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.

Right now under item 2, the current consensus page says "There is consensus on naming guidelines for the virus" and explains that the virus is called COVID-19. This is factually incorrect. The disease is called COVID-19, the virus which causes it is called SARS-CoV-2. I propose changing this sentence to "There is consensus on naming guidelines for the disease" (emphasis mine). Chess (talk) (please WP:PING when replying) 06:27, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Chess, given the use of punctuation, and that it reads Coronavirus disease 2019 is the full name of the disease, I wouldn't say it's factually incorrect, but it is confusing. I agree with the proposed change. I guess this should be uncontroversial. -- MarioGom ( talk) 10:08, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

My bad. The irony...-- Gtoffoletto ( talk) 19:15, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Fixed it. -- Gtoffoletto ( talk) 19:21, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

SARS-CoV-2 naming convention

The linked discussion in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject COVID-19/Current consensus [4] seems to support REMOVING the template. We have 4 votes for support and 1 vote against. Other users have not expressed their disapproval but have just suggested to take it slow before making such a big change.

A specific version of the template has been created Template:Current_COVID which has been voted upon here [5].

I think there is at least a local consensus and since the consensus might be shown in more pages soon (see [6]) I propose that we vote to change the consensus to:

OPTION A 1. The Template:Current should not be used at the top of articles covered by this project. Include the project specific Template:Current_COVID only for less-trafficked articles but not for the most heavily trafficked ones. -- Gtoffoletto ( talk) 23:59, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

What do you mean by "trafficked"? Pageviews? Searches? Edits? At any rate, that's backwards. {{ Current}} was designed to be used on only the most heavily-edited articles. Elizium23 ( talk) 23:55, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

@ Elizium23: Would you rather just remove it altogether from all pages? I would second that. It is now apparent to all that COVID-19 is not a short term event but a long term crysis so the template should not apply. -- Gtoffoletto ( talk) 00:02, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I would remove it from all pages. If a particular article was attracting hundreds of edits in a day, for a particular new development, then we can think about adding {{ Current COVID}} there. Otherwise, no. Elizium23 ( talk) 00:06, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

@ Elizium23: See option B below. -- Gtoffoletto ( talk) 00:13, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

I support this option. The big articles are unlikely to miss major updates, but some of the side articles can easily be outdated. -- mfb ( talk) 01:48, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

OPTION B 1. The Template:Current should not be used at the top of articles covered by this project. Include the project specific Template:Current_COVID only for articles about major recent developments attracting a large number of edits a day. -- Gtoffoletto ( talk) 00:13, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Gtoffoletto, could you please clarify by what you mean by "recent events"? Are you talking about outbreaks that are notable enough to warrant their own articles? — Tenryuu 🐲 (  💬 •  📝 ) 15:29, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Tenryuu Per discussion below edited to "major recent developments" -- {{u| Gtoffoletto}}   ^talk 08:12, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

• I forgot about the TfD nom I made of {{ Current COVID}}, and just checked in and realized consensus swung the other way. I think that was a bad call — it looks like many keep !voters didn't do their legwork before !voting and didn't realize that the things they liked about {{ Current COVID}} could have been expressed by {{ Current}}. But oh well, Wikipedia already has a huge pile of overproliferated duplicate templates, and this just adds one more to that messy pile and neglects the chance to improve the main Current template. (/rant)

Regarding the question here, if we go with option A, it might be helpful to specify an approximate pageview count to delineate what we mean by "high-traffic" (although give pages on the margin the ability to decide for themselves). The last time this was discussed, I think I landed on option A, but the rate of editing has continued to decline and the awareness that this is going to be a longer-term situation has become clearer, so at this point I think we might want to go with option B. Re Tenryuu's question, perhaps the wording "major recent developments" would get the point across? Also, perhaps I'm just dragging my feet here, but a decision to keep {{ Current COVID}} doesn't mean a consensus not to use {{ Current}}. {{u| Sdkb}}  ^talk 17:33, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

