Wikipedia talk:WikiProject COVID-19

Template:COVID-19 sanctions

Where should the data live?

Currently, the case data used in articles here lives in a set of templates, which does not seem to be an optimal solution. Other options would include the Data namespace on Commons (e.g. commons:Data:Ncei.noaa.gov/weather/New York City.tab), SVG files on Commons (e.g. commons:File:Atmospheric Microwave Transmittance at Mauna Kea (simulated).svg) or Wikidata (e.g. 2020 coronavirus outbreak in France (Q83873593)). All three could be made to work with or without templates and in a manual or automated fashion. -- Daniel Mietchen (talk) 02:45, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Daniel Mietchen, I'm torn between the three. The Wikidata example is detailed and gets down into the specifics (which is great), but I like how it's been organised as a data set on Commons. Would there be a way to automate .svg file updates as the data set it's drawing from gets edited? Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 14:17, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Tenryuu Various combinations are possible, including automated SVG file updates as the underlying data change. Depending on how that is implemented, a bot permission might be needed or not. Some bots like commons:User:ListeriaBot or commons:User:TabulistBot exist for such purposes, and commons:Category:Valid SVG created with Python code lists some example SVG files created using Python code, whereas mw:Extension:Graph can visualize data based on tabular data on Commons. -- Daniel Mietchen (talk) 02:29, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Daniel Mietchen, is it possible to update all 3 concurrently when one of them gets updated? Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 21:58, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Tenryuu Yes in principle, but I have not seen that implemented in any context yet. -- Daniel Mietchen (talk) 01:20, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Related: #Why in Template namespace? . --Mezze stagioni (talk) 16:01, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Another related discussion, essentially asking about the licensing of the source data and about workflows for incorporation into Wikipedia et al. -- Daniel Mietchen (talk) 14:45, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

A comment by Tgr_(WMF) from yet another related discussion (in the Wikispore group on Telegram): "none of the options are great: Wikidata is not really meant for time serious, tabular data is a half-finished feature and not at all user-friendly, and that's all the cross-wiki options we have, short of setting up a custom DB somewhere and using bots to clone the data into Lua tables (which TBH might well be the least bad method)". -- Daniel Mietchen (talk) 14:52, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

While I agree that Wikidata is not ideal for time series data, it can still be used that way in some basic fashion, and the Wikidata arm of WikiProject COVID-19 is exploring that (e.g. as per the example queries). -- Daniel Mietchen (talk) 15:02, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi. I'm Evan Prodromou, product manager for APIs in the Core Platform Team at WMF. I'm interested to see how my team can be helpful in organising this data, and making it more available for public use (say, as CSV or JSON). I'll be tracking this conversation closely. --EProdromou (WMF) (talk) 16:38, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

​​​​ Related discussion: Template talk:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic#RfC on linking to template namespace.  Bait30  ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 16:57, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Hastily split Timeline articles so references display again

At time of writing, Timeline of the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic in March 2020 has so many template transclusions that Template:reflist will not expand, and citations can only be checked inside the edit window. Timeline of the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic in February 2020 is in better condition but still a member of Category:Pages where template include size is exceeded.

Both articles have existing split discussions, at Talk:Timeline of the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic in February 2020#Splitting proposal, Talk:Timeline of the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic in March 2020#Templates not showing up, and Talk:Timeline of the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic in March 2020#Reference fix. However this project talk page seems to be much higher-traffic, and the project covers both existing too-large Timeline articles as well as any future monthly Timeline articles, so I'm tryna centralise our discussion here.

Be it hereby proposed that the Pandemic chronology sections of both the February and March Timeline articles be split out into standalone articles. This will reduce template transclusions on the February Timeline article by over 400, and reduce transclusions on the March article by over 600. For the new article titles I suggest Case chronology of the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic in February 2020 and Case chronology of the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic in March 2020, but I'm sure there's a guideline or MOS entry somewhere that has clearer guidance for a title. We can also discuss splitting out the Mainland China section of the February article and/or merging the Mainland China section of the March article, but my point is we should do a split soon, so readers can check our references per WP:V and all.

Pinging prior discussion participants @Aceing Winter Snows Harsh Cold, Tenryuu, Bondegezou, Username6892, 73.121.138.28, 72.209.60.95, Onetwothreeip, Randy Kryn, Bait30, Alucard 16, Moxy, TheGreatSG'rean, and Elishop:.

• Support as proposer. Folly Mox (talk) 23:58, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

@Wow: sorry missed you in the initial ping storm. Folly Mox (talk) 00:04, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

• Support: Separate measures and case chronologies to create more space. All sources should be scrutinised for reliability. Thanks TheGreatSG'rean (talk) 00:03, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support: I've brought it up before, the inability to see reliable sources defeats Wikipedia's purpose. Splitting the articles will fix that problem.  Bait30  ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 00:31, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support. With more reports as time goes by splitting it is a good idea as it appears everyone's using the {{cite}} template family. That being said...
  •  Comment. A lot of regions are starting to get their [[2020 coronavirus pandemic in ____]] articles started up (as seen from the many articles created in that format for many US states). I think template use can be further reduced by linking to the articles that talk about those areas. If we want to still create a separate page for that I'm all for it. --Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 00:35, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support per above. --Wow (talk) 01:00, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support . Given the prose sizes of both pages, the February article should still probably be split and the March article has a good chance of becoming too long as well, and that's before talking about the template problems. Username⁶⁸⁹² 01:18, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
• SupportElishop (talk) 03:04, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 03:18, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support as per nom I agree 100% Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 07:13, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment Would the split pages also get protected like the current parent pages? Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 09:18, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Probably good to keep the protection level (technically: add it to the new pages). --mfb (talk) 09:40, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

• Support as per above Zanoni (talk) 08:52, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support - too long and easy to split. --mfb (talk) 09:40, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
• Strong support, we can't have templates breaking on an article linked from the Main Page. >>BEANS X3t 13:42, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support - A temporary fast partial crude fix is substituting <references /> for {{reflist}}, now there are 700+ citations showing, with the rest of them showing template:cite. Once the article is split, the problem should go away. Isaidnoway (talk) 15:35, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support, with the month not even over, the page is only going to get larger and larger. QueerFilmNerd^talk 20:44, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

• Strong support Virtually any facet of this pandemic shall deserve its own article; virtually any omnibus article shall be long and cumbersome. kencf0618 (talk) 00:03, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
• Strong support The pages are literally broken, I can't stress enough how vital it is to do this. Swordman97 ^{talk to me} 00:23, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

How to Split?

Since it seems there is unlikely to be someone who disagrees with a split, how do we wish to split the page? By date? Inside/outside mainland china would not work (as is suggested on the February timeline). If wanted, we can move this discussion to the itself. QueerFilmNerd^talk 00:34, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

QueerFilmNerd, there was a discussion (which I currently can't find) where an editor suggested splitting "governmental responses" from "pathology timeline." They're already under their own sections so splitting them should be rather easy. Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 04:11, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Ok so a crude, quick way to split this (for now like now the nom suggested) is to split the pandemic chronology off into its own page while keeping everything else on its own page. However for this to work the Pandemic chronology would have to be stripped of all other non-essential templates considering this section is using 718 {{cite}} templates on its own and we still have 10 days left in the month. Meaning the entire case statistics section would have to be left out of the potential pandemic chronology timeline page for this to work in its current form. Leaving that section in would cause the potential pandemic chronology timeline page to become overloaded. Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 11:04, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Alucard 16, another alternative is to wait tilt he end of the month and see where we could possibly split? As we would know (more roughly) the size of the page. QueerFilmNerd^talk 20:40, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

A simple way forward would be a split by calender week with a monthly article sumarizing and linking to the individual weeks. Agathoclea (talk) 08:52, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Gubernatorial and Mayoral Orders

This would be a good parsing -a lot of action is happening on the ground. E.g. just in Idaho yesterday Gov. Little put Blaine County on lock-down (home of Sun Valley and our COVID-19 cluster), and Mayor McLean has ordered every restaurant in Boise shut down except for deliveries. kencf0618 (talk) 11:12, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Kencf0618, I'm not sure how that's different from "Government responses" that a lot of pages are currently incorporating. Could you explain further? Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 21:27, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

There's the federal level, the state level, and the municipal levels. kencf0618 (talk) 00:02, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Kencf0618, we could mention municipal and state level responses under "Government responses". Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 06:59, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

That'll work for now. COVID19 is taxing even Wikipedia's protocols and resources, so I suspect that it'll all shake out in its aftermath. kencf0618 (talk) 21:29, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

I suspect this WikiProject will be active in the months after the pandemic to beautify everything before it can become defunct. Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 01:20, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Merging Vaccine & Drug pages

The COVID-19 Drug Repurposing Research and the COVID-19 drug development should be one page. And possibly merge the two with COVID-19 vaccine. I know "repurposing" "drug development" and "vaccine" are all different. I just think it would be more useful to be on one page instead of clicking here and there to get info. DustyGoliath 20:47, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

DustyGoliath, what about one page titled "Medical responses to COVID-19"? It would cover any vaccines and other drugs used to combat the virus. Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 20:52, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Tenryuu, that's a good title. Or maybe "COVID-19 Research & Development." ——DustyGoliath 21:00, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Please don't use "epicenter"

Allow me to share a personal pet peeve with you: the term 'epicenter' is technical jargon referring to a geographical point in an earthquake. It is not a formal term for the source of a jazz trend, a new culinary revolution, the Civil Rights Movement, or a coronavirus outbreak. I just went around modifying a few dozen articles that used this term incorrectly. Many journalists are using this word in an attempt to sound cool and hip. That's fine for informal news headlines, it's not OK for an encyclopedia. Let's tighten it up and avoid false jargon. Thanks, kids! Elizium23 (talk) 04:20, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

• I have been shooting that word on sight. Abductive (reasoning) 05:06, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Epicenter is acceptable, end of discussion

I thought this debate was dead. Epicenter is totally acceptable way of expressing the location from which an epidemic is currently spreading. This isn't worth discussing, just see the dictionary definitions:

• center sense 2a, e.g.: the epicenter of world finance — Merriam-Webster [1]

• An epicenter is also the place that has the highest level of an activity. — Cambridge dictionary [2]

• the place where something unpleasant is felt most strongly and from where it can spread to other areas — Macmillan [3]

Now, stop it, you're not going to say that the World Health Organization is using the wrong terminology:

"Europe has now become the epicenter of the pandemic, with more reported cases and deaths than the rest of the world combined, apart from China." — [WHO Director-General's opening remarks at the media briefing on COVID-19 - 13 March 2020 https://www.who.int/dg/speeches/detail/who-director-general-s-opening-remarks-at-the-mission-briefing-on-covid-19---13-march-2020]

Carl Fredrik ^talk 06:09, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Ping Elizium23 — Do not remove this terminology from infectious disease articles. Carl Fredrik ^talk 06:16, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Discussion of the usage of "epicenter"

CFCF, so you're going to accuse me of vandalism over 2 dozen times, and revert constructive edits of unrelated articles, before even a discussion can develop? That's rude. Elizium23 (talk) 06:16, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I accidentally reverted some things I shouldn't have – sorry about that. No, I'm not accusing you of vandalism, just of being wrong. Carl Fredrik ^talk 06:18, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

CFCF, you did accuse me of vandalism, by using the "minor" vandalism-style rollback, which is an abuse of the privilege. Elizium23 (talk) 06:20, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

CFCF, from epicenter:

• Garner also refers to a William Safire article in which Safire quotes a geophysicist as attributing the use of the term to "spurious erudition on the part of writers combined with scientific illiteracy on the part of copy editors". Nevertheless, Garner has noted that these usages may describe "focal points of unstable and potentially destructive environments."
• I suppose you concur with other editors that the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s was "an unstable and potentially destructive environment"? Are you sure you're going to stand by those edits? Elizium23 (talk) 06:21, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm going to back off with regards to if one can speak of the epicenter of rave culture, as I do agree epicenter implies a negative connotation, see the Macmillan definition (and will restore on a case by case basis what I see as an overzealous defense of a pet-peave). However, I am still going to strongly contend that the use of epicenter within spread of disease — is correct. Carl Fredrik ^talk 06:26, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Elizium23 I have restored your edits from my overzealous defense of the word. My bad, most of your edits were benign. However, it should not be removed from articles on epidemics, outbreaks and plagues. Carl Fredrik ^talk 06:33, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

  Well, that is very generous of you. Thank you for this compromise. I am sorry that I became irate in all of this. Elizium23 (talk) 06:51, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

CFCF, it may be possible to convince me that "epicenter" is used correctly in this narrower definition that we have found in its Wikipedia article, maybe. Even so, I am not convinced that it is necessary or prudent to use it. What is the utility of saying "epicenter" instead of simplying saying what we mean -- "center"? I'll say this - it adds a halo of drama and erudition to the prose, and that's not a good thing. I don't think we need to add drama to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is supposed to maintain a neutral point of view. And the neutral term for the center of something is "center". It would be frowned upon if we described an aircraft "slamming" into the ground or "plummeting" out of the sky. Those are non-neutral terms. In using "epicenter" the desire is to evoke a destructive earthquake, and that can be done for COVID-19 with sober methods, not fake science. Elizium23 (talk) 06:33, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

What I'm saying is not that it should be used indescriminately, but that it has a proper place when a location is acting as the center from which a disease spreads — which as you point out is a narrower definition.

