Wikipedia talk:WikiProject COVID-19/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 15

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.

---

Best universal colors for maps and graphs?

Red is popular for confirmed cases, but orange for active clashes with that.

Deaths is all over the place: black (not recommended because it causes problems on some mobile devices), gray, blue (clashes with recoveries), blue-green, green, lime, orange (clashes with cases), ...

Any suggestions for the following?

Confirmed active / recoveries / deaths for medical cases chart

Color scheme MC1

  

  

  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Module:Medical_cases_chart (2020-05-11t10:40z)

This is consistent as the template is used as is for country articles. Not much to discuss here.Shawnqual (talk) 19:55, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

@Shawnqual: I'm not a great fan of this scheme though. I'd rather use a brighter shade of red for cases and green for recoveries. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 16:09, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

@HueMan1: It might be best to leave this based on "if it isn't broken, don't fix it" principle. Multiple country articles have been following the same colors for confirmed and recoveries for their statistics (graphs and charts) section. A change here at this stage would only yield more inconsistent color schemes. I remember the deaths color used to be black, and was later on changed to this red shade. If you browse articles, many are still using black, while only a handful (just two among all the ones I have browsed) are using this red shade. --Shawnqual (talk) 19:24, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Color scheme C

  active

  recoveries

  deaths

Color scheme C 10-99

If that's too bright/harsh, maybe use the lighter 10-99 colors?:

  active

  recoveries

  deaths

-- Jeandré, 2020-05-16t09:37z

Colors for Maps

Scheme A: This is used for the World maps on the main pandemic article

• Confirmed cases (range for maps)

(different from per capita)

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

• Confirmed cases per capita (range for maps)

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

Purple is used by Our World in Data: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Total-confirmed-cases-of-covid-19-per-million-people.png (2020-05-11t10:30z)

• Confirmed cases per capita timeline (range for maps)

  

  

  

  

  

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=COVID-19_pandemic&oldid=956070455 (2020-05-11t10:33z)

• Confirmed deaths per capita (range for maps)

  

  

  

  

  

  

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=COVID-19_pandemic&oldid=956070455 (2020-05-11t10:33z)

Orange is used by Our World in Data: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/36/Total-covid-deaths-per-million.png/553px-Total-covid-deaths-per-million.png (2020-05-11t10:30z)

-- Jeandré, 2020-05-11t11:02z

Scheme B: This and other very similar ones are in use for the country maps on their respective articles.

• Confirmed cases:

  

  

  

  

  

  

• Confirmed cases per capita:

  

  

  

  

  

  

• Confirmed deaths/deaths per capita:

  

  

  

  

  

  

It might be easier to adopt these ranges as they are or with minor changes. I don't think the blue/green scheme is good for deaths, it could instead be used for tests. That could instead be used for recoveries, as I am yet to see a map of recoveries on any country's article, I came up with the following scheme for it:

• Confirmed recoveries/recoveries per capita:

  

  

  

  

  

  

--Shawnqual (talk) 20:38, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Scheme C: Colors based on Inkscape 1:

• Confirmed cases:

Cases.

  1-9 confirmed cases

  10-99

  100-999

  1000-9999

  10000-99999

  100000+

Chart using same scheme.

• Confirmed active cases:

  1-9 active cases (eventually only stay in charts and historical or timelapse maps)

  10-99

  100-999

  1000-9999

  10000-99999

  100000+

Recoveries.

• Confirmed recoveries:

  1-9 recoveries/vaccinated

  10-99

  100-999 (one step darker)

  1000-9999

  10000-99999

  100000+

• Confirmed deaths

Deaths.

  1-9 fatalities

  10-99

  100-999

  1000-9999

  10000-99999

  100000+

-- Jeandré, 2020-05-15t18:03z

The inconsistency with colors has bothered me, too. I think it's one symptom of the larger issue that each COVID-19 map is being updated individually, rather than having an automated system able to do it. I think DannyS712 was thinking about building such a system a little while ago; are there any updates on that front?

I'd be happy with us discussing here and coming to a consensus on the proper colors to use for each type of map that could then be added to a page somewhere on this project. It'll have to be a little flexible, since e.g. different maps have different numbers of levels, and there are some maps with special circumstances (e.g. for China, I recently made the top level black, since Hubei has 40x as many cases as the next worst-hit province).

A first step for that will be issuing invitations to participate in this conversation at a bunch of relevant pages/other places using {{Please see}}, since we don't want individual map creaters coming by after the fact complaining that they have to bring their map in line with a standard they didn't know was being developed. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:39, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Suggestions for color blind people would also be good.

Reds for confirmed cases and active, blue for deaths, green for recoveries, gray for tests? -- Jeandré, 2020-05-11t20:45z

​ I like Jeandré du Toit's proposal, except maybe switch the colours for deaths and tests around. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:25, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

I strongly support this proposal. Let's ditch the labels (e.g. legends, date/time stamps) and use the colours already provided on the main article for maps. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 01:04, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

It is good to have a discussion about map colours. Just some information about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:COVID-19_Outbreak_World_Map_per_Capita.svg colour scheme criteria: the lighter colour should be easily distinguishable from the white background. Moreover, I tried to have an equivalent delta-e distance between colour (see Color difference), to insure a consistent colour spacing. Raphaël Dunant (talk) 07:10, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Which figures are likely to be on the same map/chart? I think number-of-confirmed-cases is not very useful without also showing antigen tests per capita, so I don't think we should e.g. use orange for antigen tests if we use red for confirmed cases. Blue and green used together can be problematic even for non-colorblind people, so having recoveries and deaths on the same chart could make it difficult. I personally don't think the recovery numbers are very accurate for places with low per-capita antigen tests because of the potentially massive number of asymptomatic recoviries, tho anti-body tests per capita along with their results may be much better along with deaths.

How do we clearly distinguish between the reported numbers of confirmed hospital-only CoViD-19 deaths, those also including non-hospital care facilities, those including deaths at home, those including clinical diagnoses, those based on estimates from average weekly death increases...? -- Jeandré, 2020-05-12t09:19z

I have thought of this issue for a while now, and there is an unofficial/assumed consensus on the colors of maps for many countries. This is most likely because map creators have been using the same colors or very similar ones as used on popular articles like the USA and Italy. See the articles for Chile, Argentina, Oman, Pakistan, USA, Italy, Morocco, Canada, Iceland, India etc... to name the ones I have seen. I have added Scheme B above, currently, this is the most common scheme, and is quite useful as the color ranges are quite different.