{{ current}} is placed based on the number of edits, not pageviews. Who cares how many people looked at a page? Other than those who got pissed off because there was a big ugly template blocking useful information "above the fold" and X'd the tab before interacting in a meaningful way. Elizium23 ( talk) 17:53, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

@ Elizium23: I agree that editing rate is a better metric than pageview count. I was using pageview count as a proxy for editing rate, since I'm not sure we have a good way to measure editing rate — the xTools editing rate average is over the entire lifespan of the page, whereas we'd want to look at only the past week or so. {{u| Sdkb}}  ^talk 21:56, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

So @ Elizium23:@ Sdkb: you both vote for this proposal? I've incorporated "major recent developments" per Tenryuu's question -- {{u| Gtoffoletto}}   ^talk 23:48, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I support the proposal. Elizium23 ( talk) 00:28, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

@ Gtoffoletto: I discovered the other day the existence of User:TedderBot/CurrentPruneBot, which used to (until 2013) remove all instances of {{ Current}} more than 2 hours old. I think more generalized discussion is needed to figure out what we want to use that template for and make it better suited for that purpose. Until that happens, removing it from all articles that don't meet the "major recent developments" threshold is a good interim step. But I can't fully endorse its use, either, in anything but the most extreme cases, and I can't endorse {{ Current COVID}} over the main template. In short, we need a stronger foundation here before we can apply it to this particular circumstance. {{u| Sdkb}}  ^talk 21:28, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

@ Sdkb: I see your point. The option above primarily suggests to not use the template. We can emphasise the fact it should only be used in exceptional circumstances or add an option C which just suggests to never use the template. What would you prefer? -- {{u| Gtoffoletto}}   ^talk 21:56, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

The page is currently completely overrun by merge notices: /info/en/?search=Talk:COVID-19_pandemic_in_New_York_(state)#Merge_discussions -- {{u| Gtoffoletto}}   ^talk 13:17, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

So i have been maintaining the table {{ COVID-19_pandemic_data/Brazil_medical_cases}} updated, even created a simple PHP code to it. However, as days go by, that table is getting longer and longer. This also applies to all the countries that have similar tables, and cases dating from february.
Does anyone have the wiki knowledge to help users define how many days they want to see on this table ? I was considering LUA, but that's waaaaayyy out of my league. I would like to have a button 'Feb', 'Mar', 'Apr', 'Last 15 days', and so on, and only show the data related to the period related to that button. -- Hagnat ( talk) 22:27, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Given the wholescale move of articles from ... 2019-20 coronavirus pandemic ... or ... 2020 coronavirus pandemic ... to ...COVID-19 pandemic ... (and as the instigator of that move, I must thank everyone who has been enacting it so efficiently), and the recognition in the RM at Talk:COVID-19 pandemic that the pandemic should be named for the disease rather than the virus group, I believe an adjustment to §2 in the statement of consensus is due.

To There is consensus on naming guidelines for the disease: Coronavirus disease 2019 is the full name of the disease and should be used for the main article. COVID-19 (full caps) is preferable in the body of all articles, and in the title of all other articles/category pages/etc I would suggest that we add Accordingly, the pandemic (unless referred to simply as 'the pandemic') should always be called COVID-19 pandemic, with no year(s) as a prefix. Thoughts? Kevin McE ( talk) 18:40, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

"always" sounds a little overly strict to me; in a few cases it might be helpful to include the years or make some other tweak for wording variation or some other purpose. But as a general matter, yes, that seems to be the new norm. {{u| Sdkb}}  ^talk 19:00, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

I have no objection to removing 'always' from my proposal. Kevin McE ( talk) 19:32, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

I'd support with "normally". {{u| Sdkb}}  ^talk 23:24, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

This AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticism of response to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic merged most of its content into the new target of Criticism of response to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic. However, international content was orphaned; it may be possible to modify and salvage it for use elsewhere.

