![]() | 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 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | → | Archive 15 |
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.
Red is popular for confirmed cases, but orange for active clashes with that.
Deaths is all over the place: black (not recommended because it causes problems on some mobile devices), gray, blue (clashes with recoveries), blue-green, green, lime, orange (clashes with cases), ...
Any suggestions for the following?
Color scheme MC1
Color scheme C
-- Jeandré, 2020-05-16 t09:37z
Scheme A: This is used for the World maps on the main pandemic article
(different from per capita)
Purple is used by Our World in Data: /info/en/?search=File:Total-confirmed-cases-of-covid-19-per-million-people.png (2020-05-11t10:30z)
Orange is used by Our World in Data: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/36/Total-covid-deaths-per-million.png/553px-Total-covid-deaths-per-million.png (2020-05-11t10:30z)
-- Jeandré, 2020-05-11 t11:02z
Scheme B: This and other very similar ones are in use for the country maps on their respective articles.
It might be easier to adopt these ranges as they are or with minor changes. I don't think the blue/green scheme is good for deaths, it could instead be used for tests. That could instead be used for recoveries, as I am yet to see a map of recoveries on any country's article, I came up with the following scheme for it:
-- Shawnqual ( talk) 20:38, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
Scheme C: Colors based on Inkscape 1:
-- Jeandré, 2020-05-15 t18:03z
![]() | Graphs are unavailable due to technical issues. There is more info on Phabricator and on MediaWiki.org. |
I have thought of this issue for a while now, and there is an unofficial/assumed consensus on the colors of maps for many countries. This is most likely because map creators have been using the same colors or very similar ones as used on popular articles like the USA and Italy. See the articles for Chile, Argentina, Oman, Pakistan, USA, Italy, Morocco, Canada, Iceland, India etc... to name the ones I have seen. I have added Scheme B above, currently, this is the most common scheme, and is quite useful as the color ranges are quite different.
@ HueMan1: Don't think ditching the labels is a good idea as every country has a different numbers for every legend. Universal legend could possibly not be applied due to different sizes of populations. -- Shawnqual ( talk) 20:38, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
@ Ythlev:, @ SADIQUI:, @ Bjarki S:, @ Anuchikibrikiivdamke:, @ Frodar:, @ UmpireRay:, @ XIIIX:, @ Gajmar: :Input required, please provide your opinions and state your choices. Also ping other creators you know of.-- Shawnqual ( talk) 22:30, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
Any universal (or at least English language)
color codes? Red (stop) for active cases, magenta (?) for confirmed cases, green (go) for recoveries/vaccined, blue (sadness) [for death] or gray (death, tho only going up to dark gray because of racism/political correctness, and reported problems with mobile devices and black). I don't like the use of orange/amber (caution) because of how close it is to red, nor yellow because it's too difficult to see. --
Jeandré, 2020-05-14
t09:32z
While we're on the issue of colors for maps, I have been wondering about legends. Search through archives has not yielded any results for it, so I am raising the issue here. Is it better to have legends with fixed numbers or changing numbers? i.e, numbers which have been set for the legend since the start or numbers which keep on changing with every update?
Fixed legends mean fewer updates which will lead to the entire map having one dominant color in the end, and then the numbers will have to be revised. This would be better for readers. Example.
Changing legends mean frequent updates and a different legend with each update. Not suitable for readers as they will have to familiarize themselves with each update. Example.
I am in favor of the former option (fixed legend). Shawnqual ( talk) 20:49, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
so it's pretty annoying to see the maps of some countries and territories shifting to whatever colour scheme their map makers like."I guess the reason why there are different schemes is mainly because, like Sdkb has pointed out, lack of awareness (mainly) and participation of creators. Many, including me, have not heard of any consensus agreed upon or a standard which has been developed. Secondly, if there was a consensus, it should have been placed under Wikipedia talk:WikiProject COVID-19#Current consensus, so creators could be pointed to it. Currently, there is no mention of any agreement in there, and this might precisely be why Jeandré du Toit started this thread. Also, even if there was an agreement in the past, it could still be opened to revisions with further discussions to reach a better community consensus.
Sdkb has pointed above that different maps have different levels. In all the articles I have browsed, six seems to be the most common number, and I guess is also the standard for maps. China's however has 5. It might be a good idea to set the number of levels for consistency. -- Shawnqual ( talk) 19:44, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
According to its own CDC description, "Illustration of a SARS-CoV-2 virion" features its ultrastructure morphology. I assume that this means the spikes and the surface of the thing, the latter of which resembles a pumice stone. Is this grey sphere factual or generic though? kencf0618 ( talk) 22:59, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
There was quite a bit of speculation on the effect of warmer and more humid weather slowing the spread of the disease. There was also some mention of studies which may or may not have provided evidence for this. I've looked around and can't find which article(s) address this topic, and I am uncertain which article(s) should address the topic. Any guidance? Abductive ( reasoning) 01:17, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
I created this page as an overview spot for all the health impacts of the pandemic beyond those caused by the COVID-19 disease itself. Please feel free to help expand it! {{u| Sdkb}} talk 01:34, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
Was the cut down and rename necessary? Soliciting opinions as it was just unilaterally shrunken down and the economic impact split off. Starzoner ( talk) 19:17, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
Sdkb yes lets do that. that was a such a change that it felt liek it was replaced completely by another article. Starzoner ( talk) 18:08, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
@ Sdkb and Starzoner: From what I can tell as an uninvolved editor, there was consensus to split the page from its original name Socio-economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic as it was deemed sufficient for economic consequences to have its own page. The other page is Economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:49, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
I intended the page to be a lightweight page so that it could introduce multiple pages. With this respect, it can easily lead readers to pages that are more indepth and details in specific pages. I wish this page could still be a blurp for the multiple pages listed on the Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. I don't think readers would totally appreciate being shoved into a disambuguation page directly from the main page. In addition, I think the talk page now is a complete farce and entirely alien to the current status of the page; economic discussions relating to a purelyu social page? Pfft.
