Template talk:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

RfC on linking to template namespace[edit]

The "Data and figures" section of this navbox links either exclusively or almost exclusively to the template namespace. Here are three options:

  • Option A: Keep as is and continue to link to template namespace.
  • Option B: Expand the linked templates into standalone articles.
  • Option C: Remove the linked templates from the navbox.

I look forward to reading your thoughts. 06:17, 22 March 2020 (UTC)  Bait30  Talk? 05:04, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Discussion and !votes

  • Option C or B We should not be linking to templates. It is against usual Wikipedia practice. Current links to templates can be dropped, replaced with links to article sections, or, where appropriate, the linked templates can be expanded into standalone articles. Bondegezou (talk) 07:23, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Before making a decision, it would be good to know why it is linking to templates. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 08:11, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
  •  Comment: +1 to Pbsouthwood, and another question: does the navbox already link to the pages, which transclude these templates? Do these pages have captions and/or prose describing the transcluded content? —⁠andrybak (talk) 09:26, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
    I assume that each template is transcluded into at least one article within the scope of the navbox, but have not checked, and it is technically possible that I may be wrong. In most cases I would expect at least two transclusions, into two articles, otherwise why bother to make it a template. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 10:30, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
    Here's list of translusion counts:
Transclusions counts
Template Transclusions
Template:2019–20 coronavirus outbreak data 2
Template:2019–20 coronavirus outbreak data/International medical cases 1 — Timeline of the 2019–20 coronavirus outbreak
Template:2019–20 coronavirus outbreak data/WHO situation reports None
Template:2019–20 coronavirus outbreak data/China medical cases by province 1 — Timeline of the 2019–20 coronavirus outbreak
Template:2019–20 coronavirus outbreak data/China medical cases chart 4
Template:2019–20 coronavirus outbreak data/Iran medical cases all location-related templates are transcluded once on pages "2020 coronavirus outbreak in X"
Template:2019–20 coronavirus outbreak data/Japan medical cases
Template:2019–20 coronavirus outbreak data/Japan medical cases chart
Template:2019–20 coronavirus outbreak data/Diamond Princess medical cases
Template:2019–20 coronavirus outbreak data/South Korea medical cases
Template:2019–20 coronavirus outbreak data/South Korea medical cases chart
Template:2019–20 coronavirus outbreak data/Philippines medical cases
Template:2019–20 coronavirus outbreak data/Singapore medical cases
Template:2019–20 coronavirus outbreak data/Thailand medical cases
Template:2019–20 coronavirus outbreak data/United Arab Emirates medical cases
Template:2019–20 coronavirus outbreak data/Europe medical cases
Template:2019–20 coronavirus outbreak data/France medical cases
Template:2019–20 coronavirus outbreak data/Germany medical cases
Template:2019–20 coronavirus outbreak data/Italy medical cases
Template:2019–20 coronavirus outbreak data/Italy medical cases chart
Template:2019–20 coronavirus outbreak data/Poland medical cases
Template:2019–20 coronavirus outbreak data/Sweden medical cases
Template:2019–20 coronavirus outbreak data/Switzerland medical cases
Template:2019–20 coronavirus outbreak data/United Kingdom medical cases
Template:2019–20 coronavirus outbreak data/United States medical cases
Template:2019–20 coronavirus outbreak data/Map (dots)
Most templates have a single transclusion. One has no transclusions at all. And two templates have more than one transclusion. —⁠andrybak (talk) 14:37, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Option C or B per Bondegezou rationale--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:00, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Option B based on what Bondegezou said. Idealigic (talk) 16:28, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Since there seems to be a suitable article using all except one template, I see no added value to the reader in having an extra link from the navbox to each table. I would be interested to know the rationale for having these tables as templates rather than the more usual practice of simply including them in the text. I can see the point when a table is used in more than one article, but not when it is in only one article.· · · Peter Southwood (talk): 18:39, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Option A or B. These data are extremely valuable. Most readers don't know or care what a MediaWiki namespace is. If someone wants to turn these into articles in mainspace, that's great, but I think a link to the data should be preserved in any case. 72.209.60.95 (talk) 01:14, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
    I have not seen anyone contest that the data are valuable, just the way they are being used is unusual and not covered by any manual of style guidance that I am aware of. As tables in a regular article they are plainly encyclopeic. As naked tables without context the case is not clear.
    What is the specific usefulness claimed for them as stand-alone tables, beyond their obvious value in articles where they are given context and explained? · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 15:08, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
