Talk:COVID-19 pandemic in Canada/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

Canadian Deaths

To my understanding, the CBC has reported one Canadian death in North Vancouver as of 2020-03-09, we must update this page to reflect that thejacxb —Preceding undated comment added 18:32, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

The death occurred on Sunday March 8th, it was reported today Monday March 9th, See:(CBC News) 68.148.230.9 (talk) 23:04, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

https://coronavirus.1point3acres.com/en is not a reliable source

See here, this is a self-published source by non-experts and should not be used in Wikipedia. Please use either official counts or the CSSE source which has been published in a peer reviewed academic journal. --hroest 22:01, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Years removed from dates in article

Why were all the years removed from dates used in citations for this article?

@Doc James: it looks like something you did affected the entire article and not just the overview table? ViperSnake151  Talk  15:04, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

What are you referring to User:ViperSnake151? I am seeing lots of years in citations. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:09, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
That's odd ... must've went away. I swear it was like that (and there were indeed revisions where they were, so maybe they fixed themselves?). ViperSnake151  Talk  16:19, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:06, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

What do blank table entries mean?

Do blank entries in the table, e.g., "By province" signify values of zero, or that the data are unavailable? The distinction should be made clear. See, e.g., the present line for March 13. Unavailable data could be indicated with a dash. Layzeeboi (talk) 20:49, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Is a table of infected persons appropriate or necessary?

This table only seems to deal with a few of those infected in Canada. It also seems too detailed and somewhat personal. Perhaps, I am just being too sensitive, but should this really be included?--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 21:58, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

I have the same concern. It is specific to Quebec and is missing many of the fields. I do not believe the table adds any significant value to the article. – StreetSodatalk 03:37, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
I agree, but it could be summarized by region and the fact that all people had a travel history (so far). --hroest 13:58, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
Until March 6, anyway (first community case). There is some value in identifying location of travel, when known (we currently have nothing indicating U.S.-sourced infection); and community cases as discovered. Maybe take a look at the Ontario page "recent cases" https://www.ontario.ca/page/2019-novel-coronavirus , use a variant of that template? - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 10:00, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Common use pix needed

Airport information kiosk images from YVR or YYZ (as the original transportation loci in this context), closed poster on a venue, hospital quarantine poster, health minister/Trudeau/Dr. Theresa Tam giving announcements, etc. They must be fair use or Creative Commons licensing. I think we could use about 3-4 of these -- minimum one political, one social (other than bare shelves, we already have that), one private sector. - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 12:14, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

A TSX chart, maybe? covering Feb 24-Mar 13? - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 23:14, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Overhaul

This is currently a mess of an article. We literally have nothing here except a rough timeline of responses (inaccurately called an overview) and early cases in each province -- which is actively distorting a true overview of current information. If someone where to come here, they would have no coherent information on responses. In fact, they would not even have any way of knowing that the majority of new Canadian cases for more than a week now are directly linked to U.S. travel!

I am going to tackle this overhaul sometime in the next few hours. My goal is to edit key information into discrete groupings which will make information clearer, and the whole article more encyclopaedic in style and tone. I will probably have to add new information to flesh out underdeveloped sections -- leaving the referencing at raw urls, since that part is not my strength.

I would greatly appreciate it if, having done this, differences of opinion are taken here and not to a reactory mass delete. - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 01:02, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Currently cleaning up timeline. In most cases where an initial decision was extended, you will now find this in the original month that decision was taken. Even if specific prose is not mentioned of a particular extension, it will be trackable in the references. (I hung onto all of those.) - Tenebris — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.11.171.90 (talk) 10:06, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
Looks like a good deal of the province-by-province (eg) school closures could be moved into "Government responses". That will be my next tackle after finishing March. - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 10:16, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
Actually I am going to leave finishing the timeline overhaul (February, March) until last. Other work will give a better sense of what is needed here. So currently working on private sector reactions, postponements, and cancellations. - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 10:36, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Breaking for now. I have not yet fully tackled timeline (February, March) or Private sector reactions (Air Canada and WestJet closing down routes should go in here). I have not yet touched Additional information on cases (going to add a statistics section in here, and the prose in each provincial section should be overhauled -- I expect to cut it down by half). I only touched the surface of closures, cancellations, etc. It would be a good idea to add the source of infection to the case table while we still can -- if travel-related, mention which country. - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 12:23, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Cleaning up article is a good idea. I would suggest moving all the bits about the measures taken by each government and putting them all into a single "government reaction" section, instead of leaving them scattered in each province's section on the outbreak in that province. I don't want conflicting edits so I won't do that, but I think there should be a single section for all government reactions. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 13:16, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

That is exactly the plan. Thank you for checking here. I had been prioritizing centralized information and working my way down from that -- the intent in that section is to have separate sections on federal, provincial/territorial, and civic actions being taken. In fact, one of the reasons I expect to cut down the prose in the scattered sections by half is precisely sorting out all the provincial stuff below ... only not just yet. Give me a few hours break! - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 13:28, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Understood! Everyone needs a break from time to time! I don’t know much about health stuff, but may be able to help on gov’t questions. Will monitor the article and make suggestions if anything comes up. Thanks for doing this. I’m sure a lot of people will be reading this article, so we want it to be as accurate and readable as possible. Good organisation is very helpful. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 14:23, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

I wonder if it wouldn't make more sense to move the section on "Cases by Province" to follow the "Timeline" section, and then have the various sections on responses by governments and the private sector? Right now, there's the general timeline, the various responses, and only then the detailed info on the cases. For an article on a pandemic, shouldn't the progression of the disease by province come before the responses? Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 19:36, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
(Not officially here yet ...) I am going to be seriously paring down the prose on "Cases by province" (still would prefer a different title for that section) to core information; and also adding some statistics to the beginning of that section, just to distill the table into an at-a-glance summary. Offhand, it looks like I will be pulling some of that information for the government (provincial/territorial, and possibly city) sections; no reason it should be in there. I don't want to mix any of this in with Timeline -- that should be reserved for key markers, which is why I am leaving it until last (when I will have a better sense of when those key markers are.
What I do think would be very useful for this article -- in that section -- is a second table showing province / city / cases / by source of infection (specific country of travel, community) / time (by weeks, counting week 1 as the first week a case was reported, follow calendar Sun-Sat convention). I can almost picture the structure of it, but not enough to outline it at this point. Give me 24 hours (unless someone else gets to it first). Since nearly all Canadian cases have thus far been travel-related, that table will show the change over time in the pattern of spread, possibly more clearly than any other country's can do (because of the particularly wide diversity of travel). - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 23:12, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

So BC and Alberta have been completed in the "Cases by province" section, with the information on travel and recommended self-quarantine moved to the government section. I would ask that prose total cases/testing etc by province keep being updated (information in the links), and that subsequent cases only be added on an individual basis if they are "firsts" (eg. first case from Italy, first confirmed case from the U.S., etc. (Give me another 24 hours, and we just might be able to submit this article for "Good article" review!) - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 10:29, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

I liked the paring down of the Alberta case section. Will you do the same for Ontario? It's very bloated, especially since there is a separate Ontario article.
I had some time in my hands so I pulled all the "response" stuff out of the "cases" section and set up separate responses for each province. If we can keep the "cases" section restricted to info about the medical cases, I think that's best. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 14:24, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, and thanks for the pulls. I started a separate discussion on the section move. - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 16:34, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Map colour scheme

The current colour scheme seems a little bit off. Going from yellow, to salmon, to brown, then to bright red doesn't make much sense. I suggest using only obvious shades of red as is done on the main map (right). TrailBlzr (talk) 17:55, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm not particularly attached to this colour scheme, I just used the same as the United States article for consistency. I personally think it should stay the same for consistency and ease of comparison but it can be changed if consensus feels otherwise.UmpireRay (talk) 19:07, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
I'm okay with this colour scheme. If we used the world-wide one, would we have to use the same scale as that one, but lose level of detail for our lower numbers ? Or, if we use the same colours as the world map, but change the scale to provide more detail, would that cause confusion with the world map scale? Different scales may call for different color schemes? Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 20:03, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
No, the scale should of course be relevant to Canada's numbers. The colours on the global map make it obvious which places have been hardest hit; it's less obvious on the Canada map which provinces have been hit the hardest because the colours don't entirely make sense. TrailBlzr (talk) 21:05, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
So it's the "light shading to dark" as a visual expression of severity that you'd like? I'm okay with that, if we keep the same scale as the map currently has. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 21:31, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
Alright, I have updated the map to use a more consistent colour scale (as used in other articles) while maintaining Canada-specific scale. UmpireRay (talk) 22:09, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
For colourblind purposes, shading of a single colour, as is the case in your sample, tends to work better than using different colours. - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 23:16, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
The current teal is actually a rather difficult colour for colourblindness; tends to muddy on both the RG and BY spectrums. The previous red was better. - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 16:43, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Memorial University

Don't have time to edit this myself: [1]. Hope this helps. 2607:FEA8:D5E1:1D00:D1E0:753E:4BB6:EDFA (talk) 16:45, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Added to article. Thanks! Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 18:10, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Newfoundland and Labrador schools

Once again, I don't have time to edit this myself: [2] 2607:FEA8:D5E1:1D00:60C7:8A16:43BC:1D23 (talk) 20:42, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia is Not a Newspaper

Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a newspaper While including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information. Timely news subjects not suitable for Wikipedia may be suitable for our sister project Wikinews, though that is not a particularly active project.

If wikipedia does not publish news, how useful is this Wiki article? The situation in Ontario is changing daily!! https://www.tvo.org/article/covid-19-what-you-need-to-know-for-march-16?fbclid=IwAR1LAjLWoS5dDrq8Yyl6R9-uyEg99M2j2KFhRk2sK-TUib7dwNCEntuJzso

The point of an encyclopaedic article is to offer a broad overview of a subject. In this particular case, the article does not document every single piece of incoming information about changes in Ontario (eg. each new case, day-to-day changes in Ford policy and occasional backtracking, what the TTC has to say on every given day), but attempts to distill and summarize all that information into a sweeping coherent picture. Hope this helps. - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 08:04, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

There are 177 cases of COVID-19 in Ontario, according to the latest numbers from provincial health officials on Monday morning. That's a jump of 32 cases from Sunday afternoon's official tally. All but nine of those are in the GTA. Five of them have been resolved. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/ontario-covid-19-coronavirus-monday-1.5498849

Peter K Burian (talk) 21:10, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Numbers not matching up

The "COVID-19 cases in Canada" box says 434 cases right now, but the "COVID-19 cases in Canada by province" table says 413. This divergence seems to have started on March 12th at 157 vs 156 and it has grown to a gap of 4, 7, and then 21 over subsequent days.

