Talk:COVID-19 pandemic

Highlighted open discussions

• #RfC - Limiting the countries covered in the domestic responses section

Current consensus

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

01. Superseded by #9

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

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

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

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

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

06. Obsolete

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

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

08. Superseded by #16

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

09. Cancelled

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

Notes

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

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

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

012. Superseded by #19

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

013. Superseded by #15

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

014. Overturned

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

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

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

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

018. Superseded by #19

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

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

Should be fixed as per the new consensus with the sentences and it’s not clear which sentence has consensus. Doc james and I agree on the first two that’s all I know —Almaty (talk) 10:13, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Item 1 says "the first sentence . . . " and then goes on to quote four sentences. I'd have to go through the background, but it seems that the intent is to refer to the first sentence, specifically. Holy (talk) 17:16, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

@Almaty and HolyT: I'm not sure how many admins are monitoring conversations this page. Either we need more of them to start doing so to keep this list complete/accurate or the list needs to be lowered back to EC protection (where the Trump list is currently at) so that us mopless ones can maintain it ourselves. Pinging TomStar81. Sdkb (talk) 05:19, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Potential changes to the maps

 Comment: Please do not archive this thread until all discussions have been finished. Part of this thread has been restored from an archive. 2607:FB90:7A56:4654:45D5:870E:F9D:E8BF (talk) 02:04, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

IP, I'm not sure if you've been following the actual discussions here, but many of the ones I archived are extremely stale, and completely unrelated to still-active discussions. There was no controversy about archiving them until you brought it up below, and on a talk page where discussions are archived if they go 18 hours without comment, there's absolutely no justification for bringing ones back that have gone nearly a week without comment. Your having done so is just going to create more clutter for everyone to dig through and more work for whoever archives them next. Sdkb (talk) 03:28, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Cases or Deaths?

The first map in the infobox, showing total cases per country

The second map in the infobox, showing cases per capita

New map, showing deaths per capita

As more European countries are running out of tests, and both the UK and especially the US have had low testing rates from the start — counting cases is likely to poorly reflect the state of the pandemic. However, deaths are likely to be much more accurate, both at the aggregate level and the per capita level. Should we shift at least one of these maps to cover deaths or deaths per capita? Carl Fredrik ^talk 11:50, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

It would be a nice map to have but I don't see a need to replace either of the maps there now. Adding a third map to show deaths per-capita would be preferable to replacing one of the existing maps.Monopoly31121993(2) (talk) 14:49, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Both absolute (total deaths) and relative (deaths per capita) are useful in my opinion, and indeed better than "cases" for which the numbers are completely unreliable. The advantage of the relative map is that countries of different sizes can be compared more easily (and to judge which countries are proportionally more affected). I think it would be a good idea to show both maps (but perhaps not in the lead). Ideally, it would also be nice for the larger countries (US/China) to have the data displayed per province/state in this worldmap . Voorlandt (talk) 20:22, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't think we should include any death calculations or per capita calculations as while these may seem simple, they are not obvious or correct in their interpretation. The reason for this is that there is a massive lag in this outbreak especially, and due to unreliability of reported figures (undue comparison will be made against disparate health care systems). Both will lead people to me more alarmed or reassured than they should be. In terms of policy this violates WP:CALC specifically. --Almaty (talk) 08:36, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow."Due to unreliability of reported figures" we should only show the aggregate reported figures? That doesn't really follow especially when the reported figures are those currently listed on the page's chart, most sourced from the WHO. With regard to an alleged "massive lag" (in reported figures or virus symptom onset(?)) and that per-capita maps of deaths or rates of infected persons will "lead people to me more alarmed or reassured than they should be." I don't think it's up to Wikipedia editors to decide what facts from reliable sources Wikipedia readers should and should not be exposed to and certainly not on the grounds that it could makes some of them alarmed. The data here comes from the WHO and World Bank's population estimate figures for 2018.Monopoly31121993(2) (talk) 09:36, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

We should only show the raw reported figures, from the WHO. I don't see them anywhere dividing it from the world bank population estimate from 2018, that is WP:OR. That doesn't hide anything, it just prevents us from doing a calculation that the reliable source is not doing. --Almaty (talk) 09:55, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Ok, Almaty's opinion is clear. Almaty would like to "only show the raw reported figures, from the WHO". Voorlandt and myself disagree with Almaty. Would anyone else like to share their thoughts?Monopoly31121993(2) (talk) 10:25, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree that per capita statistics should be published in addition to totals. The "per number of people" statistics is routinely published in Wikipedia for occurences of other diseases. The only argument I see provided by Almaty against it is that it would alarm people. I don't see anything wrong with people being alarmed by alarming statistics. Don't see any explanation for Almaty's argument regarding why "per capita statistics" is misleading. That somebody else such as WHO does not provide it does not mean that it is misleading.Roman (talk) 15:44, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

I also support per capita. We are dividing by large numbers (country populations) that are well-estimated and are constant (assuming we are using some recent census), so any error is overwhelmingly due to the error in cases - which we have anyway. The resulting comparison is meaningful and useful. Here is a link for 'usefulness' [1]. Segoldberg (talk) 20:24, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes but that isn't a clear summary of why. Its not because I only trust the WHO, or I'm a censor (far from it, the opposite), its because per WP:CALC there is not clear current consensus that dividing these figures is a meaningful interpretation of the source. The calculation is simple, but they don't do it, because the answer is misleading. --Almaty (talk) 10:29, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, we need per capita. I see no violation of WP:CALC ("Routine calculations do not count as original research, provided there is consensus among editors that the result of the calculation is obvious, correct, and a meaningful reflection of the sources. [...]"): the manner of calculation is super straightforward. (As an aside, I see no undue alarm; I only see undue complacency.) --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:32, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Which ever map is chosen, it's probably best they don't look like the player wiped out entire nations in Plague Inc. 73.155.111.138 (talk) 08:30, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

I would be okay with a deaths map and a deaths per capita map being added as part of a package, per my proposal below. Sdkb (talk) 07:19, 17 March 2020 (UTC). ...It would be nice to have a gif showing at each frame the daily situation in the maps.

A statistics predictions for the near futere are welcome...

Deaths per capita map

Deaths per capita

There is now a deaths per capita map. Thanks to @Dan Polansky: I must say it looks excellent! And it does a much better job than confirmed cases per capita of showing the true severity of the regional epidemics, since the testing policies differ a lot between countries. The fatality rate is very much more comparable. Other thoughts? —St.nerol (talk) 13:47, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

I concur that cases data, which was frequently poor already, is becoming ever less accurate. We should therefore de-emphasise it in the text and in the map. Death data is more reliable (albeit not perfect). That said, while moving away from inaccurate cases data, it is still important and useful to describe the spread of the pandemic. The reader should be able to clearly see the global reach of the pandemic. Bondegezou (talk) 13:51, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Fully agree. As long as we keep the total confirmed cases map, the global spread should be evident. —St.nerol (talk) 13:55, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Come to think of it, this map also complements the original total confirmed cases better than the cases per capita map: Since both confirmed cases and deaths are important, and both absolute numbers and per capita are relevant, we have four possible maps. But we get as much as possible from just two maps when one is cases in total and one is deaths per capita. Then there's no redundancy! —St.nerol (talk) 16:50, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

@Dan Polansky:, do you think you could update the map to reflect the latest data, and give me a ping afterwards? --St.nerol (talk) 22:13, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

I have no objection to including this map, and I agree that death reporting may be more accurate. Note 1: death data is somewhat biased due to mean age of population in different countries, and to varying quality of available treatment. Note 2: there is a lag (on average, 1-2 weeks) between infection and death. Therefore this map does not represent the severity of infection at the present time, unlike the reported cases map. 77.125.33.156 (talk) 23:23, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Deaths are very likely underreported in at least two countries that have the darkest shading on that map: Italy nursing home elderly resident COVID-19 deaths appear to be underestimated by a factor of 3 in one case listed in that article, and other cases cited in the article suggest that this is widespread in parts of Italy; the COVID-19 death count in Iran is quite likely, according to many different sources of information (see the article) to be a lot higher than the official value. Despite this, I tend to think that the death counts, despite being delayed compared to the positive SARS-CoV-2 detections, will be more reliable than the positive SARS-CoV-2 detection count in many countries. Adding the map, either normalised for population or not, would be useful. Boud (talk) 00:18, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

@St.nerol: I updated the map yesterday evening. Next planned update of the map is today evening. I see no gain in updating the map more frequently, except perhaps to correct errors should there be any. --Dan Polansky (talk) 06:44, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

@St.nerol: I think the article would benefit from both reported cases per capita and deaths per capita maps. The article needs to contain the best caveat about how both reported figures are underrepresenting the real figures as it can, as far as can be done while meeting Wikipedia verifiability guidelines. As for whether we need absolute counts when we have per capita, some have argued that using colored backgrounds for non-capita map is misleading, or even fraudulent, and I can see what they mean: the colors give impression that we are dealing with density, which only applies to per capita maps. It would make sense to me to only include two maps: total reported cases per capita and total deaths per capita. --Dan Polansky (talk) 06:54, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

@Dan Polansky: You're right! I made a miscalculation and didn't see that the map was indeed updated. I'll try to start an RFC here to see how we should use the map. St.nerol (talk) 10:36, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

As of March 19, in cases per capita the undisputed leader is San Marino (4244), followed by Faroe Islands (1474), then Vatican City (1248), then three more mini states (Iceland, Andorra and Liechtenstein), with Italy being only seventh and just above Luxembourg, according to worldometer. Cases per capita demonstrate testing per capita rather than the severity of the decease. Deaths per capita seem to be more indicative of the severity (this data is not given on worldometer or any known to me source, except the map of Dan).--Maxaxax (talk) 00:44, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

(For reference, on 2020-03-19 19:12:38 UTC, the top 3 figures for deaths per million people calculated from WP data were San Marino: 417; Italy: 56.5; Spain: 17. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:22, 20 March 2020 (UTC))

Can someone please add the number of Moroccan cases up to 109, as confirmed today by the health minister of Morocco — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.253.146.186 (talk) 15:56, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. Deaths map per capita much better than confirmed cases which is literally useless.Php2000 (talk) 21:10, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

The map with "confirmed cases per capita" is indicating higher numbers than reported. For Sweden there are 2272 reported cases by March 24 and we have 10M inhabitants, but the map indicates 1000+ cases confirmed per million inhabitants. That is an exaggeration by 5x and correct visualization should indicate 100-1000 confirmed cases per million inhabitants.

Daily new cases

The daily new cases of COVID-19 on March 13

I propose as a second map that we simply use this map, as it gives more relevant information, does not involve calculations, and it will be able to be updated very easily based on the link provided. --Almaty (talk) 13:05, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

I disagree that that Almaty's map "gives more relevant information" than the per-capita infection rate. I think knowing how many people on average in a country are infected with a virus is very relevant information.Monopoly31121993(2) (talk) 13:25, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

I would say that the per capita will be relevant information in a few weeks, but pertinently when they are published by reliable sources. Additionally the map of per capita has a caption that we cannot hope to keep current. --Almaty (talk) 13:31, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Why will per capita be relevant information in a few weeks and not today?As for keeping the map current there are many maps on Wikipedia that regularly need to be updated and I have updated this one twice already over the past few days.Monopoly31121993(2) (talk) 13:48, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

I rescind comments in relation to undue concern or alarm. I simply don't think that this map is verifiable. In order for it to remain verifiable we have three options IMO.

1. Only use raw figures from the WHO

2. Use another source that is making maps that we consider to be reliable.

3. Waiting until any WP:MEDRS compatible source at least publishes a table showing per capita case rates. --Almaty (talk) 01:08, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

ALASKA with 500 is Strange, very !

@Almaty: I would be okay with this map being added as part of a package, per my proposal below. Sdkb (talk) 07:17, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

thanks mate, sounds like a great way to move this discussion forward from a clear stalemate. —Almaty (talk) 07:27, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

@Almaty: Have any updates been made to this map? It needs some changes before it'll be ready for mainspace (in my view). Namely: new updated data, conversion to SVG, moving the legend out of the image itself (to parallel the other maps), and switching to red (the color we're using for case counts). I'd also prefer it be a per capita new cases per day map, rather than totals by country (we could always have both). Sdkb (talk) 23:04, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

here @Sdkb: but I don’t know how to make it SVG. —Almaty (talk) 17:00, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Hmm, it seems like the easiest thing to do if it's possible would be to just embed the map via an iframe (see the "embed" share link). But I'm not sure if Wikipedia can handle that. If not, map creators @Dan Polansky, Wugapodes, Raphaël Dunant, and Ratherous:, would it be possible to import the data listed on the website (ideally keeping the timeline)? Sdkb (talk) 17:27, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Cases by density

In addition to maps showing number of infections by country & another showing incidence by population, there should be another showing incidence by density (eg cases per hundred sq kms). That would show where it's most concentrated. Jim Michael (talk) 10:10, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

And dan please read medrs. It is our most onerous policy to adhere to and this article is confusing because many claims can just have a reliable source, but all medical claims must have a medrs source. This is generally review articles, international authoritative statements (from bodies such as the WHO or the DSM) and medical texts. If you find a CFR in one of those please insert it with all the disclaimers. Almaty (talk) 15:22, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Data sources for maps