Can anyone suggest a good place to put this content? Feel free to just boldly move it there. HLHJ ( talk) 02:06, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

There is an ongoing discussion around the due weight of attributed opinions around whether Donald Trump's use of the term "Chinese virus" encourages racism and what sources can be considered appropriate to be in the section. The discussion only involves myself and one other contributor at the moment, so other users are needed to reach concensus. Kind regards Hemiauchenia ( talk) 17:08, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

There are now reports of cases as early as November in Sweden and in France. [7] This is before the first case in China was reported. I am suggesting that we change "origin" or "index case" parameter value in the infoboxes of COVID-19 articles to "unknown" as patient zero is not confirmed to be in China.-- SharʿabSalam▼ ( talk) 19:55, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

The article you linked talks about cases in Swedish travelers who had visited Wuhan. I'd need to see a lot more speculation about this from authoritative sources before I'd be willing to change the infobox. {{u| Sdkb}}  ^talk 20:06, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Per Tariqabjotu's close renaming 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic to COVID-19 pandemic and the sidebar agreeing to rename similar pages for consistency, we have a lot of page moves to do. We also have a fair amount of reworking article text to re-write where the old titles were used (they'll still work as redirects, but it'd be better to change them). I'm starting this thread to discuss our implementation strategy. Tariqabjotu, do you have any initial thoughts? You mentioned using a bot to help rename the pages, which I think is a good idea; I see you've made a BOTREQ for that. Are there other loose ends you see us needing to tie up? Cheers, {{u| Sdkb}}  ^talk 04:35, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Sdkb, there are actually several people doing this manually, so the page moves may even be accomplished without a bot. I've moved at least 100 pages either manually or with AutoWikiBrowser (which admittedly only admins can do); it's considerably faster than doing it manually; as far as I can tell, I believe I have moved nearly every article with "2019–20 coronavirus" in the name. Next are the ones that just say "2020 coronavirus", but there are some people even going through those (and there are over 300 instances of those). Also Template:COVID-19 pandemic data has a ton of subpages that require moving. Regrettably, some of the categories have been nominated for speedy moving, so those will need to be processed in 48 hours' time.

Text changes are much faster to do in AWB, so once the page moves are complete, it'd just be a matter of running AWB with some find/replace commands. -- tariqabjotu 05:36, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

I shall perform some page moves relating to the COVID-19 pandemic. -- Soumyabrata ^talk _contribs ^subpages 09:32, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Finally! "Consistence is better than perfection" the previous name was driving my OCD crazy. Nice work with the moving. -- {{u| Gtoffoletto}}   ^talk 23:40, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Is there a consensus on the wording we need to be using? You know what I'm talking about. ViperSnake151  Talk  15:19, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

I think the proper approach to this is to follow the lead set at Social distancing. There was a big RM that decided against moving it to physical distancing, so I think we should add an item to the current consensus list linking that. The non-admin closer's statement doesn't give me faith in the strength of their close, but no one seems to have challenged it and the !vote totals seem at a glance to support it. {{u| Sdkb}}  ^talk 19:06, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

I just added an item on this to the current consensus list, since no one seems to be objecting here. If anyone does want to discuss further, happy to do so. {{u| Sdkb}}  ^talk 00:53, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

As a reader, each of my subsequent visits to various COVID-19 pandemic related articles bemuse me more.

If there were no human individual & group failures, then how did the decease spread ? If failures at multiple levels contributed spread of decease where is adequate Wikipedia coverage?

People and groups not following expected precautions on various pretexts- whether for secular or non secular reasons does not seem to to be adequately covered. Whether it is half-heartedness of W.H.O. in issuing timely advisories; to governments, to groups, to individuals; not following advisories. Failures are at multiple level and media seems to have if not enough minimal coverage of the criticism of human failures in giving pandemic proportions to the decease .

My contention is Wikipedians do not seem to cover criticism, as I said each of my visit I find refrain, avoidance, curtailment, window dressing and at places undeclared censorship that criticism does not get wider attention. On side note many times I find Wikipedia consensus more of a democratic process than logical process which tends to indirectly compromise on neutrality.