Are there cases which aren't being reported in the provincial table? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.46.25.140 (talk) 23:50, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Probably. I don't know how many of us have significant free time outside family and jobs, and events have jumped (as expected) this past weekend. We can get the overall numbers from a single source, but case-by-case analysis often requires checking several different sources. Also, it is the nature of an event such as this that there will always be a delay in updating the numbers throughout all the pages, and those numbers often change even as they are being changed. It's not just WP either. The major worldwide counters don't add up the same ways either, and sometimes even backtrack where it turns out cases came in twice from different sources. In the U.S., it has gotten to the point where two different numbers are shown for totals in the sidebar, because they are so widely different. I can take a look at it if I still have spare time after tackling the other sections, but probably someone else will get to it before me. - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 08:07, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

People are going to keep posting updates to closures, cancellations, cases, etc, and we definitely want new editors to keep supporting this article by adding new information. We have hammered out a few guidelines for various sections here. Is there any way of adding a top-of-page message to this specific editing page explaining (eg.) that we are putting cancelled/postponed events in chronological order? or are those kinds of messages limited to WP as a whole? - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 09:37, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Overhaul - cancelled/postponed section

I propose two options for the cancellations / postponement section. (I have not yet touched sports - it is long, and there is no point doing it one way if the consensus here prefers a different option.) I tentatively went with the one which is more prose, based on WP's style preferences. You can see that version in the Arts, Business, and Tourism subsections.

The other option, which I think looks cleaner but would use bullet form, is to eliminate cancelled / postponed subheadings and instead stick to a straight chronological list, eg.

  • Cancelled: The 2020 Juno Awards presentation, honouring excellence in Canadian music. It was originally planned to be held in Saskatoon on March 15.

This could be divided either chronologically (in which case cancelled and postponed are mixed) or by doing first cancellations and then postponements (or the other way around). The word "cancelled" or "postponed" could be done in bold, if preferred.

Thoughts? - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 09:18, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Yes I just did a bit of clean up there (Hot Docs has no association w/ TIFF and the dates were wrong) and had the same thought: this would all be a little clearer and shorter as bullet points rather than one-sentence paragraphs. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:25, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
  • I think it will eventually be a long list, so bullet/list format may look better and will not have as much bloat. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 14:30, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
    • Ok great, as we three seem to be the more active right now, I suggest we start immediately? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:32, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
  • @Bearcat: we're thinking of going to bullet points and I would also suggest we leave the details of the cancellation for Juno_Awards_of_2020#Cancellation, to avoid duplication and bloating this list? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:37, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
I added the brief note about the confirmed Saskatchewan case to the Juno section, in the process of adding the CFMAs, only because the Juno section was already specifically calling attention to the lack of any Saskatchewan cases as of the cancellation announcement — it kind of violates NPOV to leave the implication that they were just overreacting in place, while not pointing out that reality vindicated them within a few hours — but I have no strong personal opinion about how this article is or isn't formatted going forward. Bearcat (talk) 14:50, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
Thanks Bearcat. I'm going to try to step away from the computer get going here IRL. In cases were we have a good target link like Juno_Awards_of_2020, I think we should take advantage of it and leave the details for there. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:58, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Staying clear of this section while you are working on it. Heads-up that sports items seem to keep ending up in the arts section. Thanks for the TIFF catch, Shawn in Montreal, that one was on me. - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 15:55, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

We really don't need each individual sport to have a subsection. (Besides, one paragraph per subsection is bad WP style.) People who want more detail than one paragraph per sport can go to the linked "Events cancellation" page. For consistency with the other cancelled/postponed events, I am going to drop the subsections altogether, give a single sweeping intro with all the affected leagues, and convert each non-league postponed or cancelled event to bullet form. - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 10:04, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Overhaul - location of "Cases by province"

I would suggest that it be returned to its previous position, simply because the combination of Timeline and Cases by province makes for a wall of text between those two and all other information. Most people coming here will either want to read the whole article or will jump directly to their preferred section; putting it back-to-back with Timeline makes it much more difficult for the article to "flow" for a read-through reader. The expanded ToC already pushes stuff further down below the fold -- not objecting, just noting its effect -- but the combination of Timeline / Cases by province / Government response also creates a bit of a wall right in ToC.

Slight tangent ... do we really need separate provincial sections on "Government response"? That feels like overkill, and adds to the "wall" effect both in the article and in the ToC. All of this can be summarized in a single paragraph per province; maybe two paragraphs for Ontario and BC.

The "Cases by province" section is specifically for more case detail than the overviews provide, and thus it should be close to last, if not last. People looking for details in that section can easily track them via the ToC. (A few more hours available just now -- let's see if it is enough to finish that section completely and add the statistics and epidemiology sections.) - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 15:55, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

  • We do need separate provincial sections on "Government response," I strongly believe. Healthcare is a provincial responsibility and the federal gov't direct role in this area is limited. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:48, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
The reason I moved the Cases up is that I generally go on the newspaper article principle : the most important stuff goes at the top of an article, less important stuff later. By that organizational principle, the number of cases in a pandemic, and their geographic distribution across the country, should come before things like whether the Junos have been cancelled or Tim's has deferred rolling up rims.
With respect to wall of text, I'm afraid this topic is a text heavy one, by its nature. However, that's what the Table of Contents is for: to allow the reader to navigate quickly to the part they want to read. That's why I removed the limit on the levels of the TOC: on a lengthy article, having the sub-headings showing right in the TOC is important for the navigation of the article. The purpose of the TOC is precisely to allow people to jump to the part of the article they want to read, without having to read the whole thing.
With respect to separate headings for each province in the "Response" section, I think there are three reasons for creating separate "response" headings by province (and territory, if they eventually have cases, which seems likely).
First, as Shawn in Montreal points out, Health is largely a provincial/territorial matter, so you potentially have thirteen different responses. Lumping the entire country into a few paragraphs will be difficult.
Second, if there are Province headings for Cases, but not for Responses, the natural tendency of editors will be to stick Province-specific material into the case section, which muddies the waters. That's exactly what had happened, with information about each province's response being entered in the section on that province's cases. Since there will likely continue to be information added on what each province and territory is doing, and those responses may vary, in my opinion it's better to have separate headings, to make it clear where that info on a province's response should go.
Third, why should Ontario and Quebec get special trestment and have their own sections, and the other seven provinces and territories get a generic "Rest of Canada" treatment? To my mind, NPOV means equal treatment for all provinces and territories. Either we just have one section, "Provincial and territorial responses" with all thirteen lumped together, or each province and territory gets equal treatment and their own section. We shouldn't be saying some provinces are more important than others, especially since we don't know in advance which Province or territory may have a more severe infection rate or death rate. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 17:43, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
Not saying they won't, just that in most cases, any differences in those responses can easily be summarized into a single paragraph per province. Not difficult at all. Per #2, editors are still sticking things in the wrong sections even when they are labeled; and the doubling-up of provinces could equally lead editors to stick things into the wrong province box. Per #3, I don't think Ontario or Quebec should get separate treatment, or have to get separate treatment. (Let me write it up and show you ... tomorrow.) As to the data heavy vs. "that's what the ToC is for", I think we should make the article as a whole as reader-friendly as possible. People who are only interested in x or y can always jump to their preferred sections, regardless of section order, whereas readers who want to read through will find it more difficult with the current layout. I think we should make the article as easy as possible for as many people as possible to read in their own manner. (And btw Ontario is done. I can now fit that entire section onto my desktop screen!) - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 18:21, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Sorry - last 24 hours were busier than expected. Relative to this section, I did notice that *every* one of the other pages, and in particular the U.S., UK, and Australia pages, all placed this section at the end or one section away from the end, ie. as the equivalent of an appendix to the article. (The UK accurately titles this section "Statistics".) We are the only major English-language country page to do it differently. Thus, I think it appropriate to move the section back to the end (per the wider country-page consensus), unless there is compelling reason for us specifically to do it differently. (At this point, I do think ours is one of the best quality country-specific pages.)

I also bounced the question past several non-WP editors who were interested in the topic. All of them said that people who were interested in province-specific cases would just cut down to the section which said "Province-specific cases", and that those would also tend to be the people who had relatively little interest in the rest of the article. (Several of them also said that the ToC was too long, and wondered why there were two lists of provinces -- although I see that has already changed.)

I did promise a rewrite sample, which would also have the side effect of eliminating the necessity for a second province-by-province list. Working on it now. I will put it into the main article, along with moving the section to be consistent with other country-specific COVID-19 articles. - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 09:12, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

I like how someone tightened the Ontario section. I came onto this page today thinking to make one of those changes to cut the text; you also found others. Well done. (Note for whoever wants to do it - there should be at least one reference for each from-country first case. It can be the same reference, duplicated.) - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 11:12, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Table does need to be on the right side with wrapped text -- can some kind soul fix it please? For me at least, time spent trying to figure out coding would be better spent writing. - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 09:28, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Limited Table of Contents

What's the reason for the limited Table of Contents? On such a major article, sub and sub-sub headings are very helpful for the organization of the article. Should be shown in the TOC. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 18:58, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

No comment from anyone, so I was bold and eliminated the restriction on TOC depth. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 14:25, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
Admin (and ER doc!) @Doc James: restored that, with some other tweaks. I've no objection to that restoration, certain not for the subheadings I added. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:35, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
Ah sorry missed this. I find having third level headings makes the TOC to long... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:37, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
I think it looks fine now... Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:44, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Ok as a test I removed {{TOC limit}}. There was no consensus by Doc James to remove it. I don't think it's that bad and I think it helps to navigate. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:06, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
  • And I tweaked the sports subheaders using ; - that way they wouldn't show up in the TOC and it doesn't look so bloated. How's that? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:10, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Sorry folks. No, what happened is that someone had made Event cancellations a subheader of Private sector, again. It is not. Not all the events such as sports or arts are private sector. If anyone wants to restore the TOC limit, please do. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:29, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

User:Shawn in Montreal I added it not removed it? Showing more levels of TOC reduces weight for level two heads as they are harder to see. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:48, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Oh yes of course. Sorry, I changed that. Yes, my main concern at the time was just that someone (?) had made or restored event cancellations as a subordinate of private sector and the TOC limit had had the effect of hiding Arts, Sports, etc. -- which was not useful. It was hiding too much useful navigation. Now that Event cancellations is a main section heading again, the TOC limit would be okay with me. (Also, different editors have come along and reexpanded some of the section titles that you had trimmed back. I agree with the restorations.) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:54, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

I had originally made "Cancelled events" part of "Private sector" -- but you are right, not all are, and they should not be there. Broadly speaking, I am also against an overly expanded ToC - more difficult to see the subheaders for many people, and also contributing to that wall of text I keep talking about. As it stands right now, it seems a good compromise between people who want jump-to detail and readability. - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 17:26, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Death-Recoveries-Active Cases Graphic

The Deaths-Recoveries-Active Cases stacked bar graph graphic is an excellent visualization. Nice work. I would be interested in also seeing the derivative, a graph of the daily/weekly percentage change. - R 75.157.179.170 (talk) 19:00, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Well, the derivative won't really have much meaning yet in Canada? So far, all but one case has come from a single cluster of concentrated infections, which does distort the sample. But you are right, it would be relevant not to lose track of this. - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 17:30, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