@HueMan1: Don't think ditching the labels is a good idea as every country has a different numbers for every legend. Universal legend could possibly not be applied due to different sizes of populations. --Shawnqual (talk) 20:38, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

@Shawnqual: What I'm saying is to ditch them from the actual map because legends are already present below the maps. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 04:47, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

@HueMan1: Oh yes, me and Sdkb are in favor of that. Check our discussion below in under Fixed legends vs changing legends. --Shawnqual (talk) 15:25, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

@Ythlev:, @SADIQUI:, @Bjarki S:, @Anuchikibrikiivdamke:, @Frodar:, @UmpireRay:, @XIIIX:, @Gajmar: :Input required, please provide your opinions and state your choices. Also ping other creators you know of.--Shawnqual (talk) 22:30, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Any universal (or at least English language) color codes? Red (stop) for active cases, magenta (?) for confirmed cases, green (go) for recoveries/vaccined, blue (sadness) [for death] or gray (death, tho only going up to dark gray because of racism/political correctness, and reported problems with mobile devices and black). I don't like the use of orange/amber (caution) because of how close it is to red, nor yellow because it's too difficult to see. -- Jeandré, 2020-05-14t09:32z

Striking out gray, per ISO 22324, since it's pretty universal for "No information available". Blue (informational) for cases, and purple (fatal) for deaths? -- Jeandré, 2020-05-14t09:39z

@Jeandré du Toit:, I am uncertain about the necessity for using colors with universal/ English color codes. Why is that important? Could you elaborate? I have moved your scheme to the top so it is easier for creators to see and cast their votes, (if/when that happens). I also think it might be better ti convert the blue scheme for confirmed cases per capita. I would also suggest that overall confirmed cases is a better choice than confirmed active cases.Shawnqual (talk) 21:22, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Traffic light/ISO 22324 colors make it much easier to figure out. Per capita may be used for countries with enough cases for it to make sense (replacing pure numbers), or it could have a different color, or different version of the same colors (if both are used). -- Jeandré, 2020-05-16t09:45z

Following this discussion, I reviewed the color palette of COVID-19 Outbreak World Map per Capita. I now use the same unified color palette as COVID-19 Outbreak World Map. In the per capita map case, this color palette better highlights the heavily touched territories, while grouping together the less touched territories. Raphaël Dunant (talk) 15:49, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Fixed legends vs changing legends

While we're on the issue of colors for maps, I have been wondering about legends. Search through archives has not yielded any results for it, so I am raising the issue here. Is it better to have legends with fixed numbers or changing numbers? i.e, numbers which have been set for the legend since the start or numbers which keep on changing with every update?

Fixed legends mean fewer updates which will lead to the entire map having one dominant color in the end, and then the numbers will have to be revised. This would be better for readers. Example.

Changing legends mean frequent updates and a different legend with each update. Not suitable for readers as they will have to familiarize themselves with each update. Example.

I am in favor of the former option (fixed legend). Shawnqual (talk) 20:49, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

That's a good question; I'm not sure I have a strong view. What I do have a view on, though, is that I much prefer legends to be located in the caption, as opposed to the image itself. It's more accessible, easier to translate, better-sized, and less visually cluttered that way.

I think what we may want to head toward, after some more informal discussion here, is developing some sort of style guide/template for the maps to standardize all these questions. But I'll say it again: we really need to issue a bunch of wide invitations if we want a consensus here to be enforceable, as it'll need to be for consistency. I guarantee that some map editors who have become attached to their way of doing things are going to resist coming in line, and if they haven't been offered a seat at the table during the planning, that sentiment will be a lot stronger. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 07:59, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree with the legends to be located in the caption instead of the image itself. Easier comprehension too, instead of clicking the image itself and then going back to the article. Used to see legends in the captions in the beginning, somewhere along the way, couple of editors, USA and Italy's located them in the image and some creators have followed. Some still leave them in the captions. I have pinged creators of some pages above, let's see how the discussion unfolds. Shawnqual (talk) 17:07, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

I am in favour of fixed legends, as long as they're appropriate and useful (e.g. provides information about the real density of cases). While in the colour scheme, I am in favour of the first one, since it was discussed by several users (including me?) not so long ago and we all agreed to that standard, so it's pretty annoying to see the maps of some countries and territories shifting to whatever colour scheme their map makers like. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 15:58, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

@HueMan1:, Could you link that discussion? Was the standard agreed for the world map here only or also for the country/territories' maps? "so it's pretty annoying to see the maps of some countries and territories shifting to whatever colour scheme their map makers like." I guess the reason why there are different schemes is mainly because, like Sdkb has pointed out, lack of awareness (mainly) and participation of creators. Many, including me, have not heard of any consensus agreed upon or a standard which has been developed. Secondly, if there was a consensus, it should have been placed under Wikipedia talk:WikiProject COVID-19#Current consensus, so creators could be pointed to it. Currently, there is no mention of any agreement in there, and this might precisely be why Jeandré du Toit started this thread. Also, even if there was an agreement in the past, it could still be opened to revisions with further discussions to reach a better community consensus.

In Scheme A, the confirmed cases and confirmed cases per capita have very, very slightly different colors. Hence, I am opposed to it. They should have completely different colors. Please, provide your opinions in that section so it's easier to keep track. --Shawnqual (talk) 19:20, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Apologies @Shawnqual:, I think I had the Mandela effect or something, because I'm not sure if I ever participated from that discussion or I was just spectating them but anyways I found these discussions: File talk:COVID-19 Outbreak World Map.svg/Archive 1#Updated legend, File talk:COVID-19 Outbreak World Map.svg/Archive 2#Extra color for 10,000?, User talk:Ratherous#Extra color for 50,000?. Inviting @Ratherous: to the discussion. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 02:16, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Number of levels

Sdkb has pointed above that different maps have different levels. In all the articles I have browsed, six seems to be the most common number, and I guess is also the standard for maps. China's however has 5. It might be a good idea to set the number of levels for consistency. --Shawnqual (talk) 19:44, 14 May 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.

Pumice or Factual?

According to its own CDC description, "Illustration of a SARS-CoV-2 virion" features its ultrastructure morphology. I assume that this means the spikes and the surface of the thing, the latter of which resembles a pumice stone. Is this grey sphere factual or generic though? kencf0618 (talk) 22:59, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Influence of weather on spread

There was quite a bit of speculation on the effect of warmer and more humid weather slowing the spread of the disease. There was also some mention of studies which may or may not have provided evidence for this. I've looked around and can't find which article(s) address this topic, and I am uncertain which article(s) should address the topic. Any guidance? Abductive (reasoning) 01:17, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

New article: Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on other health issues

I created this page as an overview spot for all the health impacts of the pandemic beyond those caused by the COVID-19 disease itself. Please feel free to help expand it! {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 01:34, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Good idea to have a parent landing article ...but why the word "other" why not just Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on health issues. --Moxy 🍁 02:23, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Moxy, my thought process is that many readers would assume Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on health issues is referring to the impact of COVID-19 on health issues. And indeed most of the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on health issues has been from COVID-19; this article is for the other portion. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 04:22, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

How is this different than the impact on healthcare? This is just the impact on the utilization of healthcare services. There's already an article on this topic. Natureium (talk) 02:25, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

@Natureium: there's no Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on healthcare currently. Are you referring to Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on healthcare workers, or to Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on hospitals? I list both of those in the see also section, but they seem to have a different scope. I'm open to potential merges, but this seemed to be a gap; there was nothing previously listed as the {{Main}} for the pertinent section at COVID-19 pandemic. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 04:22, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Social impact of the COVID-19 pandemic

Was the cut down and rename necessary? Soliciting opinions as it was just unilaterally shrunken down and the economic impact split off. Starzoner (talk) 19:17, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Starzoner, are you referring to the title being renamed? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:43, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

From the look of it, a massive change was adopted with nowhere near the level of discussion that would be required, and then a requested move was just opened to go back to the status quo as though that massive change didn't just happen. We should revert to the status quo and have further discussion. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 17:30, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Tenryuu yes.