To be clear, I think there needs to be a distinct page dedicated to the economic impact, but this page should be reverted and have a short lbupr to that page. A separate social page could be social, but mine should be restored. That's my 2¢ on what I envisioned the page to be. Starzoner ( talk) 20:02, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
There's currently a discussion going on in the talk page for Coronavirus recession about a possible merge with Economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. To me, the two articles seem to overlap but it would be great if other editors would join that discussion and provide additional perspectives. MarylandGeoffrey ( talk) 02:33, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
I am noticing that highly controversial, inflammatory, and often clearly incorrect information about COVID-19 and China is being placed in many of the numerous articles we have related to COVID-19. Just a few recent examples:
"On 31 December, the Wuhan CDC disclosed to the media..."instead of using the obvious and simple formulation "announced," implying that the CDC had been withholding the secret of the outbreak previously [6]. The whole lead is written to emphasize delay and censorship: three of five lead paragraphs begin with a sentence on this topic. Undoubtably delay and censorship did occur, but the issue is given the greatest editorial prominence.
We have so many articles on this topic, I fear this kind of stuff is everywhere. - Darouet ( talk) 15:13, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
I don't feel strongly either way, but should the Chen Qiushi article remain part of this project? The article confirms the subject has covered the pandemic and was quarantined, but is that enough for inclusion under the WikiProject umbrella? --- Another Believer ( Talk) 18:03, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
An article which may be of interest to members of this project— UFC on ESPN: Overeem vs. Harris—has been proposed for requested move. If you are interested, please participate in the move discussion. Thank you. The COVID-19 pandemic might of caused issues to the name of events. Regice2020 ( talk) 01:10, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
There is an ongoing discussion at Talk:COVID-19_pandemic#The_Question_of_Origin regarding the inclusion of the lab-accident theory to the Cause section of the article on Covid-19 pandemic. A dozen editors have vigorously participated over many weeks reaching no consensus or anything resembling one.
A range of positions have been proposed regarding the theory: they go from omiting any mention of it, to relegating it to misinformation entries, to including a small cautiously worded mention.
The main contested issues are the conflating of the theory with the man-made hypothesis, the alleged political motivation of allowing a mention (even if it is brief), and the possible place of the theory as "fringe" (as defined by being "an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field."). My personal opinion as an involved editor is that the accident-lab theory is in a limbo, because it is completely absent from COVID-19_pandemic and instead it is covered as misinformation at the Misinformation_related_to_the_COVID-19_pandemic, even after one of the editors have admitted at it's Talk page that part of the lab-associated theories are plausible, valid, and deserving further scientific inquiry.
Please take a look at the discussion to help us reach a consensus.-- Forich ( talk) 17:14, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
It appears there's a new topic, Mortality due to COVID-19, which starts:
Is this topic necessary? The content already fits nicely within Coronavirus disease 2019. The topic as it stands largely duplicates or triplicates dated versions of content presented here:
Safe to propose an RFD? It's getting increasingly difficult to maintain many instances of the same content. - Wikmoz ( talk) 06:20, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
Working in some occupations is a determinant of risk to COVID, and many papers are reporting rates among population by industry or job. Some guidance has been published on minimizing the risk in some industry in the article Workplace hazard controls for COVID 19, but sill information on the epidemiology is lacking.
