Wikipedia talk:WikiProject COVID-19

Highlighted open discussions

Current consensus

NOTE: The following is a list of material maintained on grounds that it represents current consensus for the articles under the scope of this project. In accordance with Wikipedia:General sanctions/Coronavirus disease 2019, ("prohibitions on the addition or removal of certain content except when consensus for the edit exists") changes of the material listed below in this article must be discussed first, and repeated offenses against established consensus may result in administrative action. It is recommended to link to this list in your edit summary when reverting, as [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject COVID-19#Current consensus]], item [n]. To ensure you are viewing the current list, you may wish to .

1. There is no current consensus about whether to use Template:Current at the top of articles covered by this project, although the matter is under discussion here. The de facto practice has been to include them for less-trafficked articles but not for the most heavily trafficked ones.

Where should the data live?

Currently, the case data used in articles here lives in a set of templates, which does not seem to be an optimal solution. Other options would include the Data namespace on Commons (e.g. commons:Data:Ncei.noaa.gov/weather/New York City.tab), SVG files on Commons (e.g. commons:File:Atmospheric Microwave Transmittance at Mauna Kea (simulated).svg) or Wikidata (e.g. 2020 coronavirus outbreak in France (Q83873593)). All three could be made to work with or without templates and in a manual or automated fashion. -- Daniel Mietchen (talk) 02:45, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Daniel Mietchen, I'm torn between the three. The Wikidata example is detailed and gets down into the specifics (which is great), but I like how it's been organised as a data set on Commons. Would there be a way to automate .svg file updates as the data set it's drawing from gets edited? Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 14:17, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Tenryuu Various combinations are possible, including automated SVG file updates as the underlying data change. Depending on how that is implemented, a bot permission might be needed or not. Some bots like commons:User:ListeriaBot or commons:User:TabulistBot exist for such purposes, and commons:Category:Valid SVG created with Python code lists some example SVG files created using Python code, whereas mw:Extension:Graph can visualize data based on tabular data on Commons. -- Daniel Mietchen (talk) 02:29, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Daniel Mietchen, is it possible to update all 3 concurrently when one of them gets updated? Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 21:58, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Tenryuu Yes in principle, but I have not seen that implemented in any context yet. -- Daniel Mietchen (talk) 01:20, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Related: #Why in Template namespace? . --Mezze stagioni (talk) 16:01, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Another related discussion, essentially asking about the licensing of the source data and about workflows for incorporation into Wikipedia et al. -- Daniel Mietchen (talk) 14:45, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

A comment by Tgr_(WMF) from yet another related discussion (in the Wikispore group on Telegram): "none of the options are great: Wikidata is not really meant for time serious, tabular data is a half-finished feature and not at all user-friendly, and that's all the cross-wiki options we have, short of setting up a custom DB somewhere and using bots to clone the data into Lua tables (which TBH might well be the least bad method)". -- Daniel Mietchen (talk) 14:52, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

While I agree that Wikidata is not ideal for time series data, it can still be used that way in some basic fashion, and the Wikidata arm of WikiProject COVID-19 is exploring that (e.g. as per the example queries). -- Daniel Mietchen (talk) 15:02, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi. I'm Evan Prodromou, product manager for APIs in the Core Platform Team at WMF. I'm interested to see how my team can be helpful in organising this data, and making it more available for public use (say, as CSV or JSON). I'll be tracking this conversation closely. --EProdromou (WMF) (talk) 16:38, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

​​​​ Related discussion: Template talk:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic#RfC on linking to template namespace.  Bait30  ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 16:57, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

​​​​ Can you lay out the options that you think are realistically possible? At this point, I think anything that yields itself to both automation and triggering by individual users (similar to the "Update the list now" functionality in {{Wikidata list}} triggering edits by User:ListeriaBot) would be fine. For instance, the data could reside in tabular data on Commons and processed from there into wiki pages both here and elsewhere. Much of the data is also curated on Wikidata (see d:Wikidata:WikiProject_COVID-19), so pulling it in from there may be another option. For the long run, we probably need to think a bit more deeply about what makes the most sense. -- Daniel Mietchen (talk) 18:57, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

In Wikidata the information is not as updated as in the templates, as of now. But infos about specific outbreaks are being manually updated in each Wikipedia project, which is a lot of extra work, so we really need some kind of automation. I wonder if we couldn't have a time series object in commons (table? svg?) and, in Wikidata, we could come with a property like "related time series", with proper qualifiers. Then stop using specific properties for counting cases and as time series proxies, but keeping the most current numbers updated in Wikidata so as to have Template:2019–20_coronavirus_pandemic_data data there. Maybe trying to use something like the WIkidata Bridge could help. TiagoLubiana (talk) 23:06, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

An option based on the graph extension for such data is described in this video and demoed via the play button on this page. -- Daniel Mietchen (talk) 04:08, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Hastily split Timeline articles so references display again

At time of writing, Timeline of the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic in March 2020 has so many template transclusions that Template:reflist will not expand, and citations can only be checked inside the edit window. Timeline of the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic in February 2020 is in better condition but still a member of Category:Pages where template include size is exceeded.

Both articles have existing split discussions, at Talk:Timeline of the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic in February 2020#Splitting proposal, Talk:Timeline of the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic in March 2020#Templates not showing up, and Talk:Timeline of the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic in March 2020#Reference fix. However this project talk page seems to be much higher-traffic, and the project covers both existing too-large Timeline articles as well as any future monthly Timeline articles, so I'm tryna centralise our discussion here.

Be it hereby proposed that the Pandemic chronology sections of both the February and March Timeline articles be split out into standalone articles. This will reduce template transclusions on the February Timeline article by over 400, and reduce transclusions on the March article by over 600. For the new article titles I suggest Case chronology of the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic in February 2020 and Case chronology of the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic in March 2020, but I'm sure there's a guideline or MOS entry somewhere that has clearer guidance for a title. We can also discuss splitting out the Mainland China section of the February article and/or merging the Mainland China section of the March article, but my point is we should do a split soon, so readers can check our references per WP:V and all.

Pinging prior discussion participants @Aceing Winter Snows Harsh Cold, Tenryuu, Bondegezou, Username6892, 73.121.138.28, 72.209.60.95, Onetwothreeip, Randy Kryn, Bait30, Alucard 16, Moxy, TheGreatSG'rean, and Elishop:.

• Support as proposer. Folly Mox (talk) 23:58, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

@Wow: sorry missed you in the initial ping storm. Folly Mox (talk) 00:04, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

• Support: Separate measures and case chronologies to create more space. All sources should be scrutinised for reliability. Thanks TheGreatSG'rean (talk) 00:03, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support: I've brought it up before, the inability to see reliable sources defeats Wikipedia's purpose. Splitting the articles will fix that problem.  Bait30  ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 00:31, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support. With more reports as time goes by splitting it is a good idea as it appears everyone's using the {{cite}} template family. That being said...
  •  Comment. A lot of regions are starting to get their [[2020 coronavirus pandemic in ____]] articles started up (as seen from the many articles created in that format for many US states). I think template use can be further reduced by linking to the articles that talk about those areas. If we want to still create a separate page for that I'm all for it. --Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 00:35, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support per above. --Wow (talk) 01:00, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support . Given the prose sizes of both pages, the February article should still probably be split and the March article has a good chance of becoming too long as well, and that's before talking about the template problems. Username⁶⁸⁹² 01:18, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
• SupportElishop (talk) 03:04, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 03:18, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support as per nom I agree 100% Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 07:13, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment Would the split pages also get protected like the current parent pages? Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 09:18, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Probably good to keep the protection level (technically: add it to the new pages). --mfb (talk) 09:40, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

• Support as per above Zanoni (talk) 08:52, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support - too long and easy to split. --mfb (talk) 09:40, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
• Strong support, we can't have templates breaking on an article linked from the Main Page. >>BEANS X3t 13:42, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support - A temporary fast partial crude fix is substituting <references /> for {{reflist}}, now there are 700+ citations showing, with the rest of them showing template:cite. Once the article is split, the problem should go away. Isaidnoway (talk) 15:35, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support, with the month not even over, the page is only going to get larger and larger. QueerFilmNerd^talk 20:44, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

• Strong support Virtually any facet of this pandemic shall deserve its own article; virtually any omnibus article shall be long and cumbersome. kencf0618 (talk) 00:03, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
• Strong support The pages are literally broken, I can't stress enough how vital it is to do this. Swordman97 ^{talk to me} 00:23, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

How to Split?

Since it seems there is unlikely to be someone who disagrees with a split, how do we wish to split the page? By date? Inside/outside mainland china would not work (as is suggested on the February timeline). If wanted, we can move this discussion to the itself. QueerFilmNerd^talk 00:34, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

QueerFilmNerd, there was a discussion (which I currently can't find) where an editor suggested splitting "governmental responses" from "pathology timeline." They're already under their own sections so splitting them should be rather easy. Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 04:11, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Ok so a crude, quick way to split this (for now like now the nom suggested) is to split the pandemic chronology off into its own page while keeping everything else on its own page. However for this to work the Pandemic chronology would have to be stripped of all other non-essential templates considering this section is using 718 {{cite}} templates on its own and we still have 10 days left in the month. Meaning the entire case statistics section would have to be left out of the potential pandemic chronology timeline page for this to work in its current form. Leaving that section in would cause the potential pandemic chronology timeline page to become overloaded. Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 11:04, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Alucard 16, another alternative is to wait tilt he end of the month and see where we could possibly split? As we would know (more roughly) the size of the page. QueerFilmNerd^talk 20:40, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

A simple way forward would be a split by calender week with a monthly article sumarizing and linking to the individual weeks. Agathoclea (talk) 08:52, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

We should probably split soon, the you can't see the refs now aha. QueerFilmNerd^talk 23:43, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Result: The March timeline has been split into Chronology of the 2019-20 coronavirus pandemic in March 2020 and Responses to the 2019-20 coronavirus pandemic in March 2020. --Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 15:42, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

COVID-19 or Coronavirus disease 2019?

Not sure if this has been discussed already and if consensus has been reached, but articles seem to lack consistency in the use of those terms (both in naming and in content).

It's probably better to discuss this in a centralised way rather than risk having discussion on each article talk page such as [1]. Article names should then gradually be moved to reflect the consensus we reach (no rush since changing probably requires a bot given the number of links) but at least we have a standard set once and for all for new articles or future discussions that are bound to pop up. Should we collect "candidates" and then vote or is there a more appropriate way?