Sdkb yes lets do that. that was a such a change that it felt liek it was replaced completely by another article. Starzoner (talk) 18:08, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

@Sdkb and Starzoner: From what I can tell as an uninvolved editor, there was consensus to split the page from its original name Socio-economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic as it was deemed sufficient for economic consequences to have its own page. The other page is Economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:49, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

@Tenryuu: Could you link to the discussion where consensus was established? I'm in favor of making the split, but the implementation here looks to have been made unilaterally (unless you count this discussion, where I was the only other editor to comment on Beland's tag, or if this is some kind of super-delayed implementation from something in March), which is not appropriate. @Beland: this is getting really messy. Unless I'm missing something, I'd encourage you to self-revert the changes and let a proper discussion play out, so that we aren't trying to discuss the changes while also trying (and inevitably failing) to keep separate a meta-conversation about whether there was consensus for your edits. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:32, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Sdkb, I was looking at Talk:Social impact of the COVID-19 pandemic#Split proposed, March 2020, though reading it closely again it may have been for a related topic but not the one we're on. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:46, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

• Wait, this is even messier: It looks like the material recently split from (what until very recently was) Socio-economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic ended up at Economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, which until a few days ago was a redirect to Financial impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. Having separate articles on the economic impact and financial impact that don't clearly differentiate themselves seems like an extremely bad idea. @Beland: can you explain what's going on here? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:38, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

I intended the page to be a lightweight page so that it could introduce multiple pages. With this respect, it can easily lead readers to pages that are more indepth and details in specific pages. I wish this page could still be a blurp for the multiple pages listed on the Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. I don't think readers would totally appreciate being shoved into a disambuguation page directly from the main page. In addition, I think the talk page now is a complete farce and entirely alien to the current status of the page; economic discussions relating to a purelyu social page? Pfft.

To be clear, I think there needs to be a distinct page dedicated to the economic impact, but this page should be reverted and have a short lbupr to that page. A separate social page could be social, but mine should be restored. That's my 2¢ on what I envisioned the page to be. Starzoner (talk) 20:02, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

The talk page discussions are already cross-referenced; that happens all the time when articles are split or merged. You could also move the economic ones, if you think that would be helpful.

When doing the split, I was relying on Talk:Social_impact_of_the_COVID-19_pandemic#Split_proposed,_April_2020. I put the {{split}} tag on the article in this edit, which is the standard procedure called for on Wikipedia:Splitting. Perhaps there was some confusion about whether the tag was referring to the March or April discussions, even though the titles of the articles to split into are different. Starzoner removed the merge tag in this edit, without commenting on the April discussion or including an edit summary. The tag was up for more than 7 days on an article with thousands of daily page views; normally that's enough to advertise to interested editors. I assumed the relatively quiet discussion meant it would be uncontroversial.

Financial impact of the COVID-19 pandemic is not about the general financial impact of the pandemic, it's only about the impact on financial markets, not the "real economy". I moved it to Financial market impact of the COVID-19 pandemic for clarity. I would not be opposed to merging this into Economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic if folks think the distinction is not worthwhile, especially given there is also 2020 stock market crash and details could be moved down there.

There's already a renewed discussion on whether the article should be unsplit at Talk:Social_impact_of_the_COVID-19_pandemic#Requested_move_13_May_2020 and editors have said they'd like to retain the split until that discussion is complete, so I won't stomp on that by reverting the split.

As for where the main page should point, if a disambiguation page is undesirable, we could point to COVID-19 pandemic#Impact for now, and in the meantime make Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic a proper article. There is currently no main article for COVID-19 pandemic#Impact, and there are sections in there that are filed under neither "Social" nor "Economy"; "socio-economic" does not include everything that the pandemic has affected, so it is not a good title for an impact overview article. -- Beland (talk) 21:29, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Improvements can be made. Instead, the cheap method was to entirely repurpose it for something else. I could try and improve on it but it won't get any headway whatsoever. Starzoner (talk) 02:07, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

There's currently a discussion going on in the talk page for Coronavirus recession about a possible merge with Economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. To me, the two articles seem to overlap but it would be great if other editors would join that discussion and provide additional perspectives. MarylandGeoffrey (talk) 02:33, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Lab leak, WHO and China conspiracies go global... on Wikipedia

I am noticing that highly controversial, inflammatory, and often clearly incorrect information about COVID-19 and China is being placed in many of the numerous articles we have related to COVID-19. Just a few recent examples:

• Text suggesting that US Molecular Biologist Richard Ebright warned us all of a lab leak in 2017, even when editors at Nature specifically caution that their cited article could be used to promote mis- or disinformation [1].

• Text describing WHO director Tedros Adhanom's response to COVID-19 is almost universally negative, and prominently suggests a conspiracy with Chinese authorities to conceal the virus' spread from the world [2].

• Text in the COVID-19 pandemic article implying that China's announcement of "confirmed" human-to-human transmission was made after an earlier determination that Chinese authorities must have hidden [3] (not supported by the source [4]).

• Text in the same article implying that a lockdown in Wuhan was delayed until the virus could be spread to other countries in Asia [5].

• The second sentence of the article COVID-19 pandemic in mainland China states "On 31 December, the Wuhan CDC disclosed to the media..." instead of using the obvious and simple formulation "announced," implying that the CDC had been withholding the secret of the outbreak previously [6]. The whole lead is written to emphasize delay and censorship: three of five lead paragraphs begin with a sentence on this topic. Undoubtably delay and censorship did occur, but the issue is given the greatest editorial prominence.

We have so many articles on this topic, I fear this kind of stuff is everywhere. -Darouet (talk) 15:13, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

@Darouet: Thanks for pointing these out and fixing them. I don't have any big ideas about how we might be able to fix this on a more systemic level, but it's certainly something to be on the lookout for. If there are any particularly common things, we could consider adding a best practice to the project consensus list (and we should also work on getting that list transcluded more widely). {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 16:45, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Chen Qiushi

I don't feel strongly either way, but should the Chen Qiushi article remain part of this project? The article confirms the subject has covered the pandemic and was quarantined, but is that enough for inclusion under the WikiProject umbrella? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:03, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Move discussion for UFC on ESPN: Overeem vs. Harris

An article which may be of interest to members of this project—UFC on ESPN: Overeem vs. Harris—has been proposed for requested move. If you are interested, please participate in the move discussion. Thank you. The COVID-19 pandemic might of caused issues to the name of events. Regice2020 (talk) 01:10, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Discussion about the lab-accident theory at the Pandemic entry

There is an ongoing discussion at Talk:COVID-19_pandemic#The_Question_of_Origin regarding the inclusion of the lab-accident theory to the Cause section of the article on Covid-19 pandemic. A dozen editors have vigorously participated over many weeks reaching no consensus or anything resembling one.