And, yes the word has a certain negative tone, and ought not be overused. However, and this has been discussed elsewhere on medical articles, we must root our neutrality in some form of pseudo-pan-humanist position, where certain things are accepted as being universally bad. If we didn't take this stance we could never write any articles on human health, because it would not make sense to speak of a "good/bad prognosis" or a "optimal/suboptimal outcome" or even frankly of "treatment effect", because we need to take a stance when it comes to human health regarding what "treatment" is. I realize this might be getting overly-philosophical, but I think it's an important point to make. Plagues, epidemics and disease outbreaks are universaly bad, even from what is commonly referred to as a neutral perspective — therefor epicenter is acceptable. Carl Fredrik ^talk 06:44, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

The word also lacks a firm grip on tense; saying "Wuhan, the epicenter..." makes it seem like it is still experiencing cases. It is an imprecise word outside of earthquakes. Abductive (reasoning) 09:30, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

That's just nonsensical — how does "center", which you were replacing it with — better convey temporality? Of course we have to clarify when it was the epicenter, just as you have to clarify when a certain location was the epicenter of an earthquake... Carl Fredrik ^talk 09:32, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Please don't remove epicenter

I see that you are continuing to remove 'epicenter', Abductive. See above for why; when it comes to plague, epidemic, pandemic or outbreak of infectious disease: epicenter or epicentre is not only acceptable, but often technically far more specific and accurate and thus preferred to 'center'. Carl Fredrik ^talk 08:46, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

• What I see is one user trying to tell two editors what to do and reverting their edits, based on a dictionary definition. Abductive (reasoning) 09:24, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Then you're being very biased about it. The definition is apparently used by the World Health Organization and is widely used in both lay and professional literature. It's fine for you not to use it, but it's not fine for you to systematically remove it.

The major reason why your take is wrong, is because I'm not the one going around inserting "epicenter" everywhere, whereas you have even admitted to removing it "on sight" and judging on your edit history have been going around looking for it. Pet peaves have no place on Wikipedia, especially semantic ones. Feel free to remove it where it is incorrect, but what you dismiss as a "dictionary definition" is clear evidence that it is widely used, and correctly so, including in the best professional sources. Carl Fredrik ^talk 09:28, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

You going around looking at my edit history is treading very close to WP:Wikihounding, and reverting people is edit warring. Abductive (reasoning) 09:33, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

No, it's not. Contibution histories exist for this very reason. If you've systematically been doing the same thing over many articles, then it is only appropriate to be as systematic in discussion and restoration if doing it was wrong. Carl Fredrik ^talk 09:39, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

But what if it's not wrong? What if a word was being (ab)used by third-rate headline writers for the tabloids that they work for, and then multiple editors on an online encyclopedia took notice and began making the encyclopedia better by editing out the word and replacing it with better words? Abductive (reasoning) 09:57, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Abductive — Then I would implore you to act as a Wikipedian, and instead of discussing hypotheticals — look at what the quality non-headline sources say in this specific case. And they're pretty dead-on that it is accurate terminology, used in the research literature and by the World Health Organization, and is covered in basic and professional dictonaries.
Just run a pubmed search and you'll find it in the title of decently impactful articles, such as: Epidemiology, ecology and gene pool of influenza A virus in Egypt: will Egypt be the epicentre of the next influenza pandemic? and in the abstract of The positive impact of lockdown in Wuhan on containing the COVID-19 outbreak in China.. I know it stinks to be wrong (I've been wrong many times); but you've got suck it up. Carl Fredrik ^talk 12:59, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

WP:MEDRS. Abductive (reasoning) 20:16, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

The WHO uses it in official statements. You empty-linking of what is here an irrelevant policy is not funny. Carl Fredrik ^talk 14:45, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

CFCF, are there any other terms used? Are there no alternatives to using "epicenter" in the literature? Is "epicenter" the only way to refer to "ground zero" (haha) of an epidemic or pandemic outbreak? Elizium23 (talk) 08:47, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

The World Health Origanization uses "epicenter" in their official statements. Plus, there aren't really any alternatives besides "ground zero" which is a media-ish hype way of saying "epicenter." It's best to go with WHO on terminology over anyone or anything else. Just my 2 cents. DustyGoliath 19:44, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Basic terminology

Hi all! I'm collecting basic terminology that people would need in order to be able to write articles about this pandemic. If you'd like to add items to the table, all you need to do is add in the qid from Wikidata for the concept. If the concept doesn't have a qid, it can be added to the list below the table. I appreciate any and all help! -Yupik (talk) 07:40, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

The problem of that list is that most of them aren't official epidemiological terms or from reputable sources. -DustyGoliath 16:00, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

New IAR essay

Hi all, given the amount of WP:IAR being called for this unprecedented situation and unprecedented change, I've been thinking of drafting a new IAR-adjacent essay (with a fun title like WP:In the apocalypse, there are no rules) to discuss how rules and guidelines for any aspect of Wikipedia cannot apply when a situation so unexpected it couldn't have been factored in to the decision to apply those rules arises (like a pandemic, natch). This would be an extension of IAR (throw out a rule for an exceptional reason) to say 'assume all rules are thrown out now'. Would anyone support this/want to help contribute? Kingsif (talk) 15:14, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

ETA: obviously only applying to situation-related things, we're not going to change all the biography footnotes because of this. Kingsif (talk) 15:17, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

I say: "Go", and do post here — I have a few comments of my own worth adding. This wouldn't be the first time rules had to be ignored because of a major event; both because the new editors who don't understand the editing process makes sticking to WP:3RR impossible, but also because the situation is unique and we don't have appropriate rules. Carl Fredrik ^talk 15:49, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Carl - I have put it at Wikipedia:In the apocalypse, there are no rules, which can be linked using WP:UNPRECEDENTED (i.e. "no, because this is WP:UNPRECEDENTED") Kingsif (talk) 16:38, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Kingsif, isn't this the basic case for coups ? Yug (talk) 17:59, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

@Yug: I really don't know what you mean. Kingsif (talk) 19:05, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

@Kingsif: History-legal joke. Wikipedia:In the apocalypse, there are no rules is making the case for not respecting the rule of laws, a classic legitimization of coup plotters. Yug (talk) 19:58, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure about how many rules should we ignore in this situation. What do you have in mind? Should we ignore WP:RS and WP:V just because we want Wikipedia updated one hour faster? I think WP:NOTNEWS still applies here. Maybe you had different rules in mind. --MarioGom (talk) 21:53, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, certainly not all the rules (fun title notwithstanding) - there's a line at the bottom about still being polite, please feel free to add other caveats about how RS is actually very important, etc. Kingsif (talk) 21:57, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Spanish flu

Speaking of notable flu pandemics, why is the article on the 1918-20 spanish flu pandemic part of this project? Username⁶⁸⁹² 16:58, 21 March 2020 (UTC) It's been removed. Username⁶⁸⁹² 19:50, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Not strictly covid item. It's just interesting for historical perpective and forecasting. Yug (talk) 17:00, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Or to be more "half full glass", 1918-20 spanish flu pandemic is the last time a fast running pandemic virus kicked our ***** into freaking out and faetal position. So it's good to have it near hands XD Yug (talk) 17:07, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

For that matter, polio used to shut down summer, as my 92-year-old father vividly remembers. A historic public health perspective shall be warranted eventually. kencf0618 (talk) 19:36, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Shouldn't be included in the scope, but since it was a pandemic, active warnings will apply. Kingsif (talk) 19:08, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

It's seeing a sufficient enough spike in views right now that I do think it should be included. Many comparissons are being made, and there is cause of expansion of the Spanish flu article with a legacy section on how it impacted our COVID response. Carl Fredrik ^talk 19:48, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

There's no mention of this on that article at the moment, though. Comparisons may be improper, and given the length and detail of the Spanish flu article, anything on how it's impacted the current pandemic (as unlikely as that is given the much better medicine and global communication now) would be in a separate article. Kingsif (talk) 21:17, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Updating SVG Maps

What is the standard way (if there is one) to edit and re-upload the SVG maps currently in use for pages related to COVID-19? Been on Wiki a long time, never really edited and uploaded a new version of an SVG map before though. --(Moshe) מֹשֶׁה‎ 19:50, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

There is no standard. To do simple things like alter map colors, many people use Inkscape or Adobe Illustrator for editing SVG images. Inkscape is free, so may be the first thing to try. Look at Wikipedia:SVG help for more advice. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 23:53, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

ONE relevant question

As the worst case scenario for COVID seems to get discarded, I do understand that the seasonal coronavirus that would have been expected, should account for 10% of influenza-like-illness (ILI) in the worst case scenario. From interpolation of France, Spain and Italy test here, I do believe I see 2/3 influenza, 1/6 pneumonia and 1/6 COVID. There is seem to be little to no place left for other coronaviruses. Does anyone have sources about the state of others non-flu, non-pneumonia, non-covid influenza-like-illnesses ? Iluvalar (talk) 22:12, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

You can have them all at the same time if you work hard.
Pneumonia is generally a complication of the others. Yug (talk) 23:06, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Some points: 1. this is not a forum - if you have questions about disease stats, google them. 2. It seems that even merely stating 'there's no room in annual disease predictions for so many deaths from this' is an attempt at spreading misinformation that either it's not deadly or doesn't exist. 3. To answer your irrelevant (and really obvious) question: nobody predicted this. So it's not going to be accounted for in projections made years ago. Now stop posting about it. Kingsif (talk) 23:24, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

If you don't know the subject enough to know why the presence of other coronaviruses will greatly affect the outcome of the outbreak and the crisis evaluation, you don't need to be insulting about it. Being treated as a troll or a hoax is not pleasant. 2. I just said, COVID is at least as deadly as the H1N1 outbreak, it's horrifyingly deadly, never said otherwise. Iluvalar (talk) 02:55, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Iluvalar, the presence of other coronaviruses will greatly affect the outcome of the outbreak and the crisis evaluation is not what your questions have been seeming to ask about, at all. If you were unclear and seem like a troll, that's not my fault. But, again, this is not a forum, it's a page to discuss the project. Go talk to a pathologist if you want to learn about the subject. Kingsif (talk) 14:14, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Global message from Wikimedia Foundation

The Wikimedia Foundation wrote a message which it intends to display to every reader globally. See at

• https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/NASA?banner=programmatic_mlWW_rsp_covid19&force=1&country=US

The WMF gave notice at meta:Wikimedia_Forum#Message_to_readers_from_Wikimedia_Foundation.

copy of message 21 March 2020 version

A message to our readers about COVID-19 With the uncertainty surrounding the outbreak of the Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic, we want to reassure our readers across the globe that our volunteers are working to bring you a trusted source of unbiased information. Throughout these challenging times, knowledge must and will remain open for all. We find ourselves in remarkable circumstances this year. The COVID-19 pandemic makes clear our global human interconnectedness and the responsibilities we have to one another. We have no precedent for its challenges, but we do know that our best response relies on the sort of global empathy, cooperation, and community building that sit at the heart of our movement. I want to acknowledge the invaluable work of all the contributors on Wikipedia. Thank you for keeping a close watch and keeping misinformation at bay. Our coronavirus articles have received tens of thousands of edits by thousands of editors since the start of the pandemic. We are proving that, even in a time of social distancing, we can celebrate our human bond by coming together online to share facts and information. We will keep working around the clock to bring you reliable and neutral information. Now, as ever, our priority is to remain worthy of your trust. Take good care, Katherine Maher, Executive Director, Wikimedia Foundation

Comments here? Blue Rasberry (talk) 01:33, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

I've been thinking the community should have put up a banner a while ago. I appreciate this message. Thanks for the heads up. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 01:43, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

That message goes to far and gives the impression our articles are more accurate than they are. I don't know how to get this message to the right place, so will ping @WhatamIdoing: and ask her to convey my concern. Most of our COVID articles have problems, ranging from minor to extreme. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:28, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

I've passed a link along to someone on the team. In the meantime, you might be interested in https://www.vox.com/the-goods/2020/3/24/21192837/coronavirus-brand-emails and similar sources. I would not be surprised if this sort of action becomes a standard example in business school textbooks about marketing and branding during a crisis. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:37, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

WikiProject Interview

Hi, I was wondering if I could get 4-5 active members of this Project to participate in an interview for the Signpost WikiProject Report which I put together. If so, please ping me here and we can get connected! Thanks, Puddleglum^2.0_{(How's my driving?)} 05:17, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Puddleglum2.0, is this the same thing that Bri is doing (see here)? Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 05:21, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

@Puddleglum2.0: I'd be interested in this.  Bait30  ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 05:53, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

You should also get Another Believer. He's been doing a lot of good work here.  Bait30  ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 05:54, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I just did a similar interview for WikiProject Tree of Life. I'll let others contribute here first, but let me know if more participants are needed. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:55, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

@Puddleglum2.0: There's some overlap with questions I was recently asked by WikiProject Tree of Life. You're welcome to reference this interview or use my answers at User_talk:Another_Believer#WikiProject_Tree_of_Life_Newsletter, if helpful. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:18, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Another Believer -- If I don't get enough volunteers I'll drop you a line. Puddleglum^2.0_{(How's my driving?)} 18:45, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Puddleglum2.0, I would also be interested in this. Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 05:54, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Tenryuu and Bait30 thank you, the page with questions is right here. Instructions on formatting are also on that page. Thanks again! to Tenryuu: I didn't think it is, you can look at past issues of the Signpost (last month or two months ago) and see examples of this in the WikiProject Report to see what this is. To future volunteers: you can just ping me here then head over to the page. Thanks! Puddleglum^2.0_{(How's my driving?)} 15:10, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Puddleglum2.0, You may want to redirect that link, as typing your username in all caps makes the software assume there is a different user with the handle PUDDLEGLUM2.0 and not you.