    Now that you mention it, maybe there's no need to link to the templates specifically instead of the articles which transclude them. For example, instead of linking to Template:2019–20 coronavirus outbreak data/Switzerland medical cases, we could just link to 2020_coronavirus_outbreak_in_Switzerland#Statistics. I'm fine with doing that. 72.209.60.95 (talk) 22:56, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Option A the navigation to all the relevant pages is useful to quickly jump around to edit or read. I expect our readers will also appreciate it. So WP:IAR is applicable if an rule is an obstacle here. Removing the links does not add to the encyclopedia and would be slightly disruptive. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:34, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Option A. It is useful, WP:IAR. I also cannot find any policies or guidelines that explicitly discourage linking to templates. Darylgolden(talk) Ping when replying 03:51, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
    Useful in what way? · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 15:08, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Option A Works well the way it is. We can innovate and do what makes a better encyclopedia. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:59, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Option A The templates provide useful encyclopedic, sourced information and in this context including them in the navbox seems appropriate. The context in each template is provided by the {{main}} headers in the <noinclude> header sections. This context may not make sense for more typical Wikipedia navboxes. Obviously, a navbox for functional templates like {{t}} or {{citation needed}} would not make sense in the main namespace. Boud (talk) 01:02, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
We have a guideline on this. It's WP:NOTSTATSBOOK. Shouldn't we do what it says? Bondegezou (talk) 07:51, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment. I do not know if you are all aware that transclusions can be done from main space, in the same way that templates are transcluded from template space. If these tables are so generally useful that they should be used as stand-alone content, why are they not in main space as articles? · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 07:40, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Option B: While there is nothing wrong with option A, I find option B to be a better choice per 72.209.60.95. I just think it would be better to avoid linking to other namespaces as much as possible. It might confuse many newcomers who might think of it as a template with example numbers or something. Side note: I am officially no longer an uninvolved editor in this RfC so I will not be the one closing the discussion. I recommend waiting a week before requesting a closure per WP:ANRFC  Bait30  Talk? 08:42, 5 March 2020 (UTC).
  • Option A Keep it as is and expand given their usefulness. Accesscrawl (talk) 16:38, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Option A or B I think they are useful as is and provide valuable information, although I would be fine with expanding them into articles as well, particularly if they become larger. ~ HAL333 20:42, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Option B or C. We should not be linking to template namespace from mainspace. Navboxes in mainspace are for navigating between articles. If the template is already transcluded to an article, then the material is already navigable. If it isn't, then it should be, otherwise it defeats the purpose of the template namespace. 212.135.65.247 (talk) 10:31, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Option B or C. Wikipedia often has too much trouble maintaining a firm line between content for readers and maintenance content for editors. My interpretation of WP:TMP is that templates are firmly on the maintenance side of that line, and we should not blur it. If the data is useful, find another way to present it. Sdkb (talk) 06:49, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Option B. It makes it easier to navigate it for most Internet users. Most users of modern Internet are not interested of technicalities and inners of many services. Fortunny (talk) 12:15, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Option C. The relevant guideline here is WP:TG which states that Templates should not normally be used to store article text, as this makes it more difficult to edit the content. Additionally, template pages do not show up in search results by default (most users will not use any "Advanced search" option, nor are navboxes visible on mobile, which is at least 50% of our readers. That means that whoever is creating these templates, are creating it for themselves and a small group of editors, and not for the wider community. Option B is irrelevant here, if the topic is notable for an article, expand, if it isn't add it to an article. If both aren't an option, that means that the template has no reason to exist. --Gonnym (talk) 06:52, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Option B The data are very useful and current the CDC does not publish a daily report of cases and deaths by state. Not like other countries. Link to page with the statistics (table of state cases and deaths) from main page would be fine. Seatto23 (talk) 19:19, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Option B Seems less confusing for users and allows us to maintain useful data. MosquitoBird11 (talk) 19:36, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Option A/C. These templates are used in other articles, if we make standalone articles out of them this gets awkward. We could reduce the number of links here, however. Link to a list of these templates. --mfb (talk) 02:42, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Option B. Length of the template is getting out of hand. gidonb (talk) 00:18, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Make the timeline a proper navbox[edit]