A range of positions have been proposed regarding the theory: they go from omiting any mention of it, to relegating it to misinformation entries, to including a small cautiously worded mention.

The main contested issues are the conflating of the theory with the man-made hypothesis, the alleged political motivation of allowing a mention (even if it is brief), and the possible place of the theory as "fringe" (as defined by being "an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field."). My personal opinion as an involved editor is that the accident-lab theory is in a limbo, because it is completely absent from COVID-19_pandemic and instead it is covered as misinformation at the Misinformation_related_to_the_COVID-19_pandemic, even after one of the editors have admitted at it's Talk page that part of the lab-associated theories are plausible, valid, and deserving further scientific inquiry.

Please take a look at the discussion to help us reach a consensus.--Forich (talk) 17:14, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Mortality due to COVID-19

It appears there's a new topic, Mortality due to COVID-19, which starts:

"Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has a relatively low case fatality rate, but the actual numbers of deaths are considerable given the huge scale of the pandemic.[2] As of 4 May 2020, worldwide nearly 250 thousand people have died due to COVID-19, while nearly 1.2 million people have recovered.[3] Deaths are more common in those aged over 60 years and those with co-morbidities.[4][5] Most people affected with the disease recover without any particular treatment. Poor outcomes and mortality are associated with old age, profound disabilities and frailty.[2]"

Is this topic necessary? The content already fits nicely within Coronavirus disease 2019. The topic as it stands largely duplicates or triplicates dated versions of content presented here:

• Coronavirus disease 2019 § Prognosis
• COVID-19 pandemic § Deaths

Safe to propose an RFD? It's getting increasingly difficult to maintain many instances of the same content. - Wikmoz (talk) 06:20, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

When I have a question about the COVID articles, I use influenza articles for comparison to get perspective. I realize that the volume of COVID information and articles is getting cumbersome, but there is precedent for this topic - see Human mortality from H5N1. MartinezMD (talk) 23:44, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! The H5N1 example is helpful. I guess there could be value here if the topic is developed further and kept up to date. - Wikmoz (talk) 01:04, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

• We may make a template from the large table I've been supplementing and updating so it would be less dated. Ain92 (talk) 23:38, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Epidemiology of occupations

Working in some occupations is a determinant of risk to COVID, and many papers are reporting rates among population by industry or job. Some guidance has been published on minimizing the risk in some industry in the article Workplace hazard controls for COVID 19, but sill information on the epidemiology is lacking.

I am writing to suggest that information be added to the main pages on the disease and the pandemic. Some sources could be:

• Resources by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health [[7]]
• Information N95 Respirators [[8]]
• Information on respiratory protection [[9]]
• Epidemiology data on occupations [[10]]
• Burden of the disease by occupation[[11]]

Also, perhaps for other occupations:

• Burden of the disease, data from OSHA [[12]] The NYT is open accces for COVID19 coverage.
• OSHA resources [[13]]

TMorata (talk) 16:07, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Conflicting sources for case numbers at COVID-19 pandemic in Nepal

Moved to Talk:COVID-19 pandemic in Nepal § Conflicting sources for case numbers at COVID-19 pandemic in Nepal

 – •Shawnqual• 📚 • 💭 00:06, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

How are other articles handling government databases?

I have been the one that is updating regularly COVID-19 pandemic in Venezuela. Recently a government website was created to aggregate all data about the pandemic [covid19.patria.org.ve]. Normally this would have been good news, the reporting across government and non-government websites has been inconsistent, but this government site has also started presenting the same issues. For example, when the government said today and yesterday that the number of recovered went up, the page was not updated accordingly. There is also the issue with cases per region, where every source has a different map. How are other pages handling this kind of inconsistencies? How valuable are government aggregators? --ReyHahn (talk) 17:52, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

ReyHahn A good practice is to follow the source of top-most health authority of the country; such as the National Health Ministry or other equivalents. Relying on this source is sensible even if it has flaws, because it has authority above all. In my experience so far, government sources sooner or later catch up with other sources, even when they aren't updated regularly. Regarding updates, as long as there are daily updates at least once, it should suffice. •Shawnqual• 📚 • 💭 02:28, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

@Shawnqual: Venezuelan sources have their own problems per se, but thanks for the comment. Could you clarify which is the higher authority in general, the database or the daily announcement? --ReyHahn (talk) 10:11, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

@ReyHahn: I ran into similar issues with Pakistan couple of months ago. In the beginning there was a daily report published by the Health Ministry, which even though had discrepancies in numbers with media outlets, in the end was way more reliable than them, as they published once a day in a pdf, while media outlets had rolling updates and thus prone to many mistakes. Then all of a sudden, they stopped publishing the report when the tracker was launched. The government tracker was quite messy in the beginning but they caught up later on.

The best sources depends on where it is coming from. If the database and daily announcements are from the same place, then go for the database as it is verifiable, provided it leaves a track (if one can check data for past days up to weeks or months) and is not dynamically updated (where previous data is erased). Daily announcements on the other hand can have errors, but if there are enough of them which can be checked in the past (up to weeks or months), then they are also good. In a nutshell, go for the source which leaves a verifiable record.•Shawnqual• 📚 • 💭 17:36, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Unsourced COVID-19 map

I've asked for advise on Commons regarding an image which in my opinion lacks reliable sources. They suggest that I should ask here for input on the matter. I've also left a message on Talk:COVID-19 pandemic in the United Kingdom questioning their use of File:COVID-19 outbreak UK per capita cases map.svg in the Infobox. The 'UK' has 4 governments as you know, and each country has its own NHS, its own Public Health body etc. Each government is responsible for the collection of their statistics (as far as cases of infection is concerned). I create updates for two of these maps (Wales and Northern Ireland) and the data referenced on the description page. However the England and Scotland maps as well as the above UK map will not be updated by the editor (User talk:Ythlev) from now on, and this is cause for alarm on such an important topic. Can we therefore create a similar UK map with data coming directly from the above 4 sources (government, NHS, Puplic Health body) (and referenced to the exact data)? Similarly, we need an England only map and a Scotland map as neither will be updated by the user. John Jones (talk) 15:30, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

If you don't change your behaviour, I doubt anyone would want to help you. Ythlev (talk) 04:51, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

I discuss sources, and you label it with 'behaviour'?! Interesting! John Jones (talk) 08:22, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

You believe you own the article. Ythlev (talk) 08:29, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Ha! I own nothing! Ythlev has now added the sources on the UK map. Exact sources needs to be refernced on all maps relating to COVID-19, made by this user. John Jones (talk) 16:21, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

General edit notice proposal

The discussion at the Village Pump about the discretionary sanctions notice seems to have stagnated a bit, with some work still left to be done to agree on a template. As part of that discussion, though, it became clear that there is a desire not just to warn bad-faith editors but to provide welcome and advice to good-faith editors. As part of that, I propose that the below be added as a edit notice that will appear in the edit window anytime someone edits a page in the scope of this project.