I am writing to suggest that information be added to the main pages on the disease and the pandemic. Some sources could be:
Also, perhaps for other occupations:
TMorata ( talk) 16:07, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
I have been the one that is updating regularly COVID-19 pandemic in Venezuela. Recently a government website was created to aggregate all data about the pandemic [covid19.patria.org.ve]. Normally this would have been good news, the reporting across government and non-government websites has been inconsistent, but this government site has also started presenting the same issues. For example, when the government said today and yesterday that the number of recovered went up, the page was not updated accordingly. There is also the issue with cases per region, where every source has a different map. How are other pages handling this kind of inconsistencies? How valuable are government aggregators? -- ReyHahn ( talk) 17:52, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
I've asked for advise on Commons regarding an image which in my opinion lacks reliable sources. They suggest that I should ask here for input on the matter. I've also left a message on Talk:COVID-19 pandemic in the United Kingdom questioning their use of File:COVID-19 outbreak UK per capita cases map.svg in the Infobox. The 'UK' has 4 governments as you know, and each country has its own NHS, its own Public Health body etc. Each government is responsible for the collection of their statistics (as far as cases of infection is concerned). I create updates for two of these maps (Wales and Northern Ireland) and the data referenced on the description page. However the England and Scotland maps as well as the above UK map will not be updated by the editor (User talk:Ythlev) from now on, and this is cause for alarm on such an important topic. Can we therefore create a similar UK map with data coming directly from the above 4 sources (government, NHS, Puplic Health body) (and referenced to the exact data)? Similarly, we need an England only map and a Scotland map as neither will be updated by the user. John Jones ( talk) 15:30, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
The discussion at the Village Pump about the discretionary sanctions notice seems to have stagnated a bit, with some work still left to be done to agree on a template. As part of that discussion, though, it became clear that there is a desire not just to warn bad-faith editors but to provide welcome and advice to good-faith editors. As part of that, I propose that the below be added as a edit notice that will appear in the edit window anytime someone edits a page in the scope of this project.
![]() |
Would there be support for this? Cheers, {{u| Sdkb}} talk 21:55, 29 April 2020 (UTC) Courtesy pinging Naypta, who started the DS notice discussion {{u| Sdkb}} talk 21:59, 29 April 2020 (UTC) Refactored to unbold WikiProject 18:49, 7 May 2020 (UTC); see below.
{{
replyto|
Can I Log In}}
's
talk page!
15:46, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Template_talk:COVID19_GS_editnotice. {{u|
Sdkb}}
talk
22:02, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Project members might be interested:
--- Another Believer ( Talk) 18:27, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Thought your group would be interested in this.
Twofingered Typist ( talk) 15:11, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Talk:Coronavirus disease 2019#Is it time to state more directly the risk of airborne transmission and that the use of masks and face coverings is recommended?. {{u|
Gtoffoletto}}
talk
17:47, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
I haven't seen a lot of news coverage where I saw actual patients, but most of them are not wearing gowns. I was thinking the answer to my question might be useful in the patient gown article. Somehow I think it may have something to do with treatment being easier. Although this even included young boys who weren't even that sick. In their cases maybe they just didn't want to wear a gown, which is how a lot of people feel. One of the boys had equipment attached to his chest.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 18:21, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
I am thinking about creating an article called Cancellations and postponements related to the COVID-19 pandemic. I know there is a similar article called List of events affected by the COVID-19 pandemic, but I would like this article to go in depth about these events. Any thoughts? Interstellarity ( talk) 21:43, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
The in-depth coverage would be better suited to the articles for each event cancelled or postponed.As for information on the developments of shutdowns, it is a very broad topic and I doubt relevant and weighty information could be added for it to become a full-fledged article. Not saying it is impossible, but certainly challenging. •Shawnqual• 📚 • 💭 05:32, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Currently, the various COVID-19 articles about states show a range of maps to indicate county level severity. What is the best county-level map to show as primary image in the infobox? I have created both county-level prevalence (number of confirmed cases per capita) and more recently new confirmed cases per capita maps for all 50 US states. It's not very hard to create different versions, if there is a desire to do so, as long as I can keep using the JHU data, which seems to be the most reliable standardized county-level dataset, so that I can re-run and update daily without too much effort.
Any thoughts what would be the most appropriate to show? My gut tells me that by now, the new confirmed cases are probably more accurately reflecting the current status, which is what people are probably looking for. effeiets anders 20:40, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Despite strong scientific consensus to the contrary [14] [15], there's been a relentless push to brand the Wuhan Institute of Virology as a possible source of this virus and outbreak.
On Wikipedia, the latest front in this push is the article Wuhan Institute of Virology. There, the theory more or less treated as a conspiracy at COVID-19 pandemic receives 9 paragraphs that treat the conspiracy more seriously, including recent additions [16] [17] that strongly imply the theory has validity, using a source from Science Magazine that doesn't mention the WIV once [18] (except in a figure caption). - Darouet ( talk) 18:40, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Do you have a later/better source that dismisses the latter two possibilities? -- RexxS ( talk) 20:56, 26 May 2020 (UTC)Kristian Andersen, an evolutionary biologist at the Scripps Research Institute who has analyzed sequences of 2019-nCoV to try to clarify its origin, says the 1 December timing of the first confirmed case was “an interesting tidbit” in The Lancet paper. “The scenario of somebody being infected outside the market and then later bringing it to the market is one of the three scenarios we have considered that is still consistent with the data,” he says. “It’s entirely plausible given our current data and knowledge.” The other two scenarios are that the origin was a group of infected animals or a single animal that came into that marketplace.
it is possible that an animal source was present at" the market.