First child case in Quebec

I've unresigned to help with this and will proceed carefully until I get a feel for how things work. Just point out that as of March 14 we have Quebec's first child case: perhaps someone wants to add that to the text and the tally? https://twitter.com/perreaux/status/1238976120319549440 thanks, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:01, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Welcome back! :) I'm not sure how best to add case info like that. I've just been focusing on article organisation, bare URLs, and stuff like that. Anyone else have an answer for Shawn in Montreal? Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 14:28, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
I will look at it. I have not yet touched the Quebec section -- that is planned for about 12 hours from now. - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 17:31, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

WikiProject COVID-19

I've created WikiProject COVID-19 as a temporary or permanent WikiProject and invite editors to use this space for discussing ways to improve coverage of the ongoing 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic. Please bring your ideas to the project/talk page. Stay safe, --Another Believer (Talk) 17:52, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Will check it out ... although just now it is taking all my spare time to deal with this page! - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 17:33, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Gaming

Minor question for @ViperSnake151: and others: most but not all of the gaming in Canada is provincially owned, right? The two organizations currently cited are a crown corporation and an organization jointly run by the Maritime provinces, I think. So should Gaming not be in Private sector, maybe move to the underpopulated Tourism? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:22, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

That may work better. ViperSnake151  Talk  15:37, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
 Done, thanks. Yes with the Quebec casinos added it's mostly but not all public sector. And I'm bullet pointing them too, helps to condense it a little. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:44, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Gaming in Saskatchewan is partly provincial, partly 1st Nations. Agree Tourism is a better fit. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 12:34, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Moving gambling back to tourism. Sports is populated enough. Besides, the only type of gaming that habitually makes TSN is poker. No one even suggests that slots should be considered a sport. - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 17:40, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
Actually that turned out to be an outright delete, since all that information was already in the second Tourism paragraph. Let's save the point form for events that happen on specific dates (eg. CNE or PNE) - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 17:43, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Overhaul - government response

I have changed my mind - I do think the provincial/territorial subtitles are necessary here, provided they don't end up in the ToC. However, since the impacts are far from equal between provinces (and we hope to keep it that way -- ie. not spreading), could we consolidate some of them? Specifically, I am thinking a division as follows: Alberta, British Columbia, Ontario, Quebec, "Manitoba + Saskatchewan", Atlantic provinces, Territories. This is not about some regions being more equal than others; it is about some regions getting hit much harder than others. We should also have a section on municipal response (Montreal, Toronto, Vancouver) -- this should not require subsections, just 1-2 paragraphs for each (aiming for one). This division should hold out for at least the week, I hope. We can always subdivide further if the number of cases increases. - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 11:24, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Still strongly disagree. It just sounds to me like the big provinces deserve more attention than the the smaller provinces. If some provinces are not as badly affected as other provinces, that is itself an important fact. Is it because of lower number of travellers? Better response from a particular province’s health system and government? Plus, residents of smaller provinces will be checking this page for news. Having specific entries for each province (and territory, if they start getting cases) is important for residents of smaller provinces. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 12:41, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
Plus, to be consistent, wouldn't the entries in the Cases section have to be collapsed in the same way, and the table altered so that the columns are Man+Sask and Atlantic, rather than separate columns for each province? Why would there be any rationale for different treatment in the two sections? The maps should also be altered accordingly. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 12:54, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
The comment about "some regions being harder hit than others" is just looking at numbers. But if the numbers are lower in some provinces than others, that is an important fact, especually if at some point it becomes clear that the responses by some governments have helped to "bend the curve". If that happens, that is equally as significant on an article on the pandemic as the distribution of numbers.
Plus, you're not talking about some "regions" getting harder hit. The regions of Canada, as set out in the Constitution, are Ontario, Quebec, the Maritimes, the West (including BC), and N&L. The proposed division is separate entries for the four biggest provinces, and regional entries for the remaining six provinces and territories, whose residents aren't entitled to the same easy access to information about what their governments are doing as the residents of the four important provinces.
And, of course, big cities in the four important provinces are apparently entitled to their own entries, while the six smaller provinces and the territories aren't deserving of such treatment.
Bottom line is that any division based solely on numbers automatically skews the article in favour of the big provinces. It tells residents of smaller provinces, who come to this article seeking information about what their governments are doing, that they aren't as important because their numbers are lower. PEI's absolute numbers will always be lower than Ontario's numbers. That doesn't mean Islanders should have less access to information than residents of big (i.e. Important) provinces. Organising the article based solely on numbers always means larger provinces get more attention. That's not NPOV. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 13:40, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
I see your point. I will first tackle some of the disruptive (correction - most of it does seem to have been good faith, but differently focused and/or ESL slang) editing on the page, then return here.
However, personally I don't see this issue as province vs province politics, but as a function of relative population and transportation hubs, because that is how virus spread sees it. Within that context, to give regions which have little spread and which are likely to see little spread the same weight as regions which have massive spread and are likely to keep seeing massive spread is NPOV.
Yet now that you remind me, I do remember that there was a political meaning of "region". I really don't want to bring politics into it if it can be avoided. (Viruses don't care about borders.) If you can find a non-political way to express a way to emphasize core areas relative to viral hosts (population) and spread (transportation), I am completely open to it. - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 16:24, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
The non-political way is not to refer to provincial boundaries at all. If the article refers to provincial boundaries when talking about viral hosts and spreads in the big provinces, but "regions" when talking about viral hosts and spreads in the smaller provinces, that is relying on political divisions, and saying some political entities are more significant than others. The residents of smaller provinces are just as entitled to see information about what's going in their province without having to read sections about the big important provinces and then wade through the "others" category to find out what is happening in their province.
And, the phrase "hardest hit" seems to be used in absolute numbers, which again favours the big, important provinces. What if the case-load per million goes off the charts in PEI and the hospitals there are overwhelmed, but their overall numbers are the smallest in Canada? Is it "hardest hit" or just a statistical blip? And again, a low number of cases in a particular province may be an indicator that province is doing well in containment, tracking and treatment, perhaps better than another province. That is useful information in an article about a pandemic. Focuseing on "hardest hit" has the potential to mask significant differences in treatment, particularly if "hardest hit" just means absolute numbers. By that measure, the big important provinces will always be given more treatment in the article, which is not NPOV. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 19:28, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
Still curious what the answer to my question is: if it's just about the big numbers, shouldn't the table columns for Manitoba and Saskatchewan be collapsed into one column, and the four Atlantic provinces be collapsed into one column? If it's just about the big numbers, what's the rationale for them each having a separate column? What's the rationale for each small, unimportant province having a separate heading in the "Cases" section?

Different subject, but trying to keep the "Government response" topics together. I am going to remove a good deal of the federal government response to focus entirely on current and active government actions. However, I don't want to lose any of that information! I have saved out the text and am going to be moving it into the Timeline immediately (even though, generally speaking, I have still not tackled Timeline past January). This has become my sole goal for this session. (The next session will probably be in about ten hours.) - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 17:15, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

I have not lost the deleted information, but I have run out of time for now -- will put it into Timeline when I get back. I previously deleted "Public Service Disruptions", someone restored it. I don't think it merits a subsection for now -- every business is looking at ways to do the same with their own white-collar workers, and we don't have a mention for that. We do need a mention for other forms of transportation -- VIA Rail trains are also disrupted now (again). Gone until later. - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 19:01, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Further condensation

Having been the one who expanded the sports section into bullet points, I like what Tenebris has done in the first para. at 2020_coronavirus_pandemic_in_Canada#Sports and I think I can easily condense the rest into one or two more paragraphs. Any objections? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:48, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Our work here is appreciated

Andrew Coyne retweeted this comment so there may be some extra views: https://twitter.com/AndrewScheidl/status/1239384221036224515 Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:47, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm on the board of a church-based organisation, which has been meeting to determine our next steps. I've circulated the link to this page to the other board members, and recommended it as the most reliable and up-to-date news aggregator that I'm aware of. Thank you to everyone who has contributed. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 01:01, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 March 2020

{{subst:trim|1=

Request: update Government Response -> Provincial -> Ontario to add at a minimum "On March 17 Premier Doug Ford declared a state of emergency"

citation: https://news.ontario.ca/opo/en/2020/3/ontario-enacts-declaration-of-emergency-to-protect-the-public.html


 Done. Expanded a little more than asked for. --Tenryuu đŸČ ( 💬 ‱ 📝) 04:19, 18 March 2020 (UTC)


Semi-protected edit request

I created a subpage for Quebec 2020 coronavirus_pandemic in Quebec.

Please add a link to the header of the Quebec section. Gau Choob (talk) 06:11, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

 Done. El_C 16:53, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request

This section reads

The federal government's pandemic response is based on two primary documents: the Canadian Pandemic Influenza Preparedness planning guidelines, which outlines risks and measures to address a viral disease, and the Canadian Pandemic Influenza Preparedness planning guidelines

Emphasis mine, the bolded sections are referenced by citations but the second one is cited to a different document indicating it was an editing mistake and should instead read "Federal/Provincial/Territorial Public Health Response Plan for Biological Events".

QuestionMarked (talk) 06:42, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

 Done. El_C 16:57, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 March 2020

Under the "Sports" para, the second-last sentence says:

Three upcoming national team matches that were scheduled to be played...

but the sport isn't specified.

Suggest: Three upcoming national soccer team matches that were scheduled to be played... 142.165.171.147 (talk) 18:04, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

 Done. El_C 18:07, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Media

I've created this new section: there has been some confusion expressed on social media about what has happened to local news broadcasts on CBC and I think we can be of some service. In fact, I think we could offer some useful content on paywall suspensions etc. too. I don't think Media belongs under Private sector/Business practices because of course CBC (and some other media) aren't private. thanks, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:21, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

  • That said, if anyone can find find a better place for it, please do. I don't like it sitting there by itself, but I think the journalistic response is important to our readers and notable. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:33, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
    • OK and I added the G&M and Postmedia measures, so it's not just CBC. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:22, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

New Brunswick

On March 9, 2020 NB Public Health revised the current situation to require anyone who has traveled internationally in the last 14 days to self-quarantine for two weeks from when they arrived back in Canada. This made New Brunswick the only jurisdiction in Canada to require self-quarantine for every traveller returning from international destinations. In keeping with this requirement, the Minister of Education released a memo on March 9 that students, staff or volunteers returning from international travel must self-quarantine for two weeks from when they returned to Canada.[1] NB Public Health later reversed the decision on self-quarantine for all travellers returning to Canada from international destinations and the original notice was removed from the NB government website. NB Public Health will now require anyone who has traveled internationally in the last 14 days to self-monitor for two weeks from when they arrived back in Canada. People arriving from Iran or the Chinese province of Hubei will need to self-isolate regardless of symptoms.[2] It is unclear if the requirement to self-quarantine for those entering schools has also been revoked.