The timeline sub-navbox looks much cleaner and matches the style of the other groups if it is it's own navbox child. Maybe something like this can be created?:

Demo navbox[edit]

Semi-protected edit request on 19 March 2020[edit]

The New Brunswick link for the article titled "2020 coronavirus pandemic in New Brunswick" because it was already created and it was missing under Canada then under "North America" at "Locations". Could you add "2020 coronavirus pandemic in New Brunswick" and cover it and it would say "New Brunswick" under Canada and North America at "Locations". This is an urgent edit request. Thanks. 2001:569:74D2:A800:C955:CE75:3DDA:DC2A (talk) 00:07, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

It's in the template at the moment, someone added it. --mfb (talk) 02:51, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Regions of Europe[edit]

I propose removing the region headers in the Europe section. I'm not European and I'm unfamiliar with the definitions of "Schengen Area" and "Common Travel Area". Perhaps these are familiar terms for Europeans but I'm guessing many other editors and readers are in the same boat as me. Previously, I've advocated for keeping the U.S. subsection header, but that's because there are ~50 pages for the U.S. The same cannot be said for these regions of Europe. Again, I propose removing the region headers and just having a single section for Europe. I plan to make similar proposals for other sections. ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:18, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Also, "Rest of Eastern Europe" as a subsection? We can do better... ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:24, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
User:Another Believer, as has also been noted also above, the subheaders for Europe are a qualified disaster. Total OR. Unclear. Riddles of sorts. Given some time, I will fix this and standardize the subcontinents with those of the other continents. If someone beats me to it, good for him/her! gidonb (talk) 00:50, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
Schengen Area is the name of the area in which residents of those member countries can travel freely within them. It is basically European Union but with a number of subtle difference (Like including Switzerland but excluding Croatia). If anything, this and the British Islands one are the two that actually serve a purpose. I would suggest desubcategorizing the remaining countries.C933103 (talk) 00:54, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
Seconded. Especially as these two categories functionally act like countries in terms of the movement of people. Not a European myself either but I don't see Schengen as a poorly known concept at all. Given that, I wouldn't support removing the category just like I wouldn't support removing the category of "Central Asia" just because a non-Asian might not be familiar with that concept. Rethliopuks (talk) 02:17, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
There are currently 69 pages under "Europe", and 33 just under "Schengen Area". This is with only one subnational article (North Rhine-Westphalia). If some user came along and created separate articles just for all the German states like you did for U.S. states, the article count under Schengen would burgeon to 48. Not to even mention Swiss cantons, Spanish autonomous communities, Italian regions, or metropolitan French regions such as Île-de-France, among others. Rethliopuks (talk) 02:24, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
Not even the German Wikipedia has articles for the individual states at the moment. In the other countries the individual subdivisions are even less important. If we do get so many articles in the future I would suggest limiting the template to countries, let the country articles link to individual regions. --mfb (talk) 07:11, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
My point still stands, there's 33 articles under Schengen Area already. 19:44, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Template:Hospital beds by country[edit]

Is Template:Hospital beds by country specific to COVID-19? If not, should be removed. ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:08, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

yes because it s each country's ability to respond 'medically(with equipment/beds)' to the outbreak...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:52, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
The article is not specific to COVID-19 but it's an important article for the pandemic (adding the ventilators was done specifically for COVID-19). Similarly, all the entries in the "people" section were notable for other things before, but they are relevant in the context of the outbreak as well. --mfb (talk) 02:53, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Regions of Asia[edit]

Is Vietnam Eastern Asia, or Southeast Asia? In my opinion, we should classify Regions of Asia as 「East Asia and ASEAN」, and rest of Asia. If you consider it in other ways, then please share your thought for this topic. Thanks for reading this opinion. 11:17, 22 March 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.237.125.110 (talk)