Extended content

Are coronavirus maps, should we use Our World in Data as a reliable attributable source, or should we be making calculations not yet published in reliable sources? --Almaty (talk) 14:06, 14 March 2020 (UTC)I removed the aggregate new cases map which was included in this history section of the page so that we can discuss it first. There are two major issues with the map. The data does not come from the WHO but from a third-party charity website called "Our World In Data"..."a project of the Global Change Data Lab, a registered charity in England and Wales (Charity Number 1186433)." The map claims that there were 0 new cases on March 13th in Iceland, Norway, Belgium, Portugal, Greece, and a few dozen other countries and that's just inaccurate.Monopoly31121993(2) (talk) 13:48, 14 March 2020 (UTC) The reason is I have not seen it published in any reliable source with WHO data, to keep the dispute simple. --Almaty (talk) 14:37, 14 March 2020 (UTC) It doesn't claim that, it claims that there were between 0 and 10. --Almaty (talk) 13:50, 14 March 2020 (UTC) They claim the data does come from the WHO. Are you able to point to any specific inconsistency in the reliability of this source? --Almaty (talk) 13:52, 14 March 2020 (UTC) Also they aren't just a charity researchers at University of Oxford, who are the scientific editors of the website content. I strongly propose that unless anyone can point to how any of the data is inaccurate, that we use it. The main reason is because myself and other editors aren't able to easily verify the content of the maps. This will worsen as the outbreak progresses. --Almaty (talk) 13:58, 14 March 2020 (UTC) Yes, Those countries reported dozens if not hundreds of new cases between 12 march and 13 March. That's evident in the table's history page. Belgium for example went from 399 to 559. The map you added shows Belgium with 0-10 cases.Monopoly31121993(2) (talk) 15:53, 14 March 2020 (UTC) Per capita is absolutely relevant today, as it was a week ago and a month ago. Bed capacity would usually exist per capita, so case totals per capita is very indicative of severity. Furthermore, per capita achieves coloring invariance upon region merge: it is not so badly sensitive to choice of granularity of regions. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:54, 14 March 2020 (UTC) If it is a indicative of severity why can't I see it in a WP:MEDRS source using WHO data to date? Ive done quite a search to come up with this current opinion. --Almaty (talk) 14:57, 14 March 2020 (UTC) Per capita is at worldometers.info; search for "Tot Cases/1M pop". I don't know about WP:MEDRS; I am not really a Wikipedia editor. In any case, as long as WP:CALC applies, we should be fine. ---Dan Polansky (talk) 15:03, 14 March 2020 (UTC) User @Bondegezou: and myself concur that WP:CALC is not being fully interpreted and with divisions in particular these may not be "obvious and correct". --Almaty (talk) 15:56, 14 March 2020 (UTC) Worldometer fails WP:MEDRS so severely, that even its updaters have lost faith in it, it appears --Almaty (talk) 16:55, 14 March 2020 (UTC) Is the above original research or can you support the above claim with reliable sources? --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:20, 14 March 2020 (UTC) Yes User:Dan Polansky I can support that claim with worldometers own website The live counters show the real-time estimate as computed by our proprietary algorithm, which processes the latest data and projections provided by the most reputable organizations and statistical offices in the world. This is not peer reviewed, is an estimate, is not a study, is not even thought to be verifiable or correct by its publisher. ---Almaty (talk) 00:55, 15 March 2020 (UTC) Well, your claim is an original observation gained by looking at worldometers.info and using your brain; the claim "worldometers.info is unreliable" is not traced to a reliable source. Of course, your reasoning is very plausible, and one has to take worldometers.info with grain of salt, but is the grain larger than that for WHO data? But my main point is on the meta-level and it stays: you require me to trace the obvious to a reliable source while you do not require yourself to trace the obvious to a reliable source. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:06, 15 March 2020 (UTC) User:Dan Polansky I dont want to argue, but we all have to use reliable sources. I would love to insert things that were my original research and i've tried to before, but we cant. The pillars of wikipedia apply. --Almaty (talk) 10:22, 15 March 2020 (UTC) Per WP:CALC, we can do certain calculation ourselves; Almaty claims we can't. Let the reader read this very discussion alone; I see not a single person agreeing with Almaty, who sets unreasonable high standards on what should be common sense but uncritically defers to WHO. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:24, 15 March 2020 (UTC) Ok, maybe we can't trust the maps there, probably a data quirk if their tables are correct. But can we make maps like it - I want to use their "no data", and I truly think that a map with the number of new cases is more important at this stage, than per capita cases. My opinion of this will change, when anyone can show me a WP:MEDRS source that is showing charts with per capita cases. I can't find one --Almaty (talk) 17:03, 14 March 2020 (UTC) I find it obvious that per capita is super useful (total cases, active cases, daily new cases, daily deaths, all per capita), and to support the notion, I mentioned that bed capacities would usually be maintained per capita in a country. I do not have WP:MEDRS sources to support what I just said and what I consider to be obvious reasoning. Maybe someone knows where to find such sources. If WP:MEDRS sources do not report per capita, maybe they should wake up from their dogmatic dream and start reporting also per capita right now, before it is too late. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:20, 14 March 2020 (UTC) I'd go so far as to say that the use of the current graphic is highly misleading. Some Europeans have remarked at the Danish government's shutdown when comparing it to the apparent inaction in France or the UK, whereas the reason becomes instantly clear if you consider that the size of population matters a great deal. The only truly objective measure that can be used is the per capita figure. -- Ohc ¡digame! 17:28, 14 March 2020 (UTC) Let me add that the name of the game is bed capacities, respirators, breathing machines and such. If there were no risk of exhausting these, it would be kind of acceptable to give up all flatten-the-curve measures, maybe not entirely acceptable, but kind of. And these capacities, the name of the game, the resource nummero uno that you can run out of, is usually maintained on a per capita basis. And the resource does not increase exponentially at 20% per day rate, only the demand for that resource does so increase. Per capita is super meaningful; maybe some has the WP:MEDRS paperwork to support that claim; I supplied the substantive arguments. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:42, 14 March 2020 (UTC) I expect that they are doing this in unpublished government data, of course. But that doesn't help our encyclopaedia. Can you even point to a table, let alone a graph or a chart or map that shows per capita? that isn't worldometer? I note that for the second time in 24 hours this has been removed due to errors, once due to the Mediawiki doing it. Its an exceedingly big job, and one I think we need to delegate to the likes of Our World In Data (where their data is verifiable). --Almaty (talk) 00:39, 15 March 2020 (UTC) Here are links to the data sources for the map. This is certainly not "unpublished government data." Many news websites have map and visualization pages up and running now. There are plenty of examples of per-capita maps out there and the data for making these is widely available at places like: FT[2] and John Hopkins [3]. The Hill even published a list of top map sites[4]Monopoly31121993(2) (talk) 10:25, 15 March 2020 (UTC) User:Monopoly31121993 I dont trust you to be able to keep up with the volume of data that will be coming through in the next few weeks, to be frank. Its not like I dont think you've done a good job so far. Its just that maps will become completely unverifiable --Almaty (talk) 11:01, 15 March 2020 (UTC) Does Almaty concede now that there are reliable sources publishing cases per capita? That would be a start. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:07, 15 March 2020 (UTC) I'm not in this for the argument, trust me, just for verifiability. --Almaty (talk) 11:10, 15 March 2020 (UTC) (outdent) So does Almaty concede the point that has been demonstrated? There cannot be any rational argument if one party refutes to play the argument game fairly. Almaty, do you now agree that "there are reliable sources publishing cases per capita?" --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:15, 15 March 2020 (UTC) Guys, I wrote a program that can read a dataset and generate an svg map. [5]. It currently fetches data from John Hopkins University, but the dataset doesn't have every country/territory and is updated daily, not as frequent as the current map. I say we generate the maps using a community-maintained list. Ythlev (talk) 11:45, 15 March 2020 (UTC) Excellent, makes perfect sense. Let the script fetch data from locations in Wikipedia, and it is then the business of Wikipedia editors to update those locations to reflect reliable sources. Is Template:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data good for the purpose? It should be easy to extract the data from there using Python. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:01, 15 March 2020 (UTC) I don't know how though. I only know how to fetch from pages with data only. Ythlev (talk) 12:10, 15 March 2020 (UTC) Okay, maybe I'll have a look. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:12, 15 March 2020 (UTC) no I’m afraid that I am still yet to see medrs sources showing per capita statistics. And it’s cos they can’t, so we can’t. —49.179.25.69 (talk) 12:31, 15 March 2020 (UTC) I think it is possible with Wikidata. Ythlev (talk) 12:18, 15 March 2020 (UTC) Here's a very quickly written grabber that returns a dictionary where the countries are the keys and the values are list of column values as integers (no work of beauty, but it works and is here right now): def grabFromTemplate(): import urllib, re url="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:2019%E2%80%9320_coronavirus_pandemic_data" allLines = [] for line in urllib.urlopen(url): allLines.append(line.rstrip()) allLines = " ".join(allLines) allLines = re.sub("^.*jquery-tablesorter", "", allLines) allLines = re.sub("</table.*", "", allLines) allLines = re.sub("<(th|td)[^>]*>", r"<td>", allLines) allLines = re.sub("</?(span|img|a|sup)[^>]*>", "", allLines) allLines = re.sub("</(th|td|tr)[^>]*>", "", allLines) allLines = re.sub("&#91.*?&#93", "", allLines) allLines = re.sub(",", "", allLines) allLines = re.sub("<small>.*?</small>;?", "", allLines) allLines = re.sub("</?i>", "", allLines) outData = {} rows = allLines.split("<tr> ") for row in rows: try: cols = row.split("<td>") cols.pop(0) cols.pop(0) country = cols.pop(0) cols = cols[0:3] cols = [int(col) for col in cols] except: continue outData[country] = cols #for key, value in outData.items(): # print key, value return outData --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:53, 15 March 2020 (UTC) Okay, with a few modifications, it worked. I can incorporate it now. Ythlev (talk) 13:19, 15 March 2020 (UTC) A lot of work is matching those country names to ISO country codes used to colour the map. Ythlev (talk) 13:20, 15 March 2020 (UTC) @Dan Polansky: It's done: [6]. Your code has some bugs though. It does not work for Netherlands for some reason. Ythlev (talk) 18:17, 15 March 2020 (UTC) @Ythlev: It fails for Netherlands since Netherlands has "–" in the 3rd column instead of zero. I don't know what "–" means, or else I could just tweak the script to replace it with zero or maybe place None in the list instead of int. Did you also create a per capita map on the world level? File:COVID-19_Outbreak_World_Map.svg is not per capita. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:03, 15 March 2020 (UTC) No. Such a map is being question now. Ythlev (talk) 19:07, 15 March 2020 (UTC) NCBI StatPearls link in support of per capita, in addition to actual number [7]. Prevalence, or cumulative cases per capita, is an estimate of the probability for a person in the country to be sick (useful if you are considering walking around in public in that country). Incidence, or new cases per unit time, is useful for tracking rate of new cases. Segoldberg (talk) 18:08, 16 March 2020 (UTC) Hi there, you may already know, but i would like to inform you that the data for the per capita map is wrong, it shows Australia as >0.1 but it is currently at >10 it has actually been >1 since the 1st march so the map is definitely not accurate as of 13th march as it states. I have not checked for other countries but there are probably more mistakes that need fixing. Just your average wikipedian (talk) 06:35, 16 March 2020 (UTC) You may know x and y, but you may not conduct operations on them. Just want to say this is the weirdest discussion in history. If a map of cases by country is acceptable based on the data available, then a map of cases per capita causing such trauma because it's OR (no it isn't) or it's somehow fundamentally unknowable information, implies that the wiki page "countries and dependencies by population" also needs deleting. Otherwise, x is acceptable, y is acceptable, but x/y is magically wrong. Funny old place. 165.225.81.57 (talk) 10:33, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Cumulative cases vs peak active cases

Extended content

If the first map is meant to be more directly sourced, the second should be more reflective of impact. Taking into account the health care systems and "flattening the curve", the second map should be peak active cases per capita. Ythlev (talk) 11:34, 15 March 2020 (UTC) If the data is available, I would be okay with this map being added as part of a package, per my proposal below. Sdkb (talk) 07:20, 17 March 2020 (UTC) So right now we have two competing per capita maps; one cumulative and one peak outbreak (see above). At the moment, I think that the cumulative map of @Raphaël Dunant: is preferrable. If China had another major outbreak, the peak outbreak map of @Ythlev: would not change a bit, but the cumulative map would reflect the change. Second, the peak outbreak map has a funny scale. How are the cutoff levels chosen? I appreciate Ythlev's ambition to reflect the intensity of the blow to the healthcare system and the general population. Perhaps this could be accomplished by a deaths per capita map? St.nerol (talk) 14:55, 17 March 2020 (UTC) Why is "changing a bit" important? Looking at any map so far, can you tell whether the disease is more serious in China than Europe or less? could be accomplished by a deaths per capita map? That's still a third map. Ythlev (talk) 15:13, 17 March 2020 (UTC) Second, the peak outbreak map has a funny scale. If by funny, you mean not powers of ten, the figures are mostly within 45 cases per million, so compared to the above map, using a smaller scale separates the countries better (e.g. East Africa, South Asia). Ythlev (talk) 15:26, 17 March 2020 (UTC) Several countries in Europe have over a 100 cases per capita. At the current centre of the outbreak your scale does not separate countries well at all. St.nerol (talk) 15:38, 17 March 2020 (UTC) And why should a world map separate Europe better at the expense of other regions? You want to know about the situation in Europe, there is a map of Europe in the corresponding article. Ythlev (talk) 16:13, 17 March 2020 (UTC) I agree with the consensus that if we are to have one per capita map, it should be the cumulative cases one. I can see the value to a peak active cases one, though, and would like it to be included as part of a package, per my proposal below. Sdkb (talk) 17:01, 17 March 2020 (UTC) The cases per capita map was removed from the article because it needed fixing. A corrected svg was then restored to the article. You have now removed it twice in favour of your own map. I see no consensus for having a peak active cases map instead of a regular cases per capita map. There are also some potential problems with your map that needs to be discussed; @Redav: mentioned some of them. Total confirmed cases per capita is data readily available from e.g. https://www.worldometers.info/ An illustration of this data clearly has encyclopedic value. The regular cases per capita map should be restored to the page until if a consensus here should say otherwise. –St.nerol (talk) 16:04, 17 March 2020 (UTC) As per @Sdkb: and @Redav: (asking for an SVG version of the total cases per capita map) and @St.nerol: comments, the total cases per capita map has been restored. I also feel like total cases per capita has more value to an encyclopedia than peak cases, as it is more useful to know which country have been hit the most, not which countries have been hit the quickest. I am agreeing with the direction the consensus seems to be going, but will abide by any consensus. Raphaël Dunant (talk) 16:45, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Developing an SVG version