There are no cases of COVID-19 in New Brunswick at this time.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.158.71.78 at 17:32, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ CBC News. CBC https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/bernice-macnaughton-students-europe-covid-19-1.5491240. Retrieved 10 March 2020. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
  2. ^ Office of the Chief Medical Officer of Health (Public Health). Office of the Chief Medical Officer of Health (Public Health) https://www2.gnb.ca/content/gnb/en/departments/ocmoh/cdc/content/respiratory_diseases/coronavirus.html. Retrieved 10 March 2020. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

fix reference

Ref #193, at the end of Manitoba, is incorrectly dated January 3, 1933. It should be dated March 15, 2020.

Please fix this. 2607:FEA8:1DDF:FEE1:9C97:AD4:C28A:82B8 (talk) 08:48, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Actually, if you click on it you'll see that it's March 14 not 15. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:26, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
    •  Done Plus someone had vandalized it in some odd way by sticking a 1933 date in the coding. I've regenerating it using the automated tool. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:32, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Dodgy references

The timetable list of cases and death seems to have some dodgy references and should use official sources only instead of some third party site. Krazytea(talk) 01:55, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Somehow the official Government of Canada reference and site only appears on this page once...[3]. Krazytea(talk) 02:04, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
Krazytea, what references are you finding dodgy? Most references are from Global News and CTV News. Tenryuu đŸČ ( 💬 ‱ 📝) 06:26, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
For the timetable the chief reference is a link to Chinese website, this should be the authoritative source for list of cases. We should be using official Health Canada and provincial numbers only. [4] Krazytea(talk) 15:02, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

This article is now protected?

  • @El C: can I ask, was there a request to protect this page? By whom? We have several IP editors making valuable contributions it seems to me and I hope that they will not be denied editing access. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:06, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
  • No, Shawn, I took it upon myself to semiprotect the article to ensure accuracy is not compromised. Non-confirmed editors can still contribute via edit requests. El_C 22:11, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
@El C: In that case, I must strongly object to the semi-protection of this article. Per WP:SEMI, indefinite semi-protection is appropriate for heavy and persistent vandalism, which this article clearly has not seen. It also specifically states that "Semi-protection should not be used as a preemptive measure against vandalism that has not yet occurred," which it seems is the reasoning behind this semi-protection. IP users have made valuable contributions to this page, particularly @66.11.171.90:, and I don't think removing their permissions to edit is at all justified for this specific article. UmpireRay (talk) 22:30, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
There is existing consensus to take firm hand, UmpireRay. This is too important. El_C 22:44, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
Interestingly, there is NO consensus whatsoever for that in *this* article. Yes, I read your linked page. It does not imply the kind of consensus you are claiming here. We were not having any problems. As far as anyone can see, you basically drove by, took a look at the traffic, and decided to slap on a level of protection which was not needed. - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 03:08, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
But it doesn't take into account how nice Canadians are! Seriously, I hope our great IP contributors create accounts. There's no reason not to. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:49, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
On that there is no dispute — Canadians are nice. El_C 22:57, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
Why am I suddenly reminded of the Dixie Chicks (Not Ready to Make Nice)? When did "nice" become a perceived synonym for "pushover"? - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 04:20, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Note to new editors: Welcome. While this article is semi-protected, please continue helping us improve this article by recommending edits. You may also consider creating an account.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:37, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

(laugh) Where were you, El C, when we were actively working on this article during the past week? and making it as damn good as you see it? But clearly you have decided you specifically don't want *my* edits, your "Non-confirmed editors can still contribute via edit requests" notwithstanding. See, if you had actually been around during our work the past week, you would understand just how impossible that realistically is for some of us IPs. And DON'T tell me that I can always make an account. WP is supposed to treat all editors equally, be they members or non-members. It is actually one of the pillars of WP. You are the one who has decided otherwise here -- and it certainly is not on the basis of relative positive contributions to the article. - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 02:43, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi 66, I expect El C's decision to make this page semi-protected was not directed at you. It is important that information on health issues is accurate. That is especially the case on topics of significant public concern like Covid-19. While you are an unregistered editor who has improved the article significantly, some new editors do not always have as noble intentions. In certain circumstances (usually temporarily) editing restrictions are imposed to guard against such sort of thing. I hope you will continue editing, and consider creating an account to help us continue to build a better encyclopedia. There are some advantages to opening an account. Firstly, it permits you to edit semi-protected articles once you have logged some edits. Secondly, it can provide better anonymity (as IP addresses can be tracked). Anyway, thanks for your contributions and please stick around. Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 02:59, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Oh, I know it was not *aimed* at me. Nonetheless it hit me. What I don't know is whether it was aimed thoughtlessly and indiscriminately at the dozens of other IPs who have also given valuable contributions on this page; and who were hit as well. The reason given in the consensus was the concern about misinformation. We have none here. We did not even have problems with misinformation here. This action, as it relates to this specific page, goes far beyond overkill. The WP administrative structure is entirely capable of going beyond one-size-fits-all decisions, but only if its admins have the courage and independence of thought to consider anything but the easy road. Considering that I do value WP's pillars and know deuced well that administrators are just as capable of coming up with consensus for exceptions to the rule as they are for sweeping decisions, can you tell me one single reason why I should stick around where my contributions as an IP are clearly not valued by those who set the rules? - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 03:57, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
66, there are procedures to implement and maintain semi-protected status on articles. As far as I am aware, there is no procedure to exempt a specific IP. One of the reasons for that is multiple users can use the same IP (ie universities, employers, libraries etc). It seems there will be a discussion about whether the article requires to be protected and when that would end. Others can provide more insight into that. All of that said, one of our key pillars is WP:AGF. El C protected this article because they believe that is necessary. That may change soon, it may not. It does not appear to have been directed at you. If you wish to continue editing this article you can make suggestions, create an account, or request the protection be lifted (that may or may not happen). If you want some advice on any of those processes this is the right place, otherwise this is not the right place for the discussion. Thanks for your edits. I appreciate them and others seem to as well. Hope you stick around. Have a good night. Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 04:31, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
"66"? I sign off on a name specifically to create individuality for an IP and to take responsibility for my edits, and you choose to answer to a number? WP:AGF? I did assume good faith before. I specifically said that I did not think the action was aimed at me personally. This answer suggests I may have been mistakened. "Thanks for your edits. I appreciate them and others seem to as well. Hope you stick around. Have a good night." That is the approximate equivalent of "Thoughts and prayers," when said by a person in whose power it is to alter the event that led to that cliché, but who does not themself have any desire to do so. The procedure *you* would take btw is quite simple - propose an amendment to the decision on this page: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard, on the basis that for this page at least, it was not needed. That one is specifically in your power to do. It is not in members' power to do. You now know the facts of the situation on this page. Will you have the courage to value substance over expediency? - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 05:27, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
Tenebris, if you want the protection to be lifted discuss it on the noiceboard. I suggest you assume good faith of the editors there. Just because some disagree with you about the level of protection appropriate, does not mean that they are choosing "expediency" over "substance" or failing to value the contributions of unregistered editors to date. It also doesn't mean they are wrong. I only commented here to offer you assistance and encouragement. I am feeling hostility in return. Wish you the best of luck, but I won't be pushing for a lifting of the protection status at this time. You will find more allies here if you don't play the man and accept help when it is offered instead of lashing out. Have a great day. Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 15:00, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Oppose the semiprotect. I feel like semiprotecting this page is quite detrimental. I was editing via ip address, but given the 4-day lockout period for people creating new accounts the hurdle is a bit too big. This page is active enough that any vandalism will be quickly reverted, and I haven't seen significant vandalism of this page. If there happens to be significant vandalism, I would at that moment support semiprotecting. --Gau Choob (talk) 15:25, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

  • I'm not sure it's open to a vote but I do agree that a four-day delay for a fast-changing event like this sure seems too long, and there's enough eyeballs to revert any damage immediately. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:30, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
Yes, not sure it is up for a vote either. Gau Choob, I think the discussion to lift protections might have to take place on the noticeboard.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk)
It is not open for a vote. I am exercising community mandate, as an uninvolved admin, with the authority of WP:GS/COVID19. El_C 16:49, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
  • @El C:, even as an autopatrolled user I seem to get the warning message each and every time I make an edit. Is that the way it has to work? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:09, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Racist incidents related to coronavirus

I believe we should have a passage or small section related to attacks against Asian Canadians as outlined in https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/koreans-montreal-safety-warning-1.5501963 . Should it be a separate little section? As you see at the end of the article this is not just a Montreal or Quebec problem and Dr. Tam had previously warned about it. I am not saying we give it undue weight but it is part of the story. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:36, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Maybe add this here Xenophobia and racism related to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic ? --hroest 20:09, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
 Done per Hannes, above. It's there already. That's fine. I don't want to give undue weight to it as Canadians are mostly very good about this sort of thing. If we ever get a Social response section we could mention very briefly with perhaps a piped link to the Canada subsection. Thanks Hannes, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:24, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Remainder of final post

I have carefully kept these sections separate from what follows below, to make life easier on those assessing the possible addition. I am terrible at formatting references, so I have listed numbers with associated urls below. (It would have been ten times easier and faster to just post it; hence the delay.)

Unfortunately the same skills which have allowed me to distill what was happening into a concise article and now a concise section unfortunately also allow me to recognize the truth behind what is being claimed for this sweeping WP action.

Specifically, the semi-protection, as applied here, is an illicit decision. The decision imposed upon this article specifically violates WP policy, and was made in the face of evidence which did not support the underlying assumption that IPs were being disruptive to accurate information.

The administrators knew this. The awareness of policy violation was specifically stated right near the beginning of the first of the discussion threads which used to be linked directly in the above posts. Further down, you will see a comment that given the violation, the original discussion thread should be allowed to grow stale and disappear, rather than being closed -- and the key decision was taken in a separate thread (also linked above), which was open for only two hours and 15 administrators' comments.

El_C is *not* an uninvolved administrator in this context. They are the person who closed the key decision discussion after those two hours. WP:SNOW was not intended to apply where insufficient time is given for a reasonable cross-section of opinions, especially where previous discussion has indicated that sweeping decisions might not be appropriate, mandated, or even WP-legal. It is not at all common or personally easy to make comments after threads are closed, especially among those qualified as administrators; yet there are a few such comments below the closure. For someone at managerial-equivalent level to make that kind of comment at all requires both independence of thought and a rare courage.

(In passing, I do find it amusing that my posts in response to being slapped in the face are considered "hostile", and that I am the one repeatedly being told to assume good faith -- when clearly the same is not assumed of IPs. I can only guess that the poster who wrote that either has absolutely no previous experience with determined satyagraha, or is incapable of recognizing it when they see it.)

I apologize to those who have worked hard on this article for having to leave this article (although at least I have managed to offer a solid middle!). I will continue to work on various unprotected COVID articles as I find them, for as long as I am permitted. I was working on the U.S. one until it was semi-protected, but that action was not sweeping the way the current one is, and did have disruption issues due to the underlying politics.