Most of 'impact' articles & sections are unidirectional, how the COVID-19 pandemic affected 'So and so' but hardly any mention of the 'so and so' were likely contributors to spread of pandemic and many not taking seriously and flouting public health wise very important advisories.

Is not main article COVID-19 pandemic indirectly connected to sub topic article? and talk page of main article does not want to entertain failure of neutrality in subtopic article than how does main article remains neutral?

As a Wikipedia editor my present focus is some other topics, still I attempted to give minor coverage to criticism part, but as a reader and frank reviewer I find information gaps on above mentioned topics.

Thanks and greetings

Bookku ( talk) 02:11, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, Bookku. Could you point to some more specific instances where you see missing coverage, and perhaps bring it up on those talk pages? I just re-read the lead of COVID-19 pandemic in the United States, the most obvious spot where the central narrative seems to be that leadership failures greatly exacerbated the pandemic, and it seems to do an adequate job of citing the facts to give readers a clear impression of what happened without straying into NPOV territory. {{u| Sdkb}}  ^talk 02:37, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

The biggest failure is the one of the media. As everyone who communicate the 99.99% probable model where any standard coronaviruses mutate around Halloween which fit with each and every data points are put in a box as if they were trolls. It's astonishing that the Wuhan's lab managed to do the RNA test in only 2 months. Instead we all gonna go with a story about federal spies in an evil chinese lab. Because media have an hard time understanding that when serious epidemiologists say "hey it's just a flu yay !", they really mean "Wow, lucky this time it won't kill much more then 1% of us all" and there is not even a contradiction. Iluvalar ( talk) 15:54, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

I am reviewing/improving/assessing the articles in Category:Deaths from the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic. Some ( Daniel Azulay, Ho Kam Ming, Marguerite Lescop. Naomi Munakata) have the {{ WikiProject COVID-19}} template on their talkpage but most don't. I read this Wikipedia:WikiProject COVID-19/Assessment#Other parameters; and I am aware of this conversation in the talkpage archives. But I am hoping to re-open the conversation, and perhaps hear from more people, now that some time has passed. Thanks. -- Rosiestep ( talk) 18:12, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Also asking here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red#Women in Red task force for WikiProject COVID-19. -- Rosiestep ( talk) 19:09, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:COVID-19 pandemic data#Proposal: Add a check box to display per capita data. {{u| Sdkb}}  ^talk 09:23, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Should the article summarize and quote an editorial from the tabloid Bild saying that "China planned to strengthen itself by exporting a plague and then sending aid in the form of masks"? Please give your input at Talk:COVID-19 pandemic in mainland China#Bild editorial. — Granger ( talk · contribs) 14:45, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't have a link yet but I saw it an actual newspaper. The man was really sick and they told him he had a very unusual pneumonia. His sample has since been tested and found to be COVID-19.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 17:59, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Okay, here is a story which says the same thing.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 18:04, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

I found it in the appropriate articles.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 15:51, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Since there has been an explosion of content related to this topic and many, many articles contain the same errors repeatedly, I am hoping that I can alert users here so that the best practices can spread as these articles are updated:

• Data tables require captions. Please use them. In many cases, there are purely decorative (i.e. non-semantic) cells that already span across the entire table to essentially perform the function of a caption.
• Include col and row scopes. Without these, very long data tables will end up being virtually unintelligible for screen readers.
• Do not use only color to represent meaningful data. E.g if a certain day in a table is the highest value for infections, do not only mark it as red but make sure to include some other signifier such as emphasized text or a dagger (†) with an appropriate legend.
• Avoid small text. If, for some reason, you need to make text smaller, do not use the small HTML tag (e.g. <small>some small text</small> as that refers to fine print semantically.
• Include alt text for images. This also applies to examples like the dagger I gave above: don't just insert the raw character of <†>, but the template {{ dagger}} with alt text, such as {{dagger|alt=Highest value for infections}}.

