Wikipedia talk:WikiProject COVID-19/Archive 5
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 10 |
How do you pronounce it?
A British reporter said "KAW-vid". I've always heard "KOH-vid".— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 19:06, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
- The Merriam-Webster COVID-19 entry says long o. But the British have their own language. --
{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk}19:16, 3 April 2020 (UTC)- @Mark viking: lol. English is actually language of English people, others created their own versions
—usernamekiran (talk) 22:14, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
- @Mark viking: lol. English is actually language of English people, others created their own versions
- And should we mention this anywhere?— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 19:24, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
- The pronunciation is already in the COVID {{Infobox medical condition}}, e.g., at Coronavirus disease 2019. MOS:PRONOUNCE suggests it could be added to the lead, but that might be considered redundant. What do you think? --
{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk}19:35, 3 April 2020 (UTC)- I don't know. It seems to be a common practice.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:02, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
- Mark viking, I suggest adding it in as it tracks easier for readers. --Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 22:06, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks and
Done. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk}23:21, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks and
- The pronunciation is already in the COVID {{Infobox medical condition}}, e.g., at Coronavirus disease 2019. MOS:PRONOUNCE suggests it could be added to the lead, but that might be considered redundant. What do you think? --
- I am not sure taking the pronunciation from "Vchimpanzee" sound like a good idea, so i will stick with 'Cow-vid'. Yug (talk) 20:48, 3 April 2020 (UTC) [PS: Always believe the Franch man for phonetic].
- Well that "COW" is certainly wrong, KOH-vid is how most news readers are saying it. But some say "KO" with short o. Really we need IPA to specify. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:22, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
- In the infobox I mentioned above, it is in IPA: /ˈkoʊvɪd/. --
{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk}21:26, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
- In the infobox I mentioned above, it is in IPA: /ˈkoʊvɪd/. --
- That's highly inappropriate. --Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 22:50, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
- Well that "COW" is certainly wrong, KOH-vid is how most news readers are saying it. But some say "KO" with short o. Really we need IPA to specify. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:22, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
- It really does seem to depend. I've actually heard (from a news anchor or news podcast) /ˈkʌvɪd/, as if pronounced on the model of cover, etc. Rethliopuks (talk) 16:08, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
- Mark is right, and the IPA is correct as well. How to pronounce it? It depends on the person really. I prefer to pronounce it as "koʊv-ID" like discovery ID. —usernamekiran (talk) 22:43, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
Data on most-trafficked COVID stats in Google + sneak peek at stats card roadmap
Hi all, quick update on this thread: the Google team that's working on the stats card has shared some data on a) what Wikipedia pages they're using/planning to use to extend the stats card feature, and b) the most popular COVID stats destinations from Google search queries. I've started a mailing list to share this and other relevant insights on a weekly basis — anyone who's interested is welcome to join the list and ask any follow-up questions of the team (they're all subscribed). I'll also post a link to new posts here. First post, covering data for the week of March 31st, is here. cc MarioGom RayDeeUx MPinchuk (WMF) (talk) 17:00, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
- MPinchuk (WMF): Subscribed. Thank you for the update. --MarioGom (talk) 20:06, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Could someone make the Swedish case bar more useful by adding "show month" functionality?
This {{2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data/Sweden medical cases chart}}-template is becoming extremely clunky. Could someone clean it up with options to choose month, like is done at {{2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data/Mainland China medical cases chart}}?
Maybe @IjonTichyIjonTichy, Rethliopuks, Alexiscoutinho, and Yug:? Thanks, Carl Fredrik talk 11:01, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
- I'm glad to see there is a third color for recoveries. Is this in standard use?— Vchimpanzee • talk •
contributions • 16:28, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
References
- ^ "Antal fall av covid-19 i Sverige - från och med vecka 25 uppdateras data vardagar 11:30 och siffrorna är tillgängliga 14:00" (in Swedish). Folkhälsomyndigheten. Retrieved 2020-07-16.
- ^ "Veckorapport om covid-19, vecka 18" (PDF). Folkhälsomyndigheten. 8 May 2020.
- ^ "Beskrivning av datakällor för avlidna i covid-19" (PDF). Socialstyrelsen. 2020-04-27. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2020-05-17. Retrieved 9 May 2020.
- ^ "Felaktiga provsvar i ca 3 700 covid-19-tester" (in Swedish). Folkhälsomyndigheten. Archived from the original on 2020-08-28. Retrieved 2020-08-28.
- ^ 国家卫生健康委员会办公厅 (5 February 2020). 新型冠状病毒感染肺炎的诊疗方案（试行第五版） (PDF). 国家卫生健康委员会办公厅 (in Chinese (China)). Archived (PDF) from the original on 5 February 2020. Retrieved 5 February 2020.
- ^ 2020年2月11日湖北省新型冠状病毒肺炎疫情情况 (in Chinese (China)).
- ^ Woodyatt, Amy; Kottasová, Ivana; Griffiths, James; Regan, Helen. "China changed how it counts coronavirus cases again. Here's why". CNN.
- ^ 湖北省武汉市新冠肺炎疫情数据订正情况. National Health Commission. 2020-04-17. Retrieved 2020-04-17.
General update on three COVID-relevant traffic reports
I've posted about these three traffic reports individually on this page before, but now that they're all in a stable state I thought I'd give a general update. All three reports are potentially useful for people monitoring pageviews and edits to COVID-19 articles.
- COVID-19 article report: (updates daily at 14:00 UTC) This report contains the previous-days pageview totals for all articles with the COVID-19 topic template. It also provides predicted quality scores for each article (at its latest revision when the report was run). And most recently I added the total count of articles that transclude the template, and the cumulative daily pageviews for those articles.
- Top 1000 report: (updates daily at 15:00 UTC) This report is intended as a replacement for the (currently stalled) Top 5000 report. It provides running traffic counts for the most popular Wikipedia articles within the past 7 days. As you can imagine, many of these articles are related to COVID-19 (whether or not they have the template, c.f. Andrew Cuomo, which is #14 as of yesterday).
- Social media traffic report: (updates daily, at around 15-17:00 UTC) Like the Top 1000 report, many of these articles are related to COVID-19. Given the rise troubling rise in COVID-related conspiracy theories propagated through social media, this report may be especially helpful for monitoring attempts to disrupt Wikipedia or undermine it by inserting disinformation.
I intend to maintain reports #1 and #2 indefinitely as a volunteer (this account); report #3 is a pilot project I'm running with Isaac (WMF) in my staff role. That pilot will extend until June 1, after which we will assess whether there is sufficient community support and WMF engineering resources to continue maintaining this data service (as an on wiki report or as a stand-alone webapp a la Massviews and the like). Feedback welcome on Meta. Cheers, J-Mo 17:47, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
- @Jtmorgan: thank you ! This is great data. Yug (talk) 21:50, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
- @Jtmorgan and Isaac (WMF):, we now have a page to collect reports on our Wikipedia COVID19 efforts. Access point is Wikipedia:WikiProject_COVID-19#Coverage. Yug (talk) 21:34, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks Yug! I'll add things here as I come across them. Jmorgan (WMF) (talk) 22:18, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
- @Jtmorgan and Isaac (WMF):, we now have a page to collect reports on our Wikipedia COVID19 efforts. Access point is Wikipedia:WikiProject_COVID-19#Coverage. Yug (talk) 21:34, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Sidebar availability
I'd like to point out that there is a compact sidebar that can be placed on this and most of the other pages related to the virus/pandemic, at {{2019–20 coronavirus pandemic sidebar}}. It is on a few of them and I tried to add it yesterday to the main pandemic page but was removed as claimed that there's already a navbox at the bottom of the article. True there is, but it is at bottom. The idea of these sidebars near the top is to provide quick links- not necessarily as full as the navbox, for a reader to get too without having to parse the full article, much less scroll to the bottom, and are meant to be additional to the navbox.