Would there be support for this? Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:55, 29 April 2020 (UTC) ^{Courtesy pinging Naypta, who started the DS notice discussion {{u|Sdkb}} talk 21:59, 29 April 2020 (UTC) Refactored to unbold WikiProject 18:49, 7 May 2020 (UTC); see below.}

@Sdkb: Thanks for the ping. My immediate thinking is will new people understand this? - if the objective is to give advice to new editors, that is. If it's for existing editors, perhaps it could be of more use - but I think even that might be somewhat limited, as from what I've seen it tends to be the case that WikiProject experts go to articles, and experts don't tend to come directly from articles to WikiProjects. It doesn't really do any harm, though, and it's very nicely designed, so weak support I guess. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 22:06, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Bumping thread. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 23:48, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Is this to replace the project banner on talks or just another banner? Not sure as a project we should be overwhelming talk pages with 50 banners..... how many links do we need for a project and talk pages?--Moxy 🍁 00:16, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

No, it's not for the talk pages. As stated above, it's an edit notice that will appear at the top of the edit window while you're editing a page. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 00:57, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

That would be a no from me....edit notices not the place to advertise a project or claim ownership over an article.--Moxy 🍁 01:05, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Additional courtesy pings for other pump participants: @Wugapodes, Isaacl, Can I Log In, and Nosebagbear:. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 09:45, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Hmm, this is interesting. Would this be justified on the grounds that it's under GS (in which case we need GS notification, which I think is already there) or Covid or Medical? Logically if this is here, we should have quite a few counterparts. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:12, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

This arose from the GS notice discussion, but I see it as separate from it — it's a place to put things (like the WP:MEDRS link) that we wanted to put in the notice but wouldn't have been appropriate there. I think we'd justify it on the grounds just that it's a useful notice for anyone editing a COVID-19 page to have access to. I don't know of any precedent, but somewhere has to be first and we're in unusual times. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 12:24, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

So this is exclusive to the COVID-19 WIkiProject? Eh, it's a good idea as a supplementary edit notice when the article is primarily related to it. I also think it would be mass template-protected edit requests full of "hey put our WikiProject in the edit notice!"{{replyto|Can I Log In}}'s talk page! 15:46, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

@Can I Log In: I think I shouldn't have bolded the WikiProject name — that's what you all are keying on, but it wasn't the main goal of this template, which was more to just provide a friendlier counterbalance for good-faith editors to the scary GS notice. I'm going to tweak it a bit, and I'm open to further modifications if anyone has suggestions.Courtesy pinging @Tenryuu, Isaacl, and Moxy: who also mentioned projects. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 18:46, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

I do not support this proposal. Banner blindness is a significant issue; edit notices should be kept to bare essential messages. The talk page is the accepted location for associating pages with WikiProjects. isaacl (talk) 17:30, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

I put a notification of this discussion at the proposals village pump. isaacl (talk) 18:39, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

@Sdkb: Ambivalent. I see the point for WikiProjects to be mentioned on articles' talk pages, yet at the same time there are editors who don't check the talk page and end up getting frustrated by having their edits being reverted due to a consensus they weren't aware of in the first place. That said, I agree with Can I Log In with this being a supplementary edit notice so long as the subject is primarily related to COVID-19 and not tangentially related. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:53, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

I lean towards oppose, but don't really have a strong opinion. Imo, more reader-facing advertisements of WikiProjects is a net positive for editor recruitment and retention, but banner blindness is a serious issue, and if the editors are on mobile they won't see it anyway. — Wug·a·po·des​ 21:51, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

• Editors who have commented here may be interested in the discussion at Template talk:COVID19 GS editnotice. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 02:40, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Major discovery regarding COVID-19 Epidemiology in Italy

Moved to Talk:COVID-19 pandemic in Italy § Major discovery regarding COVID-19 Epidemiology in Italy

 – •Shawnqual• 📚 • 💭 21:49, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Paid sick leave

Moved to Talk:Sick leave in the United States § Paid sick leave

 – •Shawnqual• 📚 • 💭 00:00, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Shawn, I'm not sure that cutting and pasting my request to that talk page was helpful. If I had thought anyone was watching that page, I would have posted the request there. I just created that page. Nobody is watching it. I'm not even sure that it's on my own watchlist.

Also, the pandemic affects all countries, not just the US, so the main Sick leave article might be more important for updates. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:38, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Discussion on revamping the COVID-19 general sanctions editnotice

 You are invited to join the discussion at Template_talk:COVID19_GS_editnotice. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:02, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Slate article

Project members might be interested:

• 2020-05-27: Future Historians Will Rely on Wikipedia’s COVID-19 Coverage by Slate

---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:27, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

• Just had a read - it's a very interesting article! Kingsif (talk) 20:38, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

• Another great piece from Harrison. I don't see anything pressing we need to act on, but it's a very good concept to have in mind. Here are a few thoughts:

  Perhaps some deleted articles ought to have their revision history visible to everyone, not just admins? (Although before that happens, we should close the loophole that could allow evasion of the old revision notice)

  The revision history is super useful but not that accessible/user-friendly. Most of that can be fixed in the future, but things like repairing links to archived talk page discussions better ought to be addressed now if anyone wants to take that on.

  Let's include some revision history the next time we send a backup to the moon, yeah?

{{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:36, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

The rise of Wikipedia as a source of medical information

Thought your group would be interested in this.

Twofingered Typist (talk) 15:11, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-rise-of-wikipedia-as-a-source-of-medical-information/?ftag=CNM-00-10aab6i&linkId=89329921&fbclid=IwAR1BtaCpos1PKiZ41hOvPkKy82pWnbEPD119-C3K7R73bVBc2MeAnE-WnhA

Thanks for sharing! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:44, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't think Wikipedia will ever be a reliable source of medical information. --Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 05:42, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Never is a long time. Wikipedia is already a source of references for medical information, which is generally better than the average opinion. Our articles range from good to bad. The good stuff is reliable, the bad may not be (reliability is not the only criterion of quality - some articles contain reliable information but are poorly written). · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 08:16, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Nice to have positive coverage, although not great that this vandalism stayed in for over a month. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 01:09, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

It's actually very worrying, because we had a chat last week with admins who intentionally battle to keep information obsolete. If someone use wikipedia for decision making, he is lagging a good month in the past. That would mean we'd be responsible for well over 100'000 deaths. We know since mid april that covid-19 is as dangerous then a single jump of military grade parachute. But our texts are still to this date looking like we are fighting the whole damn WW3. Iluvalar (talk) 03:22, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Man that vandalism is unfortunate... the article was very balanced though. Congrats to all! We need more editors on Wikipedia! This is a crucial point for the accuracy of the project.-- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 09:33, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

I remember Wikipedia was used for educational purposes, but it no longer do due to Wikipedia policy changes. It simply use for general purposes. Regice2020 (talk) 07:45, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Discussion regarding risk of airborne transmission

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Coronavirus disease 2019#Is it time to state more directly the risk of airborne transmission and that the use of masks and face coverings is recommended?. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 17:47, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Why are they not wearing hospital gowns?