COVID-19 is my preference. I believe it is the most appropriate WP:COMMONNAME. It's easier and shorter to just use the acronym (just like for HIV/AIDS) and the term is widely used by top sources and the news media (see WHO, ECDC or CDC). See also official WHO announcement of new naming, it's pretty unequivocal: "First of all, we now have a name for the disease: COVID-19. I’ll spell it: C-O-V-I-D hyphen one nine – COVID-19." --Gtoffoletto (talk) 00:37, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

While we are on that, what is the proper capitalisation of COVID-19 (or Covid-19 or covid-19 or CoVid-19...)?--MaoGo (talk) 00:45, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

MaoGo, everyone appears to be using COVID-19. Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 01:15, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

+1 for COVID-19 all caps --Gtoffoletto (talk) 14:34, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

• Support COVID-19 (proposer) --Gtoffoletto (talk) 14:35, 26 March 2020 (UTC) See next section with more precise proposal --Gtoffoletto (talk) 12:47, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support COVID-19. Precedent's already been set for HIV/AIDS as Gtoffoletto has pointed out. Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 01:19, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
• COVID-19: like others have said, it's the WP:COMMONNAME. It also makes it a bit easier to differentiate when you're talking about the virus vs the disease. I suggest creating an RfC out of this so that the discussion doesn't just get lost in the mix.  Bait30  ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 04:45, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Could you do the RfC User:Bait30? --Gtoffoletto (talk) 11:52, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
    • The purpose of an WP:RFC, according to the first sentence on that page, is to solicit input from outside editors. You should only use an RFC if you think the editors on this page are unable to make a decision by themselves. And just in case this is news to anyone here, an RFC is not a binding vote. It is just a normal talk-page discussion with an advertising mechanism. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:10, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
      • Yeah at this point it doesn’t make sense to do an RfC anymore. I only suggested it because I thought it wouldn’t get enough responses to form a meaningful consensus like a bunch of other discussions on the page.  Bait30  ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 17:06, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support COVID-19. It is better to stick with this instead of coronavirus disease 2019. WHO named this coronavirus as COVID-19 so it is better to comply according to the prescription of the World Health Organisation. Abishe (talk) 05:01, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support COVID-19, per User:Gtoffoletto. --Netha (talk) 11:57, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support COVID-19, due to precedence pointed out by User:Gtoffoletto. ~User:Cyberdg 15:23, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

• The full name is "Coronavirus disease 2019" per WHO[2] and the CDC[3] which is abbreviated as COVID-19. We should have a formal move request at the page in question not here. Usually we use the full name such as Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease followed by the abbreviation COPD. No one actually calls COPD by its full name either. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:28, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
  • exact quote from CDC "The disease has been named “coronavirus disease 2019” (abbreviated “COVID-19”)." [4] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:30, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
    • Hey User:Doc James thanks for accepting my invitation, the reason I started this centralised discussion is that multiple pages present this "dilemma" so I think it would be more appropriate to decide once and for all. Looking at the WHO announcement it's pretty unequivocal: "First of all, we now have a name for the disease: COVID-19. I’ll spell it: C-O-V-I-D hyphen one nine – COVID-19." COVID-19 is definitely an abbreviation but all the sources you report use it also in the title of their pages and usually prefer it in the body. Also the "full name" is not always consistent. In this WHO page titled Naming the coronavirus desease (COVID-19) the name is reported as "coronavirus disease [line break](COVID-19)". The CDC states here [5] "Note: On February 11, 2020 the WHO announced the official name of the virus: COVID-19."
    • While COVID-19 (all caps) is always consistently used the "full name" has often small variations (no 2019 or "novel" added). Also, I see the COPD precedent but the opposite seems true with HIV/AIDS. What do you think of that? It seems precedent for use of the "abbreviation" has been set for unwieldy names. Hope you are well. --Gtoffoletto (talk) 11:16, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
      • I think it is fine having the discussion regarding what term do we generally want to use in the text of articles here. And I support us using COVID-19 in the text generally as we use COPD. I do not think this is the venue for having a discussion about the name used for the article in question especially as we have had multiple discussion of this name their already. With respect to HIV/AIDS it still starts by "Human immunodeficiency virus infection and acquired immune deficiency syndrome (HIV/AIDS)". We did not go with the full name as a title as it was simple too long. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:12, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
        • Doc James (talk · contribs) My proposal isn't aimed at any particular article but the whole lot (including especially category pages). Thanks for the explanations regarding HIV/AIDS. I have had a look around and indeed the title naming convention for diseases seems clear. Does the same apply to category pages and other subpage titles or just the main page? In the body I would still select as standard COVID-19 do you agree? --Gtoffoletto (talk) 00:30, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
          • I am happy for the standard in the body to be COVID-19 also happy for COVID-19 to be used in category pages. It is just the main page I think it is reasonable to use the full name. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:09, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
• I defer to Doc James (talk · contribs) on things of this nature. So support as per Doc and his sources. PS hope you and your staff are doing well James.--Moxy 🍁 03:46, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Thanks User:Moxy doing well thankfully. I am happy with the abbreviation COVID-19 generally being use in the text, just as we generally use COPD. For consistency the main article should still be named the full name rather than the abbreviation IMO. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:50, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

More precise proposal

As discussed above with User:Doc James there already is in place a standard for disease article page titles. The COMPLETE disease name should be preferred in the title and first sentence (see examples COPD and HIV/AIDS which was shortened in the title but not in the first sentence as it was just too long for the title). Doesn't make sense to change this standard for this one case so I will be more precise with my proposal:

• Coronavirus disease 2019 is the full name of the disease and should be used for the main article.
• COVID-19 (full caps as per WHO [6]) is preferable in the body of all articles, and in the title of all other articles/category pages/etc. The full name includes the year that can cause confusion and isn't very compact.

--Gtoffoletto (talk) 12:47, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

• Support (proposer) --Gtoffoletto (talk) 00:52, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support Perfect reasonable IMO. We are see Covid19 as people are just too lazy to put the rest in caps on a cellphone. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:00, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support reasonable. --Puddleglum^2.0_{(How's my driving?)} 17:36, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support. Checking other disease articles seems to put HIV/AIDS titling as an exception. Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 04:32, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose I'm concerned about a brief discussion here having ramifications for the titles of hundreds of articles that many editors are diligently working on. As you propose, COVID-19 ... is preferable in the body of all articles, and in the title of all other articles/category pages/etc., so you're talking about renaming/moving hundreds of articles/categories/templates and I'm don't think a limited participation discussion on this WikiProject talk page will fly. "Coronavirus pandemic" is used on almost all of them and I think you should bring a request to WP:RM and WP:CFD with an organized proposal, listing every page you want changed, the old & new title. We can't have a discussion here with 5-10 editors weighing in and then go move hundreds of pages based on this. This process is how renames are done with categories and sometimes they involve hundreds of categories in the proposal. Take the time and make a proposal in the right forums, not here. Once you've done that, post a link to the proposals here and I know that I will probably go over and support them. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:34, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

  User:Liz I'm not proposing any move at the moment. Just trying to set a standard we can use in the future. The consensus could then be used as basis for a future move but that is out of scope at the moment. One step at the time. We don't need to do everything at once but already defining a "best practice" will at least help us with new pages being created and with the body of existing ones. We can then tackle the bigger problem later. If we have a proposal that we agree on here we can also extend it to other editors outside the project to check it's fine for everyone. But let's make sure we agree on the basic principles here first. --Gtoffoletto (talk) 08:51, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

  Liz, don't we have bots that can move multiple pages at one by replacing part of the title? E.g., "Coronavirus" → "COVID-19"? Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 19:07, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Partial oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. All the best: Rich Farmbrough (the apparently calm and reasonable) 13:24, 3 April 2020 (UTC).

• Support. This seems like a reasonable solution that uses the full name where necessary, and the proper abbreviated name where convenient, similar to the HIV/AIDS articles.--Pharos (talk) 18:27, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

When should articles have the Current template?

At 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic, the stable (albeit pretty much undiscussed, as far as I can tell) consensus seems to be not to use {{Current}}, but it still appears at many sub-articles for individual countries. The guidelines at the template seem to discourage long-term use, but the de facto practice seems otherwise, and for some of the lesser-trafficked pages, I could see an argument for a strong prominent disclaimer that contents may be out of date. Regardless, we should strive for consistency, so: should we use {{Current}} on pretty much all of the COVID-19 pages, on some of them (as decided by some criteria we could formulate here, or just ad hoc), or on basically none of them? Sdkb (talk) 02:40, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Presentation slides from a presentation at Wikimania 2018 covering some of the results mentioned on this page.

Should be removed all over....just makes readers have to scroll for nothing....the message will not change what people read (and there's already a notice about content accuracy)..but the banner will cause some to get less information....as we know most will only scroll 2 times and if they don't get to the TOC in those 2 scrolls they are gone. raw data.--Moxy 🍁 02:58, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

@Moxy: Okay, I'll start taking them out. At the least it'll drive more attention here if people disagree. And yes, I read that study after you linked it the other day. Very interesting. Holding people's attention is hard. Sdkb (talk) 18:21, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

I think this is a big mistake, Sdkb. This is a big change to make based on a couple of comments. Many of the pages are not regularly updated and these notices serve to make that clear. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:22, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Agree with Liz. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:01, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

As this has been contested and Liz made a request, I'll stop removing the template from articles where it previously existed for now. I issued an invite at the template page for others to come here. The view I think I'm coming to is that it should depend on the prominence of the article, with the more prominent ones (which are updated frequently) not having it but the less prominent ones retaining it, as they have greater need for the disclaimer. Sdkb (talk) 04:22, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Pls just slow down ...you have multiple proposals on the go in the middle of you learning how it all works. No rush.--Moxy 🍁 11:25, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

@Moxy: We all always have more to learn, but I think I have plenty enough tenure to understand the fundamental relevant considerations here. WP:NODEADLINE is always good advice, but so is WP:SENIORITY. Sdkb (talk) 18:46, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

This is going to be going on a long time. I do not think the template is really needed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:50, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

My first instinct was "of course it's current and info will for sure be out of date!". But I agree with User:Doc James. This will continue for a long time so keeping that banner just because a page isn't updated in real time with every tiny bit of data or statistic is probably not that useful. The pages will consolidate and the data will show the date of last update. I support removing it but agree "no rush". Let's remember we are all in this together and take it easy guys. --Gtoffoletto (talk) 18:11, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Current tag Merged from duplicate discussion by Sdkb (talk) at 18:35, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Why articles about coronavirus pandemic in countries don't have {{current}} tag?--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 10:27, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

It mainly depends on activity level. If there are say, more than an edit a minute on average, then it might be needed to indicate that it is a current event that has high editor activity. Thus readers and editors are aware that the page changes quickly, revealing new content and conflicts in saving edits. -- 65.94.170.207 (talk) 11:49, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

I'd say the opposite, actually. The most important function of the template is to note that the page might be out of date, and that's more necessary on the smaller, less-frequently updated pages. Edit conflicts will explain themselves if/when they come up, plus we should be designing pages for readers, not editors. Sdkb (talk) 18:47, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

The template's reason has become muddy over the years. This is one reason a separate template might be useful, which we can modify as we see fit. There are a few messages in the template, mostly addressed to readers, although the template documentation says that it is targeted at editors:

1. A warning that information may be out of date.
2. A warning that news reports may be unreliable.
3. An invitation to edit the article or discuss on the talk page.

It's not clear that all are appropriate in our use cases.

In 2009 the template was:

This had the advantages of a) Clarity for the reader and b) Clarity for the editor. It was typically applied to a breaking news and for a day or so.