Obviously not going to edit war on inclusion, but want to make sure to know this is available and this really should be added, but I'll leave it for discussion. I do strongly recommend it be included to help readers coming for WP to quickly navigate to the most relevant information they may be looking for. --Masem (t) 00:06, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
- Support. TGCP (talk) 07:45, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
- Support. Prairie Astronomer Talk 22:42, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose. The navbar is already at the bottom of the article. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:55, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
RfC overload
We seem to have an overload of RfC going on. Many seem to be started as the jumping off point to start a discussion. I think we need new editors to understand that the RfC process is usually a step in conflict resolution not a start point for a very fluid topic. I assume most would agree not every reverted edit needs its own RfC. Many RfC that are currently running are about outdated points or points that were never contested or a normal talk started in the first place. How can we tell new editors about this? Add to the edits notices? Talk page banner? What do others think....is there enough editor's that most RfC are mute because many people already have the pages on their watch list? What can we say?--Moxy 🍁 22:33, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
- If you mean this current talk page is polluted, yes (and I bear my part of responsibility). Is there a {{done}} or {{closed}} template to use to close a section and then the cleaning bot comes to archive ?? We could use those more. Yug (talk) 22:37, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
- I think it'll be difficult to persuade editors from starting inappropriate RfCs. What might be more feasible is policing them more aggressively, nipping malformed or unjustified ones by removing the tag as soon as it's added, and closing ones that appear headed toward a WP:SNOW result or have become outdated. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 03:49, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
More tables by region of a country
Wondering if anyone is interested in making tables like this for the top 25 or so affected countries? The first table specifically as seen here Template:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data/Spain medical cases Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:47, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
- One for Italy is missing 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Italy
- With the needed data here http://opendatadpc.maps.arcgis.com/apps/opsdashboard/index.html#/b0c68bce2cce478eaac82fe38d4138b1
- Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:50, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
- @Doc James: Italy is not missing, it was actually one of the first to have it. Here: Template:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data/Italy medical cases --Ritchie92 (talk) 09:11, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
Countries
- US present
- Spain present
- Italy present
- Germany missing
- France in a different format
- UK missing
- Turkey present
- Switzerland missing
- Belgium present
- Netherlands half present
- Canada present
- Austria missing
Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:05, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
- Template:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data/Germany medical cases - has cases by region and date, at least. --mfb (talk) 09:40, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
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 [1]. 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). See also official WHO announcement of new naming, it's pretty unequivocal: "First of all, we now have a name for the disease: COVID-19. I’ll spell it: C-O-V-I-D hyphen one nine – COVID-19." --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) See next section with more precise proposal --Gtoffoletto (talk) 12:47, 29 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)
- COVID-19: like others have said, it's the WP:COMMONNAME. It also makes it a bit easier to differentiate when you're talking about the virus vs the disease. I suggest creating an RfC out of this so that the discussion doesn't just get lost in the mix. Bait30 Talk 2 me pls? 04:45, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
- Could you do the RfC User:Bait30? --Gtoffoletto (talk) 11:52, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
- The purpose of an WP:RFC, according to the first sentence on that page, is to solicit input from outside editors. You should only use an RFC if you think the editors on this page are unable to make a decision by themselves. And just in case this is news to anyone here, an RFC is not a binding vote. It is just a normal talk-page discussion with an advertising mechanism. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:10, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
- Yeah at this point it doesn’t make sense to do an RfC anymore. I only suggested it because I thought it wouldn’t get enough responses to form a meaningful consensus like a bunch of other discussions on the page. Bait30 Talk 2 me pls? 17:06, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
- The purpose of an WP:RFC, according to the first sentence on that page, is to solicit input from outside editors. You should only use an RFC if you think the editors on this page are unable to make a decision by themselves. And just in case this is news to anyone here, an RFC is not a binding vote. It is just a normal talk-page discussion with an advertising mechanism. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:10, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
- Could you do the RfC User:Bait30? --Gtoffoletto (talk) 11:52, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
- Support COVID-19. It is better to stick with this instead of coronavirus disease 2019. WHO named this coronavirus as COVID-19 so it is better to comply according to the prescription of the World Health Organisation. Abishe (talk) 05:01, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
- Support COVID-19, per User:Gtoffoletto. --Netha (talk) 11:57, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
- Support COVID-19, due to precedence pointed out by User:Gtoffoletto. ~User:Cyberdg 15:23, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
- The full name is "Coronavirus disease 2019" per WHO[2] and the CDC[3] which is abbreviated as COVID-19. We should have a formal move request at the page in question not here. Usually we use the full name such as Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease followed by the abbreviation COPD. No one actually calls COPD by its full name either. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:28, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
- exact quote from CDC "The disease has been named “coronavirus disease 2019” (abbreviated “COVID-19”)." [4] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:30, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
- Hey User:Doc James thanks for accepting my invitation, the reason I started this centralised discussion is that multiple pages present this "dilemma" so I think it would be more appropriate to decide once and for all. Looking at the WHO announcement it's pretty unequivocal: "First of all, we now have a name for the disease: COVID-19. I’ll spell it: C-O-V-I-D hyphen one nine – COVID-19." COVID-19 is definitely an abbreviation but all the sources you report use it also in the title of their pages and usually prefer it in the body. Also the "full name" is not always consistent. In this WHO page titled Naming the coronavirus desease (COVID-19) the name is reported as "coronavirus disease [line break](COVID-19)". The CDC states here [5] "Note: On February 11, 2020 the WHO announced the official name of the virus: COVID-19."
- While COVID-19 (all caps) is always consistently used the "full name" has often small variations (no 2019 or "novel" added). Also, I see the COPD precedent but the opposite seems true with HIV/AIDS. What do you think of that? It seems precedent for use of the "abbreviation" has been set for unwieldy names. Hope you are well. --Gtoffoletto (talk) 11:16, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
- I think it is fine having the discussion regarding what term do we generally want to use in the text of articles here. And I support us using COVID-19 in the text generally as we use COPD. I do not think this is the venue for having a discussion about the name used for the article in question especially as we have had multiple discussion of this name their already. With respect to HIV/AIDS it still starts by "Human immunodeficiency virus infection and acquired immune deficiency syndrome (HIV/AIDS)". We did not go with the full name as a title as it was simple too long. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:12, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
- Doc James (talk · contribs) My proposal isn't aimed at any particular article but the whole lot (including especially category pages). Thanks for the explanations regarding HIV/AIDS. I have had a look around and indeed the title naming convention for diseases seems clear. Does the same apply to category pages and other subpage titles or just the main page? In the body I would still select as standard COVID-19 do you agree? --Gtoffoletto (talk) 00:30, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
- I think it is fine having the discussion regarding what term do we generally want to use in the text of articles here. And I support us using COVID-19 in the text generally as we use COPD. I do not think this is the venue for having a discussion about the name used for the article in question especially as we have had multiple discussion of this name their already. With respect to HIV/AIDS it still starts by "Human immunodeficiency virus infection and acquired immune deficiency syndrome (HIV/AIDS)". We did not go with the full name as a title as it was simple too long. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:12, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
- exact quote from CDC "The disease has been named “coronavirus disease 2019” (abbreviated “COVID-19”)." [4] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:30, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
- I defer to Doc James (talk · contribs) on things of this nature. So support as per Doc and his sources. PS hope you and your staff are doing well James.--Moxy 🍁 03:46, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks User:Moxy doing well thankfully. I am happy with the abbreviation COVID-19 generally being use in the text, just as we generally use COPD. For consistency the main article should still be named the full name rather than the abbreviation IMO. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:50, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
More precise proposal
As discussed above with User:Doc James there already is in place a standard for disease article page titles. The COMPLETE disease name should be preferred in the title and first sentence (see examples COPD and HIV/AIDS which was shortened in the title but not in the first sentence as it was just too long for the title). Doesn't make sense to change this standard for this one case so I will be more precise with my proposal:
- Coronavirus disease 2019 is the full name of the disease and should be used for the main article.