There are many who have wondered why I don't just set aside this issue in a time of crisis. For my part, within three generations of my family, I count at least 20 times of crisis in which we were involved: at least two of which literally decimated (killed off more than 10%) of the related societies (in one case, of a country). Among other things, I grew up knowing firsthand what smallpox scars look like -- my mother had it, was blinded by it, and nearly lost her life to it. It is possible that I have a slightly longer perspective on crisis and the aftereffects of crisis as a result.

So to finish, let's just say that I think it at least as important to preserve societal values for the time *after* the pandemic ends as it is to give accurate information during the pandemic. The seeds of future crises are most often laid in the way we choose to deal with the current crisis. Thus I cannot continue with this article while it remains illicitly semi-protected. I leave my trust in those who remain. - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 11:51, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Thanks for all this great work, and I and others will, I'm sure, be mining it for content ideas. Bye. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:33, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

A new graph request

I know people have their hands full but I was wondering: I recently saw a graph of the growth Canadian cases with coloured lines for different provinces. I can't remember where I saw it: it was something someone had tweeted but I'm drawing a blank. I found it most informative (Quebec's curve seemed distinctly flatter). Anyway, would it be possible to do something like that here, with the data we have, you think? I wouldn't be able to help, I'm afraid. Just a suggestion. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:16, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

 Done UmpireRay (talk) 16:40, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Map

I assume grey on the map means no reported cases. Could that be added to the legend? Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 15:50, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

What is the point of the second map? It provides no comparative info amongst the provinces that have cases. All it does is add a "suspected" category. Is that really worth adding a new map? Plus, what do we do when we have confirmed cases in every province and territory, which is likely to happen at some point? We would just have a red map of Canada. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 23:21, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
@UmpireRay: Could you please alter the two infobox maps to include only confirmed cases as having presumptive cases included is not helpful or in line with coronavirus pandemic articles. Thanks. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 18:47, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
@Vaselineeeeeeee: I'm not sure what to do about that. I know other articles only include confirmed cases, and I don't know the situation in those countries, but the Canadian media has been treating presumptive and confirmed cases together when doing statistics and such. It's worth noting that these presumptive cases have testes positive in their respective provinces, and are just awaiting confirmation from the national lab, and that no presumptive case so far has not been confirmed. So, in the Canadian context, I think it makes more sense to include both numbers, but I'd be willing to listen to others and make the change if that's what consensus dictates. UmpireRay (talk) 18:55, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
That's a fair point, although I'm still on the side for only including confirmed cases. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 18:59, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Number of tests

@UmpireRay: I've added the number of tests to date to the lead as that seems to be critical info. Should that be in a data table? I know they are doing that in the Italian article. Is it there and I just don't know how to read it? thanks for your work on the data! Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:57, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

@Shawn in Montreal: Thanks for the suggestion. Since there is no good data I'm aware of for testing by date, and many provinces aren't updating those numbers regularly, I will add the available testing data to the cases by province table. Thanks for all your work on this article! UmpireRay (talk) 21:29, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
You too, my friend.Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:33, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
See COVID-19_testing which contains Canada-wide and provincial data, but I am also in favor of adding it here. Just make sure to update them in both places! --hroest 20:13, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Should we add the infobox for the series of articles on the Coronavirus?

It's been added to the article on List of events affected by the 2019-20'coronavirus pandemic.

Any interest in adding it to this article, or would make it the intro too junky, pushing the maps down? Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 01:04, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

I think "Industrial strategy" perhaps gives the wrong impression?

@Hannes Röst: - and everyone - I don't know if the federal government's strategy for increased production of ventilators etc. should be called an "industrial strategy" because we know from published reports that the government will be introducing more measures that are purely "industrial" such as support for the oil sector. Additionally, the section you added duplicates what I added earlier today, here. I've no objection to anyone improving on it, or moving it, but not to that name and not as what I see as a duplication. thanks, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:19, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Maybe that was too early to call it that, but to me re-deploying car assembly lines to produce medical equipment sounds a lot like that (maybe I am using the wrong term here?). What I wanted to go for are measures of government interventions into industry to ramp up medical supply, I think these are quite extra-ordinary and should be mentioned in the article. --hroest 20:46, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
Oh I see, I think you're right. I should have taken a closer look at your reference, sorry, because the three medical supply companies appear in 'my' passage does appear to be just one part of a larger strategy. I'll merge what I have into yours, or please do so. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:17, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
 Done Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:34, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Can this article remain updated??

Should it be updated daily? Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a newspaper

In any event, this is the current status according to CBC British Columbia: 348 confirmed cases, including five recovered and eight deaths. Ontario: 318 confirmed cases, including five recovered and two deaths. Alberta: 195 confirmed cases, including three recovered and one death. Quebec: 139 confirmed cases, including one recovered and one death. Saskatchewan: 26 confirmed and presumptive cases. Manitoba: 17 confirmed and presumptive cases. New Brunswick: 11 confirmed and presumptive cases. Nova Scotia: 15 confirmed and presumptive cases. Prince Edward Island: Two cases the province lists as positive. Newfoundland and Labrador: Four confirmed and presumptive cases. Repatriated Canadians: 12 confirmed cases.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/coronavirus-covid19-canada-world-march20-1.5504080 Peter K Burian (talk) 13:02, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Suggestion for the Wikipedia article: Worldometer is a web site that is updated daily. There is a section for each country. This is the page for Canada. https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/canada/ Perhaps the Wiki article should stop being updated as to cases and deaths, and instead, it should include links to a couple of reliable sites, such as this one. (see Worldometers although that article is barely a stub.)
Worldometer is run by an international team of developers, researchers, and volunteers with the goal of making world statistics available in a thought-provoking and time relevant format to a wide audience around the world. Worldometer is owned by Dadax, an independent company. We have no political, governmental, or corporate affiliation. https://www.worldometers.info/about/ Also see https://www.worldometers.info/faq/
BUT would that be allowed by Worldometer? They do charge a fee for Licensing. https://www.worldometers.info/licensing/terms-conditions/

Peter K Burian (talk) 13:14, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

So, do you believe that the daily rates and deaths in each province should be updated regularly? (My opinion is NO) Peter K Burian (talk) 14:03, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
Yes, I believe they should be, as seems to be happening. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:25, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
Yes, I believe they should be. Wikipedia is an important source of information for people on this crisis, and is more accessible than most government and other news aggregators. I think we are collectively providing a valuable service to the people of Canada by providing as much information as possible, consolidated into one spot. What is the argument against including up-to-date information on the wikipedia site? What would be the value of only updating once a week, or not providing the information at all? Can you point to any other site which provides the maps, the graphs, and the data, all in one place? Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 15:24, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
Yes, it should be updated. Like with elections articles, it will not start to look "finished" until some time after the event has passed. That does not mean we should not try to keep it current though.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk)
I agree, as long as we have capacity it should be updated. For many people, Wikipedia is a trusted source of information and is more accessible than the health websites of each Province which may be hard to navigate. I dont see why we should not do it, there are enough editors around to do the work. This article will look very different in 1-2 years but that is ok for me personally. Also, on a more pragmatic note: how would you want to prevent people from updating the page? --hroest 18:14, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Cases per million nationally

The cases per million map breaks the rate down by province and territory, but no-where in the article does it say how many cases per million for the country as a whole. That’s an interesting stat for comparing countries at the international level. Could we add that stat as a line under the cases per million map? Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 18:54, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

 Done. Added the cases per million data along with a table showing recoveries and deaths in each province.UmpireRay (talk) 23:39, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
Looks good. Thanks! (One query - is there a « rowspan » code in the « Ref » box in the top row? It’s displacing one of the references. ) Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 00:02, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
@UmpireRay: the new table looks good, but I have a suggestion for organisation. Right now, the provinces are listed from west to east. That order is not intuitive unless you are a Canadian or really familiar with Canada. I would suggest the provinces (and territories, if they start getting cases) be arranged alphabetically - easier for the average reader to see the pattern and find information. Oh, and one other point - why not total the number of tests in the first column, so we have a national testing number? (Sorry if i keep harping on changes, rather than trying to fix things myself, but this is a complicated table and I wouldn’t want to muck it up, undoing all your good work! đŸ˜±) Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 00:07, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
Personally, when it comes to the data, I think west to east is actually more useful because an observer, just by looking at the numbers, can get an intuitive view of how the pandemic compares across the country without looking at a map that doesn't exist for some of the data. Also, unlike the US' 56 jurisdictions where alphabetical sorting is necessary, only having 13 in Canada means it's still easy to find any province/territory to someone not familiar with Canadian geography. Note that this is also how the federal government website arranges the data. As for the nationwide testing, I went and found Canada's testing statistics and have added it to the table.UmpireRay (talk) 19:18, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Article ownership by User:Shawn in Montreal

This conversation's usefulness (such as it was), has been exhausted. If you have a well-documented complaint, please feel free to submit it in any forum you see fit. But not here. This article talk page is not for that. Accusations without any evidence are highly discouraged. Please don't do that again. If you have reached an impasse, here on the article talk page, please feel free to make use of any dispute resolution requests you see fit. Thank you. El_C 21:19, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

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.

There is an alarming number of occurrences of article ownership by User:Shawn in Montreal. Although he has made some constructive edits, I have no choice but to report him.Gizapink (talk) 16:22, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Sure. You do that. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:24, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
@Gizapink: What behaviour concerns you?
Shawn, why are you indenting with bullets? That is usually reserved for a different class of talk. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:59, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
Walter, his "concerns" are listed directly above. I don't see the value in having a section which is basically a personal attack at me extending, so thanks for that. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:44, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
Taking the wheel's alright, threading under threat's alright, bullets are rude. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:53, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
I have no idea what this is about or what I am doing with indenting that is in any way germaine - I'm "rude" to indent in some fashion? I'm becoming sorry I came back to this project. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:07, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
The asterisk/bullet/point sucks, that's all. You're better now, no sorrow needed, stay a while. I've been accused of ownership, too, it's nothing. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:14, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
I don't need you to make me "better". I did not exercise ownership of the article I implored this editor to discuss. The article is in fine shape now and I'm gone. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:19, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
You made yourself better by replying without a bullet. Good choice! I tried leaving, too, didn't work (but good luck, not even sarcastic!). InedibleHulk (talk) 19:25, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
Oh, good work, Gizapink! Driving away an experienced editor who came out of retirement to help in a crisis! Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 19:50, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
Bravo. Our leader steps out for 39 minutes, and dark sarcasm fills the classroom. May as well stage a walkout while the fire alarm's still on, "sheesh". InedibleHulk (talk) 20:57, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
Yes. Indenting replies with bullets is usually done when !votes are taken and other discussions of that nature. Normal talk is usually just with colons (see MOS:INDENTGAP and probably a talk page guideline somewhere). Looks fine, but I still don't see the ownership claims laid-out—all I do see is insinuation that it's happening. Unless I see detailed proof, I would argue against it at ANI (or wherever). Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:41, 21 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.