I have created a custom template, {{Current COVID}} which, should we so desire, can be edited to fulfil the exact requirements for this project. Please feel free to edit this template. I would urge that editors prefer simplicity to features.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough (the apparently calm and reasonable) 12:33, 3 April 2020 (UTC).

I agree with you that the template has become a bit muddy/bloated over the years. I think the best solution to that is to update the template itself, introducing new parameters if needed, rather than creating a new one from scratch. Creating a new one just adds unnecessarily to the byzantine collection of templates. Apologies, but I'm going to bring it up at TfD to get more input. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 20:04, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

I really don't think now is the time to overhaul {{Current}}, though if you wish to start that process off by all means do so. When you have completed it we can merge back. All the best: Rich Farmbrough (the apparently calm and reasonable) 21:02, 3 April 2020 (UTC).

Wikidata:WikiProject COVID-19

Just FYI, for people interested in Wikidata: wikidata:Wikidata:WikiProject COVID-19 ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:58, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Is there also one on COMMONS? COMMONS:COM:WikiProject COVID-19 or somesuch -- 65.94.170.207 (talk) 01:13, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

I've not seen one at Commons. I'd encourage someone, especially an editor familiar with WikiProjects at Commons, to be bold and start one if there are ways editors can collaborate. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 01:17, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Related: commons:Category:WikiProject COVID-19 ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:44, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Coronavirus impact on X articles

It strikes me that, as a general rule, "Coronavirus impact on X" is a lot less unweildy sort of title than "Impact of the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic on X", for most of the specialized subject articles.--Pharos (talk) 17:12, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

I've started an example one here: Coronavirus impact on teleconferencing.--Pharos (talk) 18:03, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

If the article is supposed to focus specifically on COVID-19, then I would use the word "COVID-19" rather than "coronavirus", as the latter term includes SARS, MERS, etc. —Granger (talk · contribs) 18:19, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

I feel like for consistency's sake, that article should follow the "impact of the 2019-20 coronavirus pandemic" naming pattern.  Bait30  ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 18:38, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Pharos, per Granger, which coronavirus are you referring to? Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 22:38, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

I think that coronavirus pandemic in the main series of titles is effectively under the same moratorium (26 March + 30 days, at least) as move requests as the "main" page. That doesn't necessarily block new (or newish) titles, in which case it would be reasonable to predict the likely outcome of future move requests, to minimise the impact of future move requests. It's clear that coronavirus impact would be rejected; 100s of millions of people are infected by coronaviruses in temperate zones every winter, and that's been happening for a very long time. COVID-19 impact ... (with pandemic implicit) or COVID-19 pandemic impact ... would be reasonable, it seems to me. Boud (talk) 01:38, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm referring primarility to COVID-19, though I wouldn't be opposed to having some information related to social impacts of the SARS and MERS epidemics in the early 21st C. Obviously the impact of all coronaviruses every winter isn't really an encyclopedic topic, so going for a shorthand. COVID-19 impact or coronavirus impact would both be fine for me, though I do think impact of the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic is rather too much.--Pharos (talk) 17:34, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Pharos, "coronavirus impact" would not be okay, because, again, which coronavirus would you be referring to? You may be able to get away with "Impact of COVID-19" as it's more specific and the disease is recognised. Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 15:31, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

This discussion should be merged with above discussion here: COVID-19 or Coronavirus disease 2019? --Gtoffoletto (talk) 11:49, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

@Gtoffoletto: I'm going to have to disagree with you on that; the other section is more focused around what we refer to coronavirus disease 2019: as the full thing or as its shorthand. This is considering ditching either of those and referring to it as the general "coronavirus" family. --Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 12:00, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

@Tenryuu:Yes what I meant is: we are already having a discussion about those standards in that discussion. This is a third proposal in that discussion. Although I think it's clear from the sources reported there that just using "Coronavirus" is inappropriate (it's not a precise/accurate name). I would continue that discussion instead of branching out. --Gtoffoletto (talk) 12:05, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

For article names WP:COMMONNAME is unambiguous, we should be using COVID-19 for the disease, so " COVID-19 pandemic" would seem reasonable. There's no need to disambiguate by year. (I prefer the all caps, but may remain neutral on any discussion on that.) All the best: Rich Farmbrough (the apparently calm and reasonable) 13:27, 3 April 2020 (UTC).

Category:April 2020 events

Subcategories of Category:April 2020 events will soon be applicable to many COVID-related articles. Just a heads up, if any project members care to work on articles for a select region when the time comes. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:38, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

I just tagged all U.S. locations with Category:April 2020 events in the United States. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 13:29, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Stats timeline as prose

In general, is it okay to remove paragraphs like "On March 19, there were # new cases. On March 20, there were # new cases, bringing the total up to #. On March 21...", which essentially duplicate the charts in a less readable manner, from timeline sections? There are a lot of articles that have paragraphs like that. --Yair rand (talk) 23:39, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't think are any "general" rules. This WikiProject is only about 2 weeks old. It's best to bring up your concerns on the article talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:39, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

@Yair rand: Try adding prose sections that add more descriptive aspects of the pandemic - thinking of the long-term encyclopedic value of the article you're interested in working on - what did authorities and citizen do to prepare? what were the first most prominent events (first infection, first death)? what were authorities' and citizens' groups' main actions to handle the pandemic? how did the national situation relate to the regional or worldwide situation? have the authorities programmed a loosening of controls before the epidemic reaches containment phase (as in Poland: all public gatherings are banned now, but from 12 April, gatherings of up to 50 people will be allowed, per the 31 March official regulation)? After you've done that, editors of the article might feel more comfortable compressing the raw timeline prose parts. But as Liz says, that's for negotiation among the active editors of the article. Boud (talk) 03:40, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

@Yair rand:, I think it depends on where the region in question is at with infections. If it's a smattering of say, maybe 3 or 4 cases a bit more detail is okay; once it gets to around 25 or more is when that should probably be relegated solely to data. --Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 03:49, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

BCG vaccine to reduce severity of COVID-19

https://www.mcri.edu.au/news/murdoch-children%E2%80%99s-research-institute-trial-preventative-vaccine-covid-19-healthcare-workers
https://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2020/03/26/world/asia/26reuters-health-coronavirus-australia-vaccine.html
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.03.24.20042937v1
Any thoughts? should we incude them into article? Ckfasdf (talk) 00:46, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Can be mentioned in the COVID-19 vaccine article. —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:56, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

but, it is BCG vaccine, not COVID-19 vaccine. Ckfasdf (talk) 01:33, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

@Ckfasdf: This is clearly relevant to COVID-19 vaccine. The medrxiv preprint correlations look quite impressive from a quick look at the diagrams and the claimed statistical significance. The BCG vaccine might not formally qualify as a "COVID-19 vaccine", but it's a vaccine that looks very much like it has a significant role to place in preventing COVID-19 in people who are presumably SARS-CoV-2 positive but suffer less from COVID-19 symptoms (and death). You could also consider COVID-19 drug development. Edit and discuss on the talk pages! Boud (talk) 04:01, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Herd immunity claims in Wuhan

See the Hubei COVID-19 talk page for Time and Telegraph references. The Telegraph reference would imply that Wuhan is getting close to herd immunity and that the official figures are more or less nonsense. Boud (talk) 01:40, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Given <100,000 recoveries out of 10,000,000 Wuhan citizens... we have 1% official herd immunity. Need 70%. Let me laugh. Yug (talk) 13:22, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

If there is herd immunity (which doesn't necessarily require 70%, for various reasons) then the official Chinese figures for infection might seem wrong. But these are only the confirmed cases, the received wisdom seems to be that actual infected figures are 10-100 times greater - because of untested mild cases which we have some idea of, and a largely unknown number of asymptomatic cases.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough (the apparently calm and reasonable) 14:06, 3 April 2020 (UTC).

A single sum

For deaths, confirmed cases, and recoveries should be used more. Have started using this one {{Cases in 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic}}. We need the ability for rounded numbers to appear here aswell. Have asked User:Waddie96 who built it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:45, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Many thanks to User:United States Man who figured out how to make this work. We know have a single place to store sums to be used in various places. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:47, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

@Doc James: since building this template, I've been called to the frontlines in my home country South Africa and have very little to no time for Wikipedia at the moment (as for the months to come), please ping me to get my attention as I only look at my notifications now and no longer my watchlist. Best, comrade waddie96 (talk) 18:38, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Well we have the total at the above template. In my opinion it would be useful to have similar templates for each country. Others thoughts? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:56, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Possibly similar templates for each country could be helpful or a single template to store the numbers of each and every country? comrade waddie96 (talk) 18:38, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks and understand. Good luck and wish you safety and health. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:42, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Definitely better than updating individual pages. Great idea! Not sure if we need more templates or if this one can be the "central repository" for such data. Probably one central source would be better. Maybe with a "country" parameter. Is it doable @Waddie96:? --Gtoffoletto (talk) 11:54, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

@Gtoffoletto: With a country parameter, it's doable yes :-) and then "world" in the country parameter could return the values that the template currently outputs. comrade waddie96 (talk) 15:06, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Google using Wikipedia pages to power sidebar stats panel in search

Google's COVID stats sidebar, with data from Wikipedia

Hi all – wanted to give you a heads up that Google is using several template pages (as of this writing, Template:2019–20_coronavirus_pandemic_data/United_States_medical_cases_by_state and Template:2019–20_coronavirus_pandemic_data) to create a statistics table/visualization that appears at the top of Google search results for COVID-related terms. You can see a screenshot of this to the right or see it in action by Googling "covid," "corona," "coronavirus," etc. This isn't a formal partnership between the Wikimedia Foundation and Google (Google made the decision to use this data on their own), but we're communicating about the feature and their upcoming plans for it. As the community gathers more granular stats on cases, deaths, and recoveries, Google is interested in potentially making use of these additional pages to expand the feature.

I'm going to cross-post this notice to the talk pages of the relevant templates, and I'm watching this page and other COVID content via my volunteer account. If there's a new discussion about moving, deleting, or making major changes to the structure of these templates, I'd super appreciate a quick ping either to this account or my volunteer one so I can let the folks at Google know and they can adjust where the feature points accordingly.

If you have any questions about this, please let me know! MPinchuk (WMF) (talk) 15:14, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Big authoritarian centralised secretive organisations like Alphabet Inc, which owns Google Inc, have enough resources to check whether Wikipedia pages get updated or not without needing help from us. How about helping Duckduckgo, Qwant and other attempts at creating more privacy-respecting, community-based search engines rather than GAFAM? Last week we had an advertisement flashed across the en.Wikipedia top bar to let the whole world know the name of the WMF CEO. Fine. We know her name now. Now let's get back to community issues. Boud (talk) 00:28, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

That's very interesting, MPinchuk (WMF). Even more pressure to be accurate. I'm not sure if the editors that focus on editing templates participate much on this talk page so it's good that you cross-posted this info to the template talk pages. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:26, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

For anyone who wants to check them out, the cross posts are here (archived, some discussion) and here (no discussion yet). @MPinchuk (WMF): if, while you're in contact with Google folks, you're able to do any sleuthing about this, that would be good to know. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 06:02, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

@Sdkb:, thanks — AFAIK Whatamidoing's response is pretty spot-on: I'm told that Google never manually intervenes in search results rankings. They might remove results altogether (e.g., imagine if someone got a court order for that), but they don't decide whether to push Wikipedia up or other things down. Also, as noted above, results vary by person and place. If I search for the title of this article, it's the first hit. If I search for coronavirus pandemic, the WHO is the first hit, and this article is the second hit. Other people will get different results, but these seem pretty good to me.