 Courtesy link: User:Puddleglum2.0/WPR

--Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 15:47, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

The page with questions is here. Username⁶⁸⁹² 15:47, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Whoops, thank you Tenryuu and Username6892! Puddleglum^2.0_{(How's my driving?)} 16:04, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

• Puddleglum2.0 — If you'd like I can respond by mail. Carl Fredrik ^talk 17:06, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

CFCF It would be much preferable if you could answer on that page -- is there a reason why you can't? I'm sorry, I don't want to put out to much personal information on Wikipedia if you understand. =) thanks, Puddleglum^2.0_{(How's my driving?)} 18:45, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

@Tenryuu: Hello again, I was wondering if you could ping a couple editors you know are active here and you think might be interested. My writing deadline is coming up, but I don't know which members are active and would be good for an interview. Thanks, Puddleglum^2.0_{(How's my driving?)} 17:05, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Puddleglum2.0, I pinged a few more. Cheers! Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 18:22, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Actually just looked and realized that two more people answered without notifying! =D I'm open for one more person if you can think of one, but I have the minimum now. Thank you all for your cooperation! Puddleglum^2.0_{(How's my driving?)} 17:10, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

MEDRS in a time of pandemic

Can I solicit input at Talk:Coronavirus_disease_2019#Forks_focusing_on_early_research? Bondegezou (talk) 10:58, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Case Count Task Force

I would like to propose a task force to update case counts with reliable sources. I have prepared a sandbox page (work in progress) with the info I think we would need for it: User:MarioGom/sandbox/Latest data sources. If the task force style doesn't stick, I think it would be worth to at least move the section about reliable sources to this project. --MarioGom (talk) 14:31, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

I fully support a task for dedicated to updating the case counts. Lots of people want to update but a few dedicated pool of infomration can be super duper useful. Starzoner (talk) 16:07, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Maybe just a subpage with helpful resources and a place for editors to collaborate instead of an actual task force? Just trying to reduce administrative overhead here, but also not opposed to task force creation if there's enough editor interest. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:50, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I don't think we need to do anything that requires too much overhead. A list of resources per-country will do. And if there is enough interest, the column for people to add themselves to certain countries so we can spread the workload. --MarioGom (talk) 17:23, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

MarioGom, Are you thinking Wikipedia:WikiProject COVID-19/Case Count Task Force? I say be bold and start something sooner than later. The page can always be moved if editors decide on a different name or structure. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:15, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Another Believer: Ok, done. Feel free to move it if another name seems more appropriate. --MarioGom (talk) 19:11, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

I have noticed that there is a difference in the statistics on CDC and on state government websites. I have been using the state statistics. Prairie Astronomer (talk) 19:27, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Prairie Astronomer: What CDC? There are a few countries with disease control agencies with the same name. --MarioGom (talk) 19:36, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

MarioGom: Center for Disease Control and Prevention Prairie Astronomer (talk) 22:44, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

It would be extremely valuable to maintain a list of reputable sources and encourage editors to either use them or add to the list every time they update the case stats - especially on the main template. There have been many instances of un-cited numbers, including once today where a jump of ~7,000 cases in the USA was not confirmed by any reputable source that I could find (the only source with that number was Worldometers). Eitan1989 (talk) 20:55, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Translation Task Force?

Should the translation work being done here be under the Case Count Task Force, or should there be a separate Translation Task Force? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:11, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

@Netha Hussain: Making you aware of this discussion. Thanks! ---Another

Believer _(Talk) 19:25, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

I think they are quite different efforts. I don't care much whether both are organized under the same page or two separate ones though. --MarioGom (talk) 20:03, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree with User:MarioGom. Right now it is only me working on this, but I would like more people to join the effort. If many people do join, we'll need a separate page. --Netha (talk) 20:55, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Netha Hussain, Thanks for creating Wikipedia:WikiProject COVID-19/Translation Task Force. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:00, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Trim the cruft?

Imagine your house burnt down and everything in it was destroyed. Someone asks, "What happened?" You'd say, "My house burnt down and everything is gone." You would not list each and every DVD, each and every pair of socks, that was lost. Even a detailed insurance report wouldn't bother with that much detail.

Do you understand my metaphor? We have a plethora of articles listing every event that has been cancelled because of COVID-19. Why? In numerous countries (and more to come), every mass gathering has been cancelled. Do we need itemised lists?

Wikipedia is not a newspaper, it is not a blog, it is not a running news feed, it is not a cathartic outlet for editors who want to do something. There are good reasons why Wikipedia is not all these things. There are good reasons why we have longstanding community standards like WP:NOTNEWS, WP:NOTBLOG, WP:NOTCATALOGUE, WP:NOTSTATSBOOK, WP:MEDRS and even WP:PROSE. The COVID-19 pandemic is perhaps the biggest event in Wikipedia's history. Wikipedia has a hugely important role in helping and documenting, but we do that by using our basic principles, not by abandoning them.

Do we need to list each individual trade show cancelled as at List_of_events_affected_by_the_2019–20_coronavirus_pandemic#Conventions,_conferences,_and_trade_shows_2? Do we need to list every minor celebrity who catches the virus and then recovers? Do we need List of association football players diagnosed with COVID-19?! Do we need an article on every geopolitical subdivision (e.g. 2020 coronavirus pandemic in the Åland Islands)?

I suggest the answer is no. We are building an encyclopaedia. We should follow the same principles that has made Wikipedia one of the most used and trusted websites in the world. We should not be trying to record every news article. We should be covering the big picture well: in a clear and timely manner, citing the best quality sources.

I propose we trim back WP:CFORKs and unnecessary splits. Let's have more like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vietnamese heiresses with coronavirus! Do we need 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Akrotiri and Dhekelia separate to 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Cyprus? Do we need COVID-19 drug repurposing research in addition to COVID-19 drug development? I propose we trim back lists: if everything has been cancelled in a country, say that. Let's move beyond stuff like Impact_of_the_2019–20_coronavirus_pandemic_on_television#Affected_productions.

This WikiProject should be able to provide an overview of activity, and help maintain standards and commitment to policy and guidelines. Can we do it? Bondegezou (talk) 20:42, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

• We don't have historical perspective to tell us the most pertinent parts yet. Have it all for now, trim back later. Good? Kingsif (talk) 20:54, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

WP:DELAY says, "It is wise to delay writing an article about a breaking news event until the significance of the event is clearer as early coverage may lack perspective and be subject to factual errors." So the agreed community standard is not Have it all for now, trim back later. It's the opposite of that. Bondegezou (talk) 21:16, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

That rule would encourage WP to not have any coronavirus articles until the pandemic is over. I'm going to go ahead and ignore it. Kingsif (talk) 21:25, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

That rule would encourage WP to not have any coronavirus articles until the pandemic is over. Of course it wouldn't. I feel you are exaggerating there. But it might have stopped 2020 coronavirus pandemic in the Åland Islands, 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Akrotiri and Dhekelia, List of association football players diagnosed with COVID-19 and (now deleted) Vietnamese heiresses with coronavirus. Bondegezou (talk) 21:28, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

This is the most widespread, global issue, since World War II, certainly the largest in Wikipedia's history. Our rules weren't built for this. See also Wikipedia:In the apocalypse, there are no rules. ɱ (talk) 21:33, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

What kind of ridiculous anglocentrism is it to say we shouldn't have an article on 2020 coronavirus pandemic in the Åland Islands!? It's practically an independent nation (see Åland Islands), which while small is certainly not irrelevant to the people living there, much like no one is saying that 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Rhode Island is less viable than 2020 coronavirus pandemic in New York (state). It's actually better than the Rhode Island article, which doesn't even have sources… Carl Fredrik ^talk 21:41, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

(←) In support of what the other editors have suggested, hindsight is 20/20. Perhaps this WikiProject can properly format the pandemic pages after it is done and over with. Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 00:31, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not even that big a fan of the Wikipedia:In the apocalypse, there are no rules essay, but I do have to agree that for such an important event that developing so quickly and so rapidly that it would be easier to have the articles and text and stuff added first, and have the discussion of inclusion to be had after the fact. The processes for deleting non-notable articles still exist. There's nothing stopping you from AFDing articles when you see cruft.  Bait30  ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 01:48, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

In times of crisis, having policies and guidelines helps. We can use years of experience editing Wikipedia to make our lives easier, to make pandemic-related articles better. Now is not the time to throw out the rules. If you throw out the rules, then Wikipedia stops being the useful resource it has been. So, I think that essay makes some important points (e.g., handling an influx of new editors), but I oppose a general WP:IAR approach.

What can this WikiProject do? I don't think putting out a message of "Do whatever and we'll tidy it up later" is helpful. This WikiProject should lead. It's for us all to work out how best to do that. Are there areas/issues/problems that the WikiProject can identify where we can coordinate or offer guidance? I've suggested some areas above, but if others think other areas are of more importance, then let's work on those.

(I'm not picking on 2020 coronavirus pandemic in the Åland Islands out of Anglocentrism. I question its value because it's a stub and it's only ever had one substantive edit. If it attracts lots of WP:V-compliant content and develops, great, but for now I think it's making useful information harder to find.) Bondegezou (talk) 12:10, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, there is extreme cruft everywhere, and quite often, basic medical details are missing as well. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:30, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Sources

I've created Wikipedia:WikiProject_COVID-19/Sources as a collection of potential sources for use in project articles. Feedback welcome. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:44, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Nikkimaria, I support this; the formatting looks great! Would you also be including the Worldometers Coronavirus Live Update page? Granted, it's used in a lot of templates already across many pages, but it also sources where it gets new numbers from. Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 00:35, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Just waiting to see the resolution of Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#worldometers.info_coronavirus_statistics for that one. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:44, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Ah yes, I was just skimming through the main 2019-20 coronavirus pandemic talk page and there was some mild dispute there as well. Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 01:17, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

This is awesome. I think it would be a good idea to add WP:MEDRS and WP:RS/PS as well to the respective subheadings.  Bait30  ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 01:37, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

• Hey folks - in addition to the Sources page, I just wanted to remind everyone that we have a bunch of research available for free at The Wikipedia Library. If there's anything else we can do to help the WikiProject with research and references, please let me know! Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 10:38, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Critical numbers to document: List of countries by hospital beds, critical care beds, ventilators and ECMOs

Hi there, we need every good will to document the issue of hospital beds, ICU beds and ventilators. These are key elements of patients survival rates. (Oxygen for lighter patients, and ECMO for more severe patients are 2 required medical materiels not considered so far.)

ICU beds

Further information: Template:Hospital beds by country

We have most developed countries. More data welcome.

Ventilators per country ?

Further information: Template:Hospital beds by country

Mechanical ventilation are critical device generally associated with ICU beds and at high risk of shortage.
Sources (one): There Aren’t Enough Ventilators to Cope With the Coronavirus
We need this information on as many countries as possible so pressure build uo on political leaders, lawsmakers, industrials, to produce or provide these devices THIS MONTH, before the wave.
Please help to find these data for your country and share on the template.