Extended content

I greatly appreciate the efforts of Monopoly31121993(2) to produce a PNG per capita map for the infobox, but there is still an urgent and open request for SVG version that can be updated by all editors, like the primary map. Perhaps the script developed by User:Ythlev and User:Dan Polansky above could be of use to an editor reading this who would like to give it a try? — Goszei (talk) 18:40, 16 March 2020 (UTC) Copying my comment from the Commons: Monopoly31121993(2), I appreciate the effort you've put into updating this, but I need to re-emphasize that, at this point, by far the most urgent need is for you to convert this file to an SVG. This is an extremely prominent file on perhaps WP's most prominent article right now, and keeping it as a PNG (as well as not specifying your data source) effectively prevents other editors from being able to make updates and improvements to it. Maintaining this map is too big a task for any one editor at this point, and while you may disagree with some of the suggestions, consider that (a) even the uncontroversial ones, like fixing Greenland, cannot currently be remedied, and (b) WP:OWN applies — WP needs collaboration to function best. If you continue to maintain this map as a PNG, the editors whose concerns have not been adequately addressed are going to increasingly clamor for the removal of the map from the article, nullifying your work and doing a disservice to readers who would be better served by a per capita map. Sdkb (talk) 20:45, 16 March 2020 (UTC) @Monopoly31121993(2):@Sdkb: I can agree with what Sdkb writes, and I can confirm that I feel an urge and a repsonsibility to remove the per capita map because also the newer version still has multiple issues concerning a) well-definedness, b) meaningfulnes, c) accuracy, d) verifiability / falsifiability, that I do not see addressed, or at the very least discussed with arguments that might convince, by e.g. Monopoly31121993(2).Redav (talk) 01:16, 17 March 2020 (UTC) From Monopoly31121993(2)'s reply on Commons here, it looks like they may not know how to convert a PNG to an SVG. I don't know how myself; is it an easy thing to do? If so, could someone guide them through it? And if not, it looks like the best approach may be for someone else to build a per-capita map from scratch. Sdkb (talk) 03:41, 17 March 2020 (UTC) @Ythlev and Dan Polansky: Would either of you be able to explain how one might use the code you wrote above to create a per capita SVG map? I'm not a technical expert, but we very urgently need someone who is to help with this task. If you need it, population data for the world and province-level info is provided in the WHO daily situation reports like this one. Sdkb (talk) 07:12, 17 March 2020 (UTC) There is no easy way to convert PNG to SVG; the other way around is easy. PNG is a raster image, like colored tiles in your bathroom; SVG is a vector image, representing shapes as lines, arcs, circles and such. PNG knows no shapes; it is just a huge grid of colored tiles. The script on my talk page already grabs Wikipedia sources and provides calculated output. What I would need to do is to expand the script to 1) download a blank SVG of the political world map from Wikipedia sources, 2) create a mapping from country names to country codes since the calculation uses country names and the SVG map probably has country codes in it, in comments or the like, 3) determine which colors to use for which ranges, 4) use the calculated per capita output to color the blank SVG, 5) save the result to SVG file. In a sense, it is very straightforward, but it still takes effort and attention, and I do not know whether I find time and energy to do it any time soon, in part since I have also to make deliberations, measures, and actions concerning me personally; I do not promise anything. I am happy that I can extract cases per capita and deaths per capita in a snap. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:36, 17 March 2020 (UTC) There are a few thing to sort out first. What should the map be. As I said, the map should be peak active cases per capita because it reflects the mitigation efforts and health system burden. Data source. Currently the map (cases map) is just updated by whichever figure is latest for a country. It's quite hard to write a script that can read the current map and update it. What is feasible is to read a community-maintained list of figures. Someone wrote a scrip that can read Wikidata. Alternatively we could just use a single source like John Hopkins University with the drawback that it is only updated daily. Either of these approaches would require consensus though. It means the map can't just be edited by anyone who has the latest figure. Ythlev (talk) 09:17, 17 March 2020 (UTC) @Sdkb:@Ythlev: I located what seems to be an svg world map on https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Population_density_countries_2017_world_map,_people_per_sq_km.svg. I am hoping my next line will help enlist its author in the map project under consideration.Redav (talk) 11:30, 17 March 2020 (UTC) @Ms Sarah Welch: You appear to be the author of an svg world map. There is a request at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2019%E2%80%9320_coronavirus_pandemic&action=edit&section=9 for an svg world map showing numbers per capita for, among other things, the reported active COVID-19 cases per country / region / dependency / other division type. Would you be able and willing in helping create such a map? Some work on e.g. scripts that calculate the numbers and label them to either country names or country codes, seems to be done already. Thanks a lot!Redav (talk) 11:30, 17 March 2020 (UTC) Ta da! Ythlev (talk) 12:02, 17 March 2020 (UTC) Peak active cases per capita I've included details in case someone wants to check. Ythlev (talk) 12:05, 17 March 2020 (UTC) @Ythlev: This looks promising! Again I propose to include in the title the words "reported" and "active" (or another appropriate word if another quantity is going to be presented) and furthermore to mention the source(s). I can see the list on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:2019%E2%80%9320_coronavirus_pandemic_data is not the (only) source for your current map, since e.g. the total number of infected for (the country of) the Netherlands (which, by the way, is only part of the Kingdom of the Netherlands) mentioned there differs from the 1,413 your table shows, and the Netherlands do not count the recovered. The latter, of course, limits the meaningfulness of a number A = T - R - D for the Netherlands. (Symbols explained above on this page.) Another remark is that your table shows a date of 18 Feb 2020 for the China data. Are there no more recent data available?Redav (talk) 13:13, 17 March 2020 (UTC) I wish I didn't have to keep repeating this. In a pandemic, people are bound to get sick. What matters is whether they all get sick at the same time, hence the map I made is peak active cases per capita. China is way past its peak. Ythlev (talk) 13:34, 17 March 2020 (UTC) @Ythlev: Thanks for your explanation (again, as you say). You seem to address me specifically (although I am not sure you actually do). If that is the case, I cannot see which part of my input you are discussing or arguing with, since I cannot remember inputting any arguments regarding more / less usefulness / uselessness of current and/or peak active cases. If you mean to say that 18 Feb 2020 was the date with the (reported) peak in active cases, and that the data list you provided concerns this quantity, then I can now understand why this particular date is reflected in your list. But I do not remember seeing / reading that the data list was about peak active cases at the respective peak days for the respective countries / territories / division of whatever kind. Maybe I missed it, maybe it was not provided.Redav (talk) 16:38, 17 March 2020 (UTC) @Ythlev: Is there a substantial number of divisions (e.g. countries, territories, provinces, etc.) that record the number of recoveries from COVID-19? I know that (country of) the Netherlands does not do so. For such countries, I do not see how a meaningful number of active cases can be obtained. I do, however, agree that a map which presents accurate values of the accurate cases per capita, would be very interesting and meaningful indeed.Redav (talk) 17:50, 17 March 2020 (UTC) The data is from John Hopkins University, who collects data from various sources, so I have no idea. But they do report 1 recovery from the Netherlands. Ythlev (talk) 20:32, 17 March 2020 (UTC) @Ythlev: On https://www.arcgis.com/apps/opsdashboard/index.html#/bda7594740fd40299423467b48e9ecf6 (which I think is the source you mean) I see mention of 2 recoveries for (the country of) Netherlands. This number is the same as shown on https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/. Following sources from both websites, I have not been able to find any ultimate source for these 2 alleged recoveries. What is more - and I repeat this message that I already repeatedly gave on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:2019%E2%80%9320_coronavirus_pandemic_data in relation to the (first) table in the article - is that public health authority RIVM in (the country of) the Netherlands does not count recoveries. This can be read on its website https://www.rivm.nl/coronavirus/covid-19/vragen-antwoorden#nederland (in Dutch). There, the text "Hoeveel mensen zijn in Nederland inmiddels genezen van COVID-19? Dat is op dit moment niet bekend. Er is geen meldingsplicht om door te geven dat mensen zijn genezen van de ziekte. Iemand die 24 uur geen klachten meer heeft wordt als genezen beschouwd." translates as: "How many people in the Netherlands have recovered from COVID-19? At this moment this is unknown. There is no obligation to report that people have recovered. Someone who has no complaints during 24 hours is considered as recovered." Does this convince? Therefore, I can see no reason whatsoever to use a number of recoveries for (the country of) the Netherlands. Does this help to reach a consensus that (secondary) sources mentioning a specific number of recoveries are overriden by what can be considered as the best possible source for data about (the country of) the Netherlands at this point in time? (The Kingdom of the Netherlands - I repeat, or maybe I mention it for the first time on this page - includes and is more than (the country of) the Netherlands.)Redav (talk) 22:01, 17 March 2020 (UTC) @Redav: Well, some countries are thought to underreport figures. Some countries have more tests than others. It's impossible for the map to be perfectly accurate no matter what. Ythlev (talk) 06:10, 18 March 2020 (UTC) @Ythlev: Your point in itself is clear to me. In fact, I am convinced that not only some but every country underreports, in the sense that they undertest: not every infected person is tested. On top of that, there may be authorities which deliberately underreport with respect to the figures they know as the outcomes of the tests that they actually (had) carried out. But, as long as we accept to define the quantities used to fill tables and draw maps, as the figures published by the responsible authorities that may be assumed to best know the data (even if flawed by undertesting), in my view there is no reason to accept any figures that deviate from the figures reported by these responsible authorities. So, in the case of (the country of) the Netherlands with the responsible authority RIVM which clearly states they do not count the recovered, I see no reason to accept the number of 2 recovered as mentioned by some. If we would accept such a figure, we would deviate from what I think is probably the most feasible definition of a measured quantity to be presented, and we (would) seem to be following some - not or less well-defined - strategy of, say, estimation. I am not saying estimation is absolutely unhelpful, but I argue that estimated figures be separated from the reported figures, however flawed the latter may be. Contrary to what you write, I am not convinced that the map is bound to be inaccurate, at least not to the degree that I understand you mean. Starting from the definition that what the map and table present are figures reported by the respective responsible authorities, we seem to be able to be certain of at least accurately presenting these reported figures. So, the quantity we would (try to) present are not the actual numbers of active COVID-19 cases - however much we would like to have those figures -, but rather the reported figures just mentioned. The main inaccuracy left is then related to in how far an authority is the only (uncontested) authority for a particular division (e.g. country, province, state, territory).Redav (talk) 14:02, 18 March 2020 (UTC) Total cases per capita I added an SVG version of the map with the latest numbers and sources. Feel free to comment and/or adapt the map. Raphaël Dunant (talk) 13:38, 17 March 2020 (UTC) @Raphaël Dunant: Thanks for your work; it's nice to have it back! Regarding possible tweaks, I see a few: Greenland appears to reflect the data for Denmark, rather than itself. There's a weird border curving up along the right side. Also, now that we have a workable map back, it would be nice to start trying to figure out how to integrate province-level data for China, as requested above. Sdkb (talk) 17:34, 17 March 2020 (UTC) Great indeed to have such a map. Of course, we need to realize that its value is limited by under-testing / under-reporting in the reported confirmed cases, but it certainly helps. As to China's provinces, would any of the svg-maps on https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Maps_of_subdivisions_of_China help? (I do not know how svg maps technically work, and hope the specialists can easily assess that.)Redav (talk) 17:43, 17 March 2020 (UTC) Thank you @Sdkb: for the improvement suggestion. The weird border curving has been corrected. Note that Greenland has the correct value of 1 case per 56171 inhabitants , which is different color from mainland Denmark. I also colored French (Guyane, Reunion, etc.) and UK (Jersey, Gibraltar, etc.) dependencies differently than the mainland, with their correct color. For @Redav: remark on breaking down Chinese provinces, then we could argue of also breaking down big countries (Russia, Brazil, etc.)? Note that it will make the map harder to maintain, and that in this case we also need to do it for the total case map. We can open a new Talk session for finer-grained maps. Raphaël Dunant (talk) 18:07, 17 March 2020 (UTC) Oops, I assumed it wasn't in Greenland yet, but I guess we're at that point.We're now officially on track to win the IRL Plague, Inc. /humor And yes, good thought to make that a separate section; I'll open that up now. Sdkb (talk) 18:14, 17 March 2020 (UTC) At User talk:Dan Polansky, I now posted a script that creates an svg fully automatically from data that it grabs from Wikipedia. Maybe someone will find it useful. I suspect there are glitches in region match between the sources of data, but overall, my impression is good. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:43, 17 March 2020 (UTC) @Raphaël Dunant: It looks great that, as far as I can judge from blowing up the map, at least three of the four constituent countries of the Kingdom of the Netherlands (namely Aruba, Curaçao and (the country of) the Netherlands) have separate values and colours; I did not yet succeed in discerning the fourth, being Sint Maarten, but that may be caused by the relative smallness of that country. You even created a separate value and colour for one the three public bodies within - i.e. belonging to - (the country of) the Netherlands that lie in the Caribbean, namely Bonaire. Again the relative smallness of the other two public bodies (Sint Eustatius and Saba) may be the cause of me not being able to identify them on the map. These are welcome contributions to me. As to breaking down countries into provinces, states: I have not exactly pleaded for such breaking down of numbers - though I have tried to point to svg maps for China broken down into provinces -, but - of course - interesting it would certainly be, if feasible and accurate.Redav (talk) 23:33, 17 March 2020 (UTC) Total deaths per capita (outdent) I now created File:COVID-19 Outbreak World Map Total Deaths per Capita.svg, using code at Commons:File talk:COVID-19 Outbreak World Map Total Deaths per Capita.svg. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:46, 18 March 2020 (UTC) The deaths per capita is a nice job! It does seem to indicate the severity of the situation in the respective countries much better than the cases per capita. I hope we can use it! —St.nerol (talk) 12:19, 18 March 2020 (UTC) Thanks for the remark about the visibility. I brightened the total cases per capita map to make it more readable. Raphaël Dunant (talk) 15:11, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Including additional maps in collapsed state

Extended content

Draft:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic/Infobox sandbox Old title: Let's introduce an interactive drop-down menu to switch between maps As I explained above, I think the per capita cases map is much more useful for readers than the total cases map, and will continue to become even more so as the virus said. That said, I can imagine some readers validly wanting to see a total cases map, as well as a total deaths map, per capita deaths map, total new cases map, and per capita new cases map. As we (hopefully) work on getting the per capita map turned into an SVG, I was wondering whether it would be possible to, instead of having multiple maps above and below each other, display one map by default (I'd prefer the per capita cases map due again to my explanation above, but that's open to debate), and have a drop-down menu that readers could use to switch between maps, ideally including most or all of the ones I just listed. Do any of the more technically-inclined among you know if we could do that? I know it's fancy, but it seems like it would be worth the effort for the top of an article as prominent as this. Sdkb (talk) 20:17, 16 March 2020 (UTC) This doesn't seem to be getting engagement. Is that since you all don't like the idea, or just since no one who has seen this yet knows how to do it? If you have an opinion for/against the idea, it'd be helpful to know that, as achieving consensus is a precursor to figuring out technical implementation. Sdkb (talk) 19:20, 18 March 2020 (UTC) Okay, so after looking into this a bit, I think a much easier option that'd have a similar effect would be to include a bunch of maps but just collapse them by default using {{collapsed infobox section begin}} and {{collapsed infobox section end}}. What say you all to that? Sdkb (talk) 08:57, 19 March 2020 (UTC) @Sdkb: It's a little hard to know before I've seen it. It's probably a good idea, but I think at least one map should be visible without clicking. I started an RfC above about which maps to use, which is relevant with regards to your initiative. St.nerol (talk) 11:16, 19 March 2020 (UTC) @St.nerol: I've whipped up a preview of what it might look like in the sandbox and added it along the side here. The maps included or not included are obviously open to debate; your RfC should hopefully help clarify that. Sdkb (talk) 17:37, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Time to stop having China as the feature in the maps?

Apologies if this has been discussed (there are 20+ archives of discussion now), but Italy is now more than double the Chinese deaths and approaching the total Chinese caseload. It seems weird in the article to have Hubei Province and China prominently called out in all the graphs when they are not dominating caseload or death anymore. Thoughts? --Geoff Olynyk (talk) 03:25, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

The disease started in China, and they still have the most cases so far. However, Italy is likely to overtake them. But since it started in China, there is no need to change it. And in the future, what if some country overtakes Italy (most likely the USA)? Then we'd have to change it again. 2607:FB90:7B49:613A:B83C:EC7B:288B:F4A9 (talk) 03:38, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

RfC on which maps to use

There are three very relevant maps currently being discussed: Absolute number of confirmed cases, Confirmed cases per capita and Deaths per capita. They are displayed above. Which maps should we use in the lede?

1. Confirmed cases per capita, Absolute number of confirmed cases (current)
2. Deaths per capita, Absolute number of confirmed cases
3. Confirmed cases per capita, Deaths per capita
4. All three (in a collapsed state?)

St.nerol (talk) 10:58, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

• Comment on Overlapping RfCs This RfC overlaps slightly with the one already in progress below about whether to list a per capita map first or a totals map first. I'm not exactly sure how to handle overlapping RfCs. I propose we agree that that one take precedence regarding which map to list first/uncollapsed and this one take precedence regarding which map(s) to list. If there is a conflict between the RfCs, the RfC with significantly more participation will take precedence, or if they are roughly equal, that one as the first RfC will take precedence. (Note: I'm making this comment before any !votes have been cast in this RfC.) Sdkb (talk) 17:10, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
• Option 4, with one primary uncollapsed map (as decided by the other RfC) and the rest collapsed. All three maps have potential value; let's give readers the option to access them. Collapsed maps take up very little room, decluttering and allowing us to move the photos higher up, while also taking only a single easy click for interested readers to access. They're a win-win. Sdkb (talk) 17:45, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

  Hmm, St.nerol, it seems like you and I may be the only ones here currently. If no one else comments otherwise, would you be alright with me boldly implementing option 4 with the three maps (leaving out the daily new cases map, which isn't updated/developed enough to be ready for mainspace yet). We'd of course revert if others start chiming in and the consensus moves in a different direction. Sdkb (talk) 21:17, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

@Sdkb: I encourage you to boldly implement the change. I also think it can help us in discussing things more clearly (maps shown/hidden, which maps, and priority of maps). Right now a consensus is hard to grasp. St.nerol (talk) 14:42, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

• Option 3, if not that then Option 4: My preference is show only two maps: total confirmed cases per capita and total deaths per capita. If non-per-capita should be shown in addition, it should not be a color map but rather a pie map where the counts are represented as pies (circles) of different sizes; the objection against color map is 1) obvious: do not represent as density something that is not density, and 2) on another wiki there is a comment tracing the objection to How to Lie with Maps, Third Edition by Mark Monmonier. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:53, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3 for the reasons stated by Dan Polansky. Mgasparin (talk) 02:43, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3. File:COVID-19 Outbreak World Map.svg should not be used. Please read these notes by a professional cartographer (former editor of The Cartographic Journal), which explain in detail what is wrong with exactly this kind of map: "Mapping coronavirus, responsibly". In particular:

  There are very very few golden rules in cartography but this is one of them: you cannot map totals using a choropleth thematic mapping technique. The reason is simple. Each of the areas on the map is a different size, and has a different number of people in it. They are inherently unequal in character so we first have to deal with that before we can make sense of any other data. These innate characteristics of all thematic maps means you simply cannot compare like for like across a choropleth map.

  Regards, HaeB (talk) 04:01, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
• Option 4 All maps are beneficial to the article and the information. They all present different values and deliver on different demographic factors. --Ratherous (talk) 08:08, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

@Ratherous: Per the expert quoted above, the use of non-normalized values (totals) in choropleth maps is misleading; Choropleth map#Normalization describes it as a "common error" citing another RS. Can you explain why you disagree with that? Which mistakes are these experts making in their reasoning, in your opinion? Regards, HaeB (talk) 14:05, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Per capita maps provide a better understanding of what the extent of the pandemic within given countries, however a totals map provides better understanding of what is happening all around the world by giving more specific figures regarding infected individuals who have a potential to infect more people. It is still important information to understand how many infected people a given country now has. --Ratherous (talk) 17:23, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

You didn't answer my questions. Yes, one may be of the opinion that the total numbers per country are important information to convey. But per the above, there is expert consensus that this particular kind of map should not be used for that purpose, because it misleads the reader. You have not given us a single argument why we should believe you over expert cartographers. Regards, HaeB (talk) 02:57, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

I’m giving my personal thoughts on this matter. I feel like that is information that is important enough for this article. It may be misleading if it is shown by itself, but it really isn’t when it’s accompanied by other maps. Readers can distinguish which map means what by reading the description, and I definitely think it’s best to give them a variety of information displayed by maps. --Ratherous (talk) 04:12, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

• Option 3 It is the most objective representative and objective quantity. Voorlandt (talk) 20:36, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Per capita data vs. totals by country

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.