Google doesn't share the specifics of their SEO ranking with us or anyone (because that would obviously open them up to gaming), but the team working on the stats card does want to share COVID-related Google search query data with the Wikipedia community to shed light on what kinds of stats are most in-demand by readers right now. I've started a mailing list where I'll be posting weekly updates from that team, and I'll cross-post a link to the public archives here and on the other relevant talk pages. First post is here (the table got a little garbled, so I'll repost here in wikitext format in a new section), and the list is here for anyone who wants to subscribe and ask any follow-up questions or give feedback/bug reports on the Google stats card feature. MPinchuk (WMF) (talk) 16:31, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Sidebar availability

I'd like to point out that there is a compact sidebar that can be placed on this and most of the other pages related to the virus/pandemic, at {{2019–20 coronavirus pandemic sidebar}}. It is on a few of them and I tried to add it yesterday to the main pandemic page but was removed as claimed that there's already a navbox at the bottom of the article. True there is, but it is at bottom. The idea of these sidebars near the top is to provide quick links- not necessarily as full as the navbox, for a reader to get too without having to parse the full article, much less scroll to the bottom, and are meant to be additional to the navbox.

Obviously not going to edit war on inclusion, but want to make sure to know this is available and this really should be added, but I'll leave it for discussion. I do strongly recommend it be included to help readers coming for WP to quickly navigate to the most relevant information they may be looking for. --Masem (t) 00:06, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

• Support. TGCP (talk) 07:45, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support. Prairie Astronomer ^Talk 22:42, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. The navbar is already at the bottom of the article. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:55, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

U07.1 vs U07.2

Do we have any systematic info on which governments are following the WHO recommendation of using both U07.1 and U07.2 for ICD-10 cause-of-death codes? The PL medical agency is using only U07.1, so this keeps the COVID-19 death rate a lot lower than it would under if both U07.1 and U07.2 were used.

There's also a question of where this information would be useful, if we had it available systematically. Coronavirus disease 2019 seems a bit too focussed on the disease "in general" rather than the pandemic; the choice of health authorities to use either only U07.1 or both (or only U07.2 in countries with no tests available at all?) is related to the pandemic, rather than the "disease itself". Any suggestions of pages are welcome, in case this info becomes available. Boud (talk) 00:35, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't know if Coronavirus disease 2019 is too focused on the disease, that's the subject of the article. 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic is focused on the pandemic. There are somewhere between 500-600 articles that touch on the COVID-19 pandemic. I'd recommend tracking down the sources of information you are looking for yourself as every editor is working on their own specific interest area, whether that is focused on the health aspects of the disease or the incidence of cases in specific countries. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:16, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

In summary, you don't know. Thanks for the info. :) Anyone who does, please add info here. Boud (talk) 15:42, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Antarctica

Should Antarctica and Antarctic territories be bundled into 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Oceania ? That would give a place to put it without a tiny article for the Antarctic. -- 65.94.170.207 (talk) 18:47, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Are there coronavirus cases in Antarctica? --Puddleglum^2.0_{(How's my driving?)} 19:37, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

I would say don't bundle it into Oceania, because Antarctica is not part of Oceania. If the pandemic has affected scientific research bases in Antarctica, that could go in Impact of the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic on science and technology. If there have been cases on Antarctic cruises, that could go in 2020 coronavirus pandemic on cruise ships. —Granger (talk · contribs) 23:35, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

No cases in Antarctica yet, according to WaPo. I don't think we need an article on it yet. Agreed with Mx. Granger that it should go in the science article if needed. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 07:12, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

And in the unlikely event that there are cases on both research bases and Antarctic cruises...? We'll need an article by then, right? RayDeeUx (talk) 01:42, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

I suppose it depends how much coverage there is in reliable sources. No need to debate it in the abstract—if we find sources, then we can decide which article(s) they fit best in. —Granger (talk · contribs) 02:21, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Antarctica is neither a WHO regional office, nor is it included in one. kencf0618 (talk) 15:19, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Photos of a new mobile testing station in Cologne, Germany

Hi all,
just in case you need photos of a mobile testing station and/or a person being tested on COVID–19: My fellow Wikipedia colleague Raymond took a couple of great photos during the inauguration/presentation to the public. They're available in this Commons category. Best regards, --Jcornelius (talk) 19:47, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Jcornelius, thanks for the photos! Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 19:48, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Those are great images! Would it be possible to turn 6305 to 6316 (or a selection of these) into a process image showing testing. It's a very clear visual that would really benefit the COVID-19 testing page. @Jcornelius and Raymond: ? Kingsif (talk) 20:13, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi Kingsif. I am sorry but I have no idea how to process the images to a movie/animated gif. If anyone know to do feel free :-) Raymond (talk) 07:46, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Resource Response

So, this my question / idea is similar to "Charity", however it encompasses a broader range. If a Category or Page(s) already exist with this information, I do apologize, as I wasn't able to find one. Anywho, onto my brainstorming...

Either creating its own sub-cat within the COVID-19 Portal or adding portals within geographic locations with lists of resources available to citizens within each community. For example:

• COVID-19 Resources in the United States
  • " " " in [State Name]
    • """ in [County]

Then, each page would have resources divided into sections by type; i.e. Household Supplies; Food Donations; Childcare; Education, etc. Alternatively, there could be lists of resources by topic > location, instead:

• COVID-19 resources
  • Educational Resources
    • Distance Learning
      • Video-conferencing Platforms
      • Educational Websites
      • Home-based games and activities
  • Locational Resources
    • Government-provided [in Country]
      • Gov. provided [State]
        • Gov. provided [County]

Something to that effect, anyway. AbeautyfulMess06 (talk) 22:07, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

There were 2 projects for responding to the risk of H5N1 influenza pandemic in 2006. They might be useful for the Wikipedia page for Pandemic and/or this WikiProject.

• The FluWiki was an experiment in collaborative problem solving in public health, meant to help local communities prepare for and perhaps cope with a possible influenza pandemic. Sections on the illness prevention, diagnosis,treatment, preparedness, international contingency plans, related issues and brainstorming. The domain expired but the site can be accessed here Archive.org link to the FluWiki.
• Pandemic Reference Guides was a website designed to be shared as a compact disc for those with computers but no internet access. Topics included prevention, diagnosis and treatment for the flu, pneumonia, and Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS), protective equipment, infection control, end of life, emergency preparedness, quarantine, home school, emotional support. There was also a pdf of pages that might be useful to have and share in printed form for reference. Files were pre-downloaded from sources like CDC, WHO, Red Cross, etc. The domain was active from 2006-2014 but not renewed after that. A disc image can be downloaded from a Dropbox file here Pandemic Reference Guides disc image. After downloading, install/mount the cd, then click on a html file to view the information in a web browser. Earlybird2 (talk) 13:37, 4 April 2020 (UTC)Earlybird2

"How Indians Are Making A Difference In Wikipedia's Fight On Coronavirus Misinformation"

• https://www.indiatimes.com/technology/news/wikipedia-fight-on-coronavirus-covid19-misinformation-through-india-collaboration-509537.html

---Another Believer _(Talk) 03:43, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Worth adding to Wikipedia:WikiProject_COVID-19#Press_coverage? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 00:12, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

"Wikipedia has COVID-19 information in Bangla, Hindi, Tamil and 6 other Indian languages"

• https://www.hindustantimes.com/tech/wikipedia-has-covid-19-information-in-bangla-hindi-tamil-and-6-other-indian-languages/story-W6MgaCaqfxTjmku4bNcDeL.html

---Another Believer _(Talk) 03:45, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Worth adding to Wikipedia:WikiProject_COVID-19#Press_coverage? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 00:12, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

"Coronavirus updates in Hindi, Bangla, Tamil and 6 more Indian languages on Wikipedia"

• https://indianexpress.com/article/technology/tech-news-technology/coronavirus-news-in-hindi-bengali-tamil-kannada-ordia-urdu-punjabli-english-wikipedia-6334262/

---Another Believer _(Talk) 03:45, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Worth adding to Wikipedia:WikiProject_COVID-19#Press_coverage? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 00:12, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

"Iran Blocks Wikipedia Amid Coronavirus Crisis, Says Net Group"

• https://www.haaretz.com/middle-east-news/iran/iran-blocks-wikipedia-amid-coronavirus-crisis-says-net-group-1.8624148

---Another Believer _(Talk) 03:47, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Worth adding to Wikipedia:WikiProject_COVID-19#Press_coverage? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 00:12, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Crucial new study by Imperial Available

Main article: Imperial College COVID-19 Response Team

A lot of info for a lot of different articles. Very interesting.

https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial-college/medicine/sph/ide/gida-fellowships/Imperial-College-COVID19-Europe-estimates-and-NPI-impact-30-03-2020.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gtoffoletto (talk • contribs) 09:14, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Mostly relates to transmission modelling. Reproduction numbers and impact of interventions. Current estimation of infected and other related arguments across 11 EU countries.

Example of important info:

Population infected by country
		ICCRT's model projection for March 28			WHO lab-confirmed March 29
Country	Population	Infected (95% range)	Infected (mean %)	Cases (est.)	Cases	Detected (% of pop.)
Austria	8,999,973	0.36%-3.1%	1.1%	99000	8291	0.09%
Belgium	11,579,502	1.3%-9.7%	3.7%	428400	9134	0.08%
Denmark	5,785,741	0.40%-3.1%	1.1%	63600	2201	0.04%
France	65,227,357	1.1%-7.4%	3.0%	1956800	37145	0.06%
Germany	83,792,987	0.28%-1.8%	0.72%	603300	52547	0.06%
Italy	60,496,082	3.2%-26%	9.8%	5928600	92472	0.15%
Norway	5,407,670	0.09%-1.2%	0.41%	22200	3845	0.07%
Spain	46,767,543	3.7%-41%	15%	7015100	72248	0.15%
Sweden	10,081,948	0.85%-8.4%	3.1%	312500	3447	0.03%
Switzerland	8,637,694	1.3%-7.6%	3.2%	276400	13152	0.15%
United Kingdom	67,803,450	1.2%-5.4%	2.7%	1830700	17093	0.03%
Note: WHO reporting laboratory-confirmed cases on March 29, 10am Central European Time.