ECMOs

Further information: Extracorporeal_membrane_oxygenation § The_number_of_ECMOs_by_countries_and_territories

Help much welcome. Yug (talk) 12:44, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

USA > ICU beds numbers need review

I not sure what counts as ICU bed and what doesn't. May someone with medical background review the 2 sources, compare them, and refresh the calculations ? Yug (talk) 23:31, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Dallas, Texas

Just got this file sent to me by phone around 11pm. This concerns Dallas County, Texas. To summarize it, everyone must be off the streets. Kind of like New York and Cali. Only essential persons may be permitted to move freely such as hospital workers and others etc. Here's a news article that discusses it: [4]. Jerm (talk) 04:37, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Fixing first sentences of articles

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

As we go about updating pages, can we please remove the awful "This article documents..." start to so many pages? Duh, we know it's an article and of course its contents relate to its title. It's an unnecessary and proscribed WP:SELFREF. It should be something like "The 2019-20 Coronavirus pandemic had impacts on PLACE", not "This articles documents the impacts of the 2019-20 Coronavirus pandemic on PLACE." Reywas92^Talk 07:18, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_COVID-19#This_article..., on this very page. Carl Fredrik ^talk 08:16, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

There cannot be a pandemic of a virus...

... only of a disease. If Wikipedia is to have any claim to have accuracy and precision as a goal, can we please try to correct this wherever we see it. There is not, and logically cannot be, a 'coronavirus pandemic': there is a pandemic of a disease carried by a coronavirus, and the name of that disease is 'coronavirus disease 2019' or, in abbreviated form, 'covid-19'.

Would all Wikipedians who believe that the project should have semantic accuracy and avoid displaying ignorance please do what they can to address this drop in standards. Kevin McE (talk) 08:08, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Once again, Wikipedia ins't about semantic accuracy, but about accurately conveying what our sources say and creating a repository of distilled knowledge. If reliable WP:MEDRS-compliant sources are stating that there is a coronavirus pandemic, then so do we. The World Health Organization is using the term "Coronavirus pandemic" in certain communications, it's only silly to question that. Carl Fredrik ^talk 08:12, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

"In certain communications" - are press releases and conferences actually WP:MEDRS? WHO is primarily a political organization that produces PR. They are not writing scholarly peer-reviewed journal articles here. If they are making rookie errors like "epicenter" and "virus pandemic" then it would seem they're not the MEDRS we thought they were. Press releases and journalist communications from an organization are, by nature, WP:PROMOTIONAL and we don't need to take them as a gold standard of medical usage. Elizium23 (talk) 08:29, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

WHO press releases are absolutely WP:MEDRS-compliant, and are not journalistic blurbs. You can also find both those terms littered all over the WP:MEDRS-compliant literature at pubmed. We don't judge MEDRS on arbitrary rules set up by laymen in the field, who might or might not be knowledgeable about other fields. Review articles in pubmed are MEDRS, WHO communications are MEDRS, it's not more complicated than that.
Your allegations of incompetence on their part — are NOT WP:MEDRS. Carl Fredrik ^talk 08:34, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

CFCF, The reliability of these sources ranges from formal scientific reports, which can be the equal of the best reviews published in medical journals, through public guides and service announcements, which have the advantage of being freely readable, but are generally less authoritative than the underlying medical literature. Elizium23 (talk) 08:40, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Your interpretation seems to be inaccurate, as the WHO Press releases are not of the same caliber as those from a university, where the press division is separate from the rest of the organizaiton. The WHO publishes its own work, which university researchers do not. Secondly, both terms are frequent in the WP:MEDRS-compliant "underlying medical and research literature". Carl Fredrik ^talk 08:44, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

I am not seeing where press releases of WHO are MEDRS. Could you please quote a discussion or guideline that specifically singles out their press releases as MEDRS. Elizium23 (talk) 08:44, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

The miss here in what you understand a WHO press release to be. In essence they release guidelines or position statements, where you can find the relevant passage of MEDRS here: WP:MEDORG.
This entire tangent is also irrelevant, as we have the usage in formal articles on pubmed, of which many are WP:MEDRS-compliant anyway. Carl Fredrik ^talk 08:52, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

I would also ask why you are advocating for usage of terms that happen to be found in literature or communications, when the terms that we know to be more correct are also found in equally- or more-reliable sources? "Epicenter" and "*virus pandemic" are not unanimously used by WP:MEDRS, far from it. So why should you seize on them as "the ones we are gonna use"? What makes them more correct than other terms found in WP:RS and WP:MEDRS? Elizium23 (talk) 08:38, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm not saying that we "should only use" those terms, but rather that they are accurate and found in the relevant and WP:RS-compliant literature — hence we have no argument to avoid them either. Wikipedia allows for a range of stylistic choices when expressing the same thing — and to systematically remove or discourage one form when it is used in reliable sources — is WP:DISRUPTIVE and not in accordance with policy. If the only thing you care about is semantic accuracy, go contribute at Wikidata. Carl Fredrik ^talk 08:39, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

We do have arguments to remove them - dictionary definition, nontechnical usage, fake-erudition. Elizium23 (talk) 08:44, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

The dictionary definition very clearly states that epicenter is a fully valid usage — and nothing indicates it is non-technical. As for "coronavirus epidemic" — you haven't shown those issues. And it is remarkable that you cite "dictionary definition" as an acceptable argument, here used against the terms — seeing as when I clearly showed this usage to be included in the dictionary definition: that was rejected as "only a dictionary definition". Carl Fredrik ^talk 08:49, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

CFCF, well, you were ready to apply it to jazz and Chicanos before I showed you it has a connotation of disaster and destructiveness... Elizium23 (talk) 08:51, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Not in the leastest bit true. I have never stated that I believe it to be proper usage there — and I was very clear about not standing by those edits. Carl Fredrik ^talk 08:57, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

CFCF, if I searched computer documents, I could find loads of people referring to gigabytes when they really meant gibibytes. Just because loads of people use an incorrect term does not mean they are correct. It just means that the industry has reluctantly accepted an incorrect term that people generally agree to have an ambiguous meaning because so many people use it correctly. What does Wikipedia do in our articles? We strive to use gibibyte where we mean it, because we are technically accurate. Elizium23 (talk) 08:49, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

:::::Not a relevant comparison in any sense — that is total gaslighting and disingenuous — and what is more you'd be hard pressed to find that error in high-impact WP:RS-compliant journal titles, or statements from the most authoritative bodies out there — which you can here. Carl Fredrik ^talk 08:55, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Not seeing this as a big deal. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:37, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

• Thanks for the timely reminder, Kevin McE; we could all be more careful about this one. I've checked the articles I edit, and we seem to be good. Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/Introduction to viruses (refer to the disease not the pandemic). Since the current name for the disease emerged after the name of the virus, we should expect to see some confusion in articles. In the same vein, we had highly reliable sources telling us only a week ago not to wear masks unless you had COVID, and now hospitals are calling for volunteers to make home-made masks and bring them to hospitals, so in a rapidly changing crisis, we should be suspect of even our best MEDRS sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:39, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

You say, "we seem to be good," but I cannot agree. We have the titles of 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic, a myriad of regional and industry specific sub pages of that, and the side bar template and most of the pages it directs to all attaching "pandemic", illogically, to the type of virus, not to the disease. To those who know the distinction between a virus and a disease, Wikipedia is looking ignorant: to those who don't, Wikipedia is failing to provide any example or meet the basic function of an encyclopaedia in explaining. Kevin McE (talk) 11:26, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

I am not quite sure why we are arguing. For illustration, influenza has caused pandemics. Influenza is caused by influenza viruses A, B and C. Only influenza virus A causes pandemic influenza. Viruses are not endemic or pandemic but the diseases they cause can be. If we confuse the virus with the disease by lazy writing, we will create problems for ourselves all over the encyclopedia. We can easily fix the places where this error has crept in by changing "coronavirus" to "coronavirus disease". (It should of course be "coronaviral disease" which I think we can safely disregard). Graham Beards (talk) 11:52, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) — I'm rolling back some or my arguments above, striking out my own responses above and hiding a tangential discussion that is better covered in another section above. Carl Fredrik ^talk 12:46, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Kevin McE we are in violent agreement. I should have more clearly stated that I've checked the articles where I am responsible for the wording, and we are good. (Specifically, White House Coronavirus Task Force, and I have helped prepare the TFA blurb linked above for Introduction to viruses, TFA 27 March.) You are correct that there remain problems throughout, but I doubt I can have much impact on the growing mess other than to agree with you and support Graham's solution. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:13, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

We're going to be wrong

The current situation demands that any action be thoroughly discussed, before we choose to do anything. The idea of a "coronavirus pandemic" has crept into the common consciousness, and beyond being referred to in the lay press it can even be found in the scientific literature, including in some not so obscure journals.

What we must also keep in mind is that there are literally hundreds or articles (Category:2019–20_coronavirus_pandemic_by_country_and_territory) on the pandemic over various regions that are using the form "2020 coronavirus pandemic in …". (Which rightly stated is a rest from when they were all titled "2020 coronavirus outbreak in …".) Add to that the hundreds of templates (Category:2019–20_coronavirus_pandemic_templates) — and it's quite clear none of this can be done in a hurry, even if we came to a decision now.

We have to decide whether this is an issue to cover, or whether we should frankly ignore it for the time being. The term is technically incorrect, yes, but as Graham Beards states above, so is "coronavirus disease pandemic"; which should be "coronaviral disease pandemic" — which frankly doesn't show up on Google search trends, and is therefore out of the question that we use per WP:COMMONNAME. With a current move moratorium in place (or soon to be in place Proposal:_Move_moratorium) at the main pandemic article, and a main disease article titled "Coronavirus disease 2019" with the WHO referring to the "Coronavirus disease or COVID-19" (not "Coronavirus disease 2019") and recently releasing official statements using "coronavirus pandemic" ([5][6]) — I think there is only one possible solution here:

• We need to accept that we're going to be wrong (at least for a while)

And that means allowing several reasonable combinations in article titles and in article text.

• If the World Health Organization isn't able to coordinate their releases with regards to this, neither will we, and we are wasting time and energy debating it.

To a certain degree this is about consistency and prioritizing what is important. For Wikipedia, getting the exact name right isn't important for now, and we have to weigh the amount of work needed to fix this against the amount of benefit it is going to give us (and our readers). Carl Fredrik ^talk 12:46, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Can you please stop shouting at us ? Graham Beards (talk) 13:25, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Even where the titles are wrong, we can immediately correct the text that links to the titles, as I did here. (And considering the conflicted WHO relationship with China, so we need to take greater care with preferencing them as a source.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:10, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

It is inaccurate and should be corrected.Graham Beards (talk) 13:55, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

URGENT collaboration on adding info on optimal EPA listed disinfectants for using against coronavirus

I've got what I think is highly helpful information I want to add to an article, but need collaborators who understand Wikipedia, science, & how to collaborate, & will thoroughly evaluate safety issues. And willing to search through data & such. Having OneNote 2010 would be helpful, tho not essential. I've collected a lot of linked information! This info needs sharing URGENTLY! It’s related to https://www.infectioncontroltoday.com/environmental-services/select-effective-disinfectants-use-against-coronavirus-causes-covid-19 and https://www.epa.gov/pesticide-registration/list-n-disinfectants-use-against-sars-cov-2 Please help out? Field In (talk) 12:04, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

No, you don't need to be a scientist or major expert on this stuff! If you can help figure out the structure the info should be put into & sift through sources to identify best ones, that'd be great!

We also need some people who have a feel for what people's reactions have tended to be in this crisis, and can consider very carefully what info should be included.

Field In (talk) 12:22, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Danger alert

There is a media report today of a man dying after ingesting chloroquinine intended for aquarium use. [7] Sheesh. Can we say something anywhere? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:41, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

I think we should be very strict about removing any mentions of WP:HOWTO, such as those which include dosages (e.g. [8]), but I don't think there is any way for us to influence whether someone takes prophylactic veterinary medicine or not. Carl Fredrik ^talk 14:38, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Requesting a fixed naming convention for COVID-19 related pages

I think we need to decide on a naming convention for articles under Wikiproject COVID-19 for consistency and ease of navigation to readers. The following nomenclatures are currently in use,

1. 2019-20 coronavirus pandemic in ...
2. 2019-20 coronavirus outbreak in ...
3. 2020 coronavirus pandemic in ...
4. 2020 coronavirus outbreak in ...