- COVID-19 (full caps as per WHO [6]) is preferable in the body of all articles, and in the title of all other articles/category pages/etc. The full name includes the year that can cause confusion and isn't very compact.
--Gtoffoletto (talk) 12:47, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
- Support (proposer) --Gtoffoletto (talk) 00:52, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
- Support Perfect reasonable IMO. We are see Covid19 as people are just too lazy to put the rest in caps on a cellphone. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:00, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
- Support reasonable. --Puddleglum2.0(How's my driving?) 17:36, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
- Support. Checking other disease articles seems to put HIV/AIDS titling as an exception. Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 04:32, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose I'm concerned about a brief discussion here having ramifications for the titles of hundreds of articles that many editors are diligently working on. As you propose,
COVID-19 ... is preferable in the body of all articles, and in the title of all other articles/category pages/etc.
, so you're talking about renaming/moving hundreds of articles/categories/templates and I'm don't think a limited participation discussion on this WikiProject talk page will fly. "Coronavirus pandemic" is used on almost all of them and I think you should bring a request to WP:RM and WP:CFD with an organized proposal, listing every page you want changed, the old & new title. We can't have a discussion here with 5-10 editors weighing in and then go move hundreds of pages based on this. This process is how renames are done with categories and sometimes they involve hundreds of categories in the proposal. Take the time and make a proposal in the right forums, not here. Once you've done that, post a link to the proposals here and I know that I will probably go over and support them. Liz Read! Talk! 05:34, 31 March 2020 (UTC)- User:Liz I'm not proposing any move at the moment. Just trying to set a standard we can use in the future. The consensus could then be used as basis for a future move but that is out of scope at the moment. One step at the time. We don't need to do everything at once but already defining a "best practice" will at least help us with new pages being created and with the body of existing ones. We can then tackle the bigger problem later. If we have a proposal that we agree on here we can also extend it to other editors outside the project to check it's fine for everyone. But let's make sure we agree on the basic principles here first. --Gtoffoletto (talk) 08:51, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
- Liz, don't we have bots that can move multiple pages at one by replacing part of the title? E.g., "Coronavirus" → "COVID-19"? Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 19:07, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
- Partial oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. All the best: Rich Farmbrough (the apparently calm and reasonable) 13:24, 3 April 2020 (UTC).
- Support. This seems like a reasonable solution that uses the full name where necessary, and the proper abbreviated name where convenient, similar to the HIV/AIDS articles.--Pharos (talk) 18:27, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
Reports and researches on Wikipedia's COVID-19 response ?
Hi there, Most of us noticed that our Wikipedia COVID-19 activity have been of a suddenness and intensity never seen before. So many wikipedians joined to storm and build up the topic. We can say the same on news media coverage, politicians, scientific community. I'am wondering if we have a page listing coverages of the Wikipedia COVID-19 responses, with :
Anything else ? Yug (talk) 20:49, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
- Ok, I moved ahead with what I found. Go to Wikipedia:WikiProject_COVID-19#Coverage and you will see a transclusion of Wikipedia:WikiProject COVID-19/Reports, statistics and researches. The page is to expands with all news coverages, informal data reports, academic researches and other things reporting on our effort and that you may think as relevant. Yug (talk) 21:04, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
I have changed this up a lot. As some links were already there and removed explanatory tone. I also moved the reports section as it's odd to have it as a subsection of press coverage. I also moved the academic research section to its own section on the main page. I am really not a fan of recruitment for other projects ( especially those outside of Wikipedia) on project pages. Also best not to promote oneself on a project page either..... we don't want to give the impression of a hierarchy as this is one reason many projects have gone dormant. We are all the same....doing work as volunteers...no need to have "Hay look what i am doing" or "help project so and so at Ubekistan.com" type information on the main page that is meant to organize this project.--Moxy 🍁 23:48, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
- @Moxy:, i am not sure i understand your bottom half comment as i didnt talked about hierarchy, nor called to contribute on Ubekistan.com-like site. I am proud and admiratove of the work done, so i am interested to know if we have measures of our ongoing COVID19 wikipedia effort and i want these documents to be gather at a single place so i may check them up quickly. Increased organization of information is our basic principles. "Be bold", i moved forward, took me <1h, i splitted what i found into press, data reports, academia, the whole displayed under "Coverage
Press", then i moved to other things. Other people will come and adapt further as needed. Good to have other users merging / cleaning that stuff, as long as it is well organized i am in. Yug (talk) 19:36, 5 April 2020 (UTC) - I just checked the history i found there already was a "Automated reports" section back then. Great. Sorry for the duplication Yug (talk) 19:49, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
- @Moxy:, i am not sure i understand your bottom half comment as i didnt talked about hierarchy, nor called to contribute on Ubekistan.com-like site. I am proud and admiratove of the work done, so i am interested to know if we have measures of our ongoing COVID19 wikipedia effort and i want these documents to be gather at a single place so i may check them up quickly. Increased organization of information is our basic principles. "Be bold", i moved forward, took me <1h, i splitted what i found into press, data reports, academia, the whole displayed under "Coverage
Six WHO Regions
In the interests of globalness (and if that's not a word, it is now) I propose that the geographic areas pertaining to COVID19 be those of the WHO's comprehensive six regional offices. I began the timeline via cut-and-paste on January 23rd, and ever since it has had the format, basically, of China, Europe, North America, and everywhere else. There should be no et cetera. kencf0618 (talk) 15:17, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
- The monthly timelines.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_2019%E2%80%9320_coronavirus_pandemic kencf0618 (talk) 21:05, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
Where should the data live?
- See also {{Cases in 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic}}.
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)
- Tenryuu Yes in principle, but I have not seen that implemented in any context yet. -- Daniel Mietchen (talk) 01:20, 20 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 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)
- 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)
Can you lay out the options that you think are realistically possible? At this point, I think anything that yields itself to both automation and triggering by individual users (similar to the "Update the list now" functionality in {{Wikidata list}} triggering edits by User:ListeriaBot) would be fine. For instance, the data could reside in tabular data on Commons and processed from there into wiki pages both here and elsewhere. Much of the data is also curated on Wikidata (see d:Wikidata:WikiProject_COVID-19), so pulling it in from there may be another option. For the long run, we probably need to think a bit more deeply about what makes the most sense. -- Daniel Mietchen (talk) 18:57, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
- In Wikidata the information is not as updated as in the templates, as of now. But infos about specific outbreaks are being manually updated in each Wikipedia project, which is a lot of extra work, so we really need some kind of automation. I wonder if we couldn't have a time series object in commons (table? svg?) and, in Wikidata, we could come with a property like "related time series", with proper qualifiers. Then stop using specific properties for counting cases and as time series proxies, but keeping the most current numbers updated in Wikidata so as to have Template:2019–20_coronavirus_pandemic_data data there. Maybe trying to use something like the WIkidata Bridge could help. TiagoLubiana (talk) 23:06, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
- An option based on the graph extension for such data is described in this video and demoed via the play button on this page. -- Daniel Mietchen (talk) 04:08, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
"Notable cases" leaking through on local basis
I was amazed to find List of Philippine public figures who underwent COVID-19 testing having survived a deletion, and {{2020 coronavirus pandemic in the United Kingdom}} has had a "Notable cases" heading inserted which is basically cataloging notable people with COVID-19. I thought we agreed not to do this in a WP:AFD, so I am a little dismayed to see it leaking back in on a country-by-country basis? Elizium23 (talk) 22:24, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
- The deletion discussion for that article is ongoing, but there seems to be consensus to make the article about a testing controversy only without listing people. --mfb (talk) 04:20, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
HELP! Need a State:County/COVID-19 Commons map updated please - File:COVID-19 In West Virginia County Map.svg
This county-by-county map hasn't been updated since March 27th. I put in a request over on Commons to the last editor who edited it but no response yet. Could someone please update it? I have no idea how, the stats are here: dhhr.gov website. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 20:04, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
- HELP. Map still needed. ALSO 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Virginia desperately needs its infobox map updated as well. Please. Shearonink (talk) 04:27, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
What's an antigen?