---

By and large, I much prefer the per capita map. Especially as the virus continues to spread, the totals map is increasingly becoming just a variation on a world population map. It makes no sense to display prominently a map where, if Exampleistan suddenly splits into two countries tomorrow, the outbreak would suddenly show up as half as bad there. The one redeeming factor of that map is that it appropriately shows how severe the outbreak has been in China, whereas the per capita map does not. Fortunately, there's a solution to that: splitting up the data for China by province. That way, Hubei will presumably show up as appropriately severe. The main downside of this approach is that some readers might ask why China gets more granular data than other countries, but I think most won't have a problem (and if the data does exist for generating a world map of prevalence by zip code or some other smaller unit and we could turn it into a map, that would of course be brilliant). Sdkb (talk) 06:33, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

See also: commons:File_talk:March14_cases_per-capita-COVID-19.png#Colouring_seems_misleading_for_China. Sdkb (talk) 06:44, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

The data for such an addition is pretty readily available; both the population and case numbers are included in yesterday's WHO daily situation report. Sdkb (talk) 05:08, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

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

Now there are 180 cases in brasil, but in the main table it dropped from 151 to 121 LGCR (talk) 18:10, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

What would folks think of listing the per capita map before the totals map? (per the logic in my archived comment directly above about why per capita is generally more useful for readers wanting to know where the outbreak is most intense) I'm going to try boldly implementing, but we can discuss here if it turns out to be controversial. Sdkb (talk) 23:58, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Ratherous, you reverted. What's your argument? Sdkb (talk) 02:36, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Regardless of the use of per capita maps, the main informative resource in use by most media outlets and general epidemic data is the total cases map, showing the exact extent and reach the virus had on a certain number of people. --Ratherous (talk) 02:56, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

@Ratherous: The main thing our readers are looking for in the maps is an indication of where the virus is most severe, and the per capita map does that best. Media outlets using totals are doing so mainly through a combination of poor statistical knowledge and laziness in not wanting to count populations. Another way to look at it: the totals map is also "per" in a way. It's just that rather than using an even unit that allows equal comparisons, the totals map uses "per country", making it look like the virus is worse in more heavily populated countries, e.g. India is darker than Vatican City. That's not what we want. Sdkb (talk) 03:24, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't think it's very fair to assume laziness of journalists, rather it is a clear indication that readers are indeed looking more for totals of infected individuals at any given place. There is a very blatant reality that larger countries have greater potential at posing risk to the rest of the world due to their larger populations. The one person infected in the Vatican has a much lower probability of spreading the virus than the now 147 infected individuals in India. Regardless of the use of per capita maps, the main maps of the total should always be placed first. --Ratherous (talk) 05:27, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

I've started an RfC below so we can get some more perspectives on this. Sdkb (talk) 18:40, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

RfC on which type of map to list first

Should this article list a per capita count map first, or a total count by country map first? Sdkb (talk) 18:40, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

• Per capita map. The main thing our readers are looking for in the maps is an indication of where the virus is most severe, and the per capita map does that best. The total map, by contrast, is increasingly becoming just a variation on a world population map as the virus continues to spread. It makes it look like the virus is worse in more heavily populated countries, e.g. India is darker than Vatican City. That's not what we want. It makes no sense to display most prominently a map where, if Exampleistan suddenly splits into two countries tomorrow, the outbreak would suddenly show up as half as bad there. Another way to look at it: the totals map is also "per" in a way. It's just that rather than using an even divisor that allows equal comparisons, the totals map uses the uneven "per country" divisor. Sdkb (talk) 18:40, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Per capita map per Sdkb. — RealFakeKimT 19:08, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

• Per capita Per Sdkb, and as a stark example, shading implying San Marino, with around 120 cases in a population of fewer than 40,000, is on par with Hong Kong (181 cases in population of 7.4+ million), is bollocks. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 19:17, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
• Total Count Still the main resource of information on statistics. Per capita map can be included, but in no way should it go before the main map. Readers should primarily see the amount of actual infected people around the world. Plus still a more accurate exact figure. As I said earlier, it's not only the extent of infection in any given country, but also the threat of any given population to infect other people, which would rely on total count. --Ratherous (talk) 19:38, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
• Per capita per Sdkb. Total count map does not need to be listed at all. Per capita is directly calculated from totals. A map for totals with colored background is arguably grossly misleading (not factually wrong but misleading), since the colored background visually suggests we are dealing with density, which is only true for the per capita map. While in the per capita map, China has a slightly less dark color, it is still relatively dark and when the reader considers their background knowledge that China has a huge population, they should immediately see that the China total count is actually very large. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:29, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

  Very well put. For China, my preferred solution is to split the data by province — see the proposal for that below. Sdkb (talk) 21:03, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

• Total Count Map – This is still the aggregate total and the main source of information on the raw statistics. The per capita count map is something that is not entirely obvious at a glance. While a per capita count provides useful information on the spread density within a population, it fails to provide a picture of the actual, overall spread and can actually be misleading to unfamiliar viewers. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 18:39, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

  But this manner of visual represenation of the raw statistics is misleading; if it were pies (circles) rather than background colors, that would not be misleading. I don't see where the claim that per capita is misleading is coming from: it represents density with a visual representation corresponding to density. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:57, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

• daily new cases or new cases per capita if we must, cos it shows where the outbreaks are that day, as Cumulative doesn’t give good info like today China and Italy look the same. —Almaty (talk) 17:02, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
• Percentage map Please, it could be good to show a map with the figures in percentages (%) of death people for each national population. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.39.214.62 (talk) 09:31, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
• Note Opinions on which maps to use that go beyond per capita vs total count by country should go instead in the other maps RfC. Sdkb (talk) 21:43, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
• Per capita. It is a more relevant and important statistic, compared with total count. Mgasparin (talk) 02:41, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
• Per capita. Number of cases is obviously directly related to population. Ythlev (talk) 14:09, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Splitting data by state/province

(mostly copying my comment from above to kick this off) By and large, I much prefer the per capita map. It's main problem seems to be that it doesn't appropriately show how severe the outbreak has been in the part of China where it originated. Fortunately, there's a solution to that: splitting up the data for China by province. That way, Hubei will presumably show up as appropriately severe. The main downside of this approach is that some readers might ask why China gets more granular data than other countries, but I think most won't have a problem (and if the data does exist for generating a world map of prevalence by zip code or some other smaller unit and we could turn it into a map, or just adding data for e.g. Italy, that would of course be brilliant). The data for such an addition is pretty readily available; both the population and case numbers are included in yesterday's WHO daily situation report. Sdkb (talk) 18:48, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Sure; I don't mind showing provinces of China, or some other large country where the case concentration turns out to be very different for different parts. But I guess China is the most relevant to show provice-level here. —St.nerol (talk) 23:06, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Good idea, but could be harder to implement. If you give me a blank world map that has the provinces split and if you give me Wikipedia pages from which I can grab covid and population data for the provinces, I can implement that. I guess I could find the data pages by myself, and the bottleneck would be getting the map. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:59, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

I've asked for help with the data at the China pandemic article; they could really use a table just for themselves, but it'd also be helpful for you. Hopefully they'll get on it. Regarding finding a blank map, I'm guessing it exists somewhere, but as I've never created a map before, I'm not the best person to find it. Can someone else help us out with that? Sdkb (talk) 17:34, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

The data is not a problem; my script on Commons now calculates deaths per million people for Chinese provinces and for Italian regions. I need the map. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:44, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

@Dan Polansky: Will this work? File:Blank Map World Secondary Political Divisions.svg Sdkb (talk) 00:20, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

It could be made to work, I think, but it is not so straightfoward, e.g. the Chinese provinces have ids but no titles, e.g. search for "Hubei" finds nothing in that svg. And the svg is large, so what the script should probably do is pick Chinese province elements from File:Blank Map World Secondary Political Divisions.svg and add it to File:BlankMap-World.svg. However, I am too tired, and I am unlikely to spend more effort in making the script produce a map with Chinese provinces in the coming days; I am sorry. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:06, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Interactive timeline maps

Template:Interactive COVID-19 maps lists some interactive maps I created using mw:Extension:Graph. Readers can move the slider at the top to view global COVID cases for a given day, and hovering over a country displays the exact datapoint for that country on that day. I'm interested in feedback on the maps since the user interface could probably be improved, and given the extensive coverage of this pandemic, I'm also interested in how editors familiar with this topic would use them. My first thought was to have them at Timeline of the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic but maybe others have better ideas. Thanks to Siliconred for suggesting this at WP:VPT. — Wug·a·po·des​ 05:48, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Interactive map example

@Wugapodes: Ooh, I like these; nice work! Two big issues that I'd want to see addressed before these are implemented anywhere. First, South Korea and North Korea are switched (North Korea is the one that at least claims to have no cases). I didn't look too closely, so there may also be other data issues. Second, when you're at the start of the slider, it's weird to have some countries be gray and others white; it's only at the end that you realize the gray ones are the ones that still don't have any cases. Just make them all white. In terms of use, it seems we may be poised to collapse the non-primary maps, and I'd be fine with a timeline being included among those, or even, if it develops enough, becoming the primary map itself. Sdkb (talk) 06:47, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Other more minor issues: some weird stuff can happen with the cursor when you move off the image and then back on, etc. Also, given how terrible people are at geography, it'd be nice to display the country name when you hover over a country, not just the case count. And ideally (perhaps pie-in-the-skyly), clicking on the country would lead to the article on the pandemic in that country. Sdkb (talk) 06:53, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

I fixed the South Korea issue; the data are formatted by script, and it chose the wrong korea ISO code. The colors have been changed, and the country name is now displayed on hover as well. The weird behavior when you mouse off the canvas is something I'm trying to fix. As for clicking on a country and being taken to the corresponding article, I think it can be done. I'll look into both of those last two tasks tomorrow. — Wug·a·po·des​ 07:52, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Definitely agree with Sdkb that as this develops it could be implemented as the primary map. It's displaying information in a similar way but is far more useful, particularly because you can see the country-to-country count and see the progression over time. SiliconRed (talk) 15:32, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

These are fantastic. Nice work Wugapodes! I'm looking forward to seeing this project as it progresses. Also, would it be possible to add a zoom toggle? Some countries are harder than others to get at with the mouse. SiliconRed (talk) 15:23, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

• I've added a scaling parameter, and you can play with it in the above example. I have also fixed the weird behavior when you drag off the map canvas. After looking into it, I don't think we can set it up so that readers are taken to the associated pandamic page when they click on a country; this seems to be a limitation of Wikipedia's implementation of the graphing software. — Wug·a·po·des​ 00:06, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

  Hmm, I'm not sure how to access that; I don't see any zoom button. Sdkb (talk) 01:12, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

  It's not a zoom button---I'm not sure that's possible, but editors can scale the size of the graphic using |scale= similar to how |upright= is used for images. — Wug·a·po·des​ 01:51, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

• Other small issues: I think it'd be better to start at the present than last December; let readers go back rather than making them go forward, so that they're seeing the most essential information (i.e. the most up-to-date) first. And even countries without cases should still be named, rather than appearing as "no data". Sdkb (talk) 01:12, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
  • The default start date is sorta fixed, but could be more elegant. As for countries with no data, I will look into how to fix that. Currently it gets country names from the dataset, so if there's no data, there's no country name. — Wug·a·po·des​ 01:51, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
• Update There are two new maps which show the stats per capita for each country based on the UN Population Division statistics for 2019. Even better, this new dataset allowed me to implement Sdkb's request for displaying country names even when the Johns Hopkins dataset has no COVID data for that country. — Wug·a·po·des​ 22:31, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
• @Wugapodes: is there any way to get it so that readers don't have to click the "play" button before they can interact with it? Sdkb (talk) 23:08, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
  • I don't think so. I think that's a feature of the Wiki software so that if readers don't interact with the graph, it doesn't eat up their computer resources. Even if we could, I think it's better to have it just as a visual indication that the content is different from the static images they're used to seeing on Wikipedia. — Wug·a·po·des​ 23:22, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
• It's not obvious that you have to move the slider to get the animation. I'm presented with a play button, so I expected the map to automatically cycle through the days like a slideshow. Maybe leave a note on the map on how to use it. 2607:FB90:7A56:4654:45D5:870E:F9D:E8BF (talk) 01:49, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Yeah, the play button is rather misleading, but there's not much we can do to solve it unfortunately. The caption includes instructions to drag the circle which hopefully helps; but I'm worried that too much information in the caption would overwhelm people. Since we link to a larger version, I've started a documentation page for that which has more detailed instructions for readers. Feel free to improve it since what's obvious to me may not be obvious to those seeing it for the first time. — Wug·a·po·des​ 02:07, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Implementing

Now that we've implemented collapsed non-primary maps, I'd say we don't have to wait too much longer before adding the case timeline among them. Let's wait a little longer for some more kinks to be ironed out, then go for it. (It's still a ways away from being ready to be the primary map, in my view, but as I said above, I could see that happening eventually.) Sdkb (talk) 05:53, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

@Wugapodes: I'm going to go ahead and implement the cases per capita timeline. Again, great work! Sdkb (talk) 00:28, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Okay, done! One thing I notice, though, is that I had to make it pretty small to avoid causing the infobox from jumping out too much. Is there any way to implement it so that clicking on it would bring up a larger version? Sdkb (talk) 00:44, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

@Sdkb: Probably not in the map itself (I don't think the software doesn't allow us to open links), but I've edited the caption to include a link to Template:Interactive COVID-19_maps/Per capita confirmed cases/Large which is an enlarged version of the map. — Wug·a·po·des​ 23:03, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Good solution; thanks! Sdkb (talk) 23:05, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Mobile

@Wugapodes: Looks like folks are having trouble with this on mobile, which is made worse by the fact that it's not collapsed there and thus more prominent. The large version does work for me on mobile, but the embedded one doesn't. How should we try to fix? Sdkb (talk) 11:09, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

@Sdkb: Could you be more specific about what doesn't work? Readers on mobile should be able to tap anywhere on the line (not just the handle) in order to move the slider around. I still haven't come up with a solution for the sizing issue; on my phone the map goes off the edge of my screen. The graph extension is built on top of an old piece of software and not well maintained. If the back end software were updated, the solution would be pretty straightforward, but it would take a very long time to get the WMF to do that because of the security issues involved. But enough with describing the problems, what can we do?

1. Add class="nomobile" to the infobox transclusion so that it doesn't show up for mobile readers. This is not ideal because a large portion of traffic comes from mobile devices and ideally they should be able to access this content as well.
2. Set |scale= for mobile readers, rather than desktop readers, and direct both to the larger version if they want to play around with it.
3. Add a viewport size to allow scrolling. It's not pretty, and I'm not sure how to make it active only on mobile browsers, but it works. See User:Wugapodes/sandbox2 for an example.
4. Change the slider bar

• We could make it shorter, so that instead of the entire top, it only takes up ~400px (the most common mobile screen width). This probably wouldn't look good on larger screens though.
• We could make it vertical and put it on the left so that readers slide it up and down rather than left right.