In this study, evolutionary relationships indicated that [strain] H1 and its descendant haplotypes from the Market should be derived from [strain] H3 (Figures 3, 4). H3 mutated to the H1 by two substitutions, and none of the currently available Market samples encoded H3, suggesting that H3 might have originated and spread outside of the Market before an early stage of population expansion... it is possible that infected humans transmitted the H1 haplotype of SARS-CoV-2 to workers or sellers in the market, after which it rapidly circulated there due to its special surroundings... Due to insufficient sampling from Wuhan in the currently available samples, it is not clear whether H3 never appeared in the Market, or H1 was quickly derived from H3 to adapt in the Market."
An important early association was observed between the first reported cases of COVID-19 and the Huanan seafood and wildlife market in Wuhan city (which we both visited several years ago) where a variety of mammalian species were available for purchase at the time of the outbreak (Figure 1). Given that SARS-CoV-2 undoubtedly has a zoonotic origin, the link to such a ‘‘wet’’ market should come as no surprise. However, as not all of the early cases were market associated, it is possible that the emergence story is more complicated than first suspected. Genome sequences of ‘‘environmental samples’’—likely surfaces—from the market have now been obtained, and phylogenetic analysis reveals that they are very closely related to viruses sampled from the earliest Wuhan patients. While this again suggests that the market played an important role in virus emergence, it is not clear whether the samples were derived from people who inadvertently deposited infectious material or from animals or animal matter present at that location."
The COVID-19 box on the Main Page is presumably going to be there for a while, and it's in the most high-visibility spot imaginable. It's also not designed all that great — the articles it links to aren't all the most important ones (e.g. List of deaths due to COVID-19, which is also redundant to the "recent deaths" line), there's no visual, etc. Does anyone want to try redesigning it? {{u| Sdkb}} talk 09:03, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
I am wondering if there would be interest in creating a list of those willing to speak on the matter of Wikipedia and COVID19? I get a number of queries from press sources and it would be useful to be able to pass them on to such a list. I am not sure if other projects have done this. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 08:30, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
The discussion at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2020_May_17#Wikipedia:WikiProject_COVID-19/header closed as no consensus. However, the participants said that {{ WikiProject COVID-19 tabs}} does not work with the visual editor. Therefore, the ad hoc practice should be to replace any transclusions of {{ WikiProject COVID-19 tabs}} with Wikipedia:WikiProject COVID-19/header until the visual editing problem is fixed. It should be noted that I do not want to delete or merge any of the templates. Keep them separate. -- Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 05:12, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
I wrote this article, and it's stuck on Articles for creation. Would anyone mind publishing it, please? -- OVSimone ( talk) 00:24, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
It's so insane and mindboggling than the coverage of previous pandemics, that it can be inferred there's an article about the effects of COVID-19 on rocks. This is as if a wildfire covered every square inch of the Earth. ❤︎PrincessPandaWiki ( talk | contribs) 19:44, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Hello Wikipedians from the Twin Cities region either Minneapolis residents or Saint Paul residents, So the top two largest cities in Minnesota is Minneapolis and Saint Paul respectively, specifically the largest city in the state of Minnesota is Minneapolis and the second largest city and the state capital of Minnesota is Saint Paul. I hope anyone will create article titled COVID-19 pandemic in the Twin Cities a sister article to the COVID-19 pandemic in Minnesota, The proposed article will be titled as COVID-19 pandemic in the Twin Cities similar to another article titled COVID-19 pandemic in the San Francisco Bay Area. The newly created article will be focused on the pandemic specifically on both the cities of Minneapolis and Saint Paul known collectively as the "Twin Cities". The propose article will include how many active cases, how many deaths, how many recoveries and how many overall cases on both the cities of Minneapolis and Saint Paul. I will by happy for anyone's reply for the requested article to created and will be only focused on the cities of Minneapolis and Saint Paul. In relation to another Minnesota related article titled George Floyd protests. Thanks for your time. Come back some other time. 2001:569:74D2:A800:20B3:141F:B62B:A2CD ( talk) 19:48, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Hi Wikipedians from Seattle, So the largest city in the state of Washington is Seattle. I hope anyone will create article titled COVID-19 pandemic in Seattle, The proposed article will be titled as COVID-19 pandemic in Seattle will be focused on the pandemic specifically within the city of Seattle, Washington and a sister article to COVID-19 pandemic in Washington (state). The propose article will include how many active cases, how many deaths, how many recoveries and how many overall cases within the city of Seattle. I will by happy for anyone's reply for the requested article to created and will be only focused on the city of Seattle. Thanks for your time. Come back some other time. 2001:569:74D2:A800:20B3:141F:B62B:A2CD ( talk) 19:31, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Dear all
You are invited to an editathon to improve COVID-19 information on Wikipedia in collaboration with UNFPA and UN Women. Wikimedia Sverige has been trailing a new process to make it easier for expert organisations to share information on Wikipedia.
The editathon workshop will take place on Friday 5th June at 15:30 - 17:30 UTC (17:30 - 19:30 CET, 11:30 - 13:30 ET) and will continue remotely until Sunday evening. To find out more and sign up please follow the link.
Please share this message with others who may be interested.
Thanks
John Cummings ( talk) 15:27, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Could someone take a look here and see what is wrong and how it might be corrected?— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 16:09, 3 June 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 5 | ← | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | → | Archive 15 |
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.