At an article related to the subject of this project, please see my comment at Talk: Antigen. Any volunteers? Arcturus (talk) 12:31, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
- Arcturus, does Antigen match what you're looking for? --Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 16:55, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
- Tenryuu, thanks for replying. I would say the Simple Wiki article is too simple. It's aimed at GCSE level (school exam taken by 16 year olds in the UK) or below. The article as it stands at the moment is almost at PhD level. What we need is something like an A level standard (exam taken at age 18 in the UK, prior to university entry) or slightly above. However, some elements from the Simple Wiki would be useful in the lead. Arcturus (talk) 17:05, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
Covid Shortages
Hey, folks, sorry to come back but I really can't keep up maintaining Shortages related to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic nearly alone. I have read an estimated 200+ news articles these past 10 days, integrating 100+ refs (~10 refs/day), but I still have a backlog of 50+ sources growing at +7/days despite my intensive efforts. These relevant sources are organized by sections of 5~10, mirroring the article structures. Really need some helps, contributors, to adopt a sections and integrate the sources 5~8 sources into associated article sections. Supply shortage is at the epicenter of the current crisis. Medical staffs are under equipped due to those shortages. Can some folks help ? Yug (talk) 19:42, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
Animal infections
Do we have coverage of infections of animals with COVID-19/SARS-CoV-2 ? [7][8]
That seems relevant to the possible spread if the reported cases (dog, tigers) can cause a further zoonosis vector. -- 65.94.170.207 (talk) 21:03, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
"High Consequence Infectious Disease"
I am sure this does not belong in this Talk page, but don’t know where else to put it. If those more expert than I can transfer it to appropriate page, thank-you. But since it involves multiple pages, all connected with this template, this seems the best place.
It seems that practically every country page whose title begins with "2020 coronavirus pandemic in..." (insert country or entity of your choice), in the Background section, contains the phrase, "From 19 March, COVID-19 was no longer classified as a "High consequence infectious disease"." The source is given as "High consequence infectious diseases (HCID); Guidance and information about high consequence infectious diseases and their management in England". GOV.UK. Archived from the original on 3 March 2020. Retrieved 17 March 2020." When going to this source, it is found that this is a purely British designation, and further checking indicates that it is not found on WHO or other international sites. As such on all but UK and its dependencies’ COVID-19 pages, this is not only irrelevant, but misleading. It gives the impression that the disease is no longer of serious concern, which is far from the truth. It should be removed from every page but (possibly) the UK. Comments? Ptilinopus (talk) 07:22, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
- I added that statement on the UK page (I just clarified on that page who made the statement). It is valid to have it there, but not valid to have it on any other page, unless an ancillary statement is added to the effect that Public Health England (PHE) made the assessment. Arcturus (talk) 12:08, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi! One of my students started an article on the 2019-20 Coronavirus pandemic and climate change. It needs quite a bit of additional TLC and I'm going to give them feedback, but given Wikipedia's prominence with info on this topic area I figured that it would be important to bring it to the attention of this WikiProject. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 15:02, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
Antarctica
Should Antarctica and Antarctic territories be bundled into 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Oceania ? That would give a place to put it without a tiny article for the Antarctic. -- 65.94.170.207 (talk) 18:47, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
- Are there coronavirus cases in Antarctica? --Puddleglum2.0(How's my driving?) 19:37, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
- I would say don't bundle it into Oceania, because Antarctica is not part of Oceania. If the pandemic has affected scientific research bases in Antarctica, that could go in Impact of the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic on science and technology. If there have been cases on Antarctic cruises, that could go in 2020 coronavirus pandemic on cruise ships. —Granger (talk · contribs) 23:35, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
- No cases in Antarctica yet, according to WaPo. I don't think we need an article on it yet. Agreed with Mx. Granger that it should go in the science article if needed. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 07:12, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
- There is already an article, 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Antarctica. Liz Read! Talk! 20:28, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
Race statistics in the U.S.
I have read a Pro-Publica on the racial breakdown of COVID-19 cases in Milwaukee County, Wisconsin, showing A) disproportionate number of Black / African-American confirmed cases (nearly half so far vs. a 2010 census of 26.8% Black population in the county) and deaths in that county B) Milwaukee, one of the few places already tracking coronavirus cases and deaths by race, provides an early indication of what would surface nationally if the federal government actually did this, or locally if other cities and states took its lead
. The Washington Post in its local reporting also noted a disproportionate death rate among Blacks in Washington, D.C. and the fact D.C.'s COVID-19 website today (6 Apr) released its first breakdown by race, 30 days after the first confirmed COVID-19 case there. However, I do not see an appropriate section in which this can be mentioned at 2020 coronavirus pandemic in the United States or any of the "Impact of" sub-articles, so I am requesting input on the matter. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 00:57, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
- I think it might be suitable for mention in 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Wisconsin, 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Maryland, 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Virginia, and 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Washington, D.C.. - MrX 🖋 01:06, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
- It might also warrant a line somewhere in the U.S. article, if it's shown to be the case everywhere that has that data. Not broad enough in scope for the worldwide article, although if data comes out showing that disadvantaged groups worldwide have higher rates, maybe something could be included. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 04:30, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
Ok thank you both, I've added to both the Wisconsin and the U.S. national articles. It may be more appropriate to insert in the D.C. article next Monday once a more fully fledged time series can appear, as I noted that D.C. only began reporting race breakdowns yesterday. Neither Virginia nor Maryland has formally begun reporting such breakdowns, so.... CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 22:11, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
transcluding number of patients in articles
Hello. While I was crosschecking the number of confirmed patients in India, and states; I observed the numbers have been a mismatch since last few days. I mean, the number of patients in Maharashtra state is different at 2020 coronavirus pandemic in India than 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Maharashtra, and same goes for 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Kerala. Instead of updating the numbers in each articles, can we just transclude it from somewhere? Similar to 394 which displays number of users in group of file movers? Maybe something like {{Template:2020 coronavirus pandemic in Maharashtra/positive}}, and {{Template:2020 coronavirus pandemic in Kerala/positive}}. We can add only the numbers on that subpage, which later can be used everywhere else (infobox, article body, and whatnot). Unsourced numbers being added is getting annoying too. I am also thinking about requesting for increase in protection. Any thoughts? —usernamekiran (talk) 21:37, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
- Update: I created Template:2020 coronavirus pandemic in Maharashtra/confirmed, and later I recalled that the data at 2020 coronavirus pandemic in India article is itself trancluded from Template:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data/India medical cases. Which, as of now has gotten very cumbersome to edit. Maybe thats why it is not being updated frequently. Is there any other approach that can be taken? I have already nominated Template:2020 coronavirus pandemic in Maharashtra/confirmed for speedy deletion. —usernamekiran (talk) 22:40, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
- How about using state-specific sources for each state in 2020 coronavirus pandemic in India? MoHFW seems to take at least one day to aggregate the numbers of all states which has resulted in the mismatch. M4DU7 (talk) 22:44, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
- @M4DU7:
Yes, that is a very good solution.But we still have other problem: Template:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data/India medical cases is getting very difficult to edit (at least from mobile/source code). —usernamekiran (talk) 22:10, 3 April 2020 (UTC) - @M4DU7: On second thought, this is not a good solution. Two-three days ago, a positive case has been confirmed in Hingoli district of MH.[9] An official from state health ministry also confirmed it [10]. I have seen the formal press-note by civil surgeon conirming this. The official corona related website of the MH state has been updated after that more than once, but that case hasnt been included yet. —usernamekiran (talk) 22:37, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
- @Usernamekiran and M4DU7: I will throw some ideas, my apologizes if I'am out of topic.
