be under the Case Count Task Force, or should there be a separate Translation Task Force? --- Another Believer ( Talk) 19:11, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
Believer ( Talk) 19:25, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
Imagine your house burnt down and everything in it was destroyed. Someone asks, "What happened?" You'd say, "My house burnt down and everything is gone." You would not list each and every DVD, each and every pair of socks, that was lost. Even a detailed insurance report wouldn't bother with that much detail.
Do you understand my metaphor? We have a plethora of articles listing every event that has been cancelled because of COVID-19. Why? In numerous countries (and more to come), every mass gathering has been cancelled. Do we need itemised lists?
Wikipedia is not a newspaper, it is not a blog, it is not a running news feed, it is not a cathartic outlet for editors who want to do something. There are good reasons why Wikipedia is not all these things. There are good reasons why we have longstanding community standards like WP:NOTNEWS, WP:NOTBLOG, WP:NOTCATALOGUE, WP:NOTSTATSBOOK, WP:MEDRS and even WP:PROSE. The COVID-19 pandemic is perhaps the biggest event in Wikipedia's history. Wikipedia has a hugely important role in helping and documenting, but we do that by using our basic principles, not by abandoning them.
Do we need to list each individual trade show cancelled as at List_of_events_affected_by_the_2019–20_coronavirus_pandemic#Conventions,_conferences,_and_trade_shows_2? Do we need to list every minor celebrity who catches the virus and then recovers? Do we need List of association football players diagnosed with COVID-19?! Do we need an article on every geopolitical subdivision (e.g. 2020 coronavirus pandemic in the Åland Islands)?
I suggest the answer is no. We are building an encyclopaedia. We should follow the same principles that has made Wikipedia one of the most used and trusted websites in the world. We should not be trying to record every news article. We should be covering the big picture well: in a clear and timely manner, citing the best quality sources.
I propose we trim back WP:CFORKs and unnecessary splits. Let's have more like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vietnamese heiresses with coronavirus! Do we need 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Akrotiri and Dhekelia separate to 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Cyprus? Do we need COVID-19 drug repurposing research in addition to COVID-19 drug development? I propose we trim back lists: if everything has been cancelled in a country, say that. Let's move beyond stuff like Impact_of_the_2019–20_coronavirus_pandemic_on_television#Affected_productions.
This WikiProject should be able to provide an overview of activity, and help maintain standards and commitment to policy and guidelines. Can we do it? Bondegezou ( talk) 20:42, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
Have it all for now, trim back later.It's the opposite of that. Bondegezou ( talk) 21:16, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
That rule would encourage WP to not have any coronavirus articles until the pandemic is over.Of course it wouldn't. I feel you are exaggerating there. But it might have stopped 2020 coronavirus pandemic in the Åland Islands, 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Akrotiri and Dhekelia, List of association football players diagnosed with COVID-19 and (now deleted) Vietnamese heiresses with coronavirus. Bondegezou ( talk) 21:28, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
What kind of ridiculous anglocentrism is it to say we shouldn't have an article on 2020 coronavirus pandemic in the Åland Islands!? It's practically an independent nation (see Åland Islands), which while small is certainly not irrelevant to the people living there, much like no one is saying that 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Rhode Island is less viable than 2020 coronavirus pandemic in New York (state). It's actually better than the Rhode Island article, which doesn't even have sources… Carl Fredrik talk 21:41, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
( ←) In support of what the other editors have suggested, hindsight is 20/20. Perhaps this WikiProject can properly format the pandemic pages after it is done and over with. Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 00:31, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
Yes, there is extreme cruft everywhere, and quite often, basic medical details are missing as well. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 14:30, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
I made a topicon for the project! {{ WikiProject COVID-19 topicon}} Prairie Astronomer Talk 23:04, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
In a meta-discussion at Talk:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic#RfC on first sentence on spread of the disease with User:SandyGeorgia, User:Almaty, User:Doc James and others, User:Magna19 wrote that "Nobody is willing to compromise anymore, that's part of the problem. I've followed the RFC process for years, and I would like to suggest that the main problem isn't a lack of compromise. The main problem is that that RFC is set up to be a vote rather than a discussion. This appears to be something of a pattern in this general subject area, so I'm bringing this here, in the hope that more of you will see it and hopefully be more successful with these many (many) RFCs.
If you want to produce a sentence that is supported by sources and well-written, then you need to set up the RFC in a way that discourages support/oppose responses. A voting format's fine if you want to know what's popular with editors. However, it's a very poor choice if you want to tweak the wording on a sentence.
There are hundreds of different ways to express this content, and you've tried to force editors into binary choices: you can support a sentence, or you can oppose that sentence, but you can't build on that without making a mess of the discussion (which is what happened here: the original two turned into seven options, which now ought to all be listed at the top, so editors have a chance of finding them, because otherwise the illegibility results in a sort of donkey voting: I read until I find the first acceptable one, vote for that, and ignore the rest of the page, and Heaven help us if someone creates an eighth option).