--Gtoffoletto (talk) 09:52, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

@Gtoffoletto: Check out Imperial College COVID-19 Response Team ;) Yug (talk) 21:46, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

@Yug: Nice! We could put this in the 2019-2020 Coronavirus pandemic page in the "country response" section next to Europe. With the data on "avoided deaths" due to the lockdown measures. What do you think? --Gtoffoletto (talk) 00:21, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

References

Risk factor needs work — highly relevant

As more discussion targets the presence of risk factors or cases and deaths belonging to "risk-groups", there is need to improve the our article on the topic. There has been a significnt uptick in views since the 16/3 [7].
Carl Fredrik ^talk 09:24, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Impact of the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic on the cannabis industry

New article: Impact of the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic on the cannabis industry ---Another Believer _(Talk) 12:55, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Highlighted open discussions / Current consensus section at top of page?

What's up with the Highlighted open discussions / Current consensus section at the top of this page?

Does this serve a purpose? Is this an archiving error? Should we delete? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 13:37, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Another Believer, pinging Doc James: Are we putting together a current consensus right now or is it being imported from elsewhere on here? Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 15:48, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

I think it could be useful. We could alternately create a "best practices when creating/maintaining a coronavirus page for your country/region" page. It should be on a subpage, though, so that it can be EC-protected, as with the ones at the main pandemic page and Donald Trump. I'll add one item to it now. Sdkb (talk) 18:43, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

WP:DATED infoboxes

I am concerned about infoboxes becoming dated and very, very quickly. There is a field in {{Infobox pandemic}} called "date" and I believe it is used to provide an "as of" date. I propose using {{as of}} in the date parameter and adding the currently-updated date to all instances of "Infobox pandemic" in the hope that those who update the infobox will consistently update the date (yeah, right.) Elizium23 (talk) 16:06, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Support other languages Wikipedias are doing this.--ReyHahn (talk) 11:11, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Call for contributors : COVID-19 related shortages and alternative solutions

Main article: 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic related shortages

Hello all ! The news cycle is now full speed on makers, hackers, DIY, open source ventilators & co. If you want a snapshot on this issue, this feature video ("'Health Care Kamikazes': How Spain's Workers Are Battling Coronavirus, Unprotected") by The New York Times is as good and quick as you can get ! That's what we document. In past week 60+ sources were integrated into that article but this shortage/DIY topic is now a in the spotlight of news agencies, so we need more people to scan the news on this shortages and solutions matter and help improve and expand that article. Please help as you can, "one statement-sentence with its source" at a time is a great contribution ! Best, Yug (talk) 19:30, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Hey ? Am I on the wrong page to call for contributors ?? Is everyone overwhelmed ? Yug (talk) 12:55, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

This is the right page. Probably a lot of people are busy with other issues—there's a lot of work to be done on COVID-19 articles right now. But I agree with you that the shortages article is important. I added a sentence, and I'll try to add more if I come across relevant information. —Granger (talk · contribs) 13:20, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

@Mx. Granger:, yes, we need more content contributors on the meta articles, the "Issues" and others, which are making sense of the daily factoid poured into the national 2019 pandemic {location} and timelines. But I don't known how to make that call.

I also see a BIG need for something like Health care workers in the 2020 coronavirus pandemic. So much news coming this past week on their ground fight, risks, creativity, sickness, deaths, activism and censorship and job dismissal (! ). Is someone aware of some existing HCW in COVID19 section ? Mental health during the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic isn't it. And my 4 lines coverage is Shortages_related_to_the_2019–20_coronavirus_pandemic#Health_workers is far, so far from what could be collected. If not, I will expand the section cited and create an article from it asap. cc @Boud, Jax 0677, Mx. Granger, and Tobby72: Yug (talk) 14:20, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

@Yug: PL: There's one sentence at the end of this section about 38 hospitals/hospital sections being closed; which is both about healthcare workers and patients; there's a section on medical personnel censorship here, with the ombudsman defending the health workers' freedom of speech. Boud (talk) 19:23, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

@Boud: Thank you ! :D Yug (talk) 21:48, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Discussion of sourcing for our totals

• Template_talk:Cases_in_2019–20_coronavirus_pandemic#Straw_poll. Opinions are currently split. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:34, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

{{Current COVID}}

I have created a custom version of {{Current}}. Please feel free to improve. If there are no objections I'll apply it in place of {{Current}} to COVID related articles.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough (the apparently calm and reasonable) 14:19, 2 April 2020 (UTC).

Hey, we already have :{{Current disaster|event=pandemic|date=January 2020}}. Is there a clear gain in your action creation ? Yug (talk) 14:24, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

That is probably worth merging the new template into. Thanks. All the best: Rich Farmbrough (the apparently calm and reasonable) 16:39, 2 April 2020 (UTC).

I'll spend some time on this this evening and come back. All the best: Rich Farmbrough (the apparently calm and reasonable) 16:42, 2 April 2020 (UTC).

Maybe the following code {{Current disaster|event=2020 COVID-19 pandemic|date=March 2020}} into {{Current COVID}} would do:

Yug (talk) 18:06, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

@Rich Farmbrough and Yug: I don't think it's necessary to split off a separate template; just use the parameters already in {{Current}} as needed to customize. Also, which articles should or should not have the template is a controversial topic — please see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_COVID-19#When_should_articles_have_the_Current_template? and share your thoughts there. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 03:44, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

One of the reasons a separate template is a good idea is that we can tune the wording to make it clear where it should be used. That is why I used the words an ongoing situation relating to the so that it is not used in inappropriate ways.

Secondly all the uses of {{Current disaster}} as of last night were COVID related. So it's not a case of the tail wagging the dog.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough (the apparently calm and reasonable) 12:33, 3 April 2020 (UTC).

General update on three COVID-relevant traffic reports

Main page: Wikipedia:WikiProject_COVID-19/Coverage

I've posted about these three traffic reports individually on this page before, but now that they're all in a stable state I thought I'd give a general update. All three reports are potentially useful for people monitoring pageviews and edits to COVID-19 articles.

1. COVID-19 article report: (updates daily at 14:00 UTC) This report contains the previous-days pageview totals for all articles with the COVID-19 topic template. It also provides predicted quality scores for each article (at its latest revision when the report was run). And most recently I added the total count of articles that transclude the template, and the cumulative daily pageviews for those articles.
2. Top 1000 report: (updates daily at 15:00 UTC) This report is intended as a replacement for the (currently stalled) Top 5000 report. It provides running traffic counts for the most popular Wikipedia articles within the past 7 days. As you can imagine, many of these articles are related to COVID-19 (whether or not they have the template, c.f. Andrew Cuomo, which is #14 as of yesterday).
3. Social media traffic report: (updates daily, at around 15-17:00 UTC) Like the Top 1000 report, many of these articles are related to COVID-19. Given the rise troubling rise in COVID-related conspiracy theories propagated through social media, this report may be especially helpful for monitoring attempts to disrupt Wikipedia or undermine it by inserting disinformation.

I intend to maintain reports #1 and #2 indefinitely as a volunteer (this account); report #3 is a pilot project I'm running with Isaac (WMF) in my staff role. That pilot will extend until June 1, after which we will assess whether there is sufficient community support and WMF engineering resources to continue maintaining this data service (as an on wiki report or as a stand-alone webapp a la Massviews and the like). Feedback welcome on Meta. Cheers, J-Mo 17:47, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

@Jtmorgan: thank you ! This is great data. Yug (talk) 21:50, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

@Jtmorgan and Isaac (WMF):, we now have a page to collect reports on our Wikipedia COVID19 efforts. Access point is Wikipedia:WikiProject_COVID-19#Coverage. Yug (talk) 21:34, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Yug! I'll add things here as I come across them. Jmorgan (WMF) (talk) 22:18, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

March 2020 Tree of Life Newsletter

At the request of Another Believer, I'm transcluding the Tree of Life Newsletter for this month, which features a story about WikiProject COVID-19. Enwebb (talk) 20:54, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

March 2020—Issue 012

Tree of Life

Welcome to the Tree of Life newsletter!

Newly recognized content

Argentinosaurus by Slate Weasel and Jens Lallensack Wolf by LittleJerry Horseshoe bat by Enwebb, reviewed by Chiswick Chap Cimicidae by Cwmhiraeth and Chiswick Chap, reviewed by Enwebb Coronariae by Michael Goodyear, reviewed by Dank Ardipithecus ramidus by Dunkleosteus77, reviewed by starsandwhales Ooedigera by Dunkleosteus77, reviewed by Hog Farm Bathyphysa conifera by Awkwafaba, reviewed by Chiswick Chap Calliphora vomitoria by Y.shiuan, reviewed by Jens Lallensack

Newly nominated content

Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations by Britishfinance Bathyphysa conifera by Awkwafaba Moniliformidae by Mattximus Disease X by Britishfinance Mandarin Patinkin by Rhododendrites

News at a glance

• A year of the Tree of Life Newsletter: Thank you to all the subscribers who have been with us from the beginning or have joined along the way, and to those who have contributed their time to producing this newsletter. I've really valued your ideas, copyediting, and willingness to be interviewed. Onwards and upwards!
• April marks the start of the GAN Backlog Drive, which continues through the end of May. The goal of this backlog elimination drive is to cut the number of outstanding GANs, in particular those which have been in the queue 90 days or more. All hands welcome, new and old.
• The finalists of the US Wiki Science Competition have been announced. Illustrating Wikipedia articles can be challenging, so these new images represent a chance to find suitable media for our articles. For all images uploaded in the Wiki Science Competition, see here and click "all images" in the upper right corner.

• 

  Fly's mouth and tongue (Microscopy)

• 

  Killer whales hunting a crabeater seal (Wildlife)

• 

  Fossilized tooth of a Squalicorax shark (Microscopy)

• 

  Flourescent coral (Non-photographic media)

A new WikiProject responding to the pandemic

The newest Tree of Life WikiProject is about a taxon that is dominating the headlines, Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, and its many effects. We interviewed Another Believer, the founder of WikiProject COVID-19.

This interview has been edited for length. Find the full interview here.

1. Please describe how you went about creating WikiProject COVID-19. What made you think a project was needed?

   I've been following the outbreak and editing related Wikipedia articles since January. I'm not particularly interested in infectious diseases or viruses, but I've been to China a few times and wanted to monitor the outbreak's impact on society as well as the government's response. For a while, I was casually tracking updates to the first couple pages about the outbreak. Then a pattern began to emerge as February saw the creation of separate articles about outbreaks in Iran, Italy, and South Korea. New Wikipedia articles continued being created in early March, and the outbreak was recognized as a pandemic by the World Health Organization on March 11. Knowing there would many more articles, lists, templates, illustrations, and other pages on Wikipedia, I created WikiProject COVID-19 on March 15. My goal was simply to create a temporary or permanent space for editors to collaborate, communicate, and focus specifically on content related to this ongoing pandemic. I'm a member of many WikiProjects and have created several before, but this one definitely felt more necessary and urgent. Most WikiProjects unite editors with similar interests, which is fine and serves a purpose, but I felt this project could have a much bigger real life impact. I don't think I was alone in my thinking; the project had 80 members by March 20 and 100 members by March 26.