I haven't seen a lot of news coverage where I saw actual patients, but most of them are not wearing gowns. I was thinking the answer to my question might be useful in the patient gown article. Somehow I think it may have something to do with treatment being easier. Although this even included young boys who weren't even that sick. In their cases maybe they just didn't want to wear a gown, which is how a lot of people feel. One of the boys had equipment attached to his chest.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 18:21, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Creating an article

I am thinking about creating an article called Cancellations and postponements related to the COVID-19 pandemic. I know there is a similar article called List of events affected by the COVID-19 pandemic, but I would like this article to go in depth about these events. Any thoughts? Interstellarity (talk) 21:43, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

The in-depth coverage would be better suited to the articles for each event cancelled or postponed. Only the overall coverage (i.e. impact and progress, general situation) should be covered in a specific article about cancellations/postponements in general. If you want to move the List of events affected by the COVID-19 pandemic to a not list-titled article and add some prose about the development of shutdowns affecting events, that should be fine. But a strong no to having an article as a dump for all the minutiae of every event that has been postponed. It would quickly be incoherent, and without a connecting thread would likely get deleted. Kingsif (talk) 22:50, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Deciding which events are given their own section in that article would also be an issue. How would you decide which events are worthy enough of that? Of course, the Olympics would be an obvious choice, but for most of the rest, it would become a subjective choice. To overcome that, you would need a consensus on any event to be added, and that would become a long and tiring process. Like the editor above me has stated, The in-depth coverage would be better suited to the articles for each event cancelled or postponed. As for information on the developments of shutdowns, it is a very broad topic and I doubt relevant and weighty information could be added for it to become a full-fledged article. Not saying it is impossible, but certainly challenging. •Shawnqual• 📚 • 💭 05:32, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Interstellarity, you might find it helpful to look at what happened at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of public venues and institutions closed during the COVID-19 pandemic. It's just really hard to determine criteria for articles like that and to keep them up to date. At this point, the answer to "what's been cancelled/postponed" is pretty simple: "basically everything". So we don't really need an article separate from the events one to say that. The direction I'd more like to go in is moving away from specific lists. For instance, see my recent post at Talk:Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the performing arts. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 07:20, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

@Kingsif, Shawnqual, and Sdkb: It seems like if the potential article was nominated for deletion at AFD, it would be deleted. I think based on the comments above, I will not create an article on this. Do you agree with my assessments? Interstellarity (talk) 12:31, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Right call. •Shawnqual• 📚 • 💭 22:05, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Which maps to show

Currently, the various COVID-19 articles about states show a range of maps to indicate county level severity. What is the best county-level map to show as primary image in the infobox? I have created both county-level prevalence (number of confirmed cases per capita) and more recently new confirmed cases per capita maps for all 50 US states. It's not very hard to create different versions, if there is a desire to do so, as long as I can keep using the JHU data, which seems to be the most reliable standardized county-level dataset, so that I can re-run and update daily without too much effort.

Any thoughts what would be the most appropriate to show? My gut tells me that by now, the new confirmed cases are probably more accurately reflecting the current status, which is what people are probably looking for. effeietsanders 20:40, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

@Effeietsanders:, there is a consensus on showing per capita cases map first, and then the total cases map after. •Shawnqual• 📚 • 💭 22:24, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

@Shawnqual: do you have a link to that conversation? (it does not seem to reflect all state articles) Also, that does not quite touch on my note that 'total cases per capita' may at this point in time no longer be the most relevant piece of information to show to readers. As the pandemic evolves, so does the information need. effeietsanders 01:07, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

PS: total case count per county would probably not be super hard for me to also create if desirable, except for a few states: Utah, Missouri, Massachusetts and New York. For those states, some data is not reported at the county level, and therefore it's hard to color them correctly. For per-capita, this is automatically fixed when you just merge counties both on cases and population (basically averaging). For pure caseload, that's a bit more tricky. effeietsanders 01:13, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

@Effeietsanders: Things with the overall case counts map is that it can make an area look heavily impacted by the pandemic simply due to its population. For instance, let's say an area (A) with a population of 1,000 may have 499 cases while another area (B) with a population of 5,000 may have 899 cases. By cases, area B would be darkly colored on a legend than area A. But note that per capita cases for these two areas would be 49,900 and 17,980 respectively (with a base population for per capita being 100,000). With this, area A would be darkly colored than area B due to it having more cases per same amount of population (100,000). This gives a much better statistical view of the situation as there is a common base population among both areas. Hence, per capita maps are more favorable. Statistically, they will be the most relevant piece of information.

Yes, total case maps are just as important, and therefore, both are placed in infoboxes. I'd recommend cases per capita for states whose county-level data is not released. However, for the total cases map, you could color those counties grey for 'data unavailable'. Here is the discussion on which map to use. It was started for the main article, but since then has been broadly accepted for the project by map creators. •Shawnqual• 📚 • 💭 05:59, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

@Shawnqual: I'm not sure if we're talking about the same thing. I'm not disputing case count vs per capita at all. I'm stating that maybe this is time to consider moving from case-count-per-capita to new-case-count-per-capita. As I suspected, these discussions you refer to, were from March: back then there was no difference between these two. It's about time to reconsider imho.

As for problematic counties: I don't think it's an option to color them 'grey', because this is associated in most maps that I've seen on Wikipedia with 0 count. These also happen to be areas that are of most importance to the state (for example: New York City, Kansas City MO). effeietsanders 06:19, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

@Sdkb, Ythlev, and Keilana: Pinging a few users that seem active in this field to get more diverse views effeietsanders 06:46, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Effeietsanders, here is a link to the discussion that established a preference for per capita maps over totals maps, and here is a more recent discussion that found ambivalence about whether to use case counts or death counts. For the U.S., given the lack of widespread testing (which impacts case counts), I think the argument for using death counts might be stronger. I don't know of any big conversation yet about using rolling two-week averages, but the norm so far has been to avoid those (I'd guess due to possible WP:RECENTISM concerns).

I hope that context helps! I love your maps overall — if you're able to put them all together into a national version, I think we'd want to make it the new top map for the infobox at COVID-19 pandemic in the United States. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 07:16, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

@Sdkb: Thanks, that's helpful. I can see the added need for death counts - although on a county level the higher variance (in combination with the per capita) may give outliers. For the death counts per capita, the same argument could be made for rolling 2 week averages of course.

Would "recentism" be a bigger concern with rolling maps vs daily updated maps of total counts? I personally have the feeling the difference between those concerns is subtle, but may overlook something. effeietsanders 16:41, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

@Effeietsanders: Oh, I see what you mean now. That is quite an interesting point. New cases per capita would certainly be more up to date, but how often would you think it is appropriate to update them? We are still developing standards regarding maps, but if we opt for new cases per capita, it could increase work for creators and I would understand if they are not in favor of them. This discussion could perhaps also be started on the talk for US article to get a broader consensus. •Shawnqual• 📚 • 💭 22:16, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

@Shawnqual: If you look at the category I linked in my original question, you'll notice that I'm creating these maps for the 50 US states on a daily basis. Writing the script to do that took some effort, but running it daily is not a lot of extra work. I can't speak for other countries or at a higher level (I'll look at the US wide map later, following Sdkb's suggestion). effeietsanders 23:40, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