Red is popular for confirmed cases, but orange for active clashes with that.
Deaths is all over the place: black (not recommended because it causes problems on some mobile devices), gray, blue (clashes with recoveries), blue-green, green, lime, orange (clashes with cases), ...
Any suggestions for the following?
Color scheme MC1
Color scheme C
-- Jeandré, 2020-05-16 t09:37z
Scheme A: This is used for the World maps on the main pandemic article
(different from per capita)
Purple is used by Our World in Data: /info/en/?search=File:Total-confirmed-cases-of-covid-19-per-million-people.png (2020-05-11t10:30z)
Orange is used by Our World in Data: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/36/Total-covid-deaths-per-million.png/553px-Total-covid-deaths-per-million.png (2020-05-11t10:30z)
-- Jeandré, 2020-05-11 t11:02z
Scheme B: This and other very similar ones are in use for the country maps on their respective articles.
It might be easier to adopt these ranges as they are or with minor changes. I don't think the blue/green scheme is good for deaths, it could instead be used for tests. That could instead be used for recoveries, as I am yet to see a map of recoveries on any country's article, I came up with the following scheme for it:
-- Shawnqual ( talk) 20:38, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
Scheme C: Colors based on Inkscape 1:
-- Jeandré, 2020-05-15 t18:03z
![]() | Graphs are unavailable due to technical issues. There is more info on Phabricator and on MediaWiki.org. |
I have thought of this issue for a while now, and there is an unofficial/assumed consensus on the colors of maps for many countries. This is most likely because map creators have been using the same colors or very similar ones as used on popular articles like the USA and Italy. See the articles for Chile, Argentina, Oman, Pakistan, USA, Italy, Morocco, Canada, Iceland, India etc... to name the ones I have seen. I have added Scheme B above, currently, this is the most common scheme, and is quite useful as the color ranges are quite different.
@ HueMan1: Don't think ditching the labels is a good idea as every country has a different numbers for every legend. Universal legend could possibly not be applied due to different sizes of populations. -- Shawnqual ( talk) 20:38, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
@ Ythlev:, @ SADIQUI:, @ Bjarki S:, @ Anuchikibrikiivdamke:, @ Frodar:, @ UmpireRay:, @ XIIIX:, @ Gajmar: :Input required, please provide your opinions and state your choices. Also ping other creators you know of.-- Shawnqual ( talk) 22:30, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
Any universal (or at least English language)
color codes? Red (stop) for active cases, magenta (?) for confirmed cases, green (go) for recoveries/vaccined, blue (sadness) [for death] or gray (death, tho only going up to dark gray because of racism/political correctness, and reported problems with mobile devices and black). I don't like the use of orange/amber (caution) because of how close it is to red, nor yellow because it's too difficult to see. --
Jeandré, 2020-05-14
t09:32z
While we're on the issue of colors for maps, I have been wondering about legends. Search through archives has not yielded any results for it, so I am raising the issue here. Is it better to have legends with fixed numbers or changing numbers? i.e, numbers which have been set for the legend since the start or numbers which keep on changing with every update?
Fixed legends mean fewer updates which will lead to the entire map having one dominant color in the end, and then the numbers will have to be revised. This would be better for readers. Example.
Changing legends mean frequent updates and a different legend with each update. Not suitable for readers as they will have to familiarize themselves with each update. Example.
I am in favor of the former option (fixed legend). Shawnqual ( talk) 20:49, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
so it's pretty annoying to see the maps of some countries and territories shifting to whatever colour scheme their map makers like."I guess the reason why there are different schemes is mainly because, like Sdkb has pointed out, lack of awareness (mainly) and participation of creators. Many, including me, have not heard of any consensus agreed upon or a standard which has been developed. Secondly, if there was a consensus, it should have been placed under Wikipedia talk:WikiProject COVID-19#Current consensus, so creators could be pointed to it. Currently, there is no mention of any agreement in there, and this might precisely be why Jeandré du Toit started this thread. Also, even if there was an agreement in the past, it could still be opened to revisions with further discussions to reach a better community consensus.
Sdkb has pointed above that different maps have different levels. In all the articles I have browsed, six seems to be the most common number, and I guess is also the standard for maps. China's however has 5. It might be a good idea to set the number of levels for consistency. -- Shawnqual ( talk) 19:44, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
According to its own CDC description, "Illustration of a SARS-CoV-2 virion" features its ultrastructure morphology. I assume that this means the spikes and the surface of the thing, the latter of which resembles a pumice stone. Is this grey sphere factual or generic though? kencf0618 ( talk) 22:59, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
There was quite a bit of speculation on the effect of warmer and more humid weather slowing the spread of the disease. There was also some mention of studies which may or may not have provided evidence for this. I've looked around and can't find which article(s) address this topic, and I am uncertain which article(s) should address the topic. Any guidance? Abductive ( reasoning) 01:17, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
I created this page as an overview spot for all the health impacts of the pandemic beyond those caused by the COVID-19 disease itself. Please feel free to help expand it! {{u| Sdkb}} talk 01:34, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
Was the cut down and rename necessary? Soliciting opinions as it was just unilaterally shrunken down and the economic impact split off. Starzoner ( talk) 19:17, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
Sdkb yes lets do that. that was a such a change that it felt liek it was replaced completely by another article. Starzoner ( talk) 18:08, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
@ Sdkb and Starzoner: From what I can tell as an uninvolved editor, there was consensus to split the page from its original name Socio-economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic as it was deemed sufficient for economic consequences to have its own page. The other page is Economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:49, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
I intended the page to be a lightweight page so that it could introduce multiple pages. With this respect, it can easily lead readers to pages that are more indepth and details in specific pages. I wish this page could still be a blurp for the multiple pages listed on the Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. I don't think readers would totally appreciate being shoved into a disambuguation page directly from the main page. In addition, I think the talk page now is a complete farce and entirely alien to the current status of the page; economic discussions relating to a purelyu social page? Pfft.