I want opinions on the matter. Thanks in advance for you opinions. Stay safe, DishitaBhowmik 16:33, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

The vast majority of pages are already with 2020 pandemic. The parts with 2019-2020 are the main page and page on mainland china. 16:44, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

• Article titles should always be consistent with each other if the subject is similar per WP:consistent. The term "Outbreak" usually means the start and spread of infection from a certain area via the place of origin. "Pandemic" means the infection/virus is now a major issue that goes far beyond its known point of origin to other regions far out. That's just me guessing though. Jerm (talk) 17:04, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

  There are also articles using COVID-19 --valereee (talk) 17:18, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

• Merge 2 into 1, and 4 into 3, for starters. I can understand the "2019-20" and "2020" differences: are we pointing out the year that it began affecting that region, or the entire pandemic from the beginning, back in December 2019 when China was hit? --Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 18:21, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
• Change them all to COVID-19, because that's the disease. We may as well get terms sorted out sooner rather than later. We look more credible by distinguishing the disease from the virus. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:43, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
• All four options are wrong: you have confused the virus with the disease. But option 4 with COVID-19 instead of coronavirus. Which is what I put into a RM at 2019-20 coronavirus pandemic three days ago, but it got little shrift. There are too many people who are more interested in making editors' lives easy and letting them feel good about their contributions than they are about encycloopaedic reliability. Kevin McE (talk) 14:56, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Wikibreak banner for COVID-19 idea

Hello,

I just tested today for COVID-19 and am awaiting results. In the event I test positive, I will probably not be active that much until I am better. As the virus spreads, there will probably be wikipedians who will contract the virus or currently have it. Could someone possibly make a banner saying something like "This user has COVID-19 and may be inactive for ..." or something similar? AmericanAir88^(talk) 17:01, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Take my sympathy, and this rough draft. Kingsif (talk) 17:22, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

@AmericanAir88: Now with doc. Hope you've not got it? Kingsif (talk) 17:35, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

We already have the longstanding template {{User health inactive}}. I imagine this should sufficiently convey the salient message (i.e. that a user is inactive and may not respond swiftly to queries). Mz7 (talk) 18:04, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you @Kingsif:. I appreciate it. I do not have a result yet. Also @Mz7: “health issues” is very vague in my opinion. This is a pandemic that is affecting thousands, especially where I live. AmericanAir88^(talk) 18:32, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

@AmericanAir88: I am aware that this is a pandemic; I suppose I just don't really see the need for specificity here, especially as one's health is typically a private thing. Please accept my sympathies as well, and I hope that your test comes back negative. Mz7 (talk) 18:39, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

@Mz7: Thank you. I appreciate it. What I meant is that as this virus spreads and possibly infects millions, there will possibly be a ton of wikipedia users who have it. Instead of stating "Wiki break" or "health issues", the virus can be used for better clarification. Health issues can indicate something as small as a cold to something like cancer. Thank you again for the well wishes. AmericanAir88^(talk) 18:42, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

This seems like it's more likely to spread panic than be a benign note that some will be less active on wikipedia. Natureium (talk) 18:46, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

I was also thinking, for what could be my case, if I'm supporting at-risk relatives it might be useful. Busy doesn't seem right. Kingsif (talk) 18:48, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

RfC regarding the contagiousness of simple breathing

Resolved

 – RFC was archived with a clear consensus. --Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 04:41, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

• Talk:2019–20_coronavirus_pandemic#RfC_on_second_sentence_regarding_spread

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:36, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

MOST of these proliferating RFCs relate to ALL of the COVID articles; can we not centralize them here ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:46, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Result: RfC was closed with a clear consensus on "Option 3c":

The virus is typically spread during close contact and via respiratory droplets produced when people cough or sneeze. Respiratory droplets may be produced during breathing but it is not considered airborne. It may also spread when one touches a contaminated surface and then their face. It is most contagious when people are symptomatic, although spread may be possible before symptoms appear.

References and in-line comments removed. --Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 04:41, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

New traffic report: Daily article pageviews from social media

I just posted this annoucement to WP:VPT; reposting here because this might be an especially useful resource for this WikiProject. - J

The WMF Research team has published a new report of inbound traffic coming from Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and Reddit.

The report contains a list of all articles that received at least 500 views from one or more of these sites (i.e. someone clicked a link on Twitter that sent them directly to a Wikipedia article). The report will be updated daily at around 14:00 UTC with traffic counts from the previous calendar day.

We believe this report provides editors with a valuable new information source. Daily inbound social media traffic stats can help editors monitor edits to articles that are going viral on social media sites and/or are being linked to by the social media platform itself in order to fact-check disinformation and other controversial content.

The social media traffic report also contains additional public article metadata that may be useful in the context of monitoring articles that are receiving unexpected attention from social media sites, such as...

• the total number of pageviews (from all sources) that article received in the same period of time
• the number of pageviews the article received from the same platform (e.g. Facebook) the previous day (two days ago)
• The number of editors who have the page on their watchlist
• The number of editors who have watchlisted the page AND recently visited it

We are currently actively seeking feedback on this report! We have some ideas of our own for how to improve the report, but we want to hear yours. If you have feature suggestions, questions, or other comments please add them to the project talkpage on Meta or ping Jonathan Morgan on his talkpage. Also be sure to check out our growing FAQ.

We intend to maintain this daily report for at least the next two months. If we receive feedback that the report is useful, we are considering making it available indefinitely. Cheers, Jmorgan (WMF) (talk) 18:59, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Talk:2019–20_coronavirus_pandemic#Mortality_rate

We need to develop some consensus around mortality. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:11, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Based on best students for lower end (lot of testing, HC system standing): Korea, Taiwan, Germany. And on worst students for higher end (low testing, overwhelmed HC system): Italy, Iran. But it's original research. Yug (talk) 19:36, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Doc James thinking again, I'am not sure citing these 2 extremes to establish a range is WP:OR. Yug (talk) 23:36, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

• A true mortality rate will be tough to generate based on the lack of testing, proof of recovery, and reported figures. There could be millions of cases that are very mild, which would cause the mortality rate to plummet. It also varies based on country and HCs. AmericanAir88^(talk) 19:55, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Lots of cases may also be written off as something else if not sufficient testing. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:05, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Assessment

See also: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject COVID-19/Assessment

More discussion, that's been archived here, at the assessment subpage talk. Kingsif (talk) 20:30, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

•  Implemented....just need some GA/FA reviews done.-Wikipedia:WikiProject COVID-19/Assessment--Moxy 🍁 17:45, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Category:People with COVID-19

Resolved

This category was created today which I'd think was similar to what users did before with the deleted category "Category:People with coronavirus disease 2019". I doubt that this category would be listed indefinitely on the BLPs as the celebrities which are listed on there are likely to survive and are not as popular news as the ones who had died of the virus. There had been plenty of supports to delete the category I have linked in the first sentence. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 22:13, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 March 23 § Category:People with COVID-19 --Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 22:54, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Update: the category has been speedily deleted. --Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 16:53, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

WikiProject COVID-19 topicon

I made a topicon for the project! {{WikiProject COVID-19 topicon}} Prairie Astronomer ^Talk 23:04, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Prairie Astronomer, Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:43, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Your Welcome! Prairie Astronomer ^Talk 14:55, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Shortages article ! Call for help

Main article: COVID-19 related shortages

Hi there, we see ton of news on medical material shortage these days. Be it masks for which the China-based supply-cain is affected or electronic devices. This Shortages article can become the problems statements of what we face and which must be solved. Your are welcome to visit this article to get a sense of what is going on there, and may want to drop some sources now and then. Sections are:

1 Groceries
2 Personal protective equipment: masks, clothes, reuse ?
3 Medical care devices: ICU beds, ventilation, ECMOs.
4 Medical personnel: exhausted, contaminated-isolated, sick, death.
5 Facilities: bedrooms / places for patients.

Yug (talk) 23:46, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

This shortages article is terribly written. Either there needs to be an effort to fix the whole thing or delete it. -DustyGoliath 14:03, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi, DustyGoliath! We don't delete articles because they aren't perfect, we try to fix them, and you can help! Go improve it! :D For future reference, here is a link to the reasons we would delete an article: Wikipedia:Deletion policy. --valereee (talk) 14:14, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

I think it would be better to turn this into a List of 2019-20 coronavirus-related shortages. DustyGoliath (talk) 15:45, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

DustyGoliath, I see you've suggested that at the article's talk page -- that's the way to go about these things! --valereee (talk) 16:13, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

/* How to write an RFC */ new section

In a meta-discussion at Talk:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic#RfC on first sentence on spread of the disease with User:SandyGeorgia, User:Almaty, User:Doc James and others, User:Magna19 wrote that "Nobody is willing to compromise anymore, that's part of the problem. I've followed the RFC process for years, and I would like to suggest that the main problem isn't a lack of compromise. The main problem is that that RFC is set up to be a vote rather than a discussion. This appears to be something of a pattern in this general subject area, so I'm bringing this here, in the hope that more of you will see it and hopefully be more successful with these many (many) RFCs.

If you want to produce a sentence that is supported by sources and well-written, then you need to set up the RFC in a way that discourages support/oppose responses. A voting format's fine if you want to know what's popular with editors. However, it's a very poor choice if you want to tweak the wording on a sentence.

There are hundreds of different ways to express this content, and you've tried to force editors into binary choices: you can support a sentence, or you can oppose that sentence, but you can't build on that without making a mess of the discussion (which is what happened here: the original two turned into seven options, which now ought to all be listed at the top, so editors have a chance of finding them, because otherwise the illegibility results in a sort of donkey voting: I read until I find the first acceptable one, vote for that, and ignore the rest of the page, and Heaven help us if someone creates an eighth option).

And then, instead of experienced editors coming to a consensus through discussion, the entirely predictable response to a vote is for someone to tot up the number of responses and assume that Wikipedia operates according to majority rule, and that the first votes, which were made fewer options existed, show a lack of support for later options, rather than figuring out which of the multiple tweaks is actually the best. If you can't remember it any other way, then remember that Wikipedia:Voting is evil, at least when you're talking about how to write a sentence.

But when the question is about writing a sentence in an article, please choose a simple, non-voting format. In those, you will get higher quality responses from a discussion than from a vote. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:05, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: Laudable approach, but not completely practical IMO. A long discussion is great and all, then what? Who decides which edit is made after a whole range of opinions have been shared? There has to be some form of tangible vote alongside the discussion so that consensus can be gauged. Magna19 (talk) 00:15, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Absolutely. The format was horrible, and only got worse as it progressed. And there will no usable conclusion, so that even if a longer discussion had ensued, it at least might have reached a conclusion. Alarmingly, this very important discussion has now moved to the talk page of one editor, which is utterly inappropriate. And even worse still, we keep parroting the CDC and the WHO, and finding out even they don't really know the facts (face masks as an example), so we shouldn't be saying anything on these topics in Wikipedia's voice, and should be cutting most of the COVID articles to a bare minimum. We don't have good sources, we don't know the facts, we should stop pretending we do. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:32, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

@SlimVirgin: who has been part of the discussions but not a WT:MED follower. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:34, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

And here is an example of an even worse RFC, complete with the claim that "any source that gets more than 50% support can be used". Is that how we build responsible medical content? I daresay MEDRS has flown completely out the door with the COVID challenge. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:50, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: How do you propose the way that consensus is reached? Magna19 (talk) 00:56, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Also, users such as @Gtoffoletto: and others were quite involved in the above discussions, so their opinions on this will be valuable also. Magna19 (talk) 01:15, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Not sure how we got into this mess. I'm just trying to get us out of it as fast as possible to fix the misleading sentence in the lead (see [9] and please support it so we can move on). Probably agree that "when the question is about writing a sentence in an article, please choose a simple, non-voting format." is the best course of action in the future. As well as explicitly closing old discussions so that they don't flare up again.--Gtoffoletto (talk) 01:31, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Well, for starters, the urge to "get us out of it as fast as possible" is actually slowing down the process and making things worse. Also, please stop canvassing RFCs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:53, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Magna19, Welcome to Wikipedia. I see that your account is 16 days old. There are people editing that article who have been editing Wikipedia for 16 years. If the result of a discussion isn't obvious to you in the end, maybe you could just ask one of them? I know that the idea that we make decisions by having a discussion, just like we're all mature adults with the same ultimate goals at heart, can take a little getting used to – it's not the way social media works – but the results really are superior, and it's how Wikipedia developed into what it is today. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:43, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: I have been editing Wikipedia for much longer (approx 3 years), due to a long break I could not find my other details. As evidenced by the mess that this section is about, unfortunately discussion can only go so far. There probably has to be discussion alongside a clear and tangible voting mechanism, and then a definitive way of gauging consensus IMO. Magna19 (talk) 02:09, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

If you think that's how Wikipedia should work, then you need to go to WP:Consensus and get the policy changed to work your way. In between now and then, these are the rules that we operate under. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:19, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree with WhatamIdoing, Magna19. If you don't like how Wikipedia operates, you need to suggest change on a policy page and see if you can get a consensus to change Wikipedia policies or guidelines. If you keep insisting that the way we come to decisions here isn't how you would run things, your editing will begin to be seen as disruptive and you'll might be facing a block. We call that "I didn't hear that" behavior. We are guided by consensus through discussion, not by which editor is the most persistent. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:59, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

@Liz: It's positive that these things are discussed as much as possible IMO. I respect the current rules and make edits according to these rules. Magna19 (talk) 03:05, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps, then, someone needs to state this more directly here. There are multiple editors, new to medical editing (and even several who are well established long-time editors who should know better about how to craft an RFC), who are disrupting and slowing down the process, even if their intentions are the best. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:56, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Draft for Portland, Oregon

See also: Draft:2020 coronavirus pandemic in Portland, Oregon

I'm a little hesitant to share (I can hear the calls of premature forking already), but I've started a draft about the pandemic's impact on Portland, Oregon, specifically. I believe doing so allow more detail than a single article about the entire U.S. state of Oregon. The only city-focused article I've seen is 2020 coronavirus pandemic in London, which has been nominated for merging but looks like will be kept. The London page doesn't have much content. I'd like to set a quality standard for other potential city articles, using Portland as a template. I've already added lots of text, but could use help with an infobox, introduction, and background section, if any project member are interested. There are also some bare URLs scattered throughout, which still need to be incorporated into the prose.