Manitoba COVID-19 case number vandalism

I've noticed recurring vandalism of the number of cases in Manitoba. The other week someone had edited the number to display as 400 cases which I had to revert back to the original, correct number. Now the number is altered again, this time listing: 8 current presumptive cases, and -6 new cases for March 21st. These numbers are not accurate. I've noticed the page is semi-protected now. Hopefully these false edits stop, but if they continue to happen something must be done about it. This is no time for people to be messing around with information like this.--2604:3D09:A57B:A350:E430:DB7D:B135:6B91 (talk) 02:34, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

I added the -6 number. Between today and yesterday, Manitoba's number of confirmed cases reported (by the provincial government and the federal government) has actually decreased by 6 from 17 to 11 now. I can't speculate as to why or how this happened, but the only way to represent this on the chart so as to show the number of confirmed cases on each day is to put -6. UmpireRay (talk) 02:40, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
Perhaps I should add a note to the template explaining it briefly because I'm sure it will look confusing (or like vandalism) to many. UmpireRay (talk) 02:41, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Recovery

This ref says 11 not 12. [5] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:04, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Recoveries are at 16 now — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FEA8:9560:719B:BC90:7BB0:25D5:AA52 (talk) 11:59, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Removal of "regionalisms"

@Gizapink:, please let's work via consensus. I am concerned about some of the edits you are making removing "regionalisms," which in some cases seem to be city names. Canada is a big place. Some specificity is helpful. Let's discuss. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:07, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

The lead is to be a brief overview of the article. The facts are expanded upon directly below. Also, to list every town, city, village with an occurrence, or cancelled event is preposterous. Especially with such a fluid topic. Gizapink (talk) 16:12, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
There seems to be some strong article ownership actions being displayed by User:Shawn in Montreal. I remind you this not your article, it is a collaboration between many editors. You may not get the result you want every time. Gizapink (talk) 16:16, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
I'm sorry but that attitude is preposterous. I'm not saying all the edits are bad by any means. I know we do have too much specific detail. But this edit was not a good one imo. We know the first case came to Canada. How does it help to remove the city that he returned to? It just makes no sense to me from a clarity pov. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:12, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
And as for your threat to report me, go ahead. I am here for one reason and it is to help this article and our reader. If you're going to start hacking away at it with edits like the one above, then others will have to stop you. But removing city names in place of Canada in cases like that is not helpful. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:17, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
The only hack here is you and your policing of what you constitute as "your article". You will be reported. Gizapink (talk) 16:23, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
I said "hacking," not that you are a hack. Now, to the matter at hand, not all the trims are bad imo. Do you want to go one at a time, is that what we are going to have to do? Can you please explain why removing Toronto helps the clarity of this article? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:27, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
I've removed the event venue in Saskatoon for the Junos, and I'll go ahead and remove all city names for cancelled events in the culture section. I think you're right there. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:33, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
Thing is, the other editor had, under the name of "regionalism," also removed dates of the cancelled events. That is not helpful, as the dates give readers a sense of how far ahead organizers are projecting. So I can try removing the cities, but not the dates. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:37, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
Okay  Done as far as I think makes sense, and does no harm to the clarity. But when it comes to things like the city that the first reported case returned to from Wuhan, which was Toronto, or stating that a comment comes from Toronto's chief health officer (instead of vastly informative "it"), I cannot fathom what the logic is. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:44, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
I agree with Shawn in Montreal. This article is about the pandemic in Canada. Having information on where it first appeared and how it is affecting people and events across the country is not "regionalism" - it's showing how the disease is progressing, and what impact it is having across the country. Identifying particular locations and effects is vital to the purpose of this article. After all, the maps and data tables are all broken down by province, and in one case by local health districts. Should they be taken down because they're "regionalism"? Of course not. They provide key data. There is nothing wrong with regional data when tracking the progress of the disease in a country as big and diverse as Canada.
This article is providing as detailed a picture as possible of the progression of the disease. Stating in the lead that the first known case in Canada was in Toronto is useful data: "Where was Patient Zero?" is a significant question for tracking a disease. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 16:49, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
With respect to including the names of cities where major events are cancelled, I think that is valid and relevant information. It shows the impact of the pandemic across Canada. COVID pandemic is different from SARS, which was largely centred in Toronto. Keeping the city names in the article shows the broad impact of the disease in all parts of Canada. Hence, my friendly revert of Shawn in Montreal. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 17:03, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Thanks, Serjeant (good to have an NCO involved). Yes that was my thought too: there's a rolling nature to the cancellations, both in time and geography. In the interests of brevity I had omitted the dates of the cancellations, when I condensed from the bullet points. I figured those could at least be gotten from the dates in the refs? I'm all in favour of cutting non-essential info - I just felt that the edits I saw were pulling city names with no thought to whether the location was a notable aspect. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:10, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
Serjeant, not Sergeant. 😊 Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 17:24, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
  • This information shows the wide impact that this pandemic has had on just about everything in Canada. I'm pretty sure the Junos were getting heckled on locally because Saskatchewan had no cases yet (but then they announced one very soon afterward). ViperSnake151  Talk  17:57, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
The fact that the Folk Music Awards are in Charlottetown, or the Festival international du film sur l'art is in Montreal is beyond irrelevant. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia. This article is not meant to be a promotion for these events or their respective host cities. Not sure why someone would get so bent out of shape as to quit wikipedia over such a non-issue. Gizapink (talk) 03:37, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
if you would bother following this Talk thread, Shawn in Montreal did take out the locations. I put them back, for the reasons expressed above. If you want to know why Shawn in Montreal left, you should look in a mirror. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 15:11, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
I cannot decide which is more pathetic, leaving Wikipedia in a tantrum because someone debates your editing, or your attempt to tough talk on wikipedia talk page above. I did bother to read this talk thread. I was explaining the rationale behind removing regional event locations. A rationale that both myself and Shawn from Montreal agreed with, yet you went against this consensus and re-added them anyways, as revenge for your virtual friend leaving you. I can now see that maybe this wikipedia article is far more important to editors like yourself that may not have anything else in life to occupy their time. Good luck with that. Gizapink (talk) 16:08, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

WorldOMeters

Please do not use WorldOMeter as a source, they are not a source themselves. They base their numbers on this Radio Canada map -- if we want to use these sources, then at least cite the primary source! I suggest to revert all edits that use WorldOMeter as a source and not a primary source, my preference would be to use the official government source whenever possible. --hroest 19:23, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Manitoba Cases

As of 2020-03-08, the Map is showing BC, AB, QC and ON as having Confirmed Cases and MB as having Suspected Cases. To my understanding, there are no cases of SARS-2 in Manitoba. The National Microbiology Laboratory is located in Winnipeg, Manitoba, but there are not any cases in the Province. OSSYULYYZ (talk) 16:04, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

The page claims that, on 2020-03-21, Manitoba reduced it's number of cases from 17 down to 11. There is no source cited for this, and this contradicts the official news release from the Government of Manitoba on March 21 which sets the "positive and probable positive cases in Manitoba to 20". Media Bulletin - Manitoba COVID-19 Bulletin #28 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rdo911 (talk ‱ contribs) 00:08, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Canadian English Number Style

The number of cases are reported in the manner, example, (1,100.) Shouldn't the comma be dropped as is standard in Canadian English and use example, (1100) or (1 100?) YourAviationPro (talk) 22:50, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

That might be standard in French or Loyalist neighbourhoods, but commas are otherwise the Canadian way. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:44, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
Let's drop the name calling.
When the metric system was introduced, the numbering system was taught. I'm not sure if it was ever officially done, but it never gained widespread acceptance. On Wikipedia, both are acceptable per WP:DIGITS, but the "Delimiting style should be consistent throughout a given article". We'll stick with commas as it is more common. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:16, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
Those aren't insults. Just tend to see more European influence on styles east of the Ottawa. And more Canadian English media and speakers west of it, doing stuff like the U.S. does. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:23, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
Looking at the official government page, it seems they are using the comma to separate numbers: "Number of people tested 88,883" so I dont see the problem here. --hroest 21:03, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
Commas were dropped by the federal government in favour of spaces when we went metric. At somepoint in the last 10 to 20 they reverted. Presumably this is discussed in an encyclopedia somewhere ... :). I recall rolling my eyes in annoyance at the time, wondering how it would work given that in Quebec they still use a decimal comma instead of a decimal point. But I've heard no mention of this for years ... I could probably find a reference in an old newspaper about the return to the comma if anyone really cares. Nfitz (talk) 05:27, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Confirmed cases ... as of

I think the as of is important, but we should do more than indicate the date. A time should probably be included, and if we add a time, should we indicate PDT, UTC, or something else? Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:37, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Given how fast things are changing, I think that makes sense. I assume you're referring to the maps in the infobox, as that's where I added it, but it can also extend to the tables in the data section and confirmed case count in the infobox. I think Eastern time and UTC make the most sense since Eastern is the closest we have to a standard within Canada and UTC is useful as well per MOS:TIMEZONE. What do you think? UmpireRay (talk) 21:33, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
I'm personally biased toward the familiarity of Eastern time, so yes. I always forget which season is Standard, though, so no opinion on that. And no, you weren't asking me. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:48, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
UTC, since this is an international encyclopedia. And no, Eastern time is not a standard for Canada. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 15:14, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
I meant I get Eastern Standard Time mixed up with Eastern Daylight Time (but I know now, summer is EDT). But if you're talking about Ray's comment, I'll agree it's only the closest we have. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:42, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
I disagree. For instance, both CBC and CTV give Eastern Time and Pacific Time when they are advertising programmes or events at a fixed time, like hockey or football games. If Eastern Time were the standard, there would be no need to give Pacific time. There is no single standard time for Canada. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 06:37, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
As always, there is a template for that Template:As of which also helps us to keep track of locations that need updating. --hroest 19:31, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 March 2020

In the "deaths per day" graph juat above "External Links", the y-axis needs reformatting. Reads 0 0 1 1 2 ... Should be 0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 ... 142.165.171.147 (talk) 21:46, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

 Already done Mgasparin (talk) 19:03, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Split Saskatchewan?