I think the 4th one is maybe our best option for now, particularly the vertical slider option. I've already developed a way for readers to be able to pan the map, so it would ensure that readers can access all values of the slider and see all parts of the map; though maybe not all at once. What are our thoughts? — Wug·a·po·des​ 22:26, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

@Wugapodes: The map now works for me on mobile, except that the map goes off-screen to the right (including the larger version, which since it's larger is even more severe), so there's no way to click on the most recent date. I'd prefer just having the map be small on mobile, which I think is what you mean with option 2. Definitely don't go with option 3. Sdkb (talk) 22:37, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

@Sdkb: You can see examples of option 2 and 4 at Template:Interactive COVID-19 maps/common/testcases. The testcase is option 4, the second test case is option 2. Within each collapsible box, the first map is the current live version, the second is the sandbox version. I actually think a combination of them would work well (see the sandbox map in test case 2). — Wug·a·po·des​ 00:12, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

@Wugapodes: The small-scale horizontal slider looks good to me, apart from the fact that Argentina and Chile get covered by the key a bit (I'd suggest making it smaller, or see below about height). Seeing it, I have to say I don't like the vertical slider at all. A horizontal slider is intuitive for time, since time progressing from past to present mirrors the way we read from left to right. By contrast, a vertical slider implies filling something up or emptying it out, and that's made all the worse by the fact that there are the most cases when the slider is at the bottom "empty" position. It's also not solving the problem for mobile users, which is limited width, not limited height. We could always make the small version a little taller to create enough room for a horizontal slider. Sdkb (talk) 00:30, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

@Wugapodes: Something about the implementation seems to have messed up the displays for country names/case counts when you hover over a country. Only Iran and the Congo are showing up for me on desktop right now, and without case counts. Sdkb (talk) 01:18, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Because of the size, most data won't display on the screen. I'm looking into fixing it, but given hovering doesn't work for mobile users anyway, the best solution may be to disable the hover data when the map is too small. — Wug·a·po·des​ 01:22, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Should be fixed now, it was actually just a bug. — Wug·a·po·des​ 01:36, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Move discussion

 Comment: Please do not archive this thread until all discussions have been finished. Part of this thread has been restored from an archive. 2607:FB90:7A56:4654:45D5:870E:F9D:E8BF (talk) 02:05, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Proposal: Move moratorium

These requested moves on here are getting disruptive so I formally propose a moratorium. I am neutral on how long it should be. Interstellarity (talk) 20:51, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Forward dating to prevent auto archiving. Timrollpickering (Talk) 20:51, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Further forward dating to prevent auto archiving. Timrollpickering (Talk) 20:51, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Support

1. Support - We need to focus on the content, not the title. What the final title will be hinges on what the end-point of this pandemic ends up being: we should be wary about trying to title the current incident while living through it. doktorb _words^deeds 20:55, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
2. Support The last move was pretty disruptive, taking the usual editors to move all other related pages and updating them to conform to the new page name of this main article. Let's wait for the pandemic to stabilise first (be it for good or bad). robertsky (talk) 21:16, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
3. Support a 30 day move moratorium, unless and new consensus to lift this moratorium occurs before then. - MrX 🖋 21:30, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
4. Support. The renamings 3 time a day is ridiculous. Iluvalar (talk) 03:38, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
5. Support. This is clearly a long-running distraction that has been affecting this page and its related subpages. Carrots have stopped working, so it's time for the stick. --benlisquare_T•C•E 04:49, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
6. Support. I think that there are reasonable arguments for COVID-19 rather than coronavirus, but there are also good counterarguments, and any proposal along these lines wouldn't have a snowball's chance in hell of being seen as a priority right now. We can get back to this in six to twelve months' time. The change to pandemic was justified, but any other changes (such as from coronavirus to COVID-19, or in terms of the year(s)), are minor matters compared to the content. I propose at least a 3-month moratorium. Boud (talk) 01:05, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
7. Support. This is clearly needed now, as yet another RM comes along on yet another triviality. Obviously moratoria are not suicide pacts - if something radically changes in the real world, then of course we're allowed to think again. But for now the current names enjoy solid consensus and we should have the ability to shut down quickly the never-ending attempts at moves between the different names, when nothing has radically changed.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:05, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
8. support In the last 2 weeks, there have been about 13 requested moves, many of which have been speedily closed per SNOW. In the last RM, some editors supported the idea of a moratorium. Therefore, I request that there be a moratorium for the next 3 months on page moves, as having these daily requests is becoming very disruptive. Three months should be long enough for the pandemic to die down somewhat and by then we should all have the time to look more closely at the requests without being bogged down by the rapidly evolving situation currently going on. Thanks. Mgasparin (talk) 22:08, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
9. would support such action--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:36, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
10. Support the standard six month moratorium. No move proposals on this page before September. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:40, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
11. Support — I thought we had a moratorium already. Carl Fredrik ^talk 13:57, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
12. Support Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:58, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
13. Support This talk page is already too enormous, additional move discussions would clutter it up further. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:22, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
14. Support See above comments. — RealFakeKimT 08:35, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Oppose

1. 'Oppose': I notice there was some WP:RM recently, but most of them seems to too focus on "wanting to close" despite some merit on the RM starter side. I want to restrict users from attempting to enforce additional rules that would censor voices in RM and prevent users from using vote "Speedy Close" or having it closed for WP:SNOW. Wants them to keep RM open for 7 days no matter how much were started after another. Regice2020 (talk) 23:48, 15 March 2020 (UTC) Speedy Close As this issue been reviewed. It apparently there is a group individuals wants to prevent name changes unless it fits their "groups" agenda by proposal ridiculous amount rules to restrict voices from the other side. This the regular way to request a move and just make sure no other move are active Request Move Request. The users are following the instructions and these individuals are not allowing it last longer than 1 day for wahtever reason. Regice2020 (talk) 04:46, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
2. Oppose: we moved too slowly on removing "Wuhan" from the article title. A move moratorium is too extreme of a solution to this problem. We should remain adaptable. This may be for another discussion, but I propose we only allow one move request or move review to be open at a time. This makes sense because move requests/reviews technically conflict with each other. For example, we can move from "2019–20 coronavirus pandemic" to "2019–20 COVID-19 pandemic" or to "2019–20 SARS-CoV-2 pandemic" but not to both. In practice, this means any move request started while a request or move review is still ongoing gets closed immediately, and all discussion redirected to the active move discussion. I am still thinking of how to close the loophole of people NACing a move discussion early just so they can post their own. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 07:23, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
3. Oppose: Reflecting accuracy in titles is as important, if not more so, then the content. Sun Creator^(talk) 14:48, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
4. Oppose: we can handle move requests OK. There is no need for a moratorium. Bondegezou (talk) 16:20, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
5. Oppose this is a current event so there's a reasonable chance of things changing and thus a different title could easily be desirable however maybe we should consider not adding the move notice template added by RMCD bot? Crouch, Swale (talk) 22:04, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
6. Oppose vehemently, because it is wrong. Coronavirus is the name of the group to which the virus responsible belongs; COVID-19 is the name of the disease, and the pandemic is of the disease. We absolutely should not enshrine error for an instant longer than necessary. I note that not one of the support !votes is based on a claim that the current title is correct, and the clear consensus in the two following sections following this, and in [on the project's talk page] is that this is wrongly titled. Kevin McE (talk) 15:23, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Comment

• We have proven that we are able to deal with multiple move requests, and we cannot predict the future. So let’s just be the encyclopaedia that we are, and just deal with them when they arise. —49.195.179.13 (talk) 05:26, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
• Instead of a formal move request that puts a notice on top of the page, start an informal discussion on this page first to float the ideas. I think almost all of these move requests are wasting effort. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:34, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

  I support this option. A moratorium on move request notices, not on move discussions. -St.nerol (talk) 15:01, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

  Support this as well. --Efly (talk) 01:26, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

  I support this. Sdkb (talk) 07:14, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

• I think this is just part of a larger issue of settled matters being dredged up again and again on this talk page. It's indicative of the need for a "current consensuses" banner, as has been proposed below, and is basically awaiting someone to create it. Sdkb (talk) 07:14, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
• Allowing users follow the "leave it open 7 days rule" no matter what is the best optionRegice2020 (talk) 19:05, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

  Even with that rule, we have chaos. That rule alone still allows, for example, three concurrent (and mutually exclusive) move discussions. Furthermore, WP:SNOW closing has proven effective in controlling the discussions. I wanted to propose, in addition to what I have in my oppose !vote, that only admins close move discussions for the next month or so, as RfA usually selects those who have good understanding of policy. Problem is that we'd have to have a few admins watch this page like a hawk, close any new move discussions as they happen, and redirect the existing one...we're already strapped for admins as it is. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 03:24, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Why would you propose that? Have there been any problematic non-admin closes? Carl Fredrik ^talk 09:35, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Second question: no. First question: because I was thinking specifically about my proposal to have only one move request open at a time. That proposal has a loophole: someone could NAC early just to start their own move request. So far, I see two ways to close that loophole: to force move requests to be open for at least seven days or to restrict closing move requests to admins. My above comment explains my preference, if the we had the "only one open move request" rule, for the latter. Of course, restricting closure to admins makes no sense without the "only one move request open at a time" rule I proposed in my oppose !vote above. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 00:05, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

• Can't the request be closed? It seems to have a majority for Support, and it's been 10 days. I think that's enough time for consensus. 2607:FB90:7B49:613A:B83C:EC7B:288B:F4A9 (talk)

Pandemics are named for the disease, not the virus

Hello. This discussion surrounds the current title and whether it is medically correct or incorrect. Please read the following comments and add your thoughts/votes below. ~ Magna19 (talk) 17:39, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

In the light of the early closure of my proposed move of this article, please could somebody, preferably one of those who objected to it, provide any medically competent grounds for claiming that a virus, as opposed to a disease, can be the subject of a pandemic? Kevin McE (talk) 08:03, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

• Kevin McE the coronavirus caused the pandemic. I don't see what your trying to say. — RealFakeKimT 10:30, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, the virus caused the pandemic, but that is like saying that a match (as opposed to the fire caused by that match) destroyed a garden shed. By definition, a pandemic is about the spread of a disease, not of the virus that causes it. The pandemic should carry the name of the disease. In 1918 there was a Spanish flu pandemic, not an H1N1 pandemic (named for the disease, not the virus). Kevin McE (talk) 14:04, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

• Fair enough but it is it's most conmmon name so should be the title of the article per WP:COMMONNAME. — RealFakeKimT 15:50, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

COVID-19 is just as prevalent and precise instead of incorrect. --Gtoffoletto (talk) 21:12, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

• Support moving to 2020 COVID-19 Pandemic: "A pandemic is a disease epidemic that has spread across a large region." This is a COVID-19 pandemic not a coronavirus pandemic. I also disagree it's the most "common" name. Everybody calls it COVID-19 or Coronavirus disease 2019. --Gtoffoletto (talk) 16:03, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

• Strongly Disagre It's most commonly refered to as 'the coronavirus' or 'COVID-19'. I have never hear it beeing called 'Coronavirus disease 2019' in the main stream media. I stand behind what I previously said the WP:COMMONNAME is coronavirus. — RealFakeKimT 18:57, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

We have WHO[8], Johns Hopkins[9], and CDC.[10] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:18, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

• I'm saying the media medical institutions will give it it's proper name. I know you can't uses it as a source but in everyday conversations it's 'the coronavirus'. — RealFakeKimT 08:34, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Agree with User:Doc James. Let's use those sources. The shorter name is preferable: COVID-19 but the full name is fine (the year might be confusing though) --Gtoffoletto (talk) 21:09, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Kevin McE: I took the freedom of merging your two consecutive threads. It does not seem very reasonable to have two concurrent and consecutive threads about your objections to move request closure. If you think otherwise, feel free to split them again and sorry for the inconvenience. Best, --MarioGom (talk) 10:38, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

I will (and now have) split them again: they are separate questions. They are not merely about objections to a premature closure, but are seeking someone, anyone, to make an informed argument as to why the current name, with the errors it incorporates, is defensible in an encyclopaedia. Kevin McE (talk) 14:04, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

• Support: We need to be consistent. COVID-19 is a coronavirus. It is not "coronavirus disease 2019-20". It is "Coronavirus disease 2019", but "2019-20 coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic" would just be confusing. I think that all Wikipedia articles should exclusively refer to this disease as "COVID-19" in both titles and article text. ViperSnake151  Talk  15:22, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support - COVID-19 is a disease caused by a specific coronavirus (SARS-cOV-2). Current title is strange I agree. 1. Has only been a pandemic in 2020, 2. the broad virus group is currently named as being the pandemic when as you say, it should be the disease. Title should be "2020 COVID-19 Pandemic". ~ Magna19 (talk) 16:44, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support 2020 COVID-19 Pandemic as the correct and common name —Almaty (talk) 15:56, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. Coronavirus disease 2019 is the correct "official" name. COVID-19 is an abbreviation for the official name. The current title is clear. Natureium (talk) 16:01, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

I had never proposed a name for the article that included the abbreviation, so I have no idea what you are opposing. I do note, however, that you acknowledge that the name of the disease, and therefore of the pandemic, is not simply 'coronavirus'. It seems extraordinary that when it comes to an alternative title you object to a widely used abbreviation that has probably reached COMMONNAME status, but when defending the current erroneous title, you set the threshold no higher than "clear". Kevin McE (talk) 19:55, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Because the current name is also a common name. No one is going to be confused by this title. Natureium (talk) 19:59, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

That would make them equally suitable, if other things were equal, which they are not.

Which brings us back to the challenge with which I started this section: to "provide any medically competent grounds for claiming that a virus, as opposed to a disease, can be the subject of a pandemic". Anything? Kevin McE (talk) 20:18, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

• Support - Coronaviruses are a large class of viruses, with the most common types leading to symptoms identical to the common cold. The virus that causes COVID-19 should not be confused for these more common viruses, and therefore I support the move. --TedEdwards 19:10, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
• Keep page at current name I think it is fine. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:14, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Pandemic in 2019???

In the light of the early closure of my proposed move of this article, please could somebody, preferably one of those who objected to it, provide some proof of the existence of a pandemic in 2019? Kevin McE (talk) 08:03, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

• Kevin McE in your move request you request it's name to be changed to Coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic I asume this means you think the pandemic started in 2019. — RealFakeKimT 10:34, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

No, the name of the disease is 'coronavirus disease 2019'. Your assumption is wrong. It is the title of the argument that posits the existence of a pandemic in 2019, not my proposal. Kevin McE (talk) 14:04, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

• Ok fine about the disease thing. For the pandemic it wasn't labeled a pandemic then correct but the events at the time lead to were we are now. — RealFakeKimT 15:55, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

References

The first of those links fails; the second points to a CDC article that consistently refers to the disease as 'Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)' and uses 'coronavirus' on its own onlt when refering to the virus; the third is from a non-medical stats gathering website that contributes othing, and displays its ignorance by refering to 'coronavirus COVID-19' (one wonders what they thought the first two letters of the acronym covid stand for). I'm not sure what anyone was trying to prove by posting this list. Kevin McE (talk) 11:48, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

• Support - you're medically correct on both counts. Title should be "2020 COVID-19 Pandemic". Magna19 (talk) 16:38, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

RfC - Limiting the countries covered in the domestic responses section

This page is already longer than it ought to be, and it's very much at risk of becoming bloated further. The domestic responses section is particularly at risk since everyone seems to want to add their home country (Egypt was just added, and I'm sure things are bad there as they are everywhere but we just don't have room). I can add a hidden warning to achieve consensus at talk before adding further countries, but that'll only do so much to stem the tide. Therefore, I think we need to come up with some criteria for which countries get a section and how long those sections can be. I think it's obvious that we need some individualized coverage of e.g. China, Iran, and that countries like e.g. Finland, Peru can safely be shunted to the "other" subsection, but there's a middle ground between them with e.g. the UK where I'm less sure. What are all your thoughts? Sdkb (talk) 05:37, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

• 10,000 cases to be doubled every 5 days —Almaty (talk) 07:14, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

  That cuts off South Korea, which has had a major response to the epidemic and perhaps has a lower case count because of it. But as a rough measure, yeah, that seems about right. Sdkb (talk) 07:47, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

I would remove Japan, as many other countries are more affected, and as Japan is otherwise also not specifically notable for its response (unlike South Korea). Voorlandt (talk) 08:19, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Why is it a problem if this section includes summaries on every country that cares to add one? This might be the only page downloaded by some people for offline viewing, and as such the single only/best place to get an idea of the kind of responses from each country, at a glance? Also, what makes the US or UK special in any way? 169.0.60.231 (talk) 09:31, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Too many countries have cases of coronavirus, it is simply impractical to give all of them. I would say keep South Korea because it is cited in multiple notable sources as an example of a successful strategy in dealing with the outbreak. UK is not really necessary, although it attempted something quite different early on that seemed interesting, but it has since abandoned that. Japan is also unnecessary, although I think a brief mention (say a sentence or two) under the "Other countries" section may be warranted if the Olympics get cancelled. Italy as a separate entry is necessary I think, although I think perhaps a new section on other EU countries (or Europe) may be possible since many EU countries have seen significant outbreaks, and Italy can be placed as a subsection in that. Other individual European countries like Spain or Germany would not then not need their own separate sections. Hzh (talk) 12:01, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Only the more severe outbreaks (judged by the death numbers) should be listed. In my opinion, that includes at the moment Italy, China, Iran, Spain. And possibly France. Then optionally the US and the UK. The fact France, and its lockdown, is absent from the page while the UK is described is quite strange. Mayfoev (talk) 13:49, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

In my opinion, the fair way to do it would be to only list those countries whereby the situation in that country was/is noteworthy and comparatively unique. Whether that be particularly bad outbreaks (China, Italy, Iran) or for some other reason, like particularly effective strategies (e.g Singapore), or like in the UK where the government defied the strategy of most other countries in their response and received backlash. Naturally this will include countries like the US (Trump controversy etc.) and exclude other ones (Germany, France etc.). Countries with moderate outbreaks, or those which had/have responses that are similar to many other countries are not noteworthy and should therefore be only explained fully in their own separate article. Please say if you agree/disagree. How will we know when we have consensus on this? Magna19 (talk) 15:38, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

@Magna19: Good question. I've added polls for specific countries below to better gauge that. Sdkb (talk) 01:17, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

@Sdkb: Thank you. I have replaced Japan with Singapore using above criteria for now. I will vote below. Would it be better to use 'include' instead of 'keep' and 'exclude' instead of 'remove' given some countries listed here are not currently included in the article? Magna19 (talk) 01:36, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it would, thank you. I've refactored. Sdkb (talk) 04:46, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

@Magna19: This edit has created a poorly-formed RfC. Whilst the statement (courtesy of Sdkb) is certainly neutral and brief, it completely lacks context in the RfC listings. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:48, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