For an example, see https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=COVID-19_pandemic_in_Sweden&type=revision&diff=955516435&oldid=955511868. There are other issues and there are other types of articles that have these same problems but with so many editors working on so many high-profile pages all at once, it's much easier to get the visibility of having many editors fixing these problems simultaneously as we go. It's a lot harder for one person to trawl thru every article trying to clean up these errors. Thanks for all the good work you're doing. ― Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 07:52, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Just FYI, most articles in the list of COVID-related articles by viewership have disappeared, so that we are seeing flawed statistics. -- Ritchie92 ( talk) 09:26, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

A related question: do we have more detailed analytics that could suggest what the hot times are? We could then try and schedule major edits around times when viewers are sparse, and other things. Kingsif ( talk) 14:00, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

That's a good thought, Kingsif. Hopefully the move frenzy (which has gone surprisingly quickly/smoothly from my view) will be our last major event for a while, but if there's another, we should consider this. {{u| Sdkb}}  ^talk 20:08, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

The name of the template has moved thus User:Ritchie92 you will find that data here now. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 07:45, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

The tool however does not seem to be taking into account redirects which this tool does. [8] Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 07:53, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

As I stated when the wikiproject started, if hidden discussions happen here as opposed to the pages, then decisions can be made without the knowledge of contributors to the articles. For example the discussions around naming. Furthermore, the naming discussions appear to be overriding Wikipedia community consensus about things like WP:ACRONYMTITLE and then imposing it with a template on the related articles. Strongly oppose. -- Almaty ( talk) 11:22, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Project-level consensus is less local than article-level consensus, and thus has more authority. If you don't like the decisions being made here, then just participate and have your say. {{u| Sdkb}}  ^talk 11:26, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

But the discussions are hidden from the contributors to the articles, on a regular basis. This new project is unknown to longstanding contributors. What is the precedent of other projects doing this? I dont think I should have to participate here, and we're not even told that a discussion is going on. -- Almaty ( talk) 11:41, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

8 editors only contributed to this hidden discussion, as opposed to hundreds upon hundreds of editors who have contributed to title discussions at COVID-19 pandemic. Therefore I support removing this from current consensus of the COVID-19 project. If there is to be another discussion about things affecting all of the articles, it needs to be repeatedly visibly posted to the talk pages of all related articles, otherwise this is the local consensus from a nearly unknown wikiproject overriding far more appropriate discussion on the pages. -- Almaty ( talk) 11:58, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Yup this was mentioned before...small talks with little value to them. Was afraid this would happen. -- Moxy 🍁 12:30, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

This is among the most active topic-specific WikiProjects on Wikipedia — it got featured in the Signpost the other month, just got the EOTW award, and has even attracted external media attention. "Unknown" is a non-starter. And regarding notifying talk pages, the whole purpose of a WikiProject is to discuss things that affect all articles in its domain. Sure, editors might put a "please see" on a popular or particularly affected page on occasion, but the notice you're asking for is the WikiProject banner that's been on every COVID-19 talk page for months. If you want a seat at the table, come here and take a seat, don't try to claim the table is somehow invalid. {{u| Sdkb}}  ^talk 13:00, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Policy states that it is invalid. I dont want to take a seat at the table because I strongly oppose you making consensus here and imposing them. That is against wikipedia consensus policy. However, in a few cases, projects have wrongly used these pages as a means of asserting ownership over articles within their scope - that is Wikiproject COVID-19 at this stage. You must stop imposing hidden consensus on the articles. You can make suggestions or guidelines. Your consensuses, according to policy are essays only An advice page written by several participants of a project is a "local consensus" that is no more binding on editors than material written by any single individual editor. Any advice page that has not been formally approved by the community through the WP:PROPOSAL process has the actual status of an optional essay. Contents of WikiProject advice pages that contradict widespread consensus belong in the user namespace. -- Almaty ( talk) 13:22, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