Thanks, and stay safe. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 02:39, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

I think it is a bit premature and might be of local interest only. But it's still a draft and it's clear you've put a lot into its creation. I've seen that you've posted about it at WikiProject Oregon which was my only suggestion. I'm not sure of the importance of case at the Wells Fargo Center, it seems like we have moved so far beyond first cases to city shutdowns. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:46, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Liz, Thanks for your feedback. I figured mention of WFC was ok given location of Davis Wright Tremaine office, but I understand what you mean. I think I first need to flesh out the Cases section before converting into an appropriately detailed summary. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 03:12, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Liz Of local interest perhaps, but there is some coverage of PDX in national publications. Here for example. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 13:19, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Another Believer, as a reverse WP:OTHER, my city of Vancouver doesn't have its own article, and an argument for notability can be made that it is also where the first death of the country occurred and where the Pacific Dental Conference that was rumoured to be a spreading vector was held. Anything of national importance happen primarily in Portland or started there?

The article looks pretty detailed! Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 03:21, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Tenryuu, No, nothing started in Portland and impacted the nation. Thanks, yes, still working to expand further. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 03:28, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

The article seems a bit premature splitting from the main article (rps is below 40 kb), but the level of detail in the article is good (certainly better than what I forked). If this were submitted to AfC, I would expect it to quickly be approved. Username⁶⁸⁹² 04:04, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

I was bold and went live: 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Portland, Oregon ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:37, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Terminology change: "social distancing" to "physical distancing"

Some news articles yesterday and today have been proposing the change of the term "social distancing" to "physical distancing" or practicing it. If this change persists, can we have a bot go through articles and change the term to reflect the new proposal? Currently Physical distancing and social distancing are terms that lead to the latter as an article. --Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 02:54, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Update: This is being discussed over at Social distancing's talk page. If you have any thoughts on the matter, please contribute. --Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 16:37, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

References

Foreign cases linked to Italy

I just looked at the 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Italy article and found a horrendous WP:OR section, Foreign cases linked to Italy, which was made more grotesque by the addition of those awful flagicons. I am going to remove this section, and it would be nice if other editors would keep an eye out for similar WP:OR cruft. Abductive (reasoning) 05:46, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Good spot. I've done a bunch of MOS:FLAG clean-up on other articles. If flag icons are present, people keep using them. If you remove them where not appropriate, people tend not to re-add them. Bondegezou (talk) 11:50, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

The section WP:OWNER will likely keep reverting me. I'd appreciate some assistance explaining it to him/her. Abductive (reasoning) 00:03, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

First of all, this discussion should have been properly linked in the involved article's talk page. But this has not been the case. Why? As far as I can see, Abductive is an expert editor, so I am very disappointed.

Second, as I wrote in the talk page of the article, and I copy my intervention: There is no obvious original research in the section, because the text (or at least the vast majority the text that was deleted) does not imply that the cases were infected in Italy, but states that they are merely linked to Italy (hence the section title), i.e. involving Italian nationals abroad or people travelling to Italy. This is a statement of sourced facts, not original research. One can discuss about whether this kind of list is redundant on this page, but this surely deserves a debate, since the section has been on this article for virtually all its existence.

Finally, there is no OWNER here. Abductive could have checked the number of edits done by myself with respect to other editors for that section, and find that I am indeed not the only nor the majority contributor. Nor am I interested in keeping the whole section at all costs (we can discuss removing parts of it, for example). I simply don't think the procedure applied by Abductive (i.e. starting writing here, without communication on the main article's talk page, then remove a 90 KB section with little explanation, get reverted, and then remove it again) was acceptable for this situation. Again, there is no obvious OR justifying this, and frankly I didn't even reply on the flagicon issue because it makes no sense at all: flags make it much easier to navigate that list, and there is no big scandal because it's a list of countries and territories, each having its own official flag. --Ritchie92 (talk) 08:43, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

• The whole idea of cobbling together a list of transmission events from Italy to elsewhere from primary sources is the worst kind of WP:OR. Two people here have already stated that flagicons are undesirable; you think you can simply hand-wave away the objection, betraying your disdain for consensus. Abductive (reasoning) 18:54, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

"Two people here" is indeed two people, and consensus is not a count of people (which would still be 2-1, not a great majority). Also, what you are doing is certainly not looking for consensus, you are imposing your opinion. "Stating" something is not enough to prove yourself right. No matter how aggressively you write it.

The whole idea of cobbling together a list of transmission events from Italy to elsewhere from primary sources is the worst kind of WP:OR, says who? Then analogously multiple kinds of list on WP would be OR based on your standards. Even the main article 2020 coronavirus pandemic shows a list of countries, each coming with a different source, e.g. the health ministries of each country. Putting this data together in a list of countries with coronavirus outbreaks is then also OR. Why not? So, I have not seen any reasonable argumentation about why to remove the entire section altogether (and without even attempting at discussing first), and I am still waiting for an attempt to reach a consensus (e.g. removing only parts of that section). --Ritchie92 (talk) 19:14, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

@Abductive: you are keeping your edit-warry behaviour without even bothering to reply in the talk page first, and this is not acceptable. Please discuss first, find a consensus for your edit, and then proceed. --Ritchie92 (talk) 14:07, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

New resource collating published literature

This looks very helpful: it's a searchable, up-to-date database of published studies on COVID-19. (COI statement: I know some of the team behind this at University College London.) You can also jump to the interactive bit here. Bondegezou (talk) 11:42, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Please review a map of cases per capita

Editors asked for a per capita map of cases by county for 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Massachusetts. I had been producing charts and a map, so I produced a new map for that request. However, I've made two mistakes now, so I've temporarily reverted to article to use the map of raw counts by county until I can get another's review on the amended map of per capita counts.

Could someone please review the described calculation method and legend at File:COVID-19_cases_in_Massachusetts_per_capita_map.svg? Thanks, Emw (talk) 12:18, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

For convenience, the figure, legend, and method for which I seek review are below:

COVID-19 cases in Massachusetts per capita by county   1-9 cases per 100,000 people   10-24 cases per 100,000 people   25-49 cases per 100,000 people   50-99 cases per 100,000 people   ≥ 100 cases per 100,000 people

Method: Derived by dividing number of cases in county by the number of people in each county, and multiplying that quotient by 100,000. E.g. for Suffolk county, 2018 population is 807,252 people and number of cases as of 3/20 is 72. So (86/807252)*100000 = 10.7 cases per 100,000 people for Suffolk county as of 3/20.

If someone could lend a second pair of eyes and give a "looks good to me" or "needs changes", I'd appreciate it! Emw (talk) 22:27, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Emw, I think this is a good idea. Otherwise, 'heat maps of cases' become 'heat maps of population' (a common problem). WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:38, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Origin: "Unknown" or "Wuhan, China"

Should the origin of the outbreak be listed in infoboxes as "Wuhan, China" or "Unknown"? Reliable sources say that it is Wuhan, China, but User:Michael306 has been changing it to "Unknown" in some articles, especially 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic in mainland China and 2020 coronavirus pandemic in the United States. First he cited an old source saying the outbreak may not have originated at Huanan Seafood Market (not focusing on Wuhan overall); now that I've provided sources directly supporting Wuhan, he is justifying the change by saying "Descriptions kept in line with Chinese Wikipedia". I would appreciate other users' input on this disagreement. —Granger (talk · contribs) 13:57, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Mx. Granger, keep it as Wuhan, China. Multiple reliable sources have supported it as the origin, and Wikipedia (the English one, anyway) goes by that, not by what other wikis have said on the subject. Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 14:10, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

• Consensus is quite clear that we have enough reliable sources to state its origin to be Wuhan. We need to have some ground rules for reverting, and establish consensus that can be pointed to. It's the same thing with the "Wuhan pneumonia" name. There is nothing controversial in including the information in the article — and it's simultaneously: 1) impossible to protect the pages from all edits without strongly discouraging new WP:good faith editors that we wish to retain, and 2) not reasonable to apply WP:3RR.

We may need to spread the use of Current consensus-sections, and to include it where necessary. It might be time for an RfC, which we could have here. Carl Fredrik ^talk 14:18, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

See example:

Current consensus

NOTE: It is recommended to link to this list in your edit summary when reverting, as:
[[Talk:COVID-19 pandemic#Current consensus|current consensus]] item [n]
To ensure you are viewing the current list, you may wish to .

01. Superseded by #9

The first few sentences of the lead's second paragraph should state The virus is typically spread during close contact and via respiratory droplets produced when people cough or sneeze. Respiratory droplets may be produced during breathing but the virus is not considered airborne. It may also spread when one touches a contaminated surface and then their face. It is most contagious when people are symptomatic, although spread may be possible before symptoms appear. (RfC March 2020)

02. The infobox should feature a per capita count map most prominently, and a total count by country map secondarily. (RfC March 2020)

03. The article should not use {{Current}} at the top. (March 2020)

04. Do not include a sentence in the lead section noting comparisons to World War II. (March 2020)

05. Include subsections covering the domestic responses of Italy, China, Iran, the United States, and South Korea. Do not include individual subsections for France, Germany, the Netherlands, Australia and Japan. (RfC March 2020) Include a short subsection on Sweden focusing on the policy controversy. (May 2020)

06. Obsolete

There is a 30 day moratorium on move requests until 26 April 2020. (March 2020)

07. There is no consensus that the infobox should feature a confirmed cases count map most prominently, and a deaths count map secondarily. (May 2020)

08. Superseded by #16

The clause on xenophobia in the lead section should read ...and there have been incidents of xenophobia and discrimination against Chinese people and against those perceived as being Chinese or as being from areas with high infection rates. (RfC April 2020)

09. Cancelled

Supersedes #1. The first several sentences of the lead section's second paragraph should state The virus is mainly spread during close contact and by small droplets produced when those infected cough, sneeze or talk. These droplets may also be produced during breathing; however, they rapidly fall to the ground or surfaces and are not generally spread through the air over large distances. People may also become infected by touching a contaminated surface and then their face. The virus can survive on surfaces for up to 72 hours. Coronavirus is most contagious during the first three days after onset of symptoms, although spread may be possible before symptoms appear and in later stages of the disease. (April 2020)

Notes

On 17:16, 6 April 2020, these first several sentences were replaced with an extracted fragment from the coronavirus disease 2019 article, which at the time was last edited at 17:11.