To be clear, I think there needs to be a distinct page dedicated to the economic impact, but this page should be reverted and have a short lbupr to that page. A separate social page could be social, but mine should be restored. That's my 2¢ on what I envisioned the page to be. Starzoner ( talk) 20:02, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
There's currently a discussion going on in the talk page for Coronavirus recession about a possible merge with Economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. To me, the two articles seem to overlap but it would be great if other editors would join that discussion and provide additional perspectives. MarylandGeoffrey ( talk) 02:33, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
I am noticing that highly controversial, inflammatory, and often clearly incorrect information about COVID-19 and China is being placed in many of the numerous articles we have related to COVID-19. Just a few recent examples:
"On 31 December, the Wuhan CDC disclosed to the media..."instead of using the obvious and simple formulation "announced," implying that the CDC had been withholding the secret of the outbreak previously [6]. The whole lead is written to emphasize delay and censorship: three of five lead paragraphs begin with a sentence on this topic. Undoubtably delay and censorship did occur, but the issue is given the greatest editorial prominence.
We have so many articles on this topic, I fear this kind of stuff is everywhere. - Darouet ( talk) 15:13, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
I don't feel strongly either way, but should the Chen Qiushi article remain part of this project? The article confirms the subject has covered the pandemic and was quarantined, but is that enough for inclusion under the WikiProject umbrella? --- Another Believer ( Talk) 18:03, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
An article which may be of interest to members of this project— UFC on ESPN: Overeem vs. Harris—has been proposed for requested move. If you are interested, please participate in the move discussion. Thank you. The COVID-19 pandemic might of caused issues to the name of events. Regice2020 ( talk) 01:10, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
There is an ongoing discussion at Talk:COVID-19_pandemic#The_Question_of_Origin regarding the inclusion of the lab-accident theory to the Cause section of the article on Covid-19 pandemic. A dozen editors have vigorously participated over many weeks reaching no consensus or anything resembling one.
A range of positions have been proposed regarding the theory: they go from omiting any mention of it, to relegating it to misinformation entries, to including a small cautiously worded mention.
The main contested issues are the conflating of the theory with the man-made hypothesis, the alleged political motivation of allowing a mention (even if it is brief), and the possible place of the theory as "fringe" (as defined by being "an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field."). My personal opinion as an involved editor is that the accident-lab theory is in a limbo, because it is completely absent from COVID-19_pandemic and instead it is covered as misinformation at the Misinformation_related_to_the_COVID-19_pandemic, even after one of the editors have admitted at it's Talk page that part of the lab-associated theories are plausible, valid, and deserving further scientific inquiry.
Please take a look at the discussion to help us reach a consensus.-- Forich ( talk) 17:14, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
It appears there's a new topic, Mortality due to COVID-19, which starts:
Is this topic necessary? The content already fits nicely within Coronavirus disease 2019. The topic as it stands largely duplicates or triplicates dated versions of content presented here:
Safe to propose an RFD? It's getting increasingly difficult to maintain many instances of the same content. - Wikmoz ( talk) 06:20, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
Working in some occupations is a determinant of risk to COVID, and many papers are reporting rates among population by industry or job. Some guidance has been published on minimizing the risk in some industry in the article Workplace hazard controls for COVID 19, but sill information on the epidemiology is lacking.