2. Who or what was invaluable to getting off the ground?

   If I'm being honest, getting this project off the ground required little work on my part. All I did was create the space and post invitations to existing talk pages related to the outbreak. Editors joined the project very quickly; 30 members joined on the same day I started the project, and there were more than 50 participants one day later. I've been a daily Wikipedia editor for more than 12 years, and I've never seen so much interest in a project or content added to Wikipedia about a specific topic in such a short period of time. WikiProject members worked expeditiously to build a framework and hang a barnstar, tagging related pages, assessing content, and starting talk page discussions about the project's goals and scope. I'm thankful to the many editors who pitched in to get the project established, and I look forward to seeing how editors collaborate in this space as we move forward.

3. What are the short-term goals of the project?

   No specific goals have been posted to the project page yet, but I'd like to think members share a collective desire to ensure Wikipedia has accurate and reliable information about the disease and pandemic. Disinformation and misinformation seem rampant these days, so we're working to give readers around the globe access to accurate, objective, and possibly even life-saving information. Unlike some WikiProjects which may take a more historical approach to documenting certain topics, WikiProject COVID-19 members have the ability to mitigate the disease's spread in real time by arming communities with facts about outbreaks in their region as well as information about prevention, testing, vaccine research, societal impact, etc.

   

   Viewership of WikiProject Medicine, WikiProject Viruses, and WikiProject Covid-19 in the month of March 2020

4. What are the long-term goals? English Wikipedia has many of 'lumpers' who think there are too many projects already. The project has also inspired the creation of two portals, which I imagine caused some raised eyebrows in this trend of portal deletionism. What will come of the WP after the current outbreak subsides?

   After creating WikiProject COVID-19, a couple editors said I should have created a task force instead of a standalone WikiProject. I wasn't bothered. The number of 'thank you' notifications I received for creating the page vastly outweighed these critical comments. I knew the page I created was much needed, and I would be fine if editors decide to call the page by another name. I understand some editors think there are too many WikiProjects. No one's required to join WikiProject COVID-19, but the 100+ of us who have already joined invite you to help with our efforts, if you're interested. As for the project's future, I would be fine if editors decided to convert the WikiProject into a task force, or even put the project into retirement if the time comes. Given the level of interest and impact the pandemic has already had on a global scale, I have a feeling the WikiProject will be active for a long time.

5. Another criticism of the project is its narrow focus. It is focused on only one strain of virus, and the disease it causes. Even WikiProject AIDS is about two species of virus. Is the scope of the project too small? What would an expanded scope look like? Why would including another virus strain in the same species, Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus which causes SARS, not be wanted? or is it wanted?

   Narrow focus? I disagree. The project may focus on a single virus and disease, but the pandemic has resulted in the creation of hundreds of Wikipedia articles documenting outbreaks in most countries and territories. There are pages covering the pandemic's impact on aviation, cinema, education, politics, religion, sports, and television, not to mention others related to the resulting economic turmoil. Additionally, there are hundreds of templates, charts, and other graphics. Who knows how many thousands of images and other media will be uploaded at Wikimedia Commons by the time this pandemic subsides? There's also COVID-19 WikiProject COVID-19 at Wikidata, and I wouldn't be surprised if similar spaces are created for other Wikimedia projects soon. Even if the focus is narrow, there's plenty of content for Wikimedians to improve and protect.

6. In your opinion, what should be the guidelines for creating a new project, as opposed to creating a task force or working under an existing WikiProject?

   I don't feel strongly about new project creation guidelines, or the differences between WikiProjects and task forces. Project members should decide what structure works for them and call themselves whatever name they prefer. I understand project construction requires maintenance and can come at an administrative cost, but we should be careful about discouraging editors from proposing new projects.

   Ideally, editors would only create a new WikiProject if at least a few others were committed to joining. I created WikiProject COVID-19 without conferring with others because I assumed the interest would be there. I encourage people to be bold and create project pages, but maybe ask a few other editors for feedback first. I'll let other editors worry about the guidelines.

7. What tools (templates, bots, etc.) are essential, or even just really helpful, for organizing and maintaining a successful project? What is something every WP should do, that maybe isn't doing now?

   I appreciate the standard WikiProject assessment framework. AlexNewArtBot and Article alerts have also been very helpful.

8. What have you learned about Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 or COVID-19 during this process that surprised you?

   I don't have any sort of medical background, and I'm more interested in the pandemic's impact than details about the disease or virus. Most surprising to me has been the lack of preparedness for combating outbreaks by governments around the world, including here in the United States. I don't know how COVID-19's spread compares to other infectious diseases, but as I've watched the outbreak develop I've continually wondered why governments did not start preparing earlier. What was happening in China, Iran, Italy, and South Korea should have prompted action sooner.

9. What important things about 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic do you think folks should know and maybe have missed in the deluge of information coming at people?

   1. Know the most common symptoms: cough, fever, and difficulty breathing.

   2. Learn what behavioral adjustments you should make to protect yourself and reduce transmission, and remember to wash your hands.

   3. Get your information from reputable sources. I'd like to think Wikipedia editors are pretty good at this last bit of advice.

Thank you to Another Believer for your time, both in this interview and in this project. Interested readers can join WikiProject COVID-19. And please stay safe and healthy out there. --Awkwafaba

March DYKs

• ... that Calamagrostis intermedia is the dominant plant of the grassy páramo in Ecuador's El Cajas National Park? (March 1)
• ... that the blood-sucking bug Primicimex cavernis survives in a cave in Texas while the bats on which it feeds overwinter elsewhere? (March 2)
• ... that the worm Phyllodoce lineata is a predator and scavenger, feeding mostly on other polychaetes? (March 4)
• ... that the crested oyster has been eaten by humans for at least 6,000 years? (March 5)
• ... that larvae of the tube worm Hydroides ezoensis prefer to settle on a substrate already inhabited by other worms of their own species? (March 14)
• ... that the sea slug Berthella ocellata hides during the day and feeds on sponges such as Corticium candelabrum at night? (March 18)
• ... that the sea cucumber Actinopyga agassizii has five teeth surrounding its anus? (March 19)
• ... that unlike most soft scale insects, the adult female pyriform scale is able to move around? (March 20)
• ... that in Florida, winged termites are sometimes found stuck to wet foliage, buildings, or vehicles after rain? (March 23)
• ... that despite being known as the Kerry lily, the perennial plant has a much wider distribution outside Ireland? (March 24)
• ... that in 1725 Hans Sloane described a plant he called Prickly-Pole as the Jamaican tree species that was "the most fit to make Rods and Scowrers for Guns"? (March 25)
• ... that a deep-sea fish known as a black ruff was caught in a salmon net in the Firth of Forth and donated to the Edinburgh Museum of Science and Art in 1901? (March 29)
• ... that the flowering plant Gentianella anglica is found only in Great Britain? (March 30)

Discuss this issue

You are receiving this because you added your name to the subscribers list of the WikiProject Tree of Life. If you no longer wish to receive the newsletter, please remove your name.

transcluding number of patients in articles

Hello. While I was crosschecking the number of confirmed patients in India, and states; I observed the numbers have been a mismatch since last few days. I mean, the number of patients in Maharashtra state is different at 2020 coronavirus pandemic in India than 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Maharashtra, and same goes for 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Kerala. Instead of updating the numbers in each articles, can we just transclude it from somewhere? Similar to 401 which displays number of users in group of file movers? Maybe something like Template:2020 coronavirus pandemic in Maharashtra/positive, and Template:2020 coronavirus pandemic in Kerala/positive. We can add only the numbers on that subpage, which later can be used everywhere else (infobox, article body, and whatnot). Unsourced numbers being added is getting annoying too. I am also thinking about requesting for increase in protection. Any thoughts? —usernamekiran (talk) 21:37, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Update: I created Template:2020 coronavirus pandemic in Maharashtra/confirmed, and later I recalled that the data at 2020 coronavirus pandemic in India article is itself trancluded from Template:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data/India medical cases. Which, as of now has gotten very cumbersome to edit. Maybe thats why it is not being updated frequently. Is there any other approach that can be taken? I have already nominated Template:2020 coronavirus pandemic in Maharashtra/confirmed for speedy deletion. —usernamekiran (talk) 22:40, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

How about using state-specific sources for each state in 2020 coronavirus pandemic in India? MoHFW seems to take at least one day to aggregate the numbers of all states which has resulted in the mismatch. M4DU7 (talk) 22:44, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

@M4DU7: Yes, that is a very good solution. But we still have other problem: Template:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data/India medical cases is getting very difficult to edit (at least from mobile/source code). —usernamekiran (talk) 22:10, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

@M4DU7: On second thought, this is not a good solution. Two-three days ago, a positive case has been confirmed in Hingoli district of MH.[8] An official from state health ministry also confirmed it [9]. I have seen the formal press-note by civil surgeon conirming this. The official corona related website of the MH state has been updated after that more than once, but that case hasnt been included yet. —usernamekiran (talk) 22:37, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

@Usernamekiran and M4DU7: I will throw some ideas, my apologizes if I'am out of topic.

Good to see you are aware of current naming conventions for Coronavirus data templates, in use for charts and tables and which goes as 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data/{page title}. We could have:

• 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data/{country name or ISO3}/cases
• 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data/{country name or ISO3}/deaths
• 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data/{country name or ISO3}/recovery

But this is too long for such "just transcluding a number", and I worry about maintenance.

I therefor recommend a single page with the use of Help:Conditional_expressions with both cases|deaths|recoveries and date parameters. These data would be EXACTLY the same data as presented on the chart page, but with suitable {IF}s.

As for the naming and usage, we could then have shortcut COVID19/{ISO3}:

• {COVID19/IND|type=cases|date=2020-03-19} => result: 173.
• {COVID19/IND|type=deaths|date=2020-03-19} => result: 3.

displaying the data for THAT type and THAT day. With this, people editing the wikipedia article will have explicite informations: immediately understanding what date & data they are dealing with and the need for updates. You could have a date=last parameter, but I don't recommend it (would be misleading because implicite). This template could be used by charts templates. Yug (talk) 10:44, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Highlighting Simple-English articles

Many of our articles, especially on COVID-19 topics, are long and complex. We have readers who will struggle to understand them, for whom the simple.Wikipedia is a better resource.

We should of course, be checking that articles there are of good quality, reliable, and up-to-date.

I have made {{Simple}} as a hat-note template for such articles. I hope we can agree that it should be used.

It needs improvements, to pick up links automatically from Wikidata, and perhaps to be more prominent. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:30, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Transmission: Important WHO update

Important WHO update on their stance here. We should probably update sources based on this report (see "Subject in focus").

https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/situation-reports/20200402-sitrep-73-covid-19.pdf?sfvrsn=5ae25bc7_4

Of note the fact that references to "coughing" or "sneezing" are absent. --Gtoffoletto (talk) 14:57, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Highlights:

• 17 sources/studies for transmission are reported
• Symptomatic transmission "COVID-19 is primarily transmitted from symptomatic people to others who are in close contact through respiratory droplets, by direct contact with infected persons, or by contact with contaminated objects and surfaces."
• shedding highest in upper respiratory tract (nose and throat) within the first 3 days from onset of symptoms. More contagious around the time of symptom onset as compared to later on in the disease.
• Pre-symptomatic transmission: The incubation period for COVID-19 is on average 5-6 days, however can be up to 14 days. During this period, also known as the “pre- symptomatic” period, some infected persons can be contagious.
• There are few reports of laboratory-confirmed cases who are truly asymptomatic, and to date, there has been no documented asymptomatic transmission. This does not exclude the possibility that it may occur. Asymptomatic cases have been reported as part of contact tracing efforts in some countries.