010. The article title is COVID-19 pandemic. The title of related pages should follow this scheme as well. (RM April 2020, RM August 2020)

011. The lead section should use Wuhan, China to describe the virus's origin, without mentioning Hubei or otherwise further describing Wuhan. (April 2020)

012. Superseded by #19

The lead section's second sentence should be phrased using the words first identified and December 2019. (May 2020)

013. Superseded by #15

File:President Donald Trump suggests measures to treat COVID-19 during Coronavirus Task Force press briefing.webm should be used as the visual element of the misinformation section, with the caption U.S. president Donald Trump suggested at a press briefing on 23 April that disinfectant injections or exposure to ultraviolet light might help treat COVID-19. There is no evidence that either could be a viable method. (1:05 min) (May 2020, June 2020)

014. Overturned

Do not mention the theory that the virus was accidentally leaked from a laboratory in the article. (RfC May 2020) This result was overturned at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard, as there is consensus that there is no consensus to include or exclude the lab leak theory. (RfC May 2024)

015. Supersedes #13. File:President Donald Trump suggests measures to treat COVID-19 during Coronavirus Task Force press briefing.webm should not be used as the visual element of the misinformation section. (RfC November 2020)

016. Supersedes #8. Incidents of xenophobia and discrimination are considered WP:UNDUE for a full sentence in the lead. (RfC January 2021)

017. Only include one photograph in the infobox. There is no clear consensus that File:COVID-19 Nurse (cropped).jpg should be that one photograph. (May 2021)

018. Superseded by #19

The first sentence is The COVID-19 pandemic, also known as the coronavirus pandemic, is a global pandemic of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). (August 2021)

019. Supersedes #12 and #18. The first sentence is The global COVID-19 pandemic (also known as the coronavirus pandemic), caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), began with an outbreak in Wuhan, China, in December 2019. (June 2024)

That's a good idea. In the meantime, could one of you edit the mainland China article to correct this in the infobox? I'm getting close to 3RR on that article. —Granger (talk · contribs) 14:32, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

There are thousands of articles out there reporting Wuhan as the origin of the epidemic. Almost everyone except the Chinese Communist Party agrees with it. Saying that the origin of the virus is "unknown" is misleading. Last Contrarian (talk) 18:45, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

I see a lot of debate over the origin of COVID-19. I've seen "unknown", "Wuhan," and "Wuhan pneumonia" in infoboxes. The first reported cases have been Wuhan. Reliable sources have said this including UptoDate, the CDC, and WHO. Yes, some have gotten sick from the seafood market and some haven't but that's not a reason to put "unknown." Most of the problem is semantics. I believe that it's best to change "Origin" to "First Reported in Wuhan", "Emerged in Wuhan", or something similar because "first reported" isn't technically "origin." One more thing to point out, "origin" denotes "source" or "reservoir" which isn't the same as where it came from. COVID-19 (SARS-CoV-2) origins is a batcoronavirus. To say where the virus came from, the term "endemic" is appropriate, however, there hasn't been enough research into that. -DustyGoliath 16:50, 24 March 2020

There is debate about whether or not the virus originated at Huanan Seafood Market specifically, so we should not put "Huanan Seafood Market" in the infoboxes. But reliable sources consistently report that the outbreak originated in Wuhan. —Granger (talk · contribs) 17:11, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, we should not put "Origin: Huanan Seafood Market" in the infoboxes, nor "Origin: Unknown." It should be "First Reported: Wuhan" because of my reasons above. —DustyGoliath 17:22, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

DustyGoliath — It isn't useful to state that it was first reported in Wuhan, because the Spanish flu was first reported in Spain, yet those cases are extremely different. The first outbreak was in Wuhan for COVID-19, whereas the first outbreak of the Spanish flu was certainly not in Spain. Carl Fredrik ^talk 18:22, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Voting in talk page that "we have enough source" is not how wikipedia works. I've been in the main article editing the text back to what the source that we actually have in text says. And what they actually say is "unknown origin". As said in Talk:Coronavirus_disease_2019#Origin, I'm actively in search of source to NPOV the other point of view (that the origin would be Wuhan wet market) in the article. But we need sources... Not just voting that we have them in talk page. Iluvalar (talk) 17:39, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Here are a few of the sources: [10] [11] [12] [13]. Again, no one here is arguing we should say that the virus originated in Huanan Seafood Market. The point is that reliable sources agree the outbreak originated in Wuhan. —Granger (talk · contribs) 17:50, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

This is literally a discussion about a missing link and is not scientific. You will always find a point where the origin isn't known, be it stall 46B, or rack 128, or for the 2009 bird flu, which specific duck.

That said, DustyGoliath does make a good point. "Origin" could also mean which animal, such as: bats, or pangolins, or civets, all of which have been implicated as reservoirs of the virus. There is enough to implicate the Huanan Seafood Market in the spread of the disease, whether the virus recombined into its human pathogenic form there or not is largely irrelevant, and something we will never know.

That said, the origin is certainly not "Unknown", no matter how we put it. If we interpret "Origin" to mean from which animal — which we don't know: it's enough to put zoonosis.

This seems to be more about defining what the different parameters in the Template:Infobox epidemic mean.

The following need to be defined:

• First case

• Origin

• Source (Should we add a new parameter for animal source? or zoonosis?

Carl Fredrik ^talk 18:07, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Source: The source of the organism is the site from which it is transmitted to a susceptible host, either directly or indirectly through an intermediary object. Such As -- Fecal-oral, fecal-soil, excreta, tissue, food, seafood/shellfish, dairy, edible plant, water. First Case Reported In...: put a geographical area (such as city, state, province, territory, country, continent) here. So "origin" should be left out. It would also be good to put the disease category as zoonoses, which is a category diseases that "normally exists in animals but that can infect humans. Here is another good definition in the difference between "source" vs "reservoir." DustyGoliath 20:42, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

DustyGoliath — You're missing what I pointed out in my text immediately below this — that "first reported" isn't the right approach to solve this — because the Spanish flu was first reported in Spain, whereas we know there were outbreaks before that. The first known outbreak of COVID-19 was in Wuhan, and we need to express that somehow. Carl Fredrik ^talk 21:16, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

A little further along the same line of thought, this is definitely an issue where the infobox-template needs to be clearer — and we have to compare it to other uses of the infobox. For the Spanish flu, the source was truly unknown (even though it has also be proposed to have come from Asia), however it was first reported in Spain. Yet, that is very different, because there is quite a lot to indicate that the Spanish flew was circulating long before it came to Spain. There is very little, if anything to indicate that COVID-19 circulated to any significant degree before Wuhan. I suggest we fix it with something the following lines, using new parameters:

• Initial outbreak: Wuhan, China
• Source: Zoonosis, presumed civet (or whatever we get reliable sources to)

Carl Fredrik ^talk 18:19, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

@Mx. Granger,I have sources from the CCDC and CDC, your WHO source is fine, but journalistic sources such as NYT and CNN (unless they provide solid sources themself) have to be discarded at this point. WHO : "This new virus and disease were unknown before the outbreak began in Wuhan, China, in December 2019." Interesting, but does it really mean what we are trying to make it say ?

@CFCF, if we are going to settle on "bat" as the origin, I'm fine with it, but the underlying question I have about the starting point to fill the articles is still pending. Iluvalar (talk) 18:22, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with using the NY-Times according to the relevant policy: WP:RS. It isn't a health-related statement, so WP:MEDRS doesn't apply. CDC or WHO are of course better sources than the NY Times, but if they don't touch upon the subject that doesn't matter.

I don't understand your question about a "starting point to fill the articles" — what does that mean? Carl Fredrik ^talk 18:27, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

CFCF's suggestion seems fine to me. (I don't think there are reliable sources for "civet", there may not be reliable sources for any specific animal at this stage, but "Zoonosis", "Presumed zoonosis", or something like that works for me.) CNN and NYT are reliable sources for this claim, by the way. —Granger (talk · contribs) 18:34, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm looking for sources for the first human to human infection. Iluvalar (talk) 18:55, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Iluvalar — That's not relevant. The outbreak started in Wuhan, regardless of where the first human to human infection started. As more facts materialize we may need to append it with whatever creature or forest was the source of the virus, but it won't matter as to whether or not we include Wuhan in the infobox, because the source/origin of the outbreak is Wuhan. Carl Fredrik ^talk 19:55, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, there was AN outbreak in Wuhan where the first KNOWN case as been found. That's what our sources actually in the article says. Now, it's seems that you claim that ALL infections must have a link with Wuhan ? I'm looking for sources for that. Iluvalar (talk) 21:14, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Iluvalar — think very carefully about what you are insinuating here. With the literally thousands of sources claiming that it is beyond any shred of doubt that ALL cases are linked to Wuhan, that suggestion is WP:FRINGE to the point that pushing it any more is likely to result in some form of action being taken against you. I don't think it's very far from a potential WP:BLOCK if you continue to push this in WP:DISRUPTIVE ways. Carl Fredrik ^talk 21:35, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Read what I say calmly please. The sources we DO HAVE right now. Claim the opposite. Please, since you have thousands of sources, can you share a few of them with me ? So I can NPOV the sources we have on the article. Iluvalar (talk) 21:43, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

I think a topic ban is due about now; this is the same user who was at best playing devil's advocate asking "but how does this factor into annual predicted deaths from coronavirus", at worst, deliberately disrupting by asking stupid questions that push fake news. Now, they're being deliberately contrary saying "all our sources say X, but I want you to give me sources that explicitly say NOT Y, or I'll keep suggesting Y could be true". This isn't helpful. Kingsif (talk) 21:47, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

That's not what I said. I start to believe you two are pushing your point of views, but I will repeat in good faith. The sources i already provided as well as the sources already in use in the articles are saying black on white "unknown origin". Here is one of them : [14]. I'm fully aware that the Wuhan hypothesis was plausible until now and it was a common view, now I need sources to represent that point of view in the articles with proper attribution. But i'm still waiting from you guys any of those sources. The NYT article from Mx. Granger is fine, i guess, but I don't see myself attributing the POV to the NYT against the joined opinions of the CDC, WHO and CCDC. Iluvalar (talk) 23:46, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

First of all, the NYT is not the only source saying the origin is Wuhan. I listed multiple sources, including the WHO. Second of all, the source you linked does not say what you're claiming it does. It says "A cluster of pneumonia cases of unknown origin in Wuhan, China caused concern among health officials in late December 2019." In other words, the origin of the pneumonia was unknown in late December. (You can confirm this interpretation by looking at the first reference in the source you linked.) Now it is known that the pneumonia was caused by COVID-19. All of this has no bearing on the issue we're discussing here. I'm starting to agree with Kingsif that this is no longer helpful. —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:21, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Okay, I see how if you squint very hard you can interpret that this way. How about this one :

Lucey says if the new data are accurate, the first human infections must have occurred in November 2019—if not earlier—because there is an incubation time between infection and symptoms surfacing. If so, the virus possibly spread silently between people in Wuhan—and perhaps elsewhere—before the cluster of cases from the city’s now-infamous Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market was discovered in late December. “The virus came into that marketplace before it came out of that marketplace,” Lucey asserts.

— https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/01/wuhan-seafood-market-may-not-be-source-novel-virus-spreading-globally

I'm ready to accept the idea that, as of now, the main POV is that the virus all came from Wuhan. But being tagged as "devil's advocate" and fringe without further effort is disruptive. Iluvalar (talk) 16:25, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

... you don't know what playing devil's advocate means? Perhaps a comprehension issue is the real problem here. Iluvalar, do you speak English to the kind of level needed to understand idiom and nuance? Kingsif (talk) 17:12, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, when I joked about Italy's death rate about to curve out in march 21, you immediately censored me and accused me of "fake news". Can you take a minute to appreciate that it happened and give me some slack. I know there is no amount of numbers or estimation that i could throw at you to convince you that the virus MUST have been around before Wuhan. Regarding epidemiology you couldn't really tell the difference between a fringe conspiracy theory WP:OR or an evident simple rule of three. You do your best, it's ok. I'll quietly wait for sources to follow. But I hold my ground, regarding scientific evidence, the origin at Wuhan is not proven and least and least plausible. Iluvalar (talk) 20:35, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Oh look a source from italy ^^ .

“None of these cases have been documented as COVID-19 because there was no evidence yet of the existence of COVID-19,” he said. Remuzzi said that if evidence of COVID-19 cases in Italy as far back as November was confirmed, this may signal that the virus can go undetected for months.

— [15]

He must be part of the conspiracy too. Iluvalar (talk) 18:47, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

EDIT: This part is also hilarious to me :

The World Health Organization has said the new coronavirus and COVID-19, the respiratory disease it causes, were unknown before the outbreak was first reported in Wuhan, in central China, in December.

And yes the opposite opinion is also expressed in that article :

“I think it extremely unlikely that the virus was present in Europe before January,”

This source is reuter, can we use it in the articles ? Iluvalar (talk) 19:13, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Problem: NOT Using the Correct Terminology

If the idea is to strive for accuracy, we need to use actual epidemiological terms. Not what the media posts. Yes, media is good on day-to-day reporting, but not for medical information about COVID-19/SARS-CoV-2. Good links to those are: Cornell; Northwest Center for Public Health; USA's CDC; MedicineNet and IDdx's website is a goldmine (and their app which I use daily). -DustyGoliath 21:18, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

You're probably right about this. Some quick observations:

Your first link lists:

SOURCE. The object, animal, or person from which infection is acquired.

So we can add that to the infobox with a clarification.

First case should be replaced with index case per:

INDEX CASE. The first case to come to the attention of a disease investigator.

Carl Fredrik ^talk 21:23, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

The Wiki page on Index Case is the more accurate definition than on the first link I posted (lol). For the infoboxes, I really think it should be "First Case/Reported: Wuhan." And I like the longer definition of "source" I had above (haha). Probably a pet peeve. All and all, I agree with what you've said.