- Good to see you are aware of current naming conventions for Coronavirus data templates, in use for charts and tables and which goes as
2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data/{page title}. We could have:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data/{country name or ISO3}/cases2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data/{country name or ISO3}/deaths2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data/{country name or ISO3}/recovery
- But this is too long for such "just transcluding a number", and I worry about maintenance.
- I therefor recommend a single page with the use of Help:Conditional_expressions with both
cases|deaths|recoveriesanddateparameters. These data would be EXACTLY the same data as presented on the chart page, but with suitable {IF}s. - As for the naming and usage, we could then have shortcut
COVID19/{ISO3}:{COVID19/IND|type=cases|date=2020-03-19}=> result:173.{COVID19/IND|type=deaths|date=2020-03-19}=> result:3.
- displaying the data for THAT type and THAT day. With this, people editing the wikipedia article will have explicite informations: immediately understanding what date & data they are dealing with and the need for updates. You could have a
date=lastparameter, but I don't recommend it (would be misleading because implicite). This template could be used by charts templates. Yug (talk) 10:44, 4 April 2020 (UTC) - @Usernamekiran and M4DU7: see {{Cases in 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic}}. Yug (talk) 23:35, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
- @M4DU7:
- How about using state-specific sources for each state in 2020 coronavirus pandemic in India? MoHFW seems to take at least one day to aggregate the numbers of all states which has resulted in the mismatch. M4DU7 (talk) 22:44, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
Media repression during the COVID-19 pandemic
Do we have an article something along the lines of Media repression during the COVID-19 pandemic? (A side question: does the name moratorium apply to new articles that are created? I don't remember seeing that as part of the debate...)
I haven't noticed much media repression that is more intense than is typical for the existing political system/status of places around the world, although repressive laws do seem to have been packaged in together with epidemiologically justified lockdown measures in emergency legislation in many places. Index on Censorship - https://www.indexoncensorship.org/disease-control/ - claims to be keeping an eye on media repression during the pandemic. Boud (talk) 22:20, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
- I feel that this is better suited to the country articles, being so tightly specific. Kingsif (talk) 23:21, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
- There are some dirty tricks around. Turkey, prisoners will be freed, except journalists and political ones. Yug (talk) 23:28, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
- (Also.... there are rumors of a soft coup in Brazil, would be the 1st, leadership change due to Covid. Yug (talk) 23:32, 6 April 2020 (UTC))
- Bolsonaro would be an interesting one to kick out of power, is all I'll say on that! Kingsif (talk) 23:56, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
- Algeria is doing roughly the same thing as Turkey - 5037 prisoners near the end of their sentences released; no Hirak prisoners of conscience released. Leadership changes: UK: if Boris Johnson survives, he'll be exhausted and will need weeks to recover. @Kingsif: I tend to think you're right that this would make more sense in country-specific articles. Boud (talk) 01:17, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
- Transversal articles also have value, seriously. We could do the whole coverage on a per-country basis, or even a simple per-country chronology, but then there is no vision nor lessons from the story, it's just a wikidata like array of facts. When we have human resources to write them, transversal has value. (@Boud and Kingsif:) Yug (talk) 20:00, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
- Transversal articles do have value, but that's when the issue can be globalized. While no doubt media repression is happening everywhere, an article on it would have to be broken down by country anyway, as it occurs differently in each country. The only connecting thread is 'media repression is a thing that happened during the 2020 pandemic', which is almost as weak as 'media repression is a thing' (the reason why the main censorship/media repression articles give an overview of what it is, and then regional articles cover what happens where). Unlike, sports and arts which have been affected in much the same way on a global scale (and have their own articles covering it). Kingsif (talk) 20:30, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
- Transversal articles also have value, seriously. We could do the whole coverage on a per-country basis, or even a simple per-country chronology, but then there is no vision nor lessons from the story, it's just a wikidata like array of facts. When we have human resources to write them, transversal has value. (@Boud and Kingsif:) Yug (talk) 20:00, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
- Algeria is doing roughly the same thing as Turkey - 5037 prisoners near the end of their sentences released; no Hirak prisoners of conscience released. Leadership changes: UK: if Boris Johnson survives, he'll be exhausted and will need weeks to recover. @Kingsif: I tend to think you're right that this would make more sense in country-specific articles. Boud (talk) 01:17, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
- Bolsonaro would be an interesting one to kick out of power, is all I'll say on that! Kingsif (talk) 23:56, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
- I stopped by the misinformation article not too long ago and suggested that its scope be broadened to include all aspects of information ecosystems related to the pandemic. Hasn't happened yet, though. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 01:55, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
RSN discussion: Fox News and COVID-19
There's a discussion just started at WP:RSN about Fox News as a source for COVID-19 articles in particular - Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Fox_News_and_COVID-19 - please have a look - David Gerard (talk) 09:29, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
Mass duplicates for "Background"
An editor has inserted everywhere a Background section to the articles of the different countries with the same content. I am not sure this is the most useful way because any change or correction would also have to be done everywhere.--walkeetalkee 16:05, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
- Yeah, that's not a good idea... Kingsif (talk) 16:19, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
- Part of it was actually contested at #"High_Consequence_Infectious_Disease". Should we remove it altogether? Pinging Allio19 in case he thinks it should stay.--walkeetalkee 17:11, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
- I think certainly a part of it is that the background is often different. For all articles we can say the disease began in X and started spreading on Y, but then each country and region and medical response and different social issue has a complex background. From the articles I watch, I can say that Venezuela went into lockdown before any deaths occurred and with only 30 confirmed cases - because most of the country has no hygiene or health facilities - and that the Asian cinema industry was basically doomed to die - it relies on the Lunar New Year market; these are elements of background that are just as important to these articles as anything technical about the pandemic, if not more. A cut-and-paste background section just isn't functional. Kingsif (talk) 17:32, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
- The generalised Background section seems fine to me, except for the statement concerning HCID, which is only applicable to the UK article, unless clarified in the other articles - as I mentioned above. Each article can develop the basic statement as required. I doubt the essential facts, as currently given, are going to change. Arcturus (talk) 17:58, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
- Well, a small background section would be nice to add to these pages. However, it would be nice if it was a template, so any changes to the background section would be automated to all pages using it. --Hagnat (talk) 18:38, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
- It's not completely stupid. Yug (talk) 20:03, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
- I haven't looked at it, but if it's going to be the same everywhere, it should be an {{Excerpt}}. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 09:15, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
- Ooo... i didn't knew such a template/tool existed. This is nice. --Hagnat (talk) 13:13, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
- Dark magic. Clearly. Yug (talk) 15:37, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
- @Allio19: Having a standardised common, brief background section is not necessarily a bad idea, especially if used with {{excerpt}}, but inserting it by hand everywhere without first checking for consensus on such a major edit is not very wise. I'm not eager though. Isn't the intrawiki link to the main COVID-19 pandemic page enough for readers who want to know the key information common to the pandemic as a whole? A 'background' section on a country COVID-19 article would better be a bit more specific, depending on the sources, of course - country X was known to have a badly organised/highly effective/underfunded/well-funded health system; the country was just recovering from/in the midst of sociopolitical event Y; the country had a leader well-known to reject and ignore scientific advice and promote conspiracy theories; and so on. And in general, the background of the country and the background of the pandemic should be integrated together, which won't be a "one size fits all" concatenation of statements. Maybe a formal RFC might be best for this. Boud (talk) 01:29, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
- I'm totally in agreement with @Boud: I'm not sure of the benefits of a uniform boilerplate solution. I don't see the point in having the same repeated content across the series of articles, except maybe for a one-liner. The existence of a boilerplate could lead some readers to look at the article and be content with the fact that there's something there, and say "that will do", without going any further into thinking about whether it's sufficient or appropriate. Then, only experienced editors will likely expand or adapt the text as necessary. 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Hong Kong being a case in point – it needs a whole different background section, but I admit it's a very special case. -- Ohc ¡digame! 09:00, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