I am writing to suggest that information be added to the main pages on the disease and the pandemic. Some sources could be:
Also, perhaps for other occupations:
TMorata ( talk) 16:07, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
I have been the one that is updating regularly COVID-19 pandemic in Venezuela. Recently a government website was created to aggregate all data about the pandemic [covid19.patria.org.ve]. Normally this would have been good news, the reporting across government and non-government websites has been inconsistent, but this government site has also started presenting the same issues. For example, when the government said today and yesterday that the number of recovered went up, the page was not updated accordingly. There is also the issue with cases per region, where every source has a different map. How are other pages handling this kind of inconsistencies? How valuable are government aggregators? -- ReyHahn ( talk) 17:52, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
I've asked for advise on Commons regarding an image which in my opinion lacks reliable sources. They suggest that I should ask here for input on the matter. I've also left a message on Talk:COVID-19 pandemic in the United Kingdom questioning their use of File:COVID-19 outbreak UK per capita cases map.svg in the Infobox. The 'UK' has 4 governments as you know, and each country has its own NHS, its own Public Health body etc. Each government is responsible for the collection of their statistics (as far as cases of infection is concerned). I create updates for two of these maps (Wales and Northern Ireland) and the data referenced on the description page. However the England and Scotland maps as well as the above UK map will not be updated by the editor (User talk:Ythlev) from now on, and this is cause for alarm on such an important topic. Can we therefore create a similar UK map with data coming directly from the above 4 sources (government, NHS, Puplic Health body) (and referenced to the exact data)? Similarly, we need an England only map and a Scotland map as neither will be updated by the user. John Jones ( talk) 15:30, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
The discussion at the Village Pump about the discretionary sanctions notice seems to have stagnated a bit, with some work still left to be done to agree on a template. As part of that discussion, though, it became clear that there is a desire not just to warn bad-faith editors but to provide welcome and advice to good-faith editors. As part of that, I propose that the below be added as a edit notice that will appear in the edit window anytime someone edits a page in the scope of this project.
![]() |
Would there be support for this? Cheers, {{u| Sdkb}} talk 21:55, 29 April 2020 (UTC) Courtesy pinging Naypta, who started the DS notice discussion {{u| Sdkb}} talk 21:59, 29 April 2020 (UTC) Refactored to unbold WikiProject 18:49, 7 May 2020 (UTC); see below.
{{
replyto|
Can I Log In}}
's
talk page!
15:46, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Template_talk:COVID19_GS_editnotice. {{u|
Sdkb}}
talk
22:02, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Project members might be interested:
--- Another Believer ( Talk) 18:27, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Thought your group would be interested in this.
Twofingered Typist ( talk) 15:11, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Talk:Coronavirus disease 2019#Is it time to state more directly the risk of airborne transmission and that the use of masks and face coverings is recommended?. {{u|
Gtoffoletto}}
talk
17:47, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
I haven't seen a lot of news coverage where I saw actual patients, but most of them are not wearing gowns. I was thinking the answer to my question might be useful in the patient gown article. Somehow I think it may have something to do with treatment being easier. Although this even included young boys who weren't even that sick. In their cases maybe they just didn't want to wear a gown, which is how a lot of people feel. One of the boys had equipment attached to his chest.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 18:21, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
I am thinking about creating an article called Cancellations and postponements related to the COVID-19 pandemic. I know there is a similar article called List of events affected by the COVID-19 pandemic, but I would like this article to go in depth about these events. Any thoughts? Interstellarity ( talk) 21:43, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
The in-depth coverage would be better suited to the articles for each event cancelled or postponed.As for information on the developments of shutdowns, it is a very broad topic and I doubt relevant and weighty information could be added for it to become a full-fledged article. Not saying it is impossible, but certainly challenging. •Shawnqual• 📚 • 💭 05:32, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Currently, the various COVID-19 articles about states show a range of maps to indicate county level severity. What is the best county-level map to show as primary image in the infobox? I have created both county-level prevalence (number of confirmed cases per capita) and more recently new confirmed cases per capita maps for all 50 US states. It's not very hard to create different versions, if there is a desire to do so, as long as I can keep using the JHU data, which seems to be the most reliable standardized county-level dataset, so that I can re-run and update daily without too much effort.
Any thoughts what would be the most appropriate to show? My gut tells me that by now, the new confirmed cases are probably more accurately reflecting the current status, which is what people are probably looking for. effeiets anders 20:40, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Despite strong scientific consensus to the contrary [14] [15], there's been a relentless push to brand the Wuhan Institute of Virology as a possible source of this virus and outbreak.
On Wikipedia, the latest front in this push is the article Wuhan Institute of Virology. There, the theory more or less treated as a conspiracy at COVID-19 pandemic receives 9 paragraphs that treat the conspiracy more seriously, including recent additions [16] [17] that strongly imply the theory has validity, using a source from Science Magazine that doesn't mention the WIV once [18] (except in a figure caption). - Darouet ( talk) 18:40, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Do you have a later/better source that dismisses the latter two possibilities? -- RexxS ( talk) 20:56, 26 May 2020 (UTC)Kristian Andersen, an evolutionary biologist at the Scripps Research Institute who has analyzed sequences of 2019-nCoV to try to clarify its origin, says the 1 December timing of the first confirmed case was “an interesting tidbit” in The Lancet paper. “The scenario of somebody being infected outside the market and then later bringing it to the market is one of the three scenarios we have considered that is still consistent with the data,” he says. “It’s entirely plausible given our current data and knowledge.” The other two scenarios are that the origin was a group of infected animals or a single animal that came into that marketplace.
it is possible that an animal source was present at" the market.