@Redrose64: feel free to refactor my statement if you want to give it better context. Thanks for your efforts to tidy things up; hopefully it'll make it easier to discuss the issues at hand. Sdkb (talk) 00:01, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

@Redrose64: Not my statement unfortunately. Magna19 (talk) 00:05, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Country Polls

Please vote below with either Include or Exclude for each country. Please keep explanation minimal, and discuss overall criteria above. Sdkb (talk) 01:17, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Italy - include

Italy Include Sdkb (talk) 01:17, 22 March 2020 (UTC) Include Magna19 (talk) 01:40, 22 March 2020 (UTC) Include --Gtoffoletto (talk) 13:47, 22 March 2020 (UTC) Include Bondegezou (talk) 14:17, 22 March 2020 (UTC) Include Worst hit in Europe. Hzh (talk) 14:25, 22 March 2020 (UTC) Include --Calthinus (talk) 16:55, 22 March 2020 (UTC) Include — RealFakeKimT 17:05, 22 March 2020 (UTC) Include QueerFilmNerdtalk 20:19, 22 March 2020 (UTC) Include: probably the country with more reliable sources coverage in Europe. --MarioGom (talk) 23:59, 22 March 2020 (UTC) Include: Hardest hit country in the EU right now. --Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 00:52, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

China - include

China Include Sdkb (talk) 01:17, 22 March 2020 (UTC) Include Magna19 (talk) 01:40, 22 March 2020 (UTC) Include --Gtoffoletto (talk) 13:47, 22 March 2020 (UTC) Include Bondegezou (talk) 14:17, 22 March 2020 (UTC) Include A must even if, let's say, other countries have worst outbreak later on. Hzh (talk) 14:25, 22 March 2020 (UTC) Include --Calthinus (talk) 16:55, 22 March 2020 (UTC) Include — RealFakeKimT 17:05, 22 March 2020 (UTC) Include QueerFilmNerdtalk 20:19, 22 March 2020 (UTC) Include: obviously. --MarioGom (talk) 23:59, 22 March 2020 (UTC) Include: Country of origin. --Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 00:52, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Iran - include

Iran Include Sdkb (talk) 01:17, 22 March 2020 (UTC) Include Magna19 (talk) 01:40, 22 March 2020 (UTC) Include large number of cases --Gtoffoletto (talk) 13:47, 22 March 2020 (UTC) Include Bondegezou (talk) 14:17, 22 March 2020 (UTC) Include Worse hit in Asia outside of China, cases possibly greatly under-reported. Hzh (talk) 14:25, 22 March 2020 (UTC) Include --Calthinus (talk) 16:55, 22 March 2020 (UTC) Include — RealFakeKimT 17:05, 22 March 2020 (UTC) Include QueerFilmNerdtalk 20:19, 22 March 2020 (UTC) Include: probably the worse/early hit after China, particular circumstances like sanctions that made it a target for high reliable sources coverage. --MarioGom (talk) 23:59, 22 March 2020 (UTC) Include: Hit hard along with Italy in the past few months. --Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 00:52, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Spain

• Exclude - EU section? --Gtoffoletto (talk) 13:47, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
• Include Bondegezou (talk) 14:17, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
• Include no of cases -Magna19 (talk) 14:28, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
• Exclude if a EU section is created Hzh (talk) 14:30, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
• Include — RealFakeKimT 17:05, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
• Exclude QueerFilmNerd^talk 20:21, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
• Include: as of today, 3rd country by deaths and 4th by confirmed deaths, also highly covered by reliable sources. --MarioGom (talk) 23:59, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
• Include: News is reporting hundreds of new cases a day and on average deaths in the double digits. --Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 00:52, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

France

• Exclude Magna19 (talk) 01:51, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
• Exclude - EU section? --Gtoffoletto (talk) 13:47, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
• Include Bondegezou (talk) 14:17, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
• Exclude if a section on EU is created. Hzh (talk) 14:28, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
• Exclude — RealFakeKimT 17:05, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
• Exclude QueerFilmNerd^talk 20:19, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
• Include. France had over 100 new deaths today. --Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 00:52, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

United States - include

United States Include - sheer size of the country. Plus Trump controversies etc. make more noteworthy Magna19 (talk) 01:51, 22 March 2020 (UTC) Include - agree with above --Gtoffoletto (talk) 13:47, 22 March 2020 (UTC) Include Bondegezou (talk) 14:17, 22 March 2020 (UTC) Include especially as the US is rising to the top of the chart.--Calthinus (talk) 16:55, 22 March 2020 (UTC) Include — RealFakeKimT 17:05, 22 March 2020 (UTC) Include QueerFilmNerdtalk 20:19, 22 March 2020 (UTC) Include. Individual states are getting their own articles. --Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 00:52, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

UK - include

United Kingdom Include - noteworthy and unique in its very relaxed approach. Only just imposed restrictions. Magna19 (talk) 01:35, 22 March 2020 (UTC) Include- controversial approach has been reversed but interesting --Gtoffoletto (talk) 13:47, 22 March 2020 (UTC) Include Bondegezou (talk) 14:17, 22 March 2020 (UTC) Exclude if there is a Europe section. Hzh (talk) 14:48, 22 March 2020 (UTC) Hzh - Though still technically in Europe as a continent, it would just get continually changed due to editors' Brexit opinions etc (sigh), better and easier to leave as separate section. Magna19 (talk) 15:09, 22 March 2020 (UTC) Include for its distinct approach --Calthinus (talk) 16:55, 22 March 2020 (UTC) Include — RealFakeKimT 17:05, 22 March 2020 (UTC) Include QueerFilmNerdtalk 20:19, 22 March 2020 (UTC) Include: Boris Johnson approach is the subject of an incredible amount of coverage. --MarioGom (talk) 23:59, 22 March 2020 (UTC) Include as per MarioGom. --Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 00:52, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Germany

• Exclude An interesting case of low number of deaths, but may go into an EU/Europe section. Hzh (talk) 14:48, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
• Exclude- EU section? Reporting in Germany does not seem reliable/comparable to other countries. --Gtoffoletto (talk) 14:52, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
• Include — RealFakeKimT 17:05, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
• Exclude QueerFilmNerd^talk 20:19, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
• Exclude. Not much news over it aside from Merkel's speech. --Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 00:52, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Netherlands - exclude

Netherlands Exclude Sdkb (talk) 01:17, 22 March 2020 (UTC) Exclude Magna19 (talk) 01:40, 22 March 2020 (UTC) Exclude - EU section? --Gtoffoletto (talk) 13:47, 22 March 2020 (UTC) Exclude Bondegezou (talk) 14:17, 22 March 2020 (UTC) Exclude Unimportant Hzh (talk) 14:28, 22 March 2020 (UTC) Exclude — RealFakeKimT 17:05, 22 March 2020 (UTC) Exclude QueerFilmNerdtalk 20:19, 22 March 2020 (UTC) Exclude. Haven't heard much news about it. --Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 00:52, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

South Korea - include

South Korea Include Magna19 (talk) 01:51, 22 March 2020 (UTC) Include - Best practice without lockdown. Over 50 million population and cases declining fast from a major outbreak --Gtoffoletto (talk) 13:47, 22 March 2020 (UTC) Include Example of a successful strategy in dealing with the outbreak without draconian measures. The now lower number of cases compared to other country is an indication of success. Hzh (talk) 14:28, 22 March 2020 (UTC) Include --Calthinus (talk) 16:55, 22 March 2020 (UTC) Include — RealFakeKimT 17:05, 22 March 2020 (UTC) Include QueerFilmNerdtalk 20:19, 22 March 2020 (UTC) Include: South Korea approach to testing is discussed in a high proportion of reliable sources. --MarioGom (talk) 23:59, 22 March 2020 (UTC) Include. --Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 00:52, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Japan

• Exclude similar response to quite a few other countries, moderate outbreak. Magna19 (talk) 01:35, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
• Exclude --Gtoffoletto (talk) 13:47, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
• Exclude — RealFakeKimT 17:05, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
• Exclude but consider mentioning it in the other countries section on account of the possible impact on the Olympics. Hzh (talk) 13:11, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Singapore

• Include - noteworthy and unique in its effectiveness at combating the virus. Magna19 (talk) 01:35, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
• Exclude - small country and not so effective now --Gtoffoletto (talk) 13:47, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

User:Gtoffoletto, although most countries will inevitably end up with lots of cases, I would say it would be right to add one country thought by most to have best tackled the crisis. At the moment, Singapore fits that criteria the best. Please consider changing response based on this, if not then I would be happy to replace it if a more suitable country can be suggested and agreed upon? Magna19 (talk) 14:06, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Magna19 South Korea is the country you are thinking of. Over 50 million population and cases declining fast from a major outbreak without lockdown. Cases in Singapore are growing fast unfortunately and pop is tiny. --Gtoffoletto (talk) 14:10, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

User:Gtoffoletto, thanks for the info. I will remove sub-section on Singapore for now but will add again depending on any additional votes. Magna19 (talk) 14:22, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

• Exclude Too small to be significant. Hzh (talk) 14:30, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
• Include — RealFakeKimT 17:05, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
• Include: Singapore is still discussed today in most reliable sources. The size of the country has nothing to do with it being noteworthy or not. One of the earliest responses to the epidemic outside China. --MarioGom (talk) 23:59, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
• Include. One of the few areas that launched an early response to the pandemic and managed to minimise casualties for as long as it could. --Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 00:52, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Australia - exclude

Australia Exclude - Magna19 (talk) 11:24, 22 March 2020 (UTC) Exclude -Almaty (talk) 12:39, 22 March 2020 (UTC) Exclude --Gtoffoletto (talk) 13:47, 22 March 2020 (UTC) Exclude Bondegezou (talk) 14:17, 22 March 2020 (UTC) Exclude Unimportant. Hzh (talk) 14:30, 22 March 2020 (UTC) Exclude — RealFakeKimT 17:05, 22 March 2020 (UTC) Exclude QueerFilmNerdtalk 20:19, 22 March 2020 (UTC) Exclude. Haven't heard anything newsworthy. --Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 00:52, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

European Union

• Include- how about creating something for the general European approach where we can group most other European countries except particularly noteworthy ones such as Italy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gtoffoletto (talk • contribs) 13:55, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
• Include - if a grouping of less-affected EU countries can be agreed. Magna19 (talk) 14:08, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
• Include Covers all other major EU countries except Italy, but must not include minor ones. Possibly titled "Europe" rather than "European Union". Hzh (talk) 14:30, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
• Exclude -- until some grouping of "less affected EU countries" is formulated by experts and/or the media, this seems like OR on our part and entirely subjective. --Calthinus (talk) 16:57, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
• Include As said by Magna19 — RealFakeKimT 17:05, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
• Leaning include under the name "Europe". While I'm sympathetic to the concern that the situation in Spain is not the same as that in Poland, and I honestly don't know how much coordination there is between EU countries, there are certainly a lot of similarities between them, and that should make it possible to turn this into a section. 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Europe appears under-developed, so it doesn't give as much guidance as to what the section could look like as I'd hoped when I just checked it out. Perhaps someone should re-write the intro to that and then insert it as an {{Excerpt}} here. Sdkb (talk) 17:17, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

It is better to use Europe because a number of European countries aren't in the EU, like the UK, Norway and Switzerland. Hzh (talk) 20:00, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

• Includebut title "EUROPE" so we can cover the rest of Europe without having to give them their own headers. QueerFilmNerd^talk 20:19, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
• Exclude. There's no coordinated European response, no coherence in how the epidemic is handled (compare Italy and Sweden, for example, with drastically different measures), there's a plethora of health care systems, no coherent philosophy around testing. /Julle (talk) 22:08, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Summary

Include: China, Iran, Italy, South Korea, US, UK

Exclude: Australia, Netherlands

2 quick final votes if possible before we make the edits?

@QueerFilmNerd: , @Hzh: , @RealFakeKim: , @Sdkb: , @Gtoffoletto: , @Bondegezou: , @MarioGom: , @Calthinus:

Europe section to be called Europe or European Union?

• European Union - Vast majority of European countries not in the EU don't seem too noteworthy anyway. Magna19 (talk) 00:40, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
• Europe. The individual governments seem to be the ones mainly coordinating the response rather than the EU, so it makes sense to use the geographic grouping of "Europe" rather than the arbitrary political grouping of the EU that excludes Switzerland for no good reason. Sdkb (talk) 00:50, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
• Europe - per Sdkb (the UK and Switzerland btw) — RealFakeKimT 08:45, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
• European Union - as in the "political and economic union of 27 states" which is coordinating several countries in a similar way to the US and individual states. It would be crazy to include individually each US state (although they each have their own individual response). Monetary policy is an example of how the response is being coordinated at the EU level. Switzerland is not included and not relevant IMHO as well as other small countries not included. The only relevant individual country within the EU is Italy that could have a sub section within the EU section as it was the first with major cases (this might change). Germany France etc. just treated within the general section.--Gtoffoletto (talk) 11:04, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Switzerland has one of the highest per capita rate of infection outside of tiny countries. Hzh (talk) 14:03, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Outside of Hubei, Italy and Spain I think. I don't think number of cases is relevant in this as they are subject to change and soon many countries will have a lot of cases.--Gtoffoletto (talk) 02:40, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

• Europe - We don't really know which other European countries will become notable enough to be mentioned in the future, and this will cover any potential ones worth mentioning. Italy should have its own section under Europe, Spain possibly, but not Germany or France which merit a paragraph each under the Europe section. Hzh (talk) 13:19, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

If Europe, is the UK noteworthy enough for its own sub?

• Yes - Sheer coverage and unique aspect. Magna19 (talk) 00:40, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
• No Italy is in a class of its own. Including any other European country for its own section is a slippery slope. It can get some individualized coverage within the Europe section perhaps. Sdkb (talk) 00:50, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

The situation may develop in such a way that that is no longer the case.--Calthinus (talk) 00:56, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

• may we should only focuse on the present. We shouldn't try and predict the future. — RealFakeKimT 08:45, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

• UK -- yes, European Union not "Europe" if we have to use it. Hundreds of millions of people live in non-EU European countries. We cannot simply lump them in... if we are "lumping at all" (eventually I foresee us being at a point where it is "Other countries" and not "Europe" that is the "leftovers basket" section). --Calthinus (talk) 00:56, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
• No Other Eurpoen countries have in some cases 10 times the cases of the UK. — RealFakeKimT 08:45, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
• Neutral: their "herd immunity" response was unique. They have given it up now though apparently so No is acceptable too. I guess I'm abstaining here! --Gtoffoletto (talk) 11:04, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
• No but may be mentioned in a paragraph under Europe on account of its early approach (which has since been abandoned, therefore not worth looking at in details). It can change if cases escalate there. Hzh (talk) 13:25, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

• Comment Seems a bit early to do a summary when some of them have only a few votes. Would have waited a bit longer. Hzh (talk) 02:09, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Can always re-visit at a later date and adjust where necessary but most are pretty unanimous for now, would normally wait longer but given the fast moving picture and significance of article, should be at its best soon as practical IMO. Magna19 (talk) 03:33, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Agreed with Hzh. The polls so far align pretty well with what's in the article currently, so the page will be fine. We don't yet have a clear consensus on the more borderline cases. It's fine to start fleshing out what a Europe section might look like, though. Sdkb (talk) 03:50, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

The problems now is that with the summary added, people think it has concluded and stopped adding their votes. Perhaps remove the countries listed in "include" and "exclude" in the Summary section, and wait for a day or so first and see if anything changes. True, it can be revisited later, but there is really no need to hurry here. And yes, keep the discussion on Europe/EU going in the meantime. Hzh (talk) 09:31, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Consensus seems strong for several. Some are contentious (Singapore and Spain). However Spain is included in the EU discussion. Can we "Close" the non contentious ones and only keep Singapore open and continue with the EU discussion only? --Gtoffoletto (talk) 11:08, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

I've collapsed the ones with clear consensus (unanimous or near-unanimous with sufficient votes and is unlikely to change). A few others like European Union could be collapsed as well, but we'll see. Hzh (talk) 13:08, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Ordering

Another question we need to answer that seems to be somewhat arbitrary in the article currently: how do we order the countries we do include? I think it definitely makes sense to list China first, given that chronologically it was facing this before anywhere else. After that, we could go either by first reported case to try to keep some semblance of chronology, or by highest case/death count to list the most prominent examples first. What's your preference? Sdkb (talk) 05:42, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

I think by first reported case is probably best. Saves changing the order if one of the countries overtakes another in case numbers. Magna19 (talk) 11:27, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Agree --Gtoffoletto (talk) 10:49, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Which maps to include