Clear shift here in language. Probably explains why the guidelines on mask use are changing --Gtoffoletto (talk) 15:04, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Immunity, antibodies and convalescent serum

These are sources that tell us what is going on, though I realize we're looking for WP:MEDRS. What can be done in the various articles on this topic?

https://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/nation-world/national/article241498231.html https://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/coronavirus/article241498861.html https://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/nation-world/national/article241638786.html https://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/nation-world/national/article241724531.html

And I've already asked whether any of the articles mention convalescent serum:

https://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/article241461011.html — Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 15:45, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Data on most-trafficked COVID stats in Google + sneak peek at stats card roadmap

Hi all, quick update on this thread: the Google team that's working on the stats card has shared some data on a) what Wikipedia pages they're using/planning to use to extend the stats card feature, and b) the most popular COVID stats destinations from Google search queries. I've started a mailing list to share this and other relevant insights on a weekly basis — anyone who's interested is welcome to join the list and ask any follow-up questions of the team (they're all subscribed). I'll also post a link to new posts here. First post, covering data for the week of March 31st, is here. cc MarioGom RayDeeUx MPinchuk (WMF) (talk) 17:00, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

MPinchuk (WMF): Subscribed. Thank you for the update. --MarioGom (talk) 20:06, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

How do you pronounce it?

A British reporter said "KAW-vid". I've always heard "KOH-vid".— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 19:06, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

The Merriam-Webster COVID-19 entry says long o. But the British have their own language. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 19:16, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

@Mark viking: lol. English is actually language of English people, others created their own versions —usernamekiran (talk) 22:14, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

And should we mention this anywhere?— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 19:24, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

The pronunciation is already in the COVID {{Infobox medical condition}}, e.g., at Coronavirus disease 2019. MOS:PRONOUNCE suggests it could be added to the lead, but that might be considered redundant. What do you think? --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 19:35, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't know. It seems to be a common practice.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:02, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Mark viking, I suggest adding it in as it tracks easier for readers. --Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 22:06, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks and  Done. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 23:21, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

I am not sure taking the pronunciation from "Vchimpanzee" sound like a good idea, so i will stick with 'Cow-vid'. Yug (talk) 20:48, 3 April 2020 (UTC) [PS: Always believe the Franch man for phonetic].

Well that "COW" is certainly wrong, KOH-vid is how most news readers are saying it. But some say "KO" with short o. Really we need IPA to specify. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:22, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

In the infobox I mentioned above, it is in IPA: /ˈkoʊvɪd/. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 21:26, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

That's highly inappropriate. --Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 22:50, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

That was a rebound joke. Do you seriously believe a "Franch" user should explain English phonetic to the world ? Not likely ! Yug (talk) 11:14, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Wow, I'm laughing right now. OP didn't explain anything; they made an observation. --Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 15:47, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

It really does seem to depend. I've actually heard (from a news anchor or news podcast) /ˈkʌvɪd/, as if pronounced on the model of cover, etc. Rethliopuks (talk) 16:08, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

• Mark is right, and the IPA is correct as well. How to pronounce it? It depends on the person really. I prefer to pronounce it as "koʊv-ID" like discovery ID. —usernamekiran (talk) 22:43, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Easter/12 April relaunch of infection rates

Do we have info in any countries apart from Poland - maybe those with big Catholic church political influence - where lockdown measures will be loosened on 12 April/Easter? We know about Shincheonji and the Christian Open Door Church that were responsible for big launches of infection rates. In Poland, the 31 March 2020 government regulation, published in Dziennik Ustaw, allows religious events and burials to jump up from their present maximum of (5+religious/funeral personnel) during 1-11 April, up to 50 maximum in total starting from 12 April 2020. The regulation says nothing about Easter, but that's the obvious motivation. There's no time limit on the loosened constraint.

If there are other countries that are planning to loosen lockdown-type conditions "for Easter" it might be useful to put this info together, since this is a pandemic management policy quite distinct from the standard ones, which is likely to accelerate the lab-confirmed cases curves. Boud (talk) 00:49, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Tetrandrine

The obscure drug Tetrandrine has been mentioned in the media as a possible treatment to prevent mild cases from progressing to ARDS. The stubby article needs attention. Abductive (reasoning) 05:01, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Could someone make the Swedish case bar more useful by adding "show month" functionality?

 DoneYug (talk) 20:24, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

This {{2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data/Sweden medical cases chart}}-template is becoming extremely clunky. Could someone clean it up with options to choose month, like is done at {{2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data/Mainland China medical cases chart}}?

Maybe @IjonTichyIjonTichy, Rethliopuks, Alexiscoutinho, and Yug:? Thanks, Carl Fredrik ^talk 11:01, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm glad to see there is a third color for recoveries. Is this in standard use?— Vchimpanzee • talk •

contributions • 16:28, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

COVID-19 cases in Sweden  ()      Deaths        Recoveries        Active cases Jan Jan Feb Feb Mar Mar Apr Apr Last 15 days Last 15 days
Date			# of cases
2020-01-31		​ ​ ​ ​ ​	1(n.a.)
⋮		​ ​ ​ ​ ​	1(=)
2020-02-26		​ ​ ​ ​ ​	2(+100%)
2020-02-27		​ ​ ​ ​ ​	7(+250%)
2020-02-28		​ ​ ​ ​ ​	11(+57%)
2020-02-29		​ ​ ​ ​ ​	13(+18%)
2020-03-01		​ ​ ​ ​ ​	14(+7.7%)
2020-03-02		​ ​ ​ ​ ​	15(+7.1%)
2020-03-03		​ ​ ​ ​ ​	30(+100%)
2020-03-04		​ ​ ​ ​ ​	52(+73%)
2020-03-05		​ ​ ​ ​ ​	94(+81%)
2020-03-06		​ ​ ​ ​ ​	137(+46%)
2020-03-07		​ ​ ​ ​ ​	161(+18%)
2020-03-08		​ ​ ​ ​ ​	203(+26%)
2020-03-09		​ ​ ​ ​ ​	260(+28%)
2020-03-10		​ ​ ​ ​ ​	356(+37%)
2020-03-11		​ ​ ​ ​ ​	500(+40%)
2020-03-12		​ ​ ​ ​ ​	687‡(+37%)
2020-03-13		​ ​ ​ ​ ​	814(+18%)
2020-03-14		​ ​ ​ ​ ​	941(+16%)
2020-03-15		​ ​ ​ ​ ​	1,032(+10%)
2020-03-16		​ ​ ​ ​ ​	1,121(+8.6%)
2020-03-17		​ ​ ​ ​ ​	1,196(+6.6%)
2020-03-18		​ ​ ​ ​ ​	1,292(+8.0%)
2020-03-19		​ ​ ​ ​ ​	1,439(+11%)
2020-03-20		​ ​ ​ ​ ​	1,639(+14%)
2020-03-21		​ ​ ​ ​ ​	1,770(+8.0%)
2020-03-22		​ ​ ​ ​ ​	1,934(+9.1%)
2020-03-23		​ ​ ​ ​ ​	2,046(+5.8%)
2020-03-24		​ ​ ​ ​ ​	2,286(+12%)
2020-03-25		​ ​ ​ ​ ​	2,526(+10%)
2020-03-26		​ ​ ​ ​ ​	2,840(+12%)
2020-03-27		​ ​ ​ ​ ​	3,069(+8.1%)
2020-03-28		​ ​ ​ ​ ​	3,447(+12%)
2020-03-29		​ ​ ​ ​ ​	3,700(+7.3%)
2020-03-30		​ ​ ​ ​ ​	4,028(+8.9%)
2020-03-31		​ ​ ​ ​ ​	4,435(+10%)
2020-04-01		​ ​ ​ ​ ​	4,947(+12%)
2020-04-02		​ ​ ​ ​ ​	5,466(+10%)
2020-04-03		​ ​ ​ ​ ​	6,131(+12%)
2020-04-04		​ ​ ​ ​ ​	6,443(+5.1%)
2020-04-05		​ ​ ​ ​ ​	6,830(+6.0%)
Sources: "Coronavirus Update (Live) - Worldometer (2020-01-31 to 2020-04-03)", "Public Health Agency of Sweden (2020-04-04 and onwards)" Notes: ‡ National shift in testing strategy to cover elderly, hospitalized patients and health care personnel