@Effeietsanders:, In that case, such maps would provide more reliable information and I see no reason why they wouldn't be a better choice. I'd recommend starting a conversation on the US page. Pinging Ythlev, they have been creating the main maps for the US. •Shawnqual• 📚 • 💭 23:54, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Still working on it. Here is the preview: File:COVID-19 outbreak USA per capita cases map counties.svg. Its still got some issues though. Ythlev (talk) 03:07, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

I also created deaths per capita now. I had to skip a few states, because they had too many 'unassigned' deaths (presume that this means that their county was unknown). For the same reasons, I will not be producing the rolling 14-day new deaths per capita maps that I planned, the data is just not clean enough to have reliable maps for this. @Ythlev: Please take a look at the 'known issues' foldout in the file description for my files (prevalence, new cases, deaths prevalence). I tried to document what issues I encountered, and how I resolved them. effeietsanders 03:42, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

What does "out of state" mean? Ythlev (talk) 03:54, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

In the JHU data, there are a bunch of rows "Out of XX" where XX represents a state. These numbers are relatively low, and I'm assuming that they are people that should be assigned to counties in a different state (but I'm not sure - because the numbers are low, I felt comfortable enough to skip them - the only possible exception is Georgia). effeietsanders 04:15, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Wuhan lab: the source of the virus

Despite strong scientific consensus to the contrary [14][15], there's been a relentless push to brand the Wuhan Institute of Virology as a possible source of this virus and outbreak.

On Wikipedia, the latest front in this push is the article Wuhan Institute of Virology. There, the theory more or less treated as a conspiracy at COVID-19 pandemic receives 9 paragraphs that treat the conspiracy more seriously, including recent additions [16][17] that strongly imply the theory has validity, using a source from Science Magazine that doesn't mention the WIV once [18] (except in a figure caption). -Darouet (talk) 18:40, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm considering taking this to WP:ANI. Also pinging @RexxS: am I way off in my judgement here? -Darouet (talk) 18:41, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't think you're wrong. The mainstream view remains that the virus originated in a wet market, and our policies on minority viewpoints are clear that they receive less weight than those of the mainstream. --RexxS (talk) 19:43, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi @RexxS: small correction: the wet market is thought to be the largest initial spreading event, but probably not the original origin. -Darouet (talk) 20:25, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

@Darouet: the most convincing hypothesis that I'm aware of seems to offer three scenarios:

Kristian Andersen, an evolutionary biologist at the Scripps Research Institute who has analyzed sequences of 2019-nCoV to try to clarify its origin, says the 1 December timing of the first confirmed case was “an interesting tidbit” in The Lancet paper. “The scenario of somebody being infected outside the market and then later bringing it to the market is one of the three scenarios we have considered that is still consistent with the data,” he says. “It’s entirely plausible given our current data and knowledge.” The other two scenarios are that the origin was a group of infected animals or a single animal that came into that marketplace.

Do you have a later/better source that dismisses the latter two possibilities? --RexxS (talk) 20:56, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi RexxS I apologize for the delay, am reading this great paper for work [19], will get back to you soon. -Darouet (talk) 14:08, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

@RexxS: I think you're right. The Science Mag article that you linked [20] does, I think, provide one of the best summaries of the issue, noting that the earliest cases have no link to the market. And the article cites Kristian Andersen, who has written one of the best and most highly cited comments on the possible origins of the virus [21]. There, Andersen notes that "it is possible that an animal source was present at" the market.

There are two more recent studies that attempt to deal with this issue in greater depth that might be worthwhile to quote from. An article from Zoological Research [22] produced by researchers from Yunnan, Guangdong and Beijing, cites the early major Lancet paper [23] demonstrating that the earliest known cases had no link to the market (Figure 1, blue). The Zoological Research article presents a number of possible scenarios and concludes, "In this study, evolutionary relationships indicated that [strain] H1 and its descendant haplotypes from the Market should be derived from [strain] H3 (Figures 3, 4). H3 mutated to the H1 by two substitutions, and none of the currently available Market samples encoded H3, suggesting that H3 might have originated and spread outside of the Market before an early stage of population expansion... it is possible that infected humans transmitted the H1 haplotype of SARS-CoV-2 to workers or sellers in the market, after which it rapidly circulated there due to its special surroundings... Due to insufficient sampling from Wuhan in the currently available samples, it is not clear whether H3 never appeared in the Market, or H1 was quickly derived from H3 to adapt in the Market."

Another article in Cell [24] written by researchers in China and Australia is more equivocal. "An important early association was observed between the first reported cases of COVID-19 and the Huanan seafood and wildlife market in Wuhan city (which we both visited several years ago) where a variety of mammalian species were available for purchase at the time of the outbreak (Figure 1). Given that SARS-CoV-2 undoubtedly has a zoonotic origin, the link to such a ‘‘wet’’ market should come as no surprise. However, as not all of the early cases were market associated, it is possible that the emergence story is more complicated than first suspected. Genome sequences of ‘‘environmental samples’’—likely surfaces—from the market have now been obtained, and phylogenetic analysis reveals that they are very closely related to viruses sampled from the earliest Wuhan patients. While this again suggests that the market played an important role in virus emergence, it is not clear whether the samples were derived from people who inadvertently deposited infectious material or from animals or animal matter present at that location."

Hope this is helpful. -Darouet (talk) 16:36, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

@Darouet and RexxS: If anyone is still trying to push the lab leak theory as anything other than an example of misinformation or a remote possibility to be afforded WP:FRINGE weight, they should be reverted with a link to this discussion. If they edit war, just send out some pings or go to the noticeboards if needed. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 09:12, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Box for In the News on the Main Page

The COVID-19 box on the Main Page is presumably going to be there for a while, and it's in the most high-visibility spot imaginable. It's also not designed all that great — the articles it links to aren't all the most important ones (e.g. List of deaths due to COVID-19, which is also redundant to the "recent deaths" line), there's no visual, etc. Does anyone want to try redesigning it? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 09:03, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

I recommend asking at ITN talk, I think @Masem: did the latest design? Kingsif (talk) 17:00, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

In terms of a visual, the banner is too narrow for anything but something decorative. And as things have changed in how the coverage has changed, we have added and removed links as needed to reflect what's the more relevant coverage/immediate links for readers. We're open to what to add or change to what's believed to be most relevant. --Masem (t) 17:07, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

@Masem: I've noticed some other languages using File:SARS-CoV-2 without background.png, which looks alright even when it's very small. But I'm not quite sure how it'd be incorporated in a balanced way. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:33, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Speaking to the press

I am wondering if there would be interest in creating a list of those willing to speak on the matter of Wikipedia and COVID19? I get a number of queries from press sources and it would be useful to be able to pass them on to such a list. I am not sure if other projects have done this. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:30, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

@Doc James: I don't know if there's interest per se, but I'm happy to talk to whomever if you need to pass on a request. Keilana (talk) 15:18, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Given the unique situation, a list (perhaps not completely public?) may be useful. And you can add me to it for certain sub-topics (cinema and Disney, Venezuela) if needed. Kingsif (talk) 17:34, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Why not. Last time it was fun! -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 17:50, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

If the queries are ones I'd be able to answer (i.e. not asking me for medical advice), then sure, I'd be happy to. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 07:02, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Ditto, happy to help with non-medical coverage and questions. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 13:31, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