Okay, so as we start to figure out consensus on which countries to include, the next step is to determine how long each section should be. One big part of that is whether to include a map of the country with cases per capita in different regions. I see several possible ways to go about this — we could include maps for all or none of the countries we list, we could include only for the most severely hit and/or largest countries, or we could take into account how much regional variation there is in the virus's prevalence throughout a country. What's the right strategy here? Sdkb (talk) 18:46, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't think there could be a fixed length for any section. China and US can be trimmed somewhat, but otherwise the other section are fine for now and should not get too big. I don't feel that any map is necessary since that should be in the individual articles, and you'd need to remove other images or tables otherwise it gets too crowded. Hzh (talk) 00:09, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm going to add a map for Europe since it seems to merit one and replace the U.S. map with the better per capita one, since that section has room for it and the U.S. is big enough for there to be regional variation. I wouldn't be opposed to adding a map for China, since it's also a geographically big country with a roomier section here, but as it's not there currently I won't add it. Sdkb (talk) 07:15, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Adding more caveats that the actual number of cases are likely much higher than is being reported

There is a very important and useful note attached to the "cases" label on the main table - "Reported cumulative confirmed cases. The actual number of infections and cases are likely higher than reported, but impossible to ascertain." This caveat needs to be added to all the other instances where "cases" or "cumulative cases" are mentioned throughout the article. This is important, as a lot of people and governments are misunderstanding that the actual number of cases is probably much much higher than is being reported. This caveat also needs to be added to the Deaths section where talking about mortality/fatality rates because, given that the "actual number of infections and cases are likely higher than reported", this means that fatality rates (or mortality ratios) will likely be much lower than reported - as they are simply deaths divided by cases. If any justification is needed for this, consider the following: Italy is currently reporting 4,825 deaths (see main table). If the case fatality rate in Italy were anything like what is being reported from Germany (0.3%) this would mean that 1.6 million have been infected in Italy already (4,825 divided by 0.003 = 1.6 million). But there is no way that the Italian government can know or report this, as they have only done 233,222 tests. Ideally the term (as in the existing table note) "reported cumulative confirmed cases" should be used throughout, with a note to each instance adding "The actual number of infections and cases are likely higher than reported, but impossible to ascertain". Many thanks. Surfingdan (talk) 14:32, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

References

@Surfingdan: Agreed, absolutely. If you see places where we can change the language to make it better, please WP:BEBOLD and do so. Sdkb (talk) 09:18, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

@Sdkb: Thanks for the feedback. Unfortunately, as I am new to Wikipedia, my account is not yet "confirmed" so I don't think I can edit the page directly myself, as it is semi-protected. Can anyone else help out here? Best wishes to all! Surfingdan (talk) 13:46, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, we need to be much clearer about the limitations in the numbers, especially cases reported.

We should never be calculating mortality rates ourselves precisely because of problems like these. We should as much as possible only be reporting what WP:MEDRS-compliant sources say about mortality rates. Even then, we need to contextualise the numbers. Bondegezou (talk) 14:39, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Please can edits be urgently done, as described and agreed above. My account is not yet confirmed, so I am, unfortunately, not able to do it myself. Specifically, every instance throughout the article of the phrase "confirmed cases" should be "reported confirmed cases". Where "cases" is just written this should be "reported cases". Throughout the whole article, including under all the graphs. This includes, but is not limited to, the grey info box under the map. Key instances, such as in the bottom of this box (where the global total of 358,000 is given), should have an additional note added to - as is already on the "cases" label in the table - "The actual number of infections and cases are likely higher than reported, but impossible to ascertain.". Thanks and best wishes to all. Surfingdan (talk) 16:18, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

This seems reasonable to me, but I want to defer to those with more medical expertise. Doc James or others, what do you think? Sdkb (talk) 18:49, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

User:Sdkb and User:Surfingdan we already have a tag that says "Reported cumulative confirmed cases. The actual number of infections and cases are likely higher than reported, but impossible to ascertain." Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:56, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

@Doc James: that's good. I don't see much indication that the article is inaccurate in a technical sense, but having a piece of information buried in a tiny disclaimer in one table is different than offering adequate communication to readers about our level of confidence in the data we use throughout the article. I think it's a matter of emphasis, and for a qualification this important, I think we ought to at least be brainstorming about how we might be able to state the caveat more prominently. Sdkb (talk) 19:52, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

User:Sdkb we also state in the text "There may be substantial underreporting of cases, particularly those with milder symptoms." I am unclear what more is being asked? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:58, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

@Doc James: I think the text of that disclaimer is fine. The issue is that it's buried in a footnote where essentially no one is going to read it. I'd like to see it incorporated more into the article body text somehow (although not sure quite how; open to ideas). Sdkb (talk) 20:10, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

User:Sdkb that was in the body of the text. I am trying to figure out what more is being requested? People much read the article before commenting. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:13, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

@Doc James: Oops, apologies, I missed that you were bringing up a different place a similar thing appears. What would you think of adding an {{Efn}} footnote to the lead section where the case count is mentioned there? Sdkb (talk) 21:09, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

We have "XXX cases of COVID-19 have been reported". We also say "Confirmed cases" in the infobox and not just "cases". In my opinion reported is sufficient. If these were not confirmed cases than we would say "xxx cases have been estimated" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:13, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

It's all about consistency and avoiding misinterpretation, which is incredibly important right now. As noted above, in some places the article does already of course state "confirmed cases" but in other places just "cases" is used. Under some graphs it's the former, under some graphs it's the latter. In some boxes it's the former, in others the latter. This is confusing and dangerous. Most people do not read the whole article, but rather look at parts in isolation. Depending upon where they look, they get a different message. And the caveat that "The actual number of infections and cases are likely higher than reported, but impossible to ascertain." is not frequently used. It is used on the table - but you have to notice and click on the note - which I presume 99% of people do not do. If it's important enough to put on the main table, it's important enough at least to go on the main infobox (which is where I guess most people look). If any more justification is needed, please consider this: countries, such as Switzerland, have openly acknowledged that they are not testing the 80% of people with mild symptoms. This means reported cases from Switzerland (and probably elsewhere) are likely 5 times more than is being reported. Best wishes to all and keep up to the good work. Surfingdan (talk) 07:55, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Apologies, I am very tired. Please excuse what I just wrote. Of course it is about saying "reported cases" not "confirmed cases". I leave it to others to decide whether or not "confirmed" is also always needed. Surfingdan (talk) 07:58, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Surfingdan, I would have to say yes, as "confirmed cases" fall under the bigger "reported" or "presumptive cases". Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 16:24, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

@Sdkb and fellow editors, as my account is now confirmed, I have tried to repeat the caveat "Cumulative confirmed cases reported to date. The actual number of infections and cases are likely to be higher than reported, but impossible to ascertain." as on the table next to the main "Confirmed Cases" numbers in the infobox, but this note was deleted soon afterwards - maybe because it is not appropriate to have notes in an infobox? Apologies as I am new to Wikipedia editting and not sure of all the conventions yet. I still feel it is very important that some such caveat be added next to or under where this main figure is quoted. Lots of people look at numbers in isolation and out of context, do not read the whole article. Essentially there is massive underestimating of case numbers going on, as governments calculating and reporting case numbers themselves admit. For example on 12 March the UK government announced that actual case numbers may by then have been 10,000 whereas they were then reporting just 596. I feel it is incredibly important right now that people understand this, and most people do not, as they are looking at numbers in isolation for "cases" provided by many news outlets without any context or caveats. All case number estimates right now are massively under-estimated because no country is testing the likely 40% of people who are asymptomatic and only few countries are testing the 40% of those who only have mild symptoms. Some countries are not even testing all the seriously ill, at least during initial outbreaks - e.g. in Spain. And no country has yet tested more than 1% of their population, so it is an absolute certainty that all case numbers are massive under-estimates. Therefore can a text somehow be added directly under where the "confirmed cases" is reported in the infobox to state simply "actual numbers of cases are likely to be much higher". Is this possible? Thanks! Surfingdan (talk) 11:48, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

I have just tried again to add the caveat "Actual numbers of cases are likely to be much higher" to the infobox, next to where Confirmed Cases are reported. This time I did it in text, with two references. But it was immediately removed. I do not understand - if this caveat is good enough for the main table (where it is in a note to the label "cases"), why not on the infobox too? The infobox is more important than the main table, as it gives total numbers of cases and is likely where people first look. Moreover, there are so many references to support this point. Please can someone help with this? Surfingdan (talk) 22:50, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

@Surfingdan: the edit history will show you who reverted the changes. Unfortunately, since this article is receiving so many edits and not all editors are using good edit summaries as you are (thank you for that), it can take some work to dig through. You can ping them to ask for explanation via {{u|TheirUsername}}. Sdkb (talk) 01:24, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

References

Text on total "confirmed cases"

Not sure why this is in the infobox?

"(Actual numbers of infections are likely to be much higher)"

Yes it says "confirmed cases". It does not say total confirmed and unconfirmed cases... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:27, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

References

MDPI is a possible predatory source.

We should not be using popular press for this. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:28, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

I have put it as a note. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:53, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Mortality rate

How should we summarize the mortality rate as this is also going back and forth a lot.

WHO on Mar 6th states "While the true mortality of COVID-19 will take some time to fully understand, the data we have so far indicate that the crude mortality ratio (the number of reported deaths divided by the reported cases) is between 3-4%, the infection mortality rate (the number of reported deaths divided by the number of infections) will be lower. For seasonal influenza, mortality is usually well below 0.1%. However, mortality is to a large extent determined by access to and quality of health care."

In my opinion this is better than a letter published in Nature on March 19th https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0822-7

Or a viewpoint in JAMA from Feb 24th https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2762130

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:04, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

• I agree that WHO is more reputible than the others so it should be changed to fit the WHO naritive. — RealFakeKimT 19:29, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

no viewpoints no views WHO doesn’t meet medrs either when they are doing individual studies. No mortality rate. —Almaty (talk) 15:32, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Table

Country	Cases (23 March)	Deaths	Case fatality rate (CFR)
Mainland China	81,093	3,270	4.03%
Italy	63,927	6,077	9.51%
United States	44,011	560	1.27%
Spain	35,068	2,299	6.56%
Germany	29,056	123	0.42%
Iran	23,049	1,812	7.86%
France	19,856	860	4.33%
South Korea	8,961	111	1.24%
Switzerland	8,795	120	1.36%
United Kingdom	6,661	335	5.03%
Netherlands	4,769	214	4.49%
Austria	4,474	21	0.47%
Belgium	3,743	88	2.35%
Norway	2,570	10	0.39%
Portugal	2,060	23	1.12%
total 195 countries	378,601	16,505	4.36%

Isn't it a bit redundant and somewhat confusing to have this table? The only thing that it has that the template next to it doesn't is each country's case fatality rate. Sometimes the figures in each table don't match. Could the case fatality rate be incorporated into the template? If so, it might be a bit less crowded on this page.

And when did Portugal adopt the Swedish flag? Kelisi (talk) 01:58, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

On the template, consensus has generally been against adding any more columns, so I doubt there would be support for adding the death rate there. I do agree, however, that the table here is redundant. Especially the apparent lack of updating it gets compared to the template. United States Man (talk) 02:05, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Kelisi portugal corrected. Yug (talk) 00:24, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Regarding this table, I believe per MOS:FLAG, there shouldn't be any flags as they do not increase understanding of the subject, and also it could be beneficial to only include the worst affected countries on the table (bit like the one to the right of this discussion), and have a separate article for all countries. --TedEdwards 19:19, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Agree. The flags are unimportant and should be removed. Perhaps the left column could thereby be shortened, which will reduce crowding of the text to the left, esp. on small monitors. Kablammo (talk) 20:26, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Case Fatality Rate

The new Case Fatality Rate table seems mostly nonsense unless we're trying to estimate how bad testing is country-to-country. Tom Ruen (talk) 01:39, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

2019–20 coronavirus pandemic#Deaths

Yah it has been added a number of times. Okay have removed it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:06, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Not see a reason not to include this, this appears in other outbreaks' pages. But for now it should be named "crude CFR" or "naive CFR" according to the medical literature and it should be explained that this is a temporary number that could change significantly as more data comes in [11][12]. Damperin99 (talk) 04:29, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't think saying, "Here's a number, but it's useless and you should ignore it" is a good strategy. These numbers are misleading. We should remove all CFR tables. They are WP:OR. There are plenty of WP:MEDRS we can cite. Bondegezou (talk) 12:15, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Here is a source from the Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine. Damperin99 (talk) 16:10, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

There is already Template:2019-20 coronavirus pandemic data/Case fatality rate template table updated from time to time (as it is not linked anywhere). Could you please include it? --😷 garyCZEk 📢 ✍ ｛🧒👧👦🚲💻🚗🍣｝ 14:38, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Agree with Tom Ruen The table is WP:OR since no reliable sources are publishing these figures. Actually it's not a CFR, it's a crude mortality rate. CFR calculation is much more complex - take a look at some of the cited sources or at [[13]] Robertpedley (talk) 23:30, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

They were not evacuated, they were removed.

The building was evacuated—or in the case of the article, the places. CFRB's Mike Stafford said that over 10 years ago. If those people were evacuated, it'd be pretty messy. DMBFFF (talk) 02:12, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

DMBFFF, can you provide more context? Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 03:02, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

No sources from the former CFRB talk show host, but wikt:evacuated seems to support it. More of a personal annoyance to me than anything I could readily support with sources. DMBFFF (talk) 03:30, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

DMBFFF, that would be helpful, but where in the article are you seeing this issue? Under the subsection "Evacuation of foreign citizens"? Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 16:30, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

You got it. That's probably the major one."Removal of foreign citizens" seems more grammatically correct. There's also the section link, Evacuations related to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic. The title seems grammatical enough, but the content? hmmm. DMBFFF (talk) 16:52, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Removal of foreign citizens does not covey the same meaning. It suggests foreign citizens are being kicked out of somewhere rather than being repatriated by their country of citizenship. Repatriation may be acceptable, but IMO evacuation is fine. As always a dictionary is not a good source here, especially not wiktionary. What matters is sources and plenty of sources use evacuation. See also [14], List of mass evacuations, Emergency evacuation, Evacuations of civilians in Britain during World War II, Medical evacuation, Casualty evacuation etc. Note that per [15] "This was indeed a usage controversy until about WWII, by which time the ‘remove (people)’ sense had taken firm hold. According the MWDEU: ‘The respectability of this sense is no longer subject to question.’" I know some consider this the worst crisis since WW2, so perhaps it's a good time to remember that WW2 ended nearly 75 years ago. (Actually planned events for the 75th anniversary of VE Day have been impacted etc.) Nil Einne (talk) 06:32, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Nil, fully agree. For what it's worth, the first two meanings in wikt:evacuation refer to people being moved out of danger, meaning 4 is messy. Regarding your last sentence, impacted is for teeth (meaning 2) which always seems very disagreeable, "have been affected" works better for me. Anyway, the wording in the article at present looks good. . . . dave souza, talk 18:03, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

again, more of a personal annoyance for me.
In my simplistic way of thinking, if they were kicked out, or more aptly, forced out, say "kicked" or "forced" out.
If they were repatriated, say "they were repatriated."
If they were removed, say "they were removed."

—unless I suppose one wants to use a word that has two extra letters and over twice as many syllables, and instead of sounding plain, one can sound more sophisticated using it.
(or as as a line I read in Omni (magazine) years ago I think put it "don't use a big word when a diminutive one will do.")

"Evacuation" is a noun, "evacuated" is a verb; and in Wiktionary, the former isn't much more a synonym for "removal" than the latter is for "removed."

I suppose if we change to "remove/removed/removing" in this article there's what, 100s of other articles we'd also have to change.

Still, I thought I'd at least raise it as an issue. maybe make a bigger issue of it later (months? years?).

Thanks Nil and dave for your time. DMBFFF (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:09, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

(As for worst crises since WWII, the Cold War and the so-called "Cultural Revolution" might be better candidates. I figure so far this year at least 700 000 Americans have died because of other reasons (330 million x 1% ÷ (≈1/4) ≈ 700 000). I hope all those intending to go to the 75th are alive and well enough for the 76th or whenever we get a good vaccine or similarly good treatment. DMBFFF (talk) 04:28, 26 March 2020 (UTC))

Approximately.