As mentioned before by a few here at this project ....listing small talks in this manner with very few involved that covers hundreds of pages gives the impression of false consensus and impedes wider talks on the subject. Its the presentation of the talks in a banner giving the impression of a huge talk about a contentions topic that is the problem not the small talks themselves.- Moxy 🍁 13:41, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree on parts of your consensus. but that doens't mean that I was involved in the discussion and thats the point. According to Policy, these are essays by the people who made them, and you cannot represent them as such. I removed them from the three main pandemic, virus and disase page and expect you to remove the rest of them. What you need to focus on is making a guideline, giving it community attention and propose it as a guideline. I also propose renaming the project "Pandemic preparation and response" so that there are guidelines for this pandemic and the next one. -- Almaty ( talk) 13:46, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

I see your removing the template from talks pages (with red links). I agree in principle with this action...but will advice you that if reverted to let other chime in here. I also think it was a bad idea to begin-with...however; others have worked hard on it and should have a say before mass removal (yes a wider talk should have happened before implantation - but its been there now for sometime). Edit wars over the banner would be more detrimental then having it sit there till a decision is made.-- Moxy 🍁 14:53, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

I have reverted the removal of the template without any discussion. Obviously not the appropriate way of changing the consensus we have built through thoughtful discussion. And I would caution against this kind of behaviour which is inappropriate and inconsiderate. -- {{u| Gtoffoletto}}   ^talk 15:06, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

P.s. the whole concept behind this template is to CENTRALISE discussion to avoid local pages discussing issues independently and redundantly. This is the exact goal of the work we did and I think it's been working so far. -- {{u| Gtoffoletto}}   ^talk 15:08, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Am I right to assume the only problem right now with this list is the "origin" part ? Because the consensus is to use Index case. But in the model the attribute is called "origin" still. Iluvalar ( talk) 02:02, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

I support you building consensus but not imposing it with templates on pages that have had far wider discussion. The discussion was hidden, even from a prolific editor such as myself, so it is not right and against policy to impose it. Literally less than 10 editors agree on the consensuses of the project as far as I can see, but orders of magnitude higher have discussed it on the pages. This has no precedent in wikiproject history either, unless like wikiproject medicine, you make a guideline, that has thorough community vetting and consensus. -- Almaty ( talk) 09:50, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

No one is imposing anything. We are just sharing discussion and consensus in a wide way and attempting to unify discussions so that users (like you for example) don't miss important discussions.

What specific discussion are you referring to? Those consensus items can be changed if consensus changes. This is exactly why this template exists. To ensure everyone is aligned. Not to dictate what must be done. It is NOT a guideline. If the consensus formed there supersedes the current project consensus we should edit the template and link to that discussion.

This is exactly why the template exists and this discussion is proof that it works. -- {{u| Gtoffoletto}}   ^talk 12:03, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

• I see the same type of complaint has come up again on a country article. Perhaps best to drop the "COVID-19 Wikipeoject concensus" and just say "current concenus" as per WP:ADVICEPAGE, WP:CONLIMITED. Just need to drop the project connection that is causing many to think its a project ownership cabal.... rather then genuine discussions.-- Moxy 🍁 03:41, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

@ Moxy: Do you have a link to that discussion? This might make sense. How could we distinguish this from the article consensus? Maybe change the title to something like "General consensuses regarding pages covered by WikiProject COVID-19"? -- {{u| Gtoffoletto}}   ^talk 07:38, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

• To quote your template "The following consensuses for most COVID-19 pages as been established by WikiProject COVID-19. You may revert edits against them, preferably with a link to this list in your edit summary, as Wikipedia talk:WikiProject COVID-19#Current consensus, item [n]. Please discuss proposed changes to them at the project talk page." Whilst also being gramattically incorrect, they are exhibiting WP:OWNERSHIP against policy please remove them and stop doing this. You can say maybe something like "Wikiproject COVID-19, as a small subgroup of editors, aims to align consensus around the following topics. We have so far discussed the following" -- Almaty ( talk) 10:25, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
• I still believe you should remove the template. However, what I have done is I have rewritten it so it actually reflects what it is which is a hidden discussion between less than 10 editors two weeks ago that decided unilaterally to attempt to override all previous discussions on every topic related to COVID-19. It is without precedent and your project should be ashamed of attempting to impose it on the community without thorough vetting and consensus. Thankyou. -- Almaty ( talk) 11:26, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Proposal to write a guideline