COVID-19 cases in mainland China  ()      Deaths        Recoveries        Tested        Clinically diagnosed (C.D.)        Tested or C.D. Dec Dec Jan Jan Feb Feb Mar Mar Apr Apr Last 15 days Last 15 days
Date			# of cases (excluding C.D.)	# of cases (including C.D.)
2019-12-31		​ ​ ​ ​ ​		27(n.a.)
⋮		​ ​ ​ ​ ​		27(=)
2020-01-03		​ ​ ​ ​ ​		44(+63%)
2020-01-04		​ ​ ​ ​ ​		44(=)
2020-01-05		​ ​ ​ ​ ​		59(+34%)
⋮		​ ​ ​ ​ ​
2020-01-10		​ ​ ​ ​ ​	41(n.a.)
⋮		​ ​ ​ ​ ​	41(=)
2020-01-16		​ ​ ​ ​ ​	45(+9.7%)
2020-01-17		​ ​ ​ ​ ​	62(+38%)
2020-01-18		​ ​ ​ ​ ​	121(+95%)
2020-01-19		​ ​ ​ ​ ​	198(+64%)
2020-01-20		​ ​ ​ ​ ​	291(+47%)
2020-01-21		​ ​ ​ ​ ​	440(+51%)
2020-01-22		​ ​ ​ ​ ​	571(+30%)
2020-01-23		​ ​ ​ ​ ​	830(+45%)
2020-01-24		​ ​ ​ ​ ​	1,287(+55%)
2020-01-25		​ ​ ​ ​ ​	1,975(+53%)
2020-01-26		​ ​ ​ ​ ​	2,744(+39%)
2020-01-27		​ ​ ​ ​ ​	4,515(+64%)
2020-01-28		​ ​ ​ ​ ​	5,974(+32%)
2020-01-29		​ ​ ​ ​ ​	7,711(+29%)
2020-01-30		​ ​ ​ ​ ​	9,692(+26%)
2020-01-31		​ ​ ​ ​ ​	11,791(+22%)
2020-02-01		​ ​ ​ ​ ​	14,380(+22%)
2020-02-02		​ ​ ​ ​ ​	17,205(+20%)
2020-02-03		​ ​ ​ ​ ​	20,438(+19%)
2020-02-04		​ ​ ​ ​ ​	24,324(+19%)
2020-02-05		​ ​ ​ ​ ​	28,018(+15%)
2020-02-06		​ ​ ​ ​ ​	31,161(+11%)
2020-02-07		​ ​ ​ ​ ​	34,546(+11%)
2020-02-08		​ ​ ​ ​ ​	37,198(+7.7%)
2020-02-09		​ ​ ​ ​ ​	40,171(+8.0%)
2020-02-10		​ ​ ​ ​ ​	42,638(+6.1%)	48,315(n.a.)
2020-02-11		​ ​ ​ ​ ​	44,653(+4.7%)	55,220(+14%)
2020-02-12		​ ​ ​ ​ ​	46,472(+4.1%)	58,761(+6.4%)
2020-02-13		​ ​ ​ ​ ​	48,467(+4.3%)	63,851(+8.7%)
2020-02-14		​ ​ ​ ​ ​	49,970(+3.1%)	66,492(+4.1%)
2020-02-15		​ ​ ​ ​ ​	51,091(+2.2%)	68,500(+3.0%)
2020-02-16		​ ​ ​ ​ ​		70,548(+3.0%)
2020-02-17		​ ​ ​ ​ ​		72,436(+2.7%)
2020-02-18		​ ​ ​ ​ ​		74,185(+2.4%)
2020-02-19		​ ​ ​ ​ ​		75,002(+1.1%)
2020-02-20		​ ​ ​ ​ ​		75,891(+1.2%)
2020-02-21		​ ​ ​ ​ ​		76,288(+0.52%)
2020-02-22		​ ​ ​ ​ ​		76,936(+0.85%)
2020-02-23		​ ​ ​ ​ ​		77,150(+0.28%)
2020-02-24		​ ​ ​ ​ ​		77,658(+0.66%)
2020-02-25		​ ​ ​ ​ ​		78,064(+0.52%)
2020-02-26		​ ​ ​ ​ ​		78,497(+0.55%)
2020-02-27		​ ​ ​ ​ ​		78,824(+0.42%)
2020-02-28		​ ​ ​ ​ ​		79,251(+0.54%)
2020-02-29		​ ​ ​ ​ ​		79,824(+0.72%)
2020-03-01		​ ​ ​ ​ ​		80,026(+0.25%)
2020-03-02		​ ​ ​ ​ ​		80,151(+0.16%)
2020-03-03		​ ​ ​ ​ ​		80,270(+0.15%)
2020-03-04		​ ​ ​ ​ ​		80,409(+0.17%)
2020-03-05		​ ​ ​ ​ ​		80,552(+0.18%)
2020-03-06		​ ​ ​ ​ ​		80,651(+0.12%)
2020-03-07		​ ​ ​ ​ ​		80,695(+0.05%)
2020-03-08		​ ​ ​ ​ ​		80,735(+0.05%)
2020-03-09		​ ​ ​ ​ ​		80,754(+0.02%)
2020-03-10		​ ​ ​ ​ ​		80,778(+0.03%)
2020-03-11		​ ​ ​ ​ ​		80,793(+0.02%)
2020-03-12		​ ​ ​ ​ ​		80,813(+0.02%)
2020-03-13		​ ​ ​ ​ ​		80,824(+0.01%)
2020-03-14		​ ​ ​ ​ ​		80,844(+0.02%)
2020-03-15		​ ​ ​ ​ ​		80,860(+0.02%)
2020-03-16		​ ​ ​ ​ ​		80,881(+0.02%)
2020-03-17		​ ​ ​ ​ ​		80,894(+0.02%)
2020-03-18		​ ​ ​ ​ ​		80,928(+0.04%)
2020-03-19		​ ​ ​ ​ ​		80,967(+0.05%)
2020-03-20		​ ​ ​ ​ ​		81,008(+0.05%)
2020-03-21		​ ​ ​ ​ ​		81,054(+0.06%)
2020-03-22		​ ​ ​ ​ ​		81,093(+0.05%)
2020-03-23		​ ​ ​ ​ ​		81,171(+0.10%)
2020-03-24		​ ​ ​ ​ ​		81,218(+0.06%)
2020-03-25		​ ​ ​ ​ ​		81,285(+0.08%)
2020-03-26		​ ​ ​ ​ ​		81,340(+0.07%)
2020-03-27		​ ​ ​ ​ ​		81,394(+0.06%)
2020-03-28		​ ​ ​ ​ ​		81,439(+0.06%)
2020-03-29		​ ​ ​ ​ ​		81,470(+0.04%)
2020-03-30		​ ​ ​ ​ ​		81,518(+0.06%)
2020-03-31		​ ​ ​ ​ ​		81,554(+0.04%)
2020-04-01		​ ​ ​ ​ ​		81,589(+0.04%)
2020-04-02		​ ​ ​ ​ ​		81,620(+0.04%)
2020-04-03		​ ​ ​ ​ ​		81,639(+0.02%)
2020-04-04		​ ​ ​ ​ ​		81,669(+0.04%)
2020-04-05		​ ​ ​ ​ ​		81,708(+0.05%)
From 10 February 2020 onwards, the data includes the cases in Hubei that were not tested for the virus but clinically diagnosed based on medical imaging showing signs of pneumonia. The lab-tested data was also separately available for 10–15 February 2020. Data from 16 February 2020 onwards did not include a separate number of lab-tested cases. From 19 February 2020 onwards, only new lab-tested cases were counted towards the total (but clinically diagnosed cases counted earlier were not discarded). Data sourced from NHC daily reports. (In another link before January 25, on Wuhan MHC website before January 10)

References

HELP! Need a State:County/COVID-19 Commons map updated please - File:COVID-19 In West Virginia County Map.svg

This county-by-county map hasn't been updated since March 27th. I put in a request over on Commons to the last editor who edited it but no response yet. Could someone please update it? I have no idea how, the stats are here: dhhr.gov website. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 20:04, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Reports and researches on Wikipedia's COVID-19 response ?

Main page: Wikipedia:WikiProject COVID-19/Reports, statistics and researches

Hi there, Most of us noticed that our Wikipedia COVID-19 activity have been of a suddenness and intensity never seen before. So many wikipedians joined to storm and build up the topic. We can say the same on news media coverage, politicians, scientific community. I'am wondering if we have a page listing coverages of the Wikipedia COVID-19 responses, with :

• news articles (few here)
• informal data researches (ex)
• formal academic research

Anything else ? Yug (talk) 20:49, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Ok, I moved ahead with what I found. Go to Wikipedia:WikiProject_COVID-19#Coverage and you will see a transclusion of Wikipedia:WikiProject COVID-19/Reports, statistics and researches. The page is to expands with all news coverages, informal data reports, academic researches and other things reporting on our effort and that you may think as relevant. Yug (talk) 21:04, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

I have changed this up a lot. As some links were already there and removed explanatory tone. I also moved the reports section as it's odd to have it as a subsection of press coverage. I also moved the academic research section to its own section on the main page. I am really not a fan of recruitment for other projects ( especially those outside of Wikipedia) on project pages. Also best not to promote oneself on a project page either..... we don't want to give the impression of a hierarchy as this is one reason many projects have gone dormant. We are all the same....doing work as volunteers...no need to have "Hay look what i am doing" or "help project so and so at Ubekistan.com" type information on the main page that is meant to organize this project.--Moxy 🍁 23:48, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

@Moxy:, i am not sure i understand your bottom half comment as i didnt talked about hierarchy, nor called to contribute on Ubekistan.com-like site. I am proud and admiratove of the work done, so i am interested to know if we have measures of our ongoing COVID19 wikipedia effort and i want these documents to be gather at a single place so i may check them up quickly. Increased organization of information is our basic principles. "Be bold", i moved forward, took me <1h, i splitted what i found into press, data reports, academia, the whole displayed under "Coverage Press", then i moved to other things. Other people will come and adapt further as needed. Good to have other users merging / cleaning that stuff, as long as it is well organized i am in. Yug (talk) 19:36, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

I just checked the history i found there already was a "Automated reports" section back then. Great. Sorry for the duplication Yug (talk) 19:49, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

RfC overload

We seem to have an overload of RfC going on. Many seem to be started as the jumping off point to start a discussion. I think we need new editors to understand that the RfC process is usually a step in conflict resolution not a start point for a very fluid topic. I assume most would agree not every reverted edit needs its own RfC. Many RfC that are currently running are about outdated points or points that were never contested or a normal talk started in the first place. How can we tell new editors about this? Add to the edits notices? Talk page banner? What do others think....is there enough editor's that most RfC are mute because many people already have the pages on their watch list? What can we say?--Moxy 🍁 22:33, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

If you mean this current talk page is polluted, yes (and I bear my part of responsibility). Is there a {{done}} or {{closed}} template to use to close a section and then the cleaning bot comes to archive ?? We could use those more. Yug (talk) 22:37, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

I think it'll be difficult to persuade editors from starting inappropriate RfCs. What might be more feasible is policing them more aggressively, nipping malformed or unjustified ones by removing the tag as soon as it's added, and closing ones that appear headed toward a WP:SNOW result or have become outdated. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 03:49, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

More tables by region of a country

Wondering if anyone is interested in making tables like this for the top 25 or so affected countries? The first table specifically as seen here Template:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data/Spain medical cases Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:47, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

One for Italy is missing 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Italy

With the needed data here http://opendatadpc.maps.arcgis.com/apps/opsdashboard/index.html#/b0c68bce2cce478eaac82fe38d4138b1

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:50, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

@Doc James: Italy is not missing, it was actually one of the first to have it. Here: Template:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data/Italy medical cases --Ritchie92 (talk) 09:11, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Countries

• US present
• Spain present
• Italy present
• Germany missing
• France in a different format
• UK missing
• Turkey present
• Switzerland missing
• Belgium present
• Netherlands half present
• Canada present
• Austria missing

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:05, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Template:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data/Germany medical cases - has cases by region and date, at least. --mfb (talk) 09:40, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes but not deaths and recoveries... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:58, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

What's an antigen?

At an article related to the subject of this project, please see my comment at Talk: Antigen. Any volunteers? Arcturus (talk) 12:31, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Six WHO Regions

In the interests of globalness (and if that's not a word, it is now) I propose that the geographic areas pertaining to COVID19 be those of the WHO's comprehensive six regional offices. I began the timeline via cut-and-paste on January 23rd, and ever since it has had the format, basically, of China, Europe, North America, and everywhere else. There should be no et cetera. kencf0618 (talk) 15:17, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

To which article does this refer? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:38, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

The monthly timelines.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_2019%E2%80%9320_coronavirus_pandemic kencf0618 (talk) 21:05, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

"Notable cases" leaking through on local basis

I was amazed to find List of Philippine public figures who underwent COVID-19 testing having survived a deletion, and {{2020 coronavirus pandemic in the United Kingdom}} has had a "Notable cases" heading inserted which is basically cataloging notable people with COVID-19. I thought we agreed not to do this in a WP:AFD, so I am a little dismayed to see it leaking back in on a country-by-country basis? Elizium23 (talk) 22:24, 5 April 2020 (UTC)