Vietnam is centrally located in Southeast Asia. We should use only the conventional WP geographic hierarchy: countries, subcontinents, and continents. gidonb (talk) 13:02, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
I don't think the East Asia and Southeast Asia subheaders are necessary. I vote to upmerge and just display Asia. ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:51, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
Strongly oppose. By the same rationale there shouldn't even be a United States header because it would be more unnecessary than the subcontinents. There's currently 64 articles under "Asia", whereas the United States was made into a header there was only 50 under North America in total, and some people were apparently so uncomfortable about the number of articles under North America that they felt compelled to set up the first national-level header, even though everything that did was to move an already distinctively identifiable group of articles at the end of the list into a separate sublist that followed the end of the original list. Rethliopuks (talk) 19:45, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
Disagree. When there are 10 items or more per subcontinent, subcontinents can be really helpful. gidonb (talk) 20:02, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
This just makes the template larger than necessary. I assume people using this template can easily find a country of interest sorted by continent. The only reason I was advocating for a U.S. subheader was because there are 50+ pages about the country regardless of the total number of entries in North America. If other nations had 50 related articles I'd propose a similar subheader. But in general, the region subheaders are unnecessary and not necessarily intuitive to readers. ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:37, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
On the extreme, we can do away with all categories and the template will be very short. That said, I partially agree with your point and believe Rethliopuks went to an extreme again with subcontinents while incorporating OR. Let me tone North America down to categories with 10+ and it will be so much compacter than it is now! gidonb (talk) 22:48, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
You personally created most of the at least 44 out of the 50 U.S. state articles though, even when most of them had little content to qualify as separate if they were normal parts of any other country. Plus, the US came at the last in North America, there's no issue of any difficulty of finding a country or the US states. Rethliopuks (talk) 06:42, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
Also, as a friendly reminder, you made the U.S. into a subheader when there was a grand total of 9 articles under it as well. Rethliopuks (talk) 06:47, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
Just looked a little further and it turned out that you did so when the US state article count was six. Rethliopuks (talk) 07:18, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
Hey guys. This should not be a historic analysis, but a discussion on how to perfect the template for the present situation. gidonb (talk) 14:22, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
My point is we should maintain consistency, otherwise that'd probably violate WP:NPOV, not least as a glaring instance of Anglo-American bias. Rethliopuks (talk) 18:03, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
Let's not worry about when the U.S. subheader was added -- doesn't matter... The Europe section looks much cleaner than the Africa and Asia sections, and makes finding specific countries easier. I hope the Africa and Asia subsections are upmerged soon, too. ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:51, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Lockdowns[edit]

Please do not add countries/regions that have recommendations that people stay at home or other suggested protective measures. These are not governmental "lockdowns". A lockdown is a government act to force people to adopt or restrict certain behavior, such as no unnecessary movement, traveling outside an area or no trips outside of ones home. For example, California (U.S.) was added to this section the other day but they are not under a lockdown. Liz Read! Talk! 19:54, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Sorry if I wasn't clear on the nuance. Google search for California + lockdown seems to return loads of reputable secondary sources calling it a "lockdown". And I thought that even though it was styled as a "shelter in home" order, it was a governmental restriction on people's behaviours and movements? Rethliopuks (talk) 20:49, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Propose splitting of notable deaths, by country[edit]

Just as the list of infected people in this template was removed for being too long eventually, there will unfortunately be a time when the list of notable deaths will become very large in comparison to more limited fields, such as that of researchers or government officials.

The problem with the header "notable deaths" is that its notability criteria is being notable for a Wikipedia article. I watch the BBC News every night and with the exception of Li Wenliang and maybe some of the other early cases of medical staff in China, not one of these people has even been mentioned on national news for their death - I would say that is the definition of a "notable death", as the mere infections of some people like Tom Hanks has been lead news here.

As this list gets longer, it may become more handy to make for example a template for the pandemic per country. In that template could be listed all the officials, deaths, and related topics such as lockdowns and other policies and effects. I think for example a box on the pandemic in Italy would be a more suitable template for stub pages such as Italo De Zan and Francesco Saverio Pavone, instead of a huge template with everything about the pandemic from all over the world.