I propose writing a guideline for future outbreaks and pandemics. I proposed this in the teahouse in january. It would be combination of MEDRS/MEDMOS but how it uniquely applies to outbreaks and pandemics. 1. Where the disease is first identified is where it is first identified, not the origin. 2. Avoid geographical titles 3. Use epidemic curves where possible 4. If an novel disease, epidemiology, transmission and prevention would be the first three sections

Use of CFR vs IFR and their downsides, no mortality rate, so those discussions dont have to happen again

Theres heaps I can think of. -- Almaty ( talk) 14:06, 3 May 2020 (UTC)14:05, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

CFR and IFR are mortality rates. Graham Beards ( talk) 14:42, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Are they? I thought that mortality rates were unknown until the disease is characterised, and thats the whole point? -- Almaty ( talk)

That's not the whole point at all. So what's the difference between "fatality" and "mortality"? The point is that CFR includes only those that show symptoms. The IFR includes asymptomatic infections, currently thought to be at least 20%. Graham Beards ( talk) 10:37, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Not exactly. CFR includes those that are diagnosed as having the disease. For COVID-19 that depends on testing, and testing regimens vary widely across countries, and even within the same country, over different time periods. So, CFR is not particularly helpful. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 15:20, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi there. Is there a platform where COVID-19 work is being coordinated across sister projects (other language Wikipedias, Wikidata, etc.)? For example, there are a lot of Telegram channels these days being used for wiki work. Perhaps someone is coordinating occasional Zoom calls? -- Rosiestep ( talk) 17:06, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

@ Rosiestep: Check out meta:COVID-19. Nikkimaria ( talk) 17:08, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Nikkimaria. That was exactly what I was seeking. -- Rosiestep ( talk) 17:16, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi. Recently I came across a few articles where statistics, or at least one or two charts were not updated. Like in COVID-19 pandemic in Pakistan, only template:COVID-19 pandemic data/Pakistan medical cases chart. Rest of the charts have not been updated since May 5.

Should we transclude numbers from template:COVID-19 pandemic data/XYZ country medical cases chart to every other chart? It will be time efficient, and everything will stay updated automatically. I am talking about every article as well. Regards, —usernamekiran (talk) 08:09, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Sure, I'm all for centralizing data collection. Applies to the maps, too. The main challenge is implementing well, though. {{u| Sdkb}}  ^talk 20:12, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

I've uploaded three COVID-19 posters from U.S. CDC and OSHA that are available in ~20 languages each. Please feel free to add these to the relevant Wikipedia language editions. See Stop the Spread of Germs, 10 Things You Can Do to Manage your COVID-19 Symptoms at Home, and Ten Steps All Workplaces Can Take to Reduce Risk of Exposure to Coronavirus. John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) ( talk) 00:04, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks John -- that's great! –  SJ  + 11:50, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Agree very nice. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 07:28, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

I just saw this help desk question which came before the various stimulus plans. I'm not sure what the person was trying to ask. Maybe the person thought the U.S. government could save money on Social Security if more people died.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 16:56, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

This isn't the right place for this. Please head to the Talk page for the US article: here. Shawnqual ( talk) 17:13, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm thinking that's not the right place either. If you look at the response, two articles were suggested, but I'm not sure they're right either.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 17:19, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

wuhanvirus, wuhan virus, etc. are currently redirects to SARS-CoV-2. However, a new genus was recently established that is called "Wuhanvirus" and which is a member of Autographiviridae. I'm not sure how to address this, but maybe some of you guys here might know what to do. Velayinosu ( talk) 21:43, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Sounds like a case for a disambiguation page, I think. Or alternatively a hatnote. — Granger ( talk · contribs) 22:04, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