As of right now, the readable prose size of this article is 48 kB. Per WP:SIZERULE, splitting isn't necessarily advised, but if the article size continues going up at the current rate, it may need to be split soon. My current recommendation for a new article would be Saskatchewan because it has the largest government response section that isn't currently split. It also has the most cases out of all the unsplit provinces. I think the government response and the case history (which should probably be expanded with new information) would make for a decent article. Username6892 14:34, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Username6892, if there are more sources and information, sure. What's currently on there isn't enough for its own article, though I'm surprised no one's mentioned Saskatchewan's state of emergency. Tenryuu đŸČ ( 💬 ‱ 📝) 15:33, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
Saskatchewan is splitting? Is this a Wexit allusion?
All kidding aside, we're going to struggle with this being a long article until things settle down. Yes, we should split out any province or territory that gets long enough to sustain its own article and leave a summary here, but expect duplication. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:17, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
I have created a draft here. It's mostly based off of what is already on this article. If you can improve it, please do. If you think it is good enough for mainspace, copy it over here (currently a redirect). It has been submitted to WP:AFC. Username6892 19:49, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Kelowna numbers

Can someone add in the appropriate section the cases document in Kelwona, BC? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.14.86 (talk) 22:51, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 March 2020

The grid indicating banned gatherings of 50 or more are allowed is inacurate. Saskatchewan has banned any gathering of 25 or more effective Friday March 20. Source: https://leaderpost.com/news/saskatchewan/covid-19-live-updates-03-20/ 216.197.221.137 (talk) 00:03, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

 Done

Bar graph showing daily growth

Might want to mention that for March 23, the huge jump in cases is due to Quebec adding presumptive cases to the total, causing a seemingly massive spike in cases. I'd add it but I'm not sure how. Thanks. 24.80.87.10 (talk) 00:16, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

A number more informative than the number of newly reported cases may be new cases by date of symptom onset. In so going, for example, Quebec's change in reporting policy would be spread over the last 14 days. Such information may be harder to obtain, but you folks do impressive work. I'm looking here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vulcanville (talk ‱ contribs) 03:21, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

2020 coronavirus pandemic in Manitoba

Hello to all Wikipedians, there is redirect entitled 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Manitoba. Can someone change the redirect and upgrade into a new article within the title 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Manitoba that focuses on all residents in Manitoba including Manitoba's largest city and the provincial capital Winnipeg. The propose new title will include how many current cases in the province of Manitoba, Manitoba's second largest city Brandon and Manitoba's largest city and the provincial capital Winnipeg. I hope the propose article will change from a redirect into an article within the sub-article 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Canada. This is an urgent message, so let me know if the Manitoba will will turn into an article. Thanks for your time. Steam5 (talk) 05:19, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Steam5, you know you can do that if you want to, right? Be bold rather than expecting other volunteers to do the work for you. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:21, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Total cases chart: please add a column for the numerical history of total deaths

As has been done e.g. for the cases charts for Italy and UK:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:2019%E2%80%9320_coronavirus_pandemic_data/Italy_medical_cases_chart&oldid=946194252

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:2019%E2%80%9320_coronavirus_pandemic_data/United_Kingdom_medical_cases_chart&oldid=946201520

CountMacula (talk) 20:45, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, this is important information and should be added. Shawnc (talk) 08:13, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

More recognition

As I mentioned I'm back at frwiki, but there is more praise for your work from Andrew Coyne, who does not do so without good reason: https://twitter.com/acoyne/status/1242883940211396617 . Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:43, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

And a shoutout to Doc James: https://twitter.com/ShawnGoldwater/status/1242871876642385921 Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:45, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Alberta

I added several sentences here that I also used in the article 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Alberta.Oceanflynn (talk) 21:06, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 March 2020

Add main article link

Main article: 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Nova Scotia

to the 'Nova Scotia' sub-subsection of the 'Provincial and territorial' subsection of the 'Government response' section 173.212.77.61 (talk) 23:49, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

 Done. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 00:11, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-Protected Edit Request: Newfoundland Restrictions

Restrictions in place in Newfoundland and Labrador as shown on this page are very much out of date. See here for a more accurate list: https://www.gov.nl.ca/covid-19/

Gatherings of more than 10 people are banned.

In-Person dining at restaurants is banned - only take-out, delivery, and drive-thru are allowed.


47.55.241.24 (talk) 15:04, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Epidemiology

With its relatively high rates of immigration [1], personal travel, [2] and international tourism, [2][3] Canada is a bellwether country for reflecting global infection patterns. Hidden COVID-19 spread in other countries has come to light as a result of cases in Canada with travel history to that country. [4][5][6]

All of Canada's cases for the first month of reported cases were directly related to international travel. [7] Community spread did not begin until March 5. [8] By March 6, most of Canada's new cases were linked to the U.S.[9]

Transmission

The first COVID-19 case in Canada was reported by health authorities in Toronto on January 25, [7] approximately one month after the first Wuhan cases were reported by health authorities. [10] A patient with a travel history to Wuhan reported to Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre with a fever and respiratory symptoms. She had taken appropriate precautions during her travel and was immediately taken into isolation. [7] The virus was identified as SARS-CoV-2, the same virus as had caused the outbreak in Wuhan. [7][11] Canadian scientists from Sunnybrook isolated the virus by March 12. [12][13]

The first COVID-19 case in British Columbia was reported on January 28. It was also linked to travel in Wuhan, and was completely contained. [7][11]

The first case outside either Ontario or British Columbia was reported in Montreal, Quebec, on February 28, in a patient who had returned from Iran. [14] Toronto had reported its first case linked to Iran travel two days earlier. [7] Travel-related cases to Egypt, India, the U.S., France, Germany, Switzerland, Austria, and the UK were reported during the following week. [7]

Canada's first case in Alberta was also its first case in a person who was repatriated from the Grand Princess. [15] During the following week, travel-related cases were reported in every part of Canada except the far north.

Statistics

As of March 20, Canada has reported 873 cases, with 12 deaths.[link to match infobox] Canada recorded its first COVID-19 death on March 9. [7]

Five men are reported dead. In seven cases, gender has not been released. [7] In the global pattern to date, more men have died than women. [16] However, most cases have not yet been resolved, so gender-based conclusions are preliminary.[link to match infobox]

All Canadians who died of COVID-19 were over 50 years of age. [7] One was in his 50s, while another was in his 60s; all others were older. [7] Seven residents of the Lynn Valley care centre have died. [7] Globally, 80% of those who have died of COVID-19 were over 60. [17] Details of underlying health conditions are only available for three cases; but the man who died in his 50s did have underlying health conditions. [7]

Very few Canadian children have been reported with COVID-19. Previous research from China suggests that while children generally have milder symptoms, children under school age may be particularly vulnerable and may fall seriously ill. [18]

"Epidemiology" section done. "Transportation restriction" section follows. In general, I listed airlines in order of severity of route changes. I looked for specific information about loyalty programs, and found very little. Keep an eye on this -- it is likely to change.

Not sure, who added this as they did not sign. I am not eager to check, but will comment as such so this will archive eventually.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 23:24, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
[Post made by 66.11.171.90 (talk; date uncertain] Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 13:25, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Two sections now complete for add-on, plus final post

This will be my last post here, until WP policy ceases to be violated by this decision. Sorry for the delay. As it happens, I am in the midst of some firsthand experience with current flight changes and border controls. (Among other things, I can personally confirm the halving of WestJet's domestic flights.)

I post here primarily to give you the two sections I had been working on previously, updated to the current date. (Looking at the preview, it seems to be interpreting my formatting for the raw sections, so I will add another section division for the remainder of this post, after the sections.) I suggest you insert "Epidemiology" as a major section either immediately before or immediately after "Timeline" -- ie. either first or second in the article below the ToC. This section also duplicates and summarizes several details from the "Cases by province" section, which can now be deleted. I suggest inserting "Transportation impact" just above "Economic impact". I have also transferred the first paragraph of "Business practices" to "Transportation impact".

In passing, a few quick suggestions.

  • "Layoffs" really should be expanded by someone. (Air Canada - https://globalnews.ca/news/6706293/coronavirus-air-canada-layoffs-union/ ) Add store closures, with notes about which stores are still paying their employees (and especially for how long -- keep track of this, they won't be able to do it for the full closure period.)
  • In "Business practices", many grocery stores have stopped issuing rain checks, based on their inability to keep core items on the shelves. Hours have also changed: usually shortened, with one dedicated seniors' shopping hour at the beginning (to minimize chances of contagion). Mall food courts are roping off seating areas and restricting business to takeout only. The numbers of shops which have closed is staggering.
  • One upcoming change in "Transportation restrictions" involves physical barriers on city bus to keep passengers away from the driver -- keep an eye on this one. (Halifax has already done it -- this is in the article, separate paragraph because I expect additions.) The reasoning here is that if one driver gets infected, everyone who comes into contact with them will also be at risk for transmission ... including all the other drivers. (In some cases, fares may be dropped altogether during this period, since keeping passengers away from the driver also blocks fareboxes.)
  • For Timeline revision, this reference gives a nice example of relative importance of different events. That is one where you will have to be absolutely ruthless in cutting down. https://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-news/tracking-the-coronavirus-from-wuhan-china-to-canadas-capital-a-covid-19-timeline

Full text of "Epidemiology" follows below.

[Post made by Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk); date uncertain] Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 13:26, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Transportation impact

Air

Porter Airlines has suspended all service starting March 21. [1] WestJet has cancelled all its international flights, including to the U.S., starting March 22, [2] and has halved its domestic service. [3] Transat has been reducing flights, but has set no deadline. [4] Air Canada has reduced domestic flights [5] and suspended most of its international flights, but will maintain "air-bridges" until April 30 to London, Paris, Frankfurt, Delhi, Tokyo, Hong Kong, and 13 U.S. locations to allow Canadians to return home. [6]

Smaller airlines are consolidating services or cancelling routes based on customer demand. As of March 19, Air North has cancelled most of its Vancouver flights, and consolidated its northern Yukon route, but it has extended the validity of its flight passes by two months. [7] In-flight service has also been reduced, and lounges closed. [8]

Most Canadian airlines are temporarily waiving cancellation fees and one-time change fees. [4] Most are offering flight credits instead of refunds. [4] There is some controversy over higher prices being charged for the changed flights, since changes are being made closer to departure. [9] WestJet has stated that it is lowering the price on inbound international flights; while Sunwing will allow one-time changes at no additional cost. [9]

Rail

VIA Rail cancelled all overnight trains except the Churchill, which will no longer be offering sleeper service. [10] The co-branded Amtrak Maple Leaf is cancelled. [10] Originally VIA Rail halved the number of its Corridor [11] trains, [12] but as of March 19, only fifteen Corridor trains are still running. [10] Other routes are still running on a once-a-week basis. [10]

All VIA Rail business lounges are closed. [10] All VIA 1 service is suspended. [10] Economy passengers will receive a complementary bottle of water and snack. [10]

VIA Rail is temporarily waiving cancellation fees and one-time change fees. [10] Cancellations will result in a full refund. [10]

These restrictions hit VIA Rail less than a week after it was able to restore most of the rail service cancelled due to anti-pipeline solidarity protests. [13][14]

Ground

Greyhound Lines cancelled services between Canada and the U.S. after the border was closed to non-essential traffic. [15] https://www.greyhound.com/en/help-and-info/travel-info/schedule-service-changes Passengers can choose between a one-time complementary change or travel credit. [16] As of March 20, other Canadian Greyhound routes are not affected.

Halifax Transit is waiving fares on its entire system, including ferries, to help maintain separation between drivers and passengers.[17]

Yellow Cab Halifax drivers are now required to wear gloves and masks while on duty, and to wipe down equipment as frequently as possible. Passengers will no longer be allowed to sit in the front seat. [18]

As of March 20, rental car companies are not yet affected.

