Talk:COVID-19 pandemic in Thailand

Expansion points

This article could do with some major restructuring. I'm not going to attempt that just yet, but here are some major points that should be mentioned or expanded. --Paul_012 (talk) 10:29, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

• The Department of Disease Control's response plan, especially the oft-mentioned three-phase model
• Surgical mask shortage, the Department of Internal Trade's interventions, and alleged corruption scandal
• Inconsistent quarantine requirements for tourists as opposed to returning residents
• Shifting port-of-entry screening and policies, as well as mandatory vs self quarantine
• Illegal workers returning from South Korea
• Testing capacity and indication requirements (esp. potential exposure), and screening coverage
• Mid-March's major spread being from the boxing stadium and Thong Lo–area bars
• Mid-March's outrageously messed up confusion over medical certificates as entry requirements for returning citizens
• The government's generally poor handling of public communications (especially Anutin's personal comments), delays in case reporting leading to public distrust
• Impact on the highly tourism-dependent economy, which was already being felt early February

Can someone fix the formatting for the cases bar chart? The cases for 22/03/2020 doesn't look nice — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bennypc (talk • contribs) 06:24, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Removal of content

Tony Patt, right, so what's the big deal? What do you not agree at on that part of content removal in the page?

Flix11 don't make edit summary reasons for the revert so just forget this user. For now there is only two people that is truly interested in this edit that is you and me so the talk should remain in personal talk pages of either you or me. Unless a 3rd person jump in, or in case we two can't reach a consensus after some discussion, then we might put the stuff in the article's talk page.

I have stated explanation for this content removal in the summary box, please read them and make further arguements if you want to.IWeeBoo (talk) 08:54, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

I have read them and already made my counterarguments in corresponding edit summaries since our "discussion" earlier this morning. While I'm still assuming good faith that your intentions are to make the article more concise and easy to follow by reducing clutter, I do not agree with deleting entire parts that are still essential or excessively trimming out certain words in such manner that compromises the readability or accuracy of the article. Your argument for the section's removal is that it is "outdated" and "irrelevant", neither of which I think is true. The travel restrictions have significantly affected travel plans of Thai citizens living abroad trying to return, and triggered widespread outcry and media coverage (1, 2 and 3) after additional measures were announced on 18 March. Merely deleting the whole section is not constructive at all and it should be left there until another editor expands the section with more up-to-date information rather than entirely removed.

As for other two reverts you made, the first one was not done to only "make the intro sounds more interesting", but rather for improved flow as it is follwed up by the second, third and fourth cases, etc. in subsequent paragraphs. For the second, the word "significant" is necessary as the damage the virus had done to his lungs were not mild and therefore contributed to his death.

Moreover, you keep persisting by claiming that a consensus has been "formed" although it is obvious that there is none, keep reverting other users' edits (including de facto reverts that re-removed content that you deleted) and refuse advice from other users by claiming that they are the ones at fault. I sought a compromise by rewriting certain paragraphs for more brevity as you intended and gave my reasons (1, 2 and 3), though you kept reinstating your edits without providing legitimate reasons (1 and 2; just because "it looks awkward" doesn't justify its deletion, try reformatting instead). Hope this clears up any misunderstanding. — Tony Patt (talk • contribs) 10:13, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

@Tony Patt. Thank you, I will try to make my commenting points simple.

• About the word "significant", it's a subjective evaluation. We should avoid using such evaluative words here.
• About the trimming of words that make it hard to understand. It's not that hard to understand. This is not Simple English wikipedia, I'm surprised that a near-native English user like you find the writings hard to understand. By reading through the 2nd, 3rd,...cases the readers already understand the big picture.
• About the restrictions of movement sub-section. Now this is the messy part. "The travel restrictions have significantly affected travel plans of citizens living abroad trying to return, and triggered widespread outcry and media coverage". Every countries have that sort of problem. The movement restrictions is a complicated issue. I will think more about this. I won't delete but will try to do some rework on this part as you wished to see if it fits.IWeeBoo (talk) 10:47, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

The usage of "significant" in this context is just reporting facts here, it does not violate WP:NPOV. I have already stated that using "first case" at the start of the paragraph was done for better flow of the section as a whole, it has nothing to do with linguistic ability of readers at all but rather how the paragraphs connect to each other and to put events in chronological order. Other articles use it as well (see articles for Italy, U.S., etc.) and I see no harm in leaving it in there. Now for the subsection on traveling restrictions, can you provide evidence for your claim that "every country has this sort of problem"? This was a major mess-up as Paul_012 noted the above section, and thus should be notable enough be included as well. The government's abrupt announcement of new travel restrictions put a lot of pressure on Thais living abroad due to the short timeframe given to them to gather the required travel documents. If not included there, this could be listed under a "criticism" section, along with other important points that Paul has laid out.

Also, please watch your tone and refrain from using ad hominem talking points to forward your argument like you just did again ("I'm surprised that a near-native English user like you find the writings hard to understand"), I've observed you have done this multiple times but chose to not call it out until now. It can come across as borderline aggressive and does not help with consensus building at all. — Tony Patt (talk contribs) 12:32, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

@Tony Patt, good job, now that the page's structure is vastly changed, I just literally lose any interests in talking with you. I just saw you adding a new section that is not so necessary. Happy editing the page in anyway you wish!

On the first case area, the second paragaph begins with "Thailand's second confirmed case ...", so readers now already knew that the first story (in the above paragraph) is the first comfirmed case. The two paragraphs are linked. It's just a method to avoid repetitive writing.

I don't get how you find the word significant is "fact" reporting. It's an adjective of subjective evaluation/comment. I could very well evaluate that the damage is in fact mild but the patient lungs are just weak.

I don't think you understand all of my points. Please re-read them and consider undoing some of your own edits on conflicting areas we have been discussing.IWeeBoo (talk) 02:33, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

@IWeeBoo: Thank you for seeking a compromise. I have ceded the first two points and did not make any further edits regarding them; however, I did restore the date of announcement of the first case and slightly reworked the sentence as those do not conflict with our discussion. If you don't mind, it would be appreciated if you could help expand the content of this article as well, as there are several sections that desperately need expansion in order to make this article a comprehensive coverage of all the major aspects of the pandemic. Take care and have a good time on Wikipedia! — Tony Patt (talk • contribs) 03:07, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Reorganisation

I've split the timeline section off to Timeline of the COVID-19 pandemic in Thailand, since it carried a bit too much detail. Most problematic currently, however, are the templates, which are causing great difficulty in loading the pages. They will need to be dealt with somehow. --Paul_012 (talk) 13:23, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm thinking that the statistics section should probably also be moved to the sub-article. Maybe rename it to Timeline and statistics of the COVID-19 pandemic in Thailand. --Paul_012 (talk) 13:29, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, more prose is preferrable in the main page as opposed to being inundated with interpretting and analyzing tables and graphs.—Bagumba (talk) 12:23, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

I've moved the tables and renamed the target article accordingly. They could probably be split sometime, but there are citations in the timeline article that currently refer to references in the templates, so that will need to be sorted out first. --Paul_012 (talk) 12:55, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Inconsistency

The number of cases/deaths in the intro paragraph isn't the same as the one in the infobox. -184.56.75.144 (talk) 07:13, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

WP:SOFIXIT. FWIW, it is attributed to a specific date: As of 8 July 2021 ...—Bagumba (talk) 07:17, 17 August 2021 (UTC)