I provided information to a media outlet in Pakistan regarding Wikipedia's coverage of COVID-19 back in March. Willing to do so again if given the opportunity. :) •Shawnqual• 📚 • 💭 23:55, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Replacement of a problematic template

The discussion at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2020_May_17#Wikipedia:WikiProject_COVID-19/header closed as no consensus. However, the participants said that {{WikiProject COVID-19 tabs}} does not work with the visual editor. Therefore, the ad hoc practice should be to replace any transclusions of {{WikiProject COVID-19 tabs}} with Wikipedia:WikiProject COVID-19/header until the visual editing problem is fixed. It should be noted that I do not want to delete or merge any of the templates. Keep them separate. --Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 05:12, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

The case for merging them is beyond obvious: we don't want two competing versions of tabs for this project. But the system didn't work great and the no consensus result is what it is — a no consensus result, which means we keep the status quo. Both sets currently have issues (the header version goes onto two lines for many displays), so we're probably going to be stuck until someone fixes it or addresses Template talk:Start tab#VisualEditor functionality. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 08:59, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

The pages that use the newer template are not used by anyone and the rest don't have complicated charts to edit. That said fixing tabs for VE would be great but VE is simply not designed for use in the project namespace or used by many editors.--Moxy 🍁 14:41, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

• Should I replace any transclusions of Wikipedia:WikiProject COVID-19/header with {{WikiProject COVID-19 tabs}} with no content merging? --Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 06:16, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Draft:COVID-19 pandemic in Peel Region, Ontario

I wrote this article, and it's stuck on Articles for creation. Would anyone mind publishing it, please? -- OVSimone (talk) 00:24, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

@OVSimone: It appears to be unfinished at this point. I'd recommend either filling the empty sections (If you can find sources) or removing them. Username⁶⁸⁹² 02:01, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

I've removed the empty sections and move the page into main space. Editors can now decide the article's fate. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 06:49, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Why are there so many articles about COVID-19?

It's so insane and mindboggling than the coverage of previous pandemics, that it can be inferred there's an article about the effects of COVID-19 on rocks. This is as if a wildfire covered every square inch of the Earth. ❤︎PrincessPandaWiki (talk | contribs) 19:44, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

@PrincessPandaWiki: It's probably because there's more media coverage of this pandemic compared to ones before. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:51, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

@PrincessPandaWiki: I think that many of the main articles would be extremely long otherwise, though I will note that some articles probably don't need to exist. (Example: The things mentioned in this article are probably duplicated from others]]) Username⁶⁸⁹² 20:01, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

To piggyback off of Username6892's answer, some articles had to be split as templates broke the pages. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:26, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

COVID-19 pandemic in the Twin Cities

Hello Wikipedians from the Twin Cities region either Minneapolis residents or Saint Paul residents, So the top two largest cities in Minnesota is Minneapolis and Saint Paul respectively, specifically the largest city in the state of Minnesota is Minneapolis and the second largest city and the state capital of Minnesota is Saint Paul. I hope anyone will create article titled COVID-19 pandemic in the Twin Cities a sister article to the COVID-19 pandemic in Minnesota, The proposed article will be titled as COVID-19 pandemic in the Twin Cities similar to another article titled COVID-19 pandemic in the San Francisco Bay Area. The newly created article will be focused on the pandemic specifically on both the cities of Minneapolis and Saint Paul known collectively as the "Twin Cities". The propose article will include how many active cases, how many deaths, how many recoveries and how many overall cases on both the cities of Minneapolis and Saint Paul. I will by happy for anyone's reply for the requested article to created and will be only focused on the cities of Minneapolis and Saint Paul. In relation to another Minnesota related article titled George Floyd protests. Thanks for your time. Come back some other time. 2001:569:74D2:A800:20B3:141F:B62B:A2CD (talk) 19:48, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't understand this IP's comments. I can gather that they want someone to make articles for them rather than registering and making them (probably a good idea, though, given how poor their English is) - and yet, the comments seem to address residents of the cities? And then go on to explain what those cities are? Besides 'please make an unnecessary article', is there some other message in these paragraphs that I can't parse? Kingsif (talk) 21:42, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

COVID-19 pandemic in Seattle

Hi Wikipedians from Seattle, So the largest city in the state of Washington is Seattle. I hope anyone will create article titled COVID-19 pandemic in Seattle, The proposed article will be titled as COVID-19 pandemic in Seattle will be focused on the pandemic specifically within the city of Seattle, Washington and a sister article to COVID-19 pandemic in Washington (state). The propose article will include how many active cases, how many deaths, how many recoveries and how many overall cases within the city of Seattle. I will by happy for anyone's reply for the requested article to created and will be only focused on the city of Seattle. Thanks for your time. Come back some other time. 2001:569:74D2:A800:20B3:141F:B62B:A2CD (talk) 19:31, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

@Bri and SounderBruce: Curious if either of you have thoughts (note: SounderBruce created the redirect). Thanks, ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:43, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't actually feel like it needs its own article, at least not yet. COVID-19 pandemic in Washington (state) has three main sections: timeline, government response, and social/economic effects. It looks like the first two sections are pretty solidly statewide, especially Gov. Inslee's orders for the gov't part. Note that the outbreak started in Seattle-Everett suburbs in King and Snohomish Counties, and the timeline is heavy on the initial phases, then goes into the county-by-county spread. Only the third part is heavily weighted towards Seattle and King County, but even that has a decent amount of information of extra-Seattle areas. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:56, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Most of these city-detail articles are completely unnecessary and won't survive deletion after the pandemic starts to subside. We should concentrate on trying to maintain high-quality state articles and only split when it becomes too long or focused on a single city. As Bri mentioned, the pandemic is regionwide and can't apply to just Seattle. SounderBruce 22:57, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

@SounderBruce: There are some province/state-level articles (Like the ones in Atlantic Canada) that should probably be merged. Username⁶⁸⁹² 01:31, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

COVID Health and Gender Editathon with UNFPA and UN Women this Friday - Sunday

Dear all

You are invited to an editathon to improve COVID-19 information on Wikipedia in collaboration with UNFPA and UN Women. Wikimedia Sverige has been trailing a new process to make it easier for expert organisations to share information on Wikipedia.

The editathon workshop will take place on Friday 5th June at 15:30 - 17:30 UTC (17:30 - 19:30 CET, 11:30 - 13:30 ET) and will continue remotely until Sunday evening. To find out more and sign up please follow the link.

• https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/COVID-19/Health_and_Gender_Editathon

Please share this message with others who may be interested.

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 15:27, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

A COVID-19 category is red

Could someone take a look here and see what is wrong and how it might be corrected?— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 16:09, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm having trouble understanding the problem. Could you please spell it out instead of linking to a page that is linking to a page that has a section that probably requires context? Thanks! effeietsanders 22:37, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

It appears that they're saying a category claiming to contain all COVID-19 articles is red, and they do not know why that is. That's simple: the category doesn't exist. And it doesn't need to exist. Nothing is wrong and nothing needs to be fixed. Next. Kingsif (talk) 02:06, 4 June 2020 (UTC)