• I prefer hatnoting over disambiguating. -- Soumyabrata ^talk _contribs ^subpages 05:06, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Hatnote over disambiguation. While it is considered a WP:COMMONNAME in some parts of East Asia, I think the term has more merit being dedicated to a genus of viruses. — Tenryuu 🐲 (  💬 •  📝 ) 05:26, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Addendum: Shouldn't this be discussed over at RfD? — Tenryuu 🐲 (  💬 •  📝 ) 05:29, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

I've created a discussion at RfD here. Velayinosu ( talk) 01:13, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

• Agree with hatnote Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 07:29, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

I have suggested a style shift towards rather less wordy titles, for our important series of 'Impact' articles, see discussion started at: Talk:Social impact of the COVID-19 pandemic#Less wordy title?.-- Pharos ( talk) 18:33, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Scholia has a profile for drug shortage (Q94443615).

Drug shortages seem to be one of the many themes shared across countries during this pandemic, although the details still play out differently. For example, here is a list that the Food and Drug Administration is maintaining for the U.S., and here is a similar one for Canada. On that basis, I checked whether there is an article like Drug shortages during the COVID-19 pandemic or so but noticed that not only do we not have that, but we do not even have drug shortage, nor a mention in drug distribution, and the only mention of drugs in shortage is about recreational drugs, which fits with us having Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the cannabis industry, which does not seem to mention shortages either. To complicate things further, the term does not only have the economic sense drug shortage (Q94443615) affecting a given population but seems to be also occasionally used in the (patho)physiological one of drug shortage (Q94449989) for a patient or other biological entity not having sufficient levels of a given drug with respect to the needs of their body, and of course, an economic drug shortage can cause or exacerbate a physiological one. To begin to address this apparent gap around our coverage of drug shortages, I have started to construct a Scholia profile for the economic shortage, which I am linking here. If I have missed any relevant pages that do or should have information on either aspects of drug shortages, I would appreciate pointers. -- Daniel Mietchen ( talk) 23:29, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

An edit on my watchlist gave me pause for thought. Someone added text saying that a historic site was (under normal circumstances) open to the public. When I've been looking at websites for visitor attractions there are very prominent banners letting people know they are closed. If it was possible to include a note on articles about tourist attractions suggesting that people should check whether a place is open before visiting, would that be desirable or is it straying beyond what Wikipedia tries to do? Richard Nevell (WMUK) ( talk) 17:26, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

I think that's more in WikiVoyage's scope. Kingsif ( talk) 18:59, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello during last Hackathon, I volunteered to help with phabricator:T252307 ticket to create a module for displaying of Tabular Data stored on Wikimedia Commons as wiki tables, resulting in {{ Json2table}} template. Tabular Data which is stored on Wikimedia Commons, is accessible from all the Wikimedia projects, and is used by some to store COVID-19 data, which can be now easily displayed with the template. -- Jarekt ( talk) 04:49, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, J, this should be really useful for displaying any selection of related tables without having to build the tables or update the data! What a neat build. Kingsif ( talk) 04:53, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Posting here since the relevant page is itself a talk page (shouldn't it be moved to template namespace or something?). Link 2 for "Social vs. Physical" (item no. 6) links to the wrong place, since the relevant discussion is now archived. It should be corrected to link to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_COVID-19/Archive_8#Social_vs._Physical instead. Thanks. RandomCanadian ( talk | contribs) 15:50, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: The last protection of Wikipedia:WikiProject COVID-19 expired about three weeks ago. Please indicate which page you want to be edited. Victor Schmidt ( talk) 16:14, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject COVID-19/Current consensus if it wasn't clear enough... RandomCanadian ( talk | contribs) 16:25, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done – Thank you for pointing this out! -- Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 06:35, 16 May 2020 (UTC)