And then, instead of experienced editors coming to a consensus through discussion, the entirely predictable response to a vote is for someone to tot up the number of responses and assume that Wikipedia operates according to majority rule, and that the first votes, which were made fewer options existed, show a lack of support for later options, rather than figuring out which of the multiple tweaks is actually the best. If you can't remember it any other way, then remember that Wikipedia:Voting is evil, at least when you're talking about how to write a sentence. [1]
But when the question is about writing a sentence in an article, please choose a simple, non-voting format. In those, you will get higher quality responses from a discussion than from a vote. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 00:05, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
Some news articles [1] [2] [3] yesterday and today have been proposing the change of the term "social distancing" to "physical distancing" or practicing it. If this change persists, can we have a bot go through articles and change the term to reflect the new proposal? Currently Physical distancing and social distancing are terms that lead to the latter as an article. -- Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 02:54, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
Update: This is being discussed over at
Social distancing's talk page. If you have any thoughts on the matter, please contribute. --
Tenryuu 🐲 (
💬 •
📝)
16:37, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
References
This category was created today which I'd think was similar to what users did before with the deleted category "Category:People with coronavirus disease 2019". I doubt that this category would be listed indefinitely on the BLPs as the celebrities which are listed on there are likely to survive and are not as popular news as the ones who had died of the virus. There had been plenty of supports to delete the category I have linked in the first sentence. Iggy ( Swan) ( Contribs) 22:13, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
Courtesy link: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 March 23 § Category:People with COVID-19 -- Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 22:54, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
Update: the category has been speedily deleted. --
Tenryuu 🐲 (
💬 •
📝)
16:53, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
More discussion, that's been archived here, at the assessment subpage talk. Kingsif ( talk) 20:30, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
I'm a little hesitant to share (I can hear the calls of premature forking already), but I've started a draft about the pandemic's impact on Portland, Oregon, specifically. I believe doing so allow more detail than a single article about the entire U.S. state of Oregon. The only city-focused article I've seen is 2020 coronavirus pandemic in London, which has been nominated for merging but looks like will be kept. The London page doesn't have much content. I'd like to set a quality standard for other potential city articles, using Portland as a template. I've already added lots of text, but could use help with an infobox, introduction, and background section, if any project member are interested. There are also some bare URLs scattered throughout, which still need to be incorporated into the prose.
Thanks, and stay safe. --- Another Believer ( Talk) 02:39, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
I was bold and went live: 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Portland, Oregon --- Another Believer ( Talk) 18:37, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi all, I was talking to Connie Moon Sehat from the organization NewsQ today about Wikipedia's role in various COVID-19 global response efforts. She pointed me to a list of organizations ( Google doc) that have been vetted by the Vaccine Safety Net (a project of the World Health Organization) as sources of accurate vaccine information. Many of these organizations do not yet have Wikipedia articles. Over the coming months (years?) many people around the world are going to be looking for information about these organizations--and their decision about whether or not to get a COVID-19 vaccine may be influenced by whether they can find trustworthy information about these organizations on sites like Wikipedia. So, I present this list to you for consideration: if you feel an organization on this list that currently lacks an article meets notability criteria, consider creating an article for it. If the organization has an article already, consider improving it. Thanks! J-Mo 20:22, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#New_feature_-_pageviews_-_now_can_include_redirects
I do a lot of pageview tracking as a way to convince organizations to invest their communication resources in Wikipedia. This new feature saves me a lot of time. Because COVID-19 articles have been renamed so much and have so many alternative names, this is really helpful now. Blue Rasberry (talk) 23:32, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
There were 64 discussion threads here which is overwhelming for anyone checking in to see what's going on. So, I have archived any discussions that haven't had participation in four days. That's not a lot of time to resolve discussions! But many of the posts were just announcements that had no responses. There are links to the archives at the top of the page if you want to repost any that you think I archived prematurely. As it is now, there are 48 active discussions which is more than enough to keep us busy. Liz Read! Talk! 23:52, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 00:05, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
Is amazing. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 00:27, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
Just a reminder that Wikipedia:WikiProject COVID-19/Article report lists pageviews for the most-viewed COVID-19 pages. It can help us see where more work might be needed. The most-viewed articles may not be the articles getting the most attention now. Liz Read! Talk! 03:13, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
Please be aware that statement 1 is currently disputed as per warnings on the page and linked discussion which has been ongoing for days now with something like 20 editors involved. I would keep it there until discussion is over but be aware it is disputed. Please participate in the discussion actually. We need more votes. -- Gtoffoletto ( talk) 14:40, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 18:36, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
Result: RfC was closed with a clear consensus on "Option 3c":
The virus is typically spread during close contact and via respiratory droplets produced when people cough or sneeze. Respiratory droplets may be produced during breathing but it is not considered airborne. It may also spread when one touches a contaminated surface and then their face. It is most contagious when people are symptomatic, although spread may be possible before symptoms appear.
References and in-line comments removed. -- Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 04:41, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
This RfC at 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic isn't quite yet formally closed but has had a prevailing consensus for a week or so (which has been reflected in the article itself) to use a per capita count map first for its infobox, rather than a total count by country map first. The principles leading to that prevailing consensus (see that RfC for them to be spelled out, and if you have comments on those principles, please put them there to keep discussion centralized) apply to pretty much any geographic region, yet many articles, e.g. 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Europe, still list a totals map first, and in some cases a per capita map isn't even available. Can we issue some sort of guidance (I'm not sure exactly what form it would take) that, when adding/improving an article on the pandemic's spread in a region, per capita maps should be preferred for the primary spot in the infobox? Sdkb ( talk) 08:17, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
For those of us that have been updating pages with the confirmed cases (active, recovered, and deaths), should we include all official sources?
For example, I have mainly been updating 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Illinois and sticking to the Illinois Department of Public Health's official numbers that come out daily. However, their information is typically a day behind the local county health departments official numbers. Should we include both the local and the state numbers?
Thoughts? — Mr Xaero ☎️ 00:19, 25 March 2020 (UTC)