In this study, evolutionary relationships indicated that [strain] H1 and its descendant haplotypes from the Market should be derived from [strain] H3 (Figures 3, 4). H3 mutated to the H1 by two substitutions, and none of the currently available Market samples encoded H3, suggesting that H3 might have originated and spread outside of the Market before an early stage of population expansion... it is possible that infected humans transmitted the H1 haplotype of SARS-CoV-2 to workers or sellers in the market, after which it rapidly circulated there due to its special surroundings... Due to insufficient sampling from Wuhan in the currently available samples, it is not clear whether H3 never appeared in the Market, or H1 was quickly derived from H3 to adapt in the Market."
An important early association was observed between the first reported cases of COVID-19 and the Huanan seafood and wildlife market in Wuhan city (which we both visited several years ago) where a variety of mammalian species were available for purchase at the time of the outbreak (Figure 1). Given that SARS-CoV-2 undoubtedly has a zoonotic origin, the link to such a ‘‘wet’’ market should come as no surprise. However, as not all of the early cases were market associated, it is possible that the emergence story is more complicated than first suspected. Genome sequences of ‘‘environmental samples’’—likely surfaces—from the market have now been obtained, and phylogenetic analysis reveals that they are very closely related to viruses sampled from the earliest Wuhan patients. While this again suggests that the market played an important role in virus emergence, it is not clear whether the samples were derived from people who inadvertently deposited infectious material or from animals or animal matter present at that location."
The COVID-19 box on the Main Page is presumably going to be there for a while, and it's in the most high-visibility spot imaginable. It's also not designed all that great — the articles it links to aren't all the most important ones (e.g. List of deaths due to COVID-19, which is also redundant to the "recent deaths" line), there's no visual, etc. Does anyone want to try redesigning it? {{u| Sdkb}} talk 09:03, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
I am wondering if there would be interest in creating a list of those willing to speak on the matter of Wikipedia and COVID19? I get a number of queries from press sources and it would be useful to be able to pass them on to such a list. I am not sure if other projects have done this. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 08:30, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
The discussion at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2020_May_17#Wikipedia:WikiProject_COVID-19/header closed as no consensus. However, the participants said that {{ WikiProject COVID-19 tabs}} does not work with the visual editor. Therefore, the ad hoc practice should be to replace any transclusions of {{ WikiProject COVID-19 tabs}} with Wikipedia:WikiProject COVID-19/header until the visual editing problem is fixed. It should be noted that I do not want to delete or merge any of the templates. Keep them separate. -- Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 05:12, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
I wrote this article, and it's stuck on Articles for creation. Would anyone mind publishing it, please? -- OVSimone ( talk) 00:24, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
It's so insane and mindboggling than the coverage of previous pandemics, that it can be inferred there's an article about the effects of COVID-19 on rocks. This is as if a wildfire covered every square inch of the Earth. ❤︎PrincessPandaWiki ( talk | contribs) 19:44, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Hello Wikipedians from the Twin Cities region either Minneapolis residents or Saint Paul residents, So the top two largest cities in Minnesota is Minneapolis and Saint Paul respectively, specifically the largest city in the state of Minnesota is Minneapolis and the second largest city and the state capital of Minnesota is Saint Paul. I hope anyone will create article titled COVID-19 pandemic in the Twin Cities a sister article to the COVID-19 pandemic in Minnesota, The proposed article will be titled as COVID-19 pandemic in the Twin Cities similar to another article titled COVID-19 pandemic in the San Francisco Bay Area. The newly created article will be focused on the pandemic specifically on both the cities of Minneapolis and Saint Paul known collectively as the "Twin Cities". The propose article will include how many active cases, how many deaths, how many recoveries and how many overall cases on both the cities of Minneapolis and Saint Paul. I will by happy for anyone's reply for the requested article to created and will be only focused on the cities of Minneapolis and Saint Paul. In relation to another Minnesota related article titled George Floyd protests. Thanks for your time. Come back some other time. 2001:569:74D2:A800:20B3:141F:B62B:A2CD ( talk) 19:48, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Hi Wikipedians from Seattle, So the largest city in the state of Washington is Seattle. I hope anyone will create article titled COVID-19 pandemic in Seattle, The proposed article will be titled as COVID-19 pandemic in Seattle will be focused on the pandemic specifically within the city of Seattle, Washington and a sister article to COVID-19 pandemic in Washington (state). The propose article will include how many active cases, how many deaths, how many recoveries and how many overall cases within the city of Seattle. I will by happy for anyone's reply for the requested article to created and will be only focused on the city of Seattle. Thanks for your time. Come back some other time. 2001:569:74D2:A800:20B3:141F:B62B:A2CD ( talk) 19:31, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Dear all
You are invited to an editathon to improve COVID-19 information on Wikipedia in collaboration with UNFPA and UN Women. Wikimedia Sverige has been trailing a new process to make it easier for expert organisations to share information on Wikipedia.
The editathon workshop will take place on Friday 5th June at 15:30 - 17:30 UTC (17:30 - 19:30 CET, 11:30 - 13:30 ET) and will continue remotely until Sunday evening. To find out more and sign up please follow the link.
Please share this message with others who may be interested.
Thanks
John Cummings ( talk) 15:27, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Could someone take a look here and see what is wrong and how it might be corrected?— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 16:09, 3 June 2020 (UTC)