Ferries

BC Ferries is currently operating on a reduced schedule. [19] All food service except for vending machines has been suspended. [20] As of March 17, BC ferries will allow passengers to stay with their vehicles on the car deck. Transport Canada regulations previously did not allow this for safety reasons. [21]

Washington State Ferries service between Anacortes, Washington and Sidney, British Columbia and Clipper Ferry [22] service between Seattle and Victoria, British Columbia were suspended after the border was closed to non-essential traffic. [23][24] The Black Ball Ferry Line will suspend service between Port Angeles, Washington and Victoria, British Columbia starting March 30. [25]

Transportation section done.

Whomever added this, also did not sign.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 23:25, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
[Post made by tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk; date uncertain] Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 13:29, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

suffering from recentism

I notice that parts of the article suffer from WP:Recentism. The table in the government response section is one such example. The restrictions came up over time, but it only shows the current state. There is no discussion of how it has changed over time. A full discussion, with changes over time, would be much more encyclopedic in my opinion, but would require someone to take on the writing. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:40, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, this is the case with all articles of this type. Feel free to change WP:BOLD. --hroest 17:00, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Infobox Maps

2020 coronavirus pandemic in Canada
DiseaseCOVID-19
LocationCanada
First outbreakWuhan, Hubei, China
Index caseSunnybrook Hospital
Toronto, Ontario
Arrival dateJanuary 25, 2020
(4 years and 3 months)
Confirmed cases1,302
Recovered14
Deaths
19
Government website
canada.ca/coronavirus

These stretch pretty far down the page. Perhaps we should put in place a map switcher option like is present here. That could reduce clutter. Alternatively, we could move some of the more detailed maps to a section at the end.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 20:08, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

I think all three maps are very important to have right at the beginning of the article. They provide really good visual information about the progress of the disease across Canada, using three different metrics, broken down into increasing detail. I think that's really good regional, information to have, and the maps provides it "at-a-glance", rather than the reader having to wade through lots of text. If there is a toggling option, I'd be interested to see it, but would oppose any chsnge to the location. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 22:20, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
It would look something like this. Perhaps someone can code this better than I though. I had a hard time fitting in the legend on the second map.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 00:31, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
I like this idea, it seems much more compact and informative than simply showing all options. --hroest 01:08, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the work on this, I have changed the article infobox accordingly. UmpireRay (talk) 04:04, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
Looks good! The only comment I have is the cases per million map - is there any way to enlarge the legend? I have to zoom in on the map to read it. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 06:29, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
Not sure. I was trying to make it fit horizontally. Of course, the second map includes seven colours in the ledgend. It doesn't really fit horizontally. I see the version UmpireRay added to the article does has the legend appear vertically. That is fine too, but seems to stretch the content out a bit.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 16:22, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
Can we please add PEI to the first map, the one with the numbers of cases? It is not visible in the first map. 142.122.141.211 (talk) 09:40, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
It is included in the map, it is just hard to make out the shape of the island because there is little contrast between the white background and the light colour the legend uses for 1-9 cases. Unfortunately, PEI will likely become more visible as there are inevitably more cases there.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 17:44, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
The per-capita by health region map is useful, but quite stale data now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.103.111.110 (talk) 19:38, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Edit suggestion: Canadian research

I've returned to frwiki where I am working on the French-language counterpart to this article. There we have a section called Recherche and I had added what seems to me to be a notable Canadian COVID-19 research initiative at the Montreal Heart Institute: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/montreal-heart-institute-study-colchicine-1.5506930 . Not sure where and how it would fit into the English article, as we had all the research under "federal" and this is not, but I thought I'd offer the suggestion. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:25, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

I am not sure, research is global and its results will affect all countries (we are all in this together) and is probably better described in other articles and not in country-specific artiles. However, if the research is part of the government response then it should be part of the article. So I suggest: describe research results in other articles, describe funding and research initiatives sponsored as a result of the pandemic here. Sounds ok? --hroest 17:00, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
Yes of course. Good point. I'll leave it in the French article - which is nowhere near as closely watched as this and where there is a particular interest in Quebec-based developments - though I'd have no objection if you or someone chooses to remove it there. I'll also leave a note on the Talk page of Coronavirus_disease_2019#Research. So consider this  Done and please archive, if you will. thanks Hannes, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:44, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Should we be using this sidebar in this article or in the provincial/territorial ones?

Part of a series on the
COVID-19 pandemic
Scientifically accurate atomic model of the external structure of SARS-CoV-2. Each "ball" is an atom.
Scientifically accurate atomic model of the external structure of SARS-CoV-2. Each "ball" is an atom.
Timeline
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
Locations
By country and territory
By conveyance
International response
National responses
Medical response
Vaccines
Current vaccines
Variants
Variants of concern
Other variants
Economic impact and recession
By country
By sport
Impacts
Society
virus icon COVID-19 portal

I came across it on our article about the political effects of the virus. It does not seem to be used on the main page about the pandemic or the American or provincial articles. I am not sure why. Anyway, maybe we should use it. Maybe we shouldn't. Discuss.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 21:01, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

I raised the same question in an earlier Talk post and got no response. I think the maps are the main thing. Given the length of the TOC, putting this after the maps would probably help fill in some blank spaces. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 16:15, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Archiving of the Talk Page

There are currently over 50 discussions open on this page. I have changed the archiving to every seven (7) days. This is a fast moving topic. I expect that is appropriate. Any important discussions that are not ongoing can be pinned. If anyone disagrees feel free to change it back, but 30 days seems long given the topic and existing lenght of the talk page.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 20:13, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Where are the archived pages going to? There's no link to the archives in the archive infobox on this page, as far as I can see? Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 13:14, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
Okay, i finally saw the Archives link higher up on the Talk page boxes. Would it be possible to add the filing Cabinet icon by the link, to make it easier to find the archives? Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 16:17, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Timeline graph

The timeline graph does not align with the source provided, and usually does not. There is only one source, https://www.canada.ca/en/public-health/services/diseases/2019-novel-coronavirus-infection.html. As of March 21st at 6:36 PM EDT there are more cases reported on the wiki page, than on the source. This is even more surprising since the chart only goes up until the 20th at this time, it is above the current total while also a day behind, quite misleading. I'm new to editing Wikipedia so I'm not sure what to do here. .iLlertton (talk)

I have been updating the timeline based on the provincial and territorial government sources at the end of the day. The Canadian page also reflects those sources, but has a delay and is often behind. The up-to-date math from each province and territory can be seen in the templates in the data section. UmpireRay (talk) 23:23, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
There is also an official set of numbers here: https://www.canada.ca/en/public-health/services/diseases/2019-novel-coronavirus-infection/health-professionals/epidemiological-summary-covid-19-cases.html its a few days behind but we should ensure our numbers match these. --hroest 19:33, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
It is reasonable to sue the provincial and territorial government sources, in my opinion. In that case, however, the sources at the bottom of the table should not cite "'Coronavirus disease (COVID-19): Outbreak update'. Government of Canada". Can we update the sources section with the actual sources being used? Otherwise, it calls the numbers into question. Also, if the source differed for different date ranges, let's call that out, too. JoeSchlabotnik (talk) 19:04, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Line Graph Number of Cases change from linear scale to logarithmic ad note

This is a suggestion to add a note below the graphs today as they changed from a linear scale (showing exponential growth) to a logarithmic scale which will lead some less mathematically inclined people to think the curve is flattening (when in fact its a graphing scale change). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.154.13.80 (talk) 14:59, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Done. Nfitz (talk) 16:42, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Tenses

The tenses in this article are all over the place. Past tense should be used, not present tense. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 19:14, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

new confirmed cases in Canada given as 1098, but should be 1127 (Alberta's figures not in total) — Preceding unsigned comment added by First Get Your Facts (talk ‱ contribs) 01:20, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Edit Request 30 March 2020

March 30 total new cases in the table "COVID-19 cases in Canada by province" should be 1127. Addition error. - R — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.157.179.170 (talk) 02:18, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 April 2020

The amount of deaths in the infobox needs to be updated to 101. See cited ref:Tracking every case of COVID-19 in Canada - CTV News 68.148.230.9 (talk) 00:47, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks for the heads up! --Tenryuu đŸČ ( 💬 ‱ 📝) 04:19, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Image of cases per capita

Now that Nova Scotia has released a health zone map of cases ([6]), can someone update the Canada map ([7]) to show the cases in each health region. Each health zones 2016 population can be found here: Zone 4, Zone 1, Zone 2, Zone 3. CanadaOlympic989 (talk) 19:42, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Poster about sneezing and coughing

French
English
Correct sneezing poster

I organized the translation of this freely available poster to 30+ languages, including French and English. Please forward to local chats, social network channels, municipalities, companies, etc.

More information: https://pesho-ivanov.github.io/#Sneeze

For suggestions, questions and corrections, please write on my talk page.

Cheater no1 (talk) 21:41, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

We should probably use posters available from Canadian sources in this article: Health Canada, BC-CDC, etc.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 01:51, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
But those posters are not in public domain or any licenses compatible with Wikipedia. OhanaUnitedTalk page 04:07, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
They are in the public domain when they are displayed in a public place and the poster is not the only thing in the photo. Just look at the playground photo already used in the article.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk)
Playground in Port Moody

Table of Closures/Restrictions

If this table is not going to be maintained with current information, it should be removed. For example, the information for Nfld & Lab is more than two weeks out of date. 47.55.241.24 (talk) 15:53, 4 April 2020 (UTC) Stephen Delaney April 4, 2020.

Testing

Just a quick one-off delivery, since the information in this link is fairly immediate and most relevant to this page. Relative criteria for testing across Canada - https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/covid-19-testing-variations-1.5520812 (The reasons for the different choices should be obvious, although putting them into the page where they are not previously in the article would be OR.) Obviously the table cannot be lifted directly (CP/probably not fair use), but if so desired, someone can translate the information into a WP table format. Considering what (did not happen) the last time, I decided not to waste the time doing it myself this time. (Also my sympathies, Shawn of Montreal. I know how those numbers and consequent restrictions hit at the heart of what I have learned to love about Quebec, be it tiny hamlet or large city. But Quebec has been through the crucible before and come out the stronger for it.) - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 13:57, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 April 2020

Change pei has not restricted gatherings to they have and that we have closed the provincial border

Source https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/prince-edward-island/pei-covid-19-timeline-1.5515859 86.106.90.94 (talk) 03:46, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

 Partly done: The borders are restricted. Also, please say Prince Edward Island instead of PEI. It got me confused for a few seconds. {{replyto}} Can I Log In's (talk) page 01:26, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 April 2020

Hello, I have made an exact Xcell copy of your spread sheet. Your totals across the bottom for every province are not correct. Doing a simple Xcell Sum function shows that. Regards D Perks daveperks@rogers.com 2607:FEA8:760:4E:8890:AAA2:BDF:28D8 (talk) 18:03, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

It might be better if you provide the correct totals for a specific date so we can update the article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:48, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. {{replyto}} Can I Log In's (talk) page 01:31, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:COVID-19_pandemic_in_Canada/Archive_1&oldid=954742834"