- The question of what to put in the background would have to cover the multiple predictions of a pandemic of this sort on this time scale. Background does not mean "it started out of nowhere", which is about an event with no background. The specific details of this pandemic were not predictable, but the general occurrence of a major pandemic was predicted as reasonably likely, especially if warning mechanisms were weakened (by anti-science political leaders...). Just a few random refs: CIHR Research: SARS: Make No Mistake - There Will Be a Next Time (2003, Healthcare Quarterly, |url-access=subscription, only the abstract is open-access) and The Next Epidemic — Lessons from Ebola (2015, NEJM, open-access). See a few sections down on this talk page for a brief discussion on this aspect of the background. Boud (talk) 12:34, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
- I'm totally in agreement with @Boud: I'm not sure of the benefits of a uniform boilerplate solution. I don't see the point in having the same repeated content across the series of articles, except maybe for a one-liner. The existence of a boilerplate could lead some readers to look at the article and be content with the fact that there's something there, and say "that will do", without going any further into thinking about whether it's sufficient or appropriate. Then, only experienced editors will likely expand or adapt the text as necessary. 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Hong Kong being a case in point – it needs a whole different background section, but I admit it's a very special case. -- Ohc ¡digame! 09:00, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
- @Allio19: Having a standardised common, brief background section is not necessarily a bad idea, especially if used with {{excerpt}}, but inserting it by hand everywhere without first checking for consensus on such a major edit is not very wise. I'm not eager though. Isn't the intrawiki link to the main COVID-19 pandemic page enough for readers who want to know the key information common to the pandemic as a whole? A 'background' section on a country COVID-19 article would better be a bit more specific, depending on the sources, of course - country X was known to have a badly organised/highly effective/underfunded/well-funded health system; the country was just recovering from/in the midst of sociopolitical event Y; the country had a leader well-known to reject and ignore scientific advice and promote conspiracy theories; and so on. And in general, the background of the country and the background of the pandemic should be integrated together, which won't be a "one size fits all" concatenation of statements. Maybe a formal RFC might be best for this. Boud (talk) 01:29, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
- Dark magic. Clearly. Yug (talk) 15:37, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
- Ooo... i didn't knew such a template/tool existed. This is nice. --Hagnat (talk) 13:13, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
The discussion got archived: [11]
Should we revive it or has consensus been reached? We had 5 supports, 1 oppose and 1 partial oppose for:
- Coronavirus disease 2019 is the full name of the disease and should be used for the main article.
- COVID-19 (full caps as per WHO [12]) is preferable in the body of all articles, and in the title of all other articles/category pages/etc. The full name includes the year that can cause confusion and isn't very compact.
Should we add it to the consensus banner so people know it's the general guideline? --Gtoffoletto (talk) 10:05, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
- Sure add away. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:11, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
- So does this mean we will be mass-renaming all articles according to this scheme? Elizium23 (talk) 03:20, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
- Elizium23, possibly. I think there might be a bot to move titles all at once though? --Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 05:01, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
- That is a mighty slender consensus for a mass-move, having not yet held any WP:RM on the subject. Elizium23 (talk) 05:03, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
- I think we have a consensus for a general guideline but NOT enough for mass movings. But we can use this consensus on a general guideline as basis for future discussions and to avoid repeating the same discussions in all pages. --Gtoffoletto (talk) 08:49, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
- Updated consensus here [13]. Please review. --Gtoffoletto (talk) 08:56, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
- That is a mighty slender consensus for a mass-move, having not yet held any WP:RM on the subject. Elizium23 (talk) 05:03, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
- Elizium23, possibly. I think there might be a bot to move titles all at once though? --Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 05:01, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
Discussion on lead, medical supplies, censorship of medical personnel - PL COVID-19 pandemic article
At the PL COVID-19 pandemic talk page, there is a discussion ongoing about whether the lead should summarise the content, whether medical supplies are relevant to a COVID-19 pandemic page, and whether censorship of medical personnel is relevant to a COVID-19 pandemic page. Uninvolved people feel free to comment. Boud (talk) 19:13, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
Short descriptions of country/region articles
An editor, JaventheAlderick, has been changing the short descriptions for a bunch of country/state/etc. COVID-19 articles (edit history) to the format "Details of ongoing viral pandemic in [place]". I first encountered this at 2020 coronavirus pandemic in the United States, where the previous description was "viral outbreak in the United States". I think that format is superior, since it is less wordy ("details of" is unneeded, especially considering that the first words of a short description are the most important) and less redundant with the article title. Javen reverted me when I tried to change it back, citing WP:CONSISTENCY. What do you all think should be the standard format? {{u|Sdkb}} talk 06:41, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
- @Sdkb: Thank you for pinging me. As early as 15 February 2020, I made this edit to what is now the article "2020 coronavirus pandemic in Singapore", which is when the wording first originated. This wording has since spread to other articles of the coronavirus in other countries by other editors (such as the corresponding articles for Chad, France, Laos, Germany; among many others.) Therefore, I assume that this format ("Details of ongoing viral pandemic in [country/place]") was the default consensus for the short description across such coronavirus articles pertaining to countries. In short, since no editor (until now) has objected to this wording, and other editors (not me) have used this same format for similar articles about the conronavirus in different countries, I presume that this wording is the default consensus with regards to short descriptions for coronavirus articles in [country/area]. I am simply changing the short descriptions of the rest of the articles which do not yet follow this format per WP:CONSISTENT. (WP:Consistency links to a redirect, my apologies; I shouldn't have pointed you to a redirect) Cheers,JaventheAldericky (talk) 08:05, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
- Literally every article on Wikipedia is about "details of" the topic. The article about Julius Caesar should then describe "details of a 1st century BC Roman politician and general" and the article about Belgium should be also described as "details of a country in Western Europe". So I also think it is perfectly superfluous to add "details" to the short description. --Ritchie92 (talk) 08:16, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
- @Ritchie92: Ah, I see, I get your point. In that case, we will need a new short description for the coronavirus articles. Would "Ongoing COVID-19 viral pandemic in [country/place]" suffice? It removes the unnecessary detail out and additionally points out that the outbreak refers to COVID-19. Other suggestions are welcome though. JaventheAldericky (talk) 11:15, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
- @Ritchie92: I still feel that "COVID-19" should be added into the short description since it is helpful in distinguishing between the current pandemic and previous epidemics (such as the original SARS coronavirus between 2002 and 2004 affecting many Asian countries). In addition, Wikipedia:Short description states that "The short description will be the first point of contact for many readers, so it should be readily comprehensible." Readers would be able to easily identify that the article is talking about COVID-19 if its stated there, rather than being omitted from the short description. With regards to the length of short descriptions: While you are correct in saying that short descriptions should be, well, short; as per Wikipedia:Short description, short descriptions should be around the ideal goal of 40 characters - not too long or too short. In the case of Italy, "Ongoing COVID-19 viral pandemic in Italy" is bang on target at 40 characters. JaventheAldericky (talk) 20:22, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
- I strongly disagree. The short description should not be specific of the single topic of the article. For example, both Meryl Streep and Anne Hathaway have "American actress" as short description, instead of having some other qualifier distinguishing one from the other. So, the short description for the 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Italy is perfectly fine with "Ongoing viral pandemic in Italy". I would even omit the "ongoing" and leave "Viral pandemic in Italy". There might be other viral pandemics in Italy, and they will also have the same short description, there is no problem at all. --Ritchie92 (talk) 20:27, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
