Template talk:COVID-19 pandemic lockdowns in mainland China

Wenzhou ?

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived.

What is the status of Wenzhou? From what I read the city was `virtually shut down' and movement within and into the city has been restricted. Yet it was removed from the table. I guess we need a definition of quarantine, but the fact that these measures are taken outside of Hubei seems very significant.

Seems this template focus on Hubei. But I don't see why, no reason to keep that way. Yug (talk) 13:35, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Looks like somebody reworked the entire table and the new version is great! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kjanow (talk • contribs) 17:47, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Dates ?

Accordibg to this article https://www.businessinsider.com/wuhan-coronavirus-officials-quarantine-entire-city-2020-1 :

• 1 on 2020-01-23 : Wuhan
• 1 "last week" (23?): Huanggang
• 10 on 2020-01-24: Chibi, Enshi, Ezhou, Huangshi, Suizhou, Qianjjiang, Xianning, Xiantao, Yichang, and Zhijiang
• 4 on 2020-01-27 ("Monday"): Xiangyang, Jingmen, Xiaogan, and Dangyang.

I count 16 places, where our table has 15. Yug (talk) 21:21, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Article movement

The word quarantine as it is commonly used is understood to mean isolation of people diagnosed or suspected with diseases. What measures should we include here?

- Clearly, the Hubei border shutdowns qualify.

Now:

1. cities outside Hubei have implemented strict movement restrictions on local residents, incl. Wenzhou, Bengbu, Huaibei, and Hangzhou (as of 2020/02/04 22:30 GMT+8), where each household is permitted of one person going outside for provisions every two days. Bengbu and Huaibei both have less than 50 confirmed cases. Are we to understand restrictions like this as being primarily intended to reduce the mobility of healthy people so as to reduce infections? Then, would such a measure qualify as quarantine?
2. should partial closure of border be considered a kind of quarantine, when a limited portion of the border remains open? Wenzhou has closed 46 of 55 highway border checkpoints but keeps 9 open; Hong Kong has closed 10 of 13 border checkpoints but keeps 3 open. A particular case is Hong Kong; the measure is widely understood to be a counter-quarantine: closing itself from regions with significant incidences of the disease. It seems rather difficult to call the Hong Kong case "quarantine". Further, by the same logic, one might want to say that North Korea and Russia are currently under quarantine, even though NK for example has zero confirmed cases.
3. Should we count restrictions such as in 1 in this template? If so, should we rename the page, and should we make one or two tables? If not, should we create a separate template for such measures?

Rethliopuks (talk) 14:50, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Rethliopuks Why remove Wenzhou. If you are precising the definition of quarantines, then just add a qualifier. No need to remove events (Wenzhou). Yug (talk) 21:56, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Because I didn't know if that fell inside the scope of this template. So I provisionally removed it to wait for a discussion. Rethliopuks (talk) 05:24, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Table 1 vs Table 2 and recoveries

I would like to suggest that we move back to the original table for two reasons (1) we want to show how many cities and people are affected by measures that severely restrict movement (see Rethliopuks note above) and not just the full quarantine in Hubei as this is misleading and does not give readers a good picture of newer measures taken by the government; (2) I feel rather strongly about the 'recovered' column and saw other discussions about the same in other articles related to the virus. These recovery numbers are highly misleading. We do not know how many people are sick, but we do know how many have tested sick, we also know roughly how many have died, but we only know how many recovered for the small subset of cases that were in a hospital or other intensive care. Hence, the only thing that the recovery number will do is scaring readers. Kjanow —Preceding undated comment added 16:14, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Province column

I propose removing the Province column, if all cells have the same info. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:26, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Remove Population/Cases/Deaths?

This makes the template harder to mantain, and the pages it would be added in would probably already have this information.

But I'm not so sure. JMKaisar (talk) 03:49, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

They are only difficult to maintain because an IP decided to hijack this template (without discussion) and move it from a Hubei-only table to a worldwide one, when no WP:RS can demonstrate that traffic controls / permits and curfews of the sort seen in mainland China have been replicated elsewhere. Therefore, the different measures are not really comparable. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 04:59, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

This is not a Hubei-only template. It's called "2020 coronavirus quarantines" not "2020 coronavirus quarantines in Hubei". The articles which use this template are National responses to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic and 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic, which are related to every country. Also, that IP is me, because I had forgotten to log-in and I had to make enough edits to unlock editing semi-protected pages. JMKaisar (talk) 05:31, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

I have created {{2020 coronavirus quarantines outside Hubei}} for the non-Hubei mass quarantine / shelter-in-place measures. You are also a new user who has unwittingly caused a Cut and paste move by unilaterally deciding what the scope of a template is.

Not only did you sidestep the disparity in measures, but that is a delusional interpretation of the facts not grounded in any version history, the template had begun as a Hubei-only template, and until 03:09 UTC today was that way. Indeed, the template was transcluded onto National responses to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic as a Hubei-only template and kept in the mainland China section until your IP again disrupted that. Also, you created your own facts on the ground by transcluding the template under the current name at 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 14:55, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Templates and BRD

There was a request to protect this template at requests for page protection. I declined, but looking through the history wanted to give editors a heads up about good template editing practices. While bold-revert-discuss is a great consensus-building tool, because of how our software handles templates, continuous reverts can quickly cause problems (even for pages the template isn't transcluded on). For that reason, it is generally better to discuss changes to templates beforehand, especially for non-minor ones. Thanks for your work on this, and for negotiating the recent content dispute so well! — Wug·a·po·des​ 21:09, 20 March 2020 (UTC)