Does anyone object to the use of approximately, in the lede, when referring to the quantity of deaths? Seeing as two sources are being used, and the fact that not all deaths can be attributed 100% to the effects of the virus, I think its use would be preferable. MattSucci (talk) 10:57, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

• Support per nom — RealFakeKimT 12:10, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
• The current text uses "more than": we know these numbers are flawed, but we know the inaccuracy is in one direction. The numbers are certainly underestimates. So does "more than" convey that better than "approximately"? Bondegezou (talk) 12:17, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
• I think that's what is beneficial about "approximately" as it leans neither to the plus nor minus side and also takes into account the space between the hundreds. It isn't of game-changing significance, just a matter of preference. Anymore thoughts from other editors? MattSucci (talk) 16:06, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support perfectly reasonable. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:54, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support. We can only go with what's reported when reality is most likely skewed from that. --Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 04:49, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
• weak support. The "at least" bit might be a little sensationalist and/or POV, and, yeah, we really aren't absolutely sure about numbers. DMBFFF (talk) 04:57, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Social distancing vs. physical distancing

Heads up: there's a requested move at Talk:Social_distancing#"Social_distancing"_now_known_as_"physical_distancing" that's still ongoing but looks headed toward retaining "social distancing" as the title. (Please share thoughts there, not here, to keep discussion centralised.) We should follow the lead of whatever decision gets made there as far as the term we use here. Sdkb (talk) 21:12, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

commented--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:51, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

They're used interchangeably, although mass media and world leaders state social distancing, so Physical distancing should redirect to social distancing. 2607:FB90:7A56:4654:45D5:870E:F9D:E8BF (talk) 02:07, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Second paragraph grammar

Okay, so I didn't go through any of the massive discussion above, other than noticing that it's humongous, but looking at the result, we need to do a bit of grammar tidying up. Here's what was closed as consensus:

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

In the second sentence, it's not clear what the referent of "it" is. Can we safely replace "it" with "the virus"? Sdkb (talk) 00:27, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Seeing no replies, I'm going to go ahead and boldly implement the fix. Hopefully this is just an uncontroversial copy matter and I'm not stepping on any mines; if I am, feel free to revert. Sdkb (talk) 10:20, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

User:Sdkb sounds good. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:31, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Quarantines/curfews/lockdowns to mention in the lead section

We currently have this sentence in the lead section:

Efforts to prevent the virus spreading include travel restrictions, quarantines, curfews, event postponements and cancellations, and facility closures. These include a quarantine of Hubei, nationwide quarantines in Italy and elsewhere in Europe, nationwide lockdown in India, curfew measures elsewhere in China and South Korea, various border closures or incoming passenger restrictions, screening at airports and train stations, and travel advisories regarding regions with community transmission.

References

Are we including the appropriate examples, or should we make changes? I expect that we'll eventually reach a point where there are so many nationwide lockdowns that it no longer makes sense to list them individually in the lead section. Sdkb (talk) 01:07, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

sorry I just did it continently before I saw this comment —Almaty (talk) 15:10, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

and the lead technically shouldn’t cite at all it’s meant to be in the body, —Almaty (talk) 15:29, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Incorrect and paradoxical information

Number of Iran's deaths aren't being updated for a while. The number of territories affected are different in the table and above. Aminabzz (talk) 11:42, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

• Iran's deaths haven't been updated becuse no one has come forward with a reliable source that disputes the current total. The number of territories in the info box and locations in the table are difrent becuse in the table britsh depencencys etc etc are groupt togeather. Also the number of territories is rounded down to the nearest 10. — RealFakeKimT 12:02, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Date of first report

Why is the date of first report written as 17 November? Wasn't it in December? Aminabzz (talk) 11:56, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

• There are multipule sources saying the first confirmed case was in 17 Novmeber (Including the timeline wikipedia padge) — RealFakeKimT 12:05, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

• First case was most likely Novber 17. However, China reported to the WHO in December 31, 2019. See this discussion for more. 2607:FB90:7B49:613A:B83C:EC7B:288B:F4A9 (talk) 12:06, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

This is one journalist in SCMP who claimed to see government documents. It is unverified, the other sources are reporting on that journalist. —Almaty (talk) 15:24, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

References

“Flatten the curve” is political rhetoric and not encyclopaedic

We can see in our own graphs, that as a pandemic that may be controlled, those that do control well don’t flatten their curve, they bend their curve. Flatten the curve is political rhetoric and needs to be recognised as such . —Almaty (talk) 13:23, 25 March 2020 (UTC) User:Doc James would you be interested in collaborating with me on this? —Almaty (talk) 13:29, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

first ref —Almaty (talk) 13:31, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

There are two separate concepts. One is to spread out cases overtime to decrease how much the health care system is overwhelmed (know as flattening the curve). This concept has been around long before this pandemic in the field of public health and epidemiology.

The second concept is decreasing the overall number of cases. Both are important and ideally efforts would be undertaken to achieve both.

I would stay away from the popular press. They love present controversy were there is not any. The heading should have been "Yes flatten the curve but all decrease the total number of cases". Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:34, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

personally as an outbreak communicator we always constantly monitor the popular press... and I cite them if they’re clearer than the medrs source, I’m just asking if the text around it should be changed —Almaty (talk) 13:40, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

we need clearer evidence on the page of how the pandemic can and had been controlled, they bend thier curves, for the first time in history.. exciting stuff User:Doc James —Almaty (talk) 13:42, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

but it’s not decreasing the number of cases, it is eliminating it, domestically as per China. It’s not just decreasing cases, it’s unprecedented —Almaty (talk) 13:50, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

• Flattening to curve isn't a political tool it's to help heath surveses to save lives. — RealFakeKimT 14:13, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

it is better to bend it. Like China —Almaty (talk) 15:23, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Sure it is better to both spread cases out over time and decrease the total number of cases than to do just one. No one is arguing against that. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:26, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

• To be honest I'm not 100% sure what bending the curve is. From what Iv'e infured from reading some articals it's besicaly putting the whole countrie on lockdown. If you could define it that would be help me form an opinion. — RealFakeKimT 17:12, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Bending or flattening the curve is taking action to slow down the rate of infection - to spread it out over time. The "curve" is a graph of the number of infections against time, with a straight horizontal line showing the capacity of the health care system. The goal described by "flattening the curve" is to keep hospitals and health care systems from being overwhelmed by a too-rapid spike in serious illness requiring hospitalization. This has become a widely used term to describe the situation, used by medical professionals as well as journalists, and IMO it should definitely be in the article. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:04, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

(EC) It seems clear that Almaty is using bending the curve as being different from flattening the curve so they aren't the same thing from their POV. However, even if one source used this, it would IMO be a mistake for us to do so based on that one source precisely for that confusion shown by MelanieN's response. Other sources do in fact use bending and flattening basically interchangeably [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21]. What Almaty refers to as "bend the curve" has been called "stamp it out", "eliminate", "suppression" or arguably "controlled" (that infamous WHO comment) and IMO all of those are less confusing than "bend the curve". If bend the curve becomes the predominant name than sure, but not based on that one SMH article. Nil Einne (talk) 20:50, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

See [22] which uses eradicate which shows even in Australia, it doesn't seem like "bend the curve" is a universally agreed term. Nil Einne (talk) 21:35, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Unless there is a scientific source for "bending the curve" then it should not be used. Here they use "suppression" to refer to reducing R0 to below 1 - [23]. That has already been given in the article. Hzh (talk) 20:28, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Number Of Dead Indian Patients

The number of dead people in India is 9, not 12. Please check the figures at the Indian webpage before making any changes... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hardaat Singh Baath (talk • contribs) 13:35, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

• N Not Done no source provided. — RealFakeKimT 14:10, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Incorrect lockdown date for France

In the "Domestic Responses" section for France, the page states "A national lockdown was put in place on 27 March." Kindly note,

• The 27 March has not yet occurred(!)
• French President Emmanuel Macron announced the national confinement order on the evening of 16 March. It went into effect at noon on 17 March, which is the correct date.

The correct date is referenced here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_coronavirus_pandemic_in_France

(Bkknuth (talk) 14:55, 25 March 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bkknuth (talk • contribs) 14:48, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Good catch – thank you! Fixed :) Accedie^{talk to me} 15:12, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Diagnostic testing sensitivity/specificity

There is very little public data on how sensitive and specific the current real-time PCR test versus CT imaging testing is for COVID-19, probably because there is no actual gold standard. The article current referenced in the "diagnostic section" (, is an abstract of the article by Ai et al. . Ai et al. 2019 use review of clinical history, imaging, and viral testing results to make a determination in hindsight regarding each case's probability of having COVID-19. They believe that actual sensitivity of PT-PCR is low because only 30-60% of people admitted to their hospital with symptoms tested positive for COVID (), but this idea has not been peer-reviewed.

Therefore, I think it's misleading to cite sensitivity and specificity estimates for viral testing and CT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sophieroad (talk • contribs) 15:21, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

References

Growth rates vs case-counts?

Can we add graphs that show both growth rates and case counts for key countries? The semi-log plots are hard for some people to comprehend, and the exponential curves for different countries all look very similar. The growth rate would be useful to show how effectively countries are able to reduce spread of the virus.

scottt (talk) 15:55, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Case counts are science fiction because the vast majority of infections with minor symptoms are not tested and counted in statistics. Why pollute the article with more fictional gunk that is incorrect by a factor of five to ten or even more? This article is already grossly misleading because of this. 85.76.76.47 (talk) 17:42, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

I think you are suggesting that confirmed case counts will underrepresent actual cases. Yes, this is a known fact and it is addressed elsewhere. You could discuss this in a section regarding testing methodology and stealth transfer. That said, the growth rate is not affected by limits to testing policy, as the growth rate of uncounted cases will generally mirror the growth rate of confirmed cases. The growth rate is useful to know if suppression efforts are being successful or not. scottt (talk) 19:49, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Peru is in national lockdown since monday 16

Since monday, march 16 and for 15 days, Peru is in national lockdown.

That is not reflected in the maps or the information written in this article.

Here are some links in spanish that can verify this information:

• https://gestion.pe/peru/politica/coronavirus-en-peru-gobierno-anuncia-cuarentena-obligatorio-por-15-dias-por-coronavirus-noticia/
• https://mag.elcomercio.pe/respuestas/cuanto-durara-la-cuarentena-por-coronavirus-en-peru-hasta-cuando-durara-el-estado-de-emergencia-nacional-covid-19-nnda-nnlt-noticia/
• https://elcomercio.pe/lima/sucesos/coronavirus-en-peru-que-se-puede-hacer-y-que-no-ante-la-orden-de-cuarentena-dispuesta-para-evitar-el-covid-19-vicente-zeballos-carlos-moran-nndc-noticia/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by José Ignacio Cabrejos (talk • contribs) 16:29, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Excerpts

Hi! In the Spanish Wikipedia, we're using the Template:Excerpt to keep the various sections of the article synced with the subarticles (Ctrl+F "extracto"), and it's helping us greatly in easing the maintenance and guiding contributors to collaborate rather than working in parallel. Maybe it should be implemented here too? Sophivorus (talk) 17:07, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

yes excerpts have been used here as well(though sparingly)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:57, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Yep, I support the idea. The issue with using any excerpts from this particular article, as I noted here, is that there's someone or some process moving all the references to the end, so the places where the new text appears are generating reference errors. (And yes, as you mentioned last time, excerpting from the bigger article to smaller ones is doing it a little backwards, but I'm inclined to do so because this article is getting a lot more attention and as a result is just better.) Sdkb (talk) 01:43, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

@Sophivorus:, if you're inclined to take it on, I think a great place for adding an excerpt to this article would be the misinformation section. It's currently too long, so if the intro at Misinformation related to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic could be improved, it could be excerpted into here to use as the misinfo section. Sdkb (talk) 01:46, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Deaths section

By 24 March more than 16,700 deaths had been attributed to COVID-19.[259] Most of those who have died were elderly—about 80% of deaths were in those over 60, and 75% had pre-existing health conditions including cardiovascular diseases and diabetes.[260]

The above text is near the top of the Deaths section. These two sentences are not connected and the second is misleading. I looked at the second sentence and it refers to an article published Feb 5 using stats from China. To me it reads like this: Most of those who have died (in the World by March 24) were elderly—about 80% of deaths were in those over 60, and 75% had pre-existing health conditions including cardiovascular diseases and diabetes.

when it should be Most of those who have died (in China by Feb 5) were elderly—about 80% of deaths were in those over 60, and 75% had pre-existing health conditions including cardiovascular diseases and diabetes.

Also it is better if the two statements are in chronological order. Serendipity33 (talk) 23:46, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

The source should be updated. Month-and-a-half old data shouldn't be used. 2607:FB90:7A56:4654:45D5:870E:F9D:E8BF (talk) 01:43, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. Especially if readers cannot tell the data is one and a half months old. Who is able to update it?Serendipity33 (talk) 02:35, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

By the way, you should indent your comment because it's a reply to my comment. Prefix one ":" at the start of your comment per level of indent. For example, to reply to this comment, since this comment is a third level comment, you'd start your message with ":::: <message>". I've applied the proper indentation to your comment. 2607:FB90:7A56:4654:45D5:870E:F9D:E8BF (talk) 02:54, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

This has been bugging me for a while. Added {{cn}}. Xavexgoem (talk) 04:10, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmation request

Yes, even normal users can vandalize the page. Can an admin put the page on extended-confirmed protection? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doctor Zoath (talk • contribs) 00:06, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Update New Zealand Cases

New Zealand now has 283 cases: https://i.stuff.co.nz/national/health/coronavirus/120495548/live-pm-jacinda-ardern-to-give-update-on-coronavirus-alert-level — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lord A.Nelson (talk • contribs) 00:22, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Already updated thanks. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:18, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Do not manually archive the page

Please do not cut and paste content onto archives. Wait for the bot to archive threads, or if it's too full, use a script. This archive attempt resulted in part of a template, two section headers, and two subthreads to remain on the main page. Those had to be manually cleaned up. 2607:FB90:7A56:4654:45D5:870E:F9D:E8BF (talk) 01:41, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Apologies for creating the trouble. I was using a script, the One-Click Archiver, but it may not have functioned properly. Because those sections were subheads and there was still active discussion elsewhere in the maps section, they weren't going to get archived by a bot anytime soon, but they needed to go. Thanks for cleaning up after my botched cleaning up of the page, and if you have advice on what to do differently next time, please lmk. Sdkb (talk) 01:50, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

@Sdkb: If there are still active discussions, the thread cannot be archived. It needs to be restored if discussion is still active. Furthermore, in the future, to get all subthreads, use the "[edit]" links next to a section header and use Control+A (Command+A on Macs) to highlight the entirety of the thread, and then use Control+X (Command+X on Macs) to cut the text selected, which will archive a thread and every subthread. Then, on the archive page, use Control+V (Command+V on Macs) to paste the content that was previously cut. I'll restore both threads. 2607:FB90:7A56:4654:45D5:870E:F9D:E8BF (talk) 01:55, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Furthermore, I do not have the permissions to delete the content off of the subpage, so could someone delete the last two threads? 2607:FB90:7A56:4654:45D5:870E:F9D:E8BF (talk) 02:01, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

I replied above, but bringing back the archived threads was an extremely bad idea, and I wish you had consulted us before doing so. Someone else, please archive them again to get the clutter on this talk page under control. Sdkb (talk) 03:32, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Wide art malformats text

There is wide art (images or graphics) in the article that pinches text until the text is too narrow. Such art should be narrowed, or placed under its own section separate from article text.

Examples from article: Note that the text size is large but in the normal range for readability. (Laptop into TV via HDMI)

• 
• 
• 

-Zahadan (talk) 03:12, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

misleading

according to this article the deaths on US has reached 1,000+ deaths while in 2020 coronavirus pandemic in the United States hasn't yet? confusing.

(To unsigned) The main article tends to updated first, and other articles second or possibly third. -Zahadan (talk) 03:26, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Central notice links here

Today's central notice from Katherine Maher talking about you and talking for you ("We will keep working around the clock..."). Thought you should know. --SI 04:14, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm curious what that notice will do for this page's pageviews (given that there's some indication we're not as prominent on Google as we ought to be). I appreciate the thanks she's giving us, although I would've preferred for her to stop by this talk page to offer us pie as RedSoxFan274 did a few days ago. Sdkb (talk) 05:29, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 March 2020

User123654789 (talk) 05:32, 26 March 2020 (UTC)Maldives recovered cases: 8

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:34, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

"2019–20 outbreak of North East Respiratory Syndrome(NERS) (NERS-nCoV)" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect 2019–20 outbreak of North East Respiratory Syndrome(NERS) (NERS-nCoV). Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Carl Fredrik ^talk 05:53, 26 March 2020 (UTC)