- @Ritchie92: I'm sorry, but unfortunately I'm lost in understanding how your example in showing two different articles of American actresses having the same short description is comparable to this. The short description "American actress" is suitable and concise enough for readers to be able to differentiate between Meryl Streep and, say, another person who has a similar name to her, but who may be notable for something else, like a scientist. Let me apply your reasoning to this example of two different articles: 2002–2004 SARS outbreak versus 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic, whose short descriptions (as of the time of writing) are "Epidemic of severe acute respiratory syndrome originating in China" and "Ongoing pandemic of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)" respectively. Your reasoning suggests that they should both be rewritten to read "Epidemic of coronavirus disease" because they both detail a disease caused by coronavirus. The problem with the rewritten short description is that it ignores how the coronavirus causing the SARS outbreak is of a completely different strain to the coronavirus causing the current pandemic. The rewritten short description, however, implies that there is no significant difference between the viruses causing the two epidemics (which would be incorrect), or that the virus causing the 2002-04 epidemic is the same virus causing the 2019-20 epidemic (which is also wrong). As I said earlier, having "COVID-19" included into the short description of the country/area articles would be beneficial in distinguishing between the current pandemic and previous epidemics because it clearly identifies that the article is talking about COVID-19, not about SARS. As for the word "Ongoing", this shows readers that the epidemic is currently ongoing (and that is not over yet), which again differentiates the current pandemic from previous epidemics. JaventheAldericky (talk) 16:15, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
- If one wants all the details you are talking about in a short description, then it would be a long description, and at that point one might just read the article. The short description should just be sufficient to categorize the topic and give a short definition (the one that appears in Google search when searching such things). I think there is no need of distinguishing two different coronavirus outbreaks at the level of the short description, they are both coronavirus outbreaks, and it is already detailed enough because it distinguishes them from other viral or other bacterial outbreaks. So it is definitely precise enough. Nothing
implies that there is no significant difference between the viruses causing the two epidemics
because, again, this is the short description, not the article itself. You are giving it too much importance. --Ritchie92 (talk) 16:29, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
- If one wants all the details you are talking about in a short description, then it would be a long description, and at that point one might just read the article. The short description should just be sufficient to categorize the topic and give a short definition (the one that appears in Google search when searching such things). I think there is no need of distinguishing two different coronavirus outbreaks at the level of the short description, they are both coronavirus outbreaks, and it is already detailed enough because it distinguishes them from other viral or other bacterial outbreaks. So it is definitely precise enough. Nothing
- @Ritchie92: I'm sorry, but unfortunately I'm lost in understanding how your example in showing two different articles of American actresses having the same short description is comparable to this. The short description "American actress" is suitable and concise enough for readers to be able to differentiate between Meryl Streep and, say, another person who has a similar name to her, but who may be notable for something else, like a scientist. Let me apply your reasoning to this example of two different articles: 2002–2004 SARS outbreak versus 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic, whose short descriptions (as of the time of writing) are "Epidemic of severe acute respiratory syndrome originating in China" and "Ongoing pandemic of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)" respectively. Your reasoning suggests that they should both be rewritten to read "Epidemic of coronavirus disease" because they both detail a disease caused by coronavirus. The problem with the rewritten short description is that it ignores how the coronavirus causing the SARS outbreak is of a completely different strain to the coronavirus causing the current pandemic. The rewritten short description, however, implies that there is no significant difference between the viruses causing the two epidemics (which would be incorrect), or that the virus causing the 2002-04 epidemic is the same virus causing the 2019-20 epidemic (which is also wrong). As I said earlier, having "COVID-19" included into the short description of the country/area articles would be beneficial in distinguishing between the current pandemic and previous epidemics because it clearly identifies that the article is talking about COVID-19, not about SARS. As for the word "Ongoing", this shows readers that the epidemic is currently ongoing (and that is not over yet), which again differentiates the current pandemic from previous epidemics. JaventheAldericky (talk) 16:15, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
- 1:
"I think there is no need of distinguishing two different coronavirus outbreaks at the level of the short description"
You are missing the point of a short description. A purpose of a short description, as per WP:SHORTDESC, is to be used"as a disambiguator in searches"
. Surely since the purpose of disambiguation is to ensure that readers are directed to the correct article, it would be much more easier for a reader to identify the page 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Italy if they see "Ongoing COVID-19 viral pandemic in Italy" rather than just "Viral pandemic in Italy"? As I already mentioned earlier:"In addition, Wikipedia:Short description states that "The short description will be the first point of contact for many readers, so it should be readily comprehensible.""
. The former wording meets this criterion for many readers; the latter wording does not.
- 1:
- 2:
"(the one that appears in Google search when searching such things)"
Short descriptions aren't visible to the general public if viewed via Google, as Google does not utilise short descriptions in any of their search results (and in the case of COVID-19, the top search "result" is not from Wikipedia, but instead the medical authority of a reader's respective country anyway); they are only visible to readers searching using the Wikipedia mobile app.
- 2:
- 3:
"If one wants all the details you are talking about in a short description, then it would be a long description"
There is no correlation between the length of a short description and how many details the description contains. It is perfectly possible to have a description that is concise and yet contains helpful information to help a reader understand what the article is about.
- 3:
- 4: Now that the score has been settled, please let me begin changing the short descriptions of the affected articles. I really would prefer not to let this relatively minor issue escalate into an argument over which short description version is the ideal version to be used in articles, or otherwise this will pretty much go nowhere. I'm quite sure you don't want an argument to start up either. I've already conceded that the "Details of" portion of the short description is unnecessary, so I will be removing that portion for all affected articles. Thank you. Cheers, JaventheAldericky (talk) 18:09, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
- Sorry but again, I strongly disagree. Please read carefully WP:SHORTDESC. It says: "The short description should focus on distinguishing the subject from ones with similar titles rather than precisely defining it", and "The short description is not required to provide an adequate definition of the article subject". I don't think there is any need of changing the short description to add the words "COVID-19" to it. I am already conceding on the "Outgoing" being kept there, but I think it goes out of purpose and is actually ridiculous to add "COVID-19" (the word "coronavirus" is already in the title of the article after all...) So, do not reinstate your version. --Ritchie92 (talk) 18:15, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, I have carefully read through WP:SHORTDESC.
(the word "coronavirus" is already in the title of the article after all...)
Yes, coronavirus is already in the title, but it is important to note that the word "coronavirus" is not the same as "COVID-19". They are not interchangeable words. You can search it for more information about this, but basically "coronavirus" refers to a family of viruses, while COVID-19 is the disease caused by a specific member of the coronavirus family. Hence, while the title includes the word "coronavirus", my point in which COVID-19 should remain part of the short description still stands, because it still remains helpful in differentiating between different diseases caused by different coronaviruses. Thank you for allowing me to clarify this. Cheers, JaventheAldericky (talk) 19:16, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, I have carefully read through WP:SHORTDESC.
- I don't think we agreed, so I am going to revert your edit again to restore the former status quo. Specifying "COVID-19" in the short description has exactly the same purpose of having "coronavirus" in the title, even though they are two different things. But anyway, my point was not only about the presence of the word "coronavirus" in the title already, but also about all the other things I have mentioned in my replies in this discussion, and I think it was very dishonest of you to say that the discussion was "ultimately fruitful" as in your edit message. Again, the short description does not need to be a full description of the subject in the article, especially in this case where the article title is very specific and self-disambiguating. The previous description was perfectly fine for its job. --Ritchie92 (talk) 23:21, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
- 1:
"I think it was very dishonest of you to say that the discussion was "ultimately fruitful""
I would like to apologise for the edit you mentioned - I thought we had come to an agreeable closure because of my clarification I gave above to you. I deliberately mentioned the "WikiProject COVID-19" in my edit summary so that other editors are able to look it up and find this discussion; that speaks transparency, not dishonesty (although I should have added a wikilink into it oof). Since you have said you still didn't agree, thank you for reverting my edit.