Maybe the better thing to do is have a List of Epidemiological Terms page. It will be a long list but very, very useful. -DustyGoliath 21:35, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

So what we need to do is differentiate between national index cases, and the international index case. I'm going to take a crack at adapting the infobox here, but I think it will have to wait until tomorrow, I'm too tired right now. Carl Fredrik ^talk 21:43, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

References

Concerns about the "Current consensus" sections

Please be aware that statement 1 is currently disputed as per warnings on the page and linked discussion which has been ongoing for days now with something like 20 editors involved. I would keep it there until discussion is over but be aware it is disputed. Please participate in the discussion actually. We need more votes. --Gtoffoletto (talk) 14:40, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't see how that has anything to do with the discussion above… Carl Fredrik ^talk 14:44, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

I've split this off into a separate section to avoid confusing the two issues. —Granger (talk · contribs) 17:09, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Update: We have seemingly come to a new consensus on the statement in question. Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 04:28, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

The Toughest Triage — Allocating Ventilators in a Pandemic

Hello I found this Info about The Toughest Triage — Allocating Ventilators in a Pandemic. I don't know where this can be usefull. Pls somebody might check this. Regards --80.187.109.51 (talk) 19:35, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

It's probably worth mentioning somewhere that multi-patient ventilation has been used in both mass casualty events and also during the current outbreak. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:41, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

New source of potential COVID-19 related articles for creation (or improvement)

Hi all, I was talking to Connie Moon Sehat from the organization NewsQ today about Wikipedia's role in various COVID-19 global response efforts. She pointed me to a list of organizations (Google doc) that have been vetted by the Vaccine Safety Net (a project of the World Health Organization) as sources of accurate vaccine information. Many of these organizations do not yet have Wikipedia articles. Over the coming months (years?) many people around the world are going to be looking for information about these organizations--and their decision about whether or not to get a COVID-19 vaccine may be influenced by whether they can find trustworthy information about these organizations on sites like Wikipedia. So, I present this list to you for consideration: if you feel an organization on this list that currently lacks an article meets notability criteria, consider creating an article for it. If the organization has an article already, consider improving it. Thanks! J-Mo 20:22, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Jtmorgan, Thank you. If anyone's able to create a list of red links to be displayed on-wiki, that'd be super helpful! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:23, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

@Jtmorgan: Here you go: Wikipedia:WikiProject COVID-19/Organizations from Vaccine Safety Net. The list can be moved somewhere else if that would be better, of course. —Granger (talk · contribs) 21:21, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

New Pageviews Analysis feature - include redirects

See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#New_feature_-_pageviews_-_now_can_include_redirects

I do a lot of pageview tracking as a way to convince organizations to invest their communication resources in Wikipedia. This new feature saves me a lot of time. Because COVID-19 articles have been renamed so much and have so many alternative names, this is really helpful now. Blue Rasberry (talk) 23:32, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Archived discussions

There were 64 discussion threads here which is overwhelming for anyone checking in to see what's going on. So, I have archived any discussions that haven't had participation in four days. That's not a lot of time to resolve discussions! But many of the posts were just announcements that had no responses. There are links to the archives at the top of the page if you want to repost any that you think I archived prematurely. As it is now, there are 48 active discussions which is more than enough to keep us busy. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:52, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

High quality review article on experimental treatment

• [16]

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:05, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Questions on Official Sources for Confirmed Cases

For those of us that have been updating pages with the confirmed cases (active, recovered, and deaths), should we include all official sources?

For example, I have mainly been updating 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Illinois and sticking to the Illinois Department of Public Health's official numbers that come out daily. However, their information is typically a day behind the local county health departments official numbers. Should we include both the local and the state numbers?

Thoughts? — Mr Xaero ^☎️ 00:19, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Mr Xaero, you might get more feedback on the main template case page, Template talk:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data/United States medical cases by state or at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject COVID-19/Case Count Task Force. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:18, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

@Liz: Thanks for the suggestion, I will asked over on them. — Mr Xaero ^☎️ 09:53, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Our World in Data

• [17]

Is amazing. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:27, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

"2020 coronavirus pandemic in North Korea"

Hi, I have started an AfD about coronavirus pandemic in North Korea. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2020 coronavirus pandemic in North Korea. If anyone wants to participate in that discussion.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 01:08, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Most viewed COVID-19 articles

Just a reminder that Wikipedia:WikiProject COVID-19/Article report lists pageviews for the most-viewed COVID-19 pages. It can help us see where more work might be needed. The most-viewed articles may not be the articles getting the most attention now. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:13, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

MEDRS and COVID-19 claims

Could someone with a good understanding of WP:MEDRS and its application please keep an eye on Didier Raoult#COVID-19? The article seems to use mainstream sources to publicize claims of the efficacy of his cure, and doesn't seem to cover some of the concerns that have been raised over the study. --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:28, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, that page has major issues overall — with lots of cleanup needed. I removed some of the most egregious stuff, such as listing dosages — which is very much not allowed. The rest will have to follow later. Carl Fredrik ^talk 09:27, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks to you and others who heeded the call. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:24, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Protecting COVID-19 articles from April fools

April Fool's Day is in a week and Wikipedia editors have a history of messing with articles on that day. Such pranks are normally harmless. But at this time, this project's articles have an unusually large real-world impact and pranks on these articles would not do anybody any good. Could we, or should we, somehow protect or establish a policy to leave this project's articles alone on April 1st? --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 04:52, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Oh yikes, I forgot that that's coming up. As far as policy goes, I'm not sure what the exact shortcut is, but I'm pretty sure policy clearly dictates that you're not allowed to make April Fools jokes on mainspace pages likely to be seen by readers; it's clear-cut vandalism. So the question is what to do to prevent it. Speaking mainly for 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic, where I've spent most of my efforts, it currently often feels like it's barely hanging on at semi-protection. I'd support raising the protection level to EC-protected for the duration of April 1 anywhere on Earth. Again, I'm not sure how in-keeping with our normal policies on page protection that would be, but it seems the prudent thing to do, and these are extraordinary circumstances. Sdkb (talk) 08:00, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

@Mark viking and Sdkb: check out Wikipedia:Rules for Fools for the basic roles for 1 April. Not everyone abides by these rules, so we need to be watchful of vandalism. --awkwafaba (📥) 12:41, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Everything can be solved by blocks and reverts --In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 14:17, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks all for your advice, you have put my mind at ease. I will help patrol articles on April 1st. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 20:35, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

I will also help patrol articles on April 1st. DustyGoliath 12:49, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Standardizing use of per capita maps rather than totals maps

This RfC at 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic isn't quite yet formally closed but has had a prevailing consensus for a week or so (which has been reflected in the article itself) to use a per capita count map first for its infobox, rather than a total count by country map first. The principles leading to that prevailing consensus (see that RfC for them to be spelled out, and if you have comments on those principles, please put them there to keep discussion centralized) apply to pretty much any geographic region, yet many articles, e.g. 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Europe, still list a totals map first, and in some cases a per capita map isn't even available. Can we issue some sort of guidance (I'm not sure exactly what form it would take) that, when adding/improving an article on the pandemic's spread in a region, per capita maps should be preferred for the primary spot in the infobox? Sdkb (talk) 08:17, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

RfC on mentioning incidents of racism/xenophobia

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:2020_coronavirus_pandemic_in_the_United_States#RfC. Sdkb (talk) 10:45, 25 March 2020 (UTC)Template:Z48

Why did you start this RFC? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:46, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: It seemed necessary; the prior context is in the section immediately above the RfC. I'm not sure I fully understand your question — is there something about my user page that makes you think it'd be unlikely I would? Sdkb (talk) 17:18, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Sdkb, I'm assuming WhatamIdoing pinged you like that to make the sentence flow; it very likely has nothing to do with your userpage, though I can see why you would think that.

I've added my thoughts to the matter. Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 18:03, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

I want to know what made you think it was "necessary" to start yet another vote less than five hours after the first question about it? Interrupting a brand-new, functional discussion to hold a vote is usually a bad idea. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:13, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

It seemed like an issue that was inevitably headed toward an RfC, and for those issues, starting one quickly can help centralize discussion in one place rather than splitting it between the discussion and the RfC. Should I have waited longer? Sdkb (talk) 19:51, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

100 members

Wow, I've never seen so many editors join a project at once.

Who will be number 100 at Wikipedia:WikiProject COVID-19/Participants? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 00:08, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Couldn't resist ;-) --Gtoffoletto (talk) 00:12, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

We probably broke a Wikipedia record given the scope and speed of an unprecedented global crisis. kencf0618 (talk)

COVID-19 or Coronavirus disease 2019?

Not sure if this has been discussed already and if consensus has been reached, but articles seem to lack consistency in the use of those terms (both in naming and in content).

It's probably better to discuss this in a centralised way rather than risk having discussion on each article talk page such as [18]. Article names should then gradually be moved to reflect the consensus we reach (no rush since changing probably requires a bot given the number of links) but at least we have a standard set once and for all for new articles or future discussions that are bound to pop up. Should we collect "candidates" and then vote or is there a more appropriate way?

COVID-19 is my preference. I believe it is the most appropriate WP:COMMONNAME. It's easier and shorter to just use the acronym (just like for HIV/AIDS) and the term is widely used by top sources and the news media (see WHO, ECDC or CDC). --Gtoffoletto (talk) 00:37, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

While we are on that, what is the proper capitalisation of COVID-19 (or Covid-19 or covid-19 or CoVid-19...)?--MaoGo (talk) 00:45, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

MaoGo, everyone appears to be using COVID-19. Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 01:15, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

+1 for COVID-19 all caps --Gtoffoletto (talk) 14:34, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

• Support COVID-19 (proposer) --Gtoffoletto (talk) 14:35, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support COVID-19. Precedent's already been set for HIV/AIDS as Gtoffoletto has pointed out. Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 01:19, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

When should articles have the Current template?

At 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic, the stable (albeit pretty much undiscussed, as far as I can tell) consensus seems to be not to use {{Current}}, but it still appears at many sub-articles for individual countries. The guidelines at the template seem to discourage long-term use, but the de facto practice seems otherwise, and for some of the lesser-trafficked pages, I could see an argument for a strong prominent disclaimer that contents may be out of date. Regardless, we should strive for consistency, so: should we use {{Current}} on pretty much all of the COVID-19 pages, on some of them (as decided by some criteria we could formulate here, or just ad hoc), or on basically none of them? Sdkb (talk) 02:40, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Presentation slides from a presentation at Wikimania 2018 covering some of the results mentioned on this page.

Should be removed all over....just makes readers have to scroll for nothing....the message will not change what people read (and there's already a notice about content accuracy)..but the banner will cause some to get less information....as we know most will only scroll 2 times and if they don't get to the TOC in those 2 scrolls they are gone. raw data.--Moxy 🍁 02:58, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

@Moxy: Okay, I'll start taking them out. At the least it'll drive more attention here if people disagree. And yes, I read that study after you linked it the other day. Very interesting. Holding people's attention is hard. Sdkb (talk) 18:21, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

I am just leaving this here...

I am stating no opinion on whether this has been covered or whether this should be covered, but if somebody wishes to use it, here is an interesting source:

Techcrunch: Updated FDA COVID-19 testing guidelines specifically disallow at-home sample collection

--Guy Macon (talk) 04:02, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Template Death numbers incorrect

Hi all, I noticed that Washington death number at Template:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data/United States medical cases by state is incorrect. After looking at the history, I noticed User:StayingClean changed the column order. It should be U.S. state or territory, Cases, Recov, Deaths. |See Mar 25 15:46 diff here. That means numbers entered after this time could be in the wrong column. Thanks, SWP13 (talk) 04:32, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Non-wikipedian epidemiologist/virologist input for COVID19 articles

Cross-posting from WT:MED

Some suggested ways in which the WikiJournal User Group might be able to help:

• external peer reviews of core COVID articles (would be of a specific oldid but would likely be relatively rapid - would that be useful?)
• external authors to contribute articles on corona-related topics that are still stub/start (any topic ideas)?
• external contributors to help out on the core covid articles (but they'd need significant MEDMOS guidance)
• 'partner articles' that go into more detail than appropriate on a WP page (similar to Gene wiki reviews, example) would one be useful for any covid-related topics?
• translations of journal articles (and getting those translations checked for accuracy)

Question for the community:

1. Which (if any) of the above would be most useful?
2. Which specific pages, topics or papers would be most useful?

Discussion at this link if possible (to centralise). T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 11:29, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Biographies and deaths - multilingual list

detail of the list

Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject COVID-19/deaths. Thanks GerardM for setting up this list.

Here we have a list of the people who have a Wikidata item and who have have died of COVID-19. By Wikidata rules these people should have third-party media coverage, and I expect in most cases they will meet English Wikipedia's notability guidelines. The tool which generates this content, Listeria, is linking to Wikipedia articles when available preferring English but giving other ones or just Wikidata otherwise.

I am sharing this here to invite anyone to develop biographies of these people. For anyone who wants to develop COVID-19 content but who wishes to write something other than medicine, virus, or epidemiology, this list is a great option.

Also, for anyone who edits Wikipedia but who wants an entry into trying Wikidata, now is a great time to learn with lots of support from others. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:26, 26 March 2020 (UTC)