Wallachia Wallonia (talk) 22:36, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Support. The template is way too long! We need to break it into subsections. gidonb (talk) 00:17, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
Better link to a single list article only, that list article can be split into sub-lists later. --mfb (talk) 02:49, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Request indicating data templates[edit]

The data section in this templates, are all link to templates (+ 1x svg). Other links in this templates are links to articles. This is not visible. Can this be changed:

| group7 = Data

to

| group7 = Data (templates)

31.201.130.50 (talk) 14:45, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Done. This section might change based on the discussion at the top of the talk page, but for now they are templates. --mfb (talk) 02:48, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Time to ditch listing individual deaths?[edit]

Hi. As time goes on, the number of deaths goes up, as does the number of notable people who died from COVID19. There could be hundreds, if not thousands of people in this template in the upcoming weeks. Therefore, is it time to stop listing every single person on the template, and simply link to the parent category? Thoughts? Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 17:28, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree with this. The list is going to get way too long for the template, and I don't really see any benefit in linking completely unrelated people just because they died from the same pandemic. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:37, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
  • For now it is fine but in the future it will need to be move to another template or removed entierly. RealFakeKimT 19:32, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
    • Maybe just replace it to one link to an article about people who have died from the disease. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:53, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
Agree. This template is already too big. Link to List of deaths from the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic. Liz Read! Talk! 22:04, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
Agree. Link to the list only. --mfb (talk) 02:45, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
I was just thinking of this as I ventured to this talk page; agreed with just linking to the list. Connormah (talk) 20:59, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
I think a separate template would be more appropriate. Although, if the numbers get even higher in the future and reach thousands, then we should just keep the category and get rid of the template altogether. Keivan.fTalk 00:34, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

I see consensus for removal and removed them. Last version with the list in case someone wants to see the former list. --mfb (talk) 06:24, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

"Schengen Area" and "Common Travel Area" as original research?[edit]

I don't understand what part of my edit qualified as WP:OR. I was also only reverting to a previous version because the removal of these two did not have a consensus. Ping @Gidonb:. Rethliopuks (talk) 17:34, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

As for my African/North American subcontinent division, as I have referred to in my edit summaries, it comes from the UN geoscheme available here.Rethliopuks (talk) 17:36, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

We don't need these subheaders. ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:46, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Asian / European countries[edit]

I understand that some users want to avoid listing countries twice in the template, but as some of you may already know, Russia, Kazakhstan, Turkey and Azerbaijan are located in both Asia and Europe. There have been a number of users that keep removing and adding them to both sections (including me!), but it seems that a general consensus has not been reached. I'll be glad if users help with making a final decision here. Keivan.fTalk 00:40, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Certainly list them in the continent where (a) most of their area is and (b) most of the people live. That means Russia should be in both, Azerbaijan should be in both as the border between the continents is not clearly defined there, Turkey and Kazakhstan should be in Asia at least, but I support adding them to both to avoid endless discussions about "what is enough to include it". --mfb (talk) 06:19, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

RFC : Strategic_National_Stockpile (request for comments)[edit]

Should it be integrated into the template ? Similar to Covid-19 related shortage (which is more international). Yug (talk) 21:03, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

"Officials" section[edit]

This is becoming a general list of important politicians in the world, and it's getting way too long. We don't need a list of every prime minister/president in every country here. Can we cut that list down to the most important people where their relevance comes from the pandemic? --mfb (talk) 06:15, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree.--Emyil (talk) 08:06, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
What on earth? This template should stick to entries specifically about the pandemic, not a list of world leaders. Remove. ---Another Believer (Talk) 00:13, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
Should be removed ASAP...temp needs a good cuddling and first to go should be links to pages with very little info on the topic.--Moxy 🍁 02:48, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
The section seems to have just exploded. Some of these officials are working on COVID-19 response like Dr. Fauci in the U.S. He has been the main source of authority on national response to coronavirus. But I think we should remove Presidents and Prime Ministers. Liz Read! Talk! 03:24, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

I cut it down to 6 people. Three from the WHO, and the leading responsible person in the US, China and Italy (excluding elected officials whose notability comes from their job, not from the pandemic), as these three countries have the largest case counts. --mfb (talk) 04:45, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

I expect that this template will be split up in the future, with some general links common across all pandemic articles and more specialized templates where suitable (by region, most likely). Currently the situation is still evolving rapidly, hard to tell what we will end up with. --mfb (talk) 05:43, 28 March 2020 (UTC)