- 1:
- 2:
"Specifying "COVID-19" in the short description has exactly the same purpose of having "coronavirus" in the title"
They do not have the same purpose. The whole point of including "COVID-19" in the short description is to distinguish it from other articles of other coronaviruses. You have to realise that COVID-19 is just one strain of a family of coronaviruses. Outbreaks of other coronaviruses have happened before, like the example of the SARS outbreak I provided in my earlier responses. The reason why "COVID-19" should be included in is because that word alone further serves to disambiguate between articles of different coronaviruses. Like I said earlier,"as per WP:SHORTDESC, is to be used "as a disambiguator in searches""
. If the previous description is"perfectly fine for its job"
, but adding the wording into the short description lets it do a better job, then why not add it?
- 2:
- 3:
"I am going to revert your edit again to restore the former status quo"
While I have thanked you for reverting my edit, did you not remember that the former status quo was "Details of ongoing viral pandemic in [country/area]"? The current "status quo" is currently your version of what the short description should be; nevertheless I will not restore my version until we have come to an agreement.
- 3:
- 4:
"Again, the short description does not need to be a full description of the subject in the article"
Regarding this aspect; I agree that it doesn't need to be a full description (it says so in WP:SHORTDESC after all), but the wording in WP:SHORTDESC (which says "is not required", rather than "must not") does recognise that short descriptions can be describing the subject in full (i.e it is optional). In addition, you still have yet to address my points on how including the word "COVID-19" helps in furthering the short description's goal to be used"as a disambiguator in searches"
, as well as how my version would"be more readily comprehensible"
. Does the "COVID-19" word not help readers in differentiating between articles of different coronaviruses? Wouldn't "Ongoing COVID-19 viral pandemic in [country/area]" be easier to understand than just "Viral pandemic in [country/area]" for readers?
- 4:
- 5:
"but also about all the other things I have mentioned in my replies in this discussion"
Uhhhh... have I not been responding to your replies this whole time? This discussion wouldn't have gone until here had I not been responding to your replies with my counterpoints... Please look through my points again. Let me know what else I can clarify for you, and I will do so. JaventheAldericky (talk) 17:10, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
- 5:
- 1: Well thanks for the apologies, but it smelled as an attempt to stealthily bypass the talk discussion outcome.
- 2: COVID-19 is not a strain of a virus, but is the name of the disease associated to the SARS-CoV-2 virus. So writing "COVID-19 viral pandemic" is actually also wrong, it should be "SARS-CoV-2 viral pandemic". But again, we don't need to disambiguate between different strains of coronaviruses, and most importantly we don't need to do it in the bloody short description! The disambiguation that is needed (if needed) would be between different pandemics happening in Italy at the same time: and I think that the title does its job already because it mentions "coronavirus", and because, luckily, there are no other viral or coronaviral pandemics in Italy.
- 3: You're wrong again: the former status quo is the one before you started with your edits, i.e. before you added "details of" to the short description. So yes, I correctly reverted it to the status quo ante.
- 4: Back to what I was saying in point 2. Where are these many articles about different coronavirus pandemics in Italy? I am curious. You could say: "Well, there could be outbreaks from other coronaviruses in Italy in 2020". Yes that's a possibility, but then the problem would be also about how to title the new coronavirus outbreak. Actually that is the main issue, and not the short description! I am sure that at that point the titles would have changed and the current one would become "2020 COVID-19 pandemic in Italy" (actually even without another different strain it might well happen that all titles regarding the 2019–2020 coronavirus pandemic will be changed using "COVID-19" instead of "coronavirus") and the other one will become "2020 [name_of_new_disease] pandemic in Italy". So, in this case, as in many other cases, the disambiguator is the title itself. There is perfectly zero advantage of adding "COVID-19" to the short description. The title is perfectly clear and disambiguating, and the current short description is perfectly clear in its broad definition of the subject. The short reply to "What is the 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Italy?" is indeed "An ongoing viral pandemic in Italy". Clear, short, effective.
- 5: Yes, I think this discussion is stuck, so you either WP:DROPTHESTICK or wait for other editor's comments, because I made my points several times and frankly your arguments are based on many wrong concepts, and especially a wrong idea of what a short description should do and how it should look like. --Ritchie92 (talk) 08:21, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
- 1: After you went to continue the discussion when I didn't want to, thank you for accepting the offer to drop the stick. I appreciate the gesture.
- 2: Regarding this point: My post earlier said that
"You have to realise that COVID-19 is just one strain of a family of coronaviruses."
This is incorrect. I meant to say "the disease caused by a single strain of coronavirus". I apologise for the error.
- 2: Regarding this point: My post earlier said that
- 3: Again, you are wrong. Expanding on my post earlier, the complete status quo prior to my recent edits to the short description for the US article that sparked this discussion was as follows:
- For the article about the pandemic in the United States, the short description was
"Viral outbreak in the United States"
- For the corresponding article in Italy, the short description was
"Ongoing viral pandemic in Italy"
- For the corresponding articles for almost every other country (and for most of the individual US states/territories), the short description was either
"Details of ongoing (viral) pandemic in [country/area]"
or they didn't have a short description. (Some short descriptions had the word "viral" omitted, so that's why its in brackets)- Corresponding articles for Chinese provinces and Indian states, however, had differing short descriptions.
- For the article about the pandemic in the United States, the short description was
- 3: Again, you are wrong. Expanding on my post earlier, the complete status quo prior to my recent edits to the short description for the US article that sparked this discussion was as follows:
- From my perspective, it would have been far easier to edit just the United States and Italy articles to follow the same formatting of the short description that nearly every other article was following. After all, I considered it to be the default consensus (for the reasons I already mentioned above in my first reply to this discussion). Instead, we have this discussion. (This does not mean I object to this discussion however; quite the opposite - besides, consensus can always change anyway)
- 4: Like you said, it would be much better if we have other editors come in to voice their opinions on this. Let us both drop our sticks and wait. I, too, am getting tired of having to keep coming back here to reply. JaventheAldericky (talk) 20:28, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
Wikidata project idea
Can we render more of the templates directly from time-series data on Wikidata? See this idea for a C19 registry for public data, and packages of time-series data used in templates here. – SJ + 22:25, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
Discussion closers needed!
There are currently several large discussions/RfCs throughout this project that could benefit from a formal close. These include:
- Talk:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic#RfC - Limiting the countries covered in the domestic responses section
- Talk:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic#Should we switch the lead infobox map from cases per capita to deaths per capita?
Talk:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic#RfC: Formatting of sentence about xenophobia(maybe still a little too soon)Definitely not too soon now — this is dragging on consuming tons of oxygen with little else to be said.Talk:2020 coronavirus pandemic in the United States#RfCWikipedia talk:WikiProject COVID-19#COVID-19 or Coronavirus disease 2019?Archived, with clear enough consensus not to need a formal close.
Ideally many of these would have admin closers, but given how rapidly articles in this space are evolving, it would be helpful for other experienced uninvolved editors to close them out. Just please be thorough and don't take on the task unless you are confident in your ability to assess consensus (not just count !votes), since bad closes just create more work to remedy. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 07:15, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
- Update: This is still really needed. These discussions are at risk of getting archived without proper closures, which makes it very difficult to act on the matters people have spent so much energy discussing. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 18:27, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
- I closed the xenophobia RfC. This is very likely the first time I've done a close of this sort - usually I participate and try to propose consensus internally rather than stay uninvolved. We'll see if someone challenges the closure. Boud (talk)
- Good job ....we have a few that can be closed as too fluid like Talk:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic#RfC - Limiting the countries covered in the domestic responses section...simply not a topic that can have set countries....should just close as needed a per capita criteria discussion.--Moxy 🍁 21:42, 10 April 2020 (UTC)