There seems to be contradictions in the sources and content of the article about whether or not this is a hoax. The source I just added confirms that this is a real phenomenon. Maybe it was a hoax at first but it seems like there are genuine events like this. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯02:24, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
Wikimedia Research Showcase on medical knowledge and Covid-19 on Wikipedia (July 15)
Hi all. My name is Martin Gerlach and I'm a research scientist in the Research team at the Wikimedia Foundation. I'm reaching out to you to let you know about an upcoming research showcase we're organizing that could be of interest to you:
This upcoming Wednesday, July 15, at 9:30 AM PDT/16:30 UTC the Wikimedia Research showcase will feature 2 talks around medical knowledge on Wikipedia: an overview by Denise Smith on the various ways users engage with Wikipedia’s health content in general as well as a timely study by Giovanni Colavizza on how editors are integrating knowledge on Covid-19 at an unprecedented pace. The talks will be live-streamed on (youtube) and there will also be time for audience questions during Q&A. More details, see here. --MGerlach (WMF) (talk) 09:22, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
1. There is no consensus about whether to use Template:Current at the top of articles covered by this project. The de facto practice has been to include them for less-trafficked articles but not for the most heavily trafficked ones. Link 1
3. For infoboxes on the main articles of countries, use Wuhan, Hubei, China for the origin parameter. Link 1
4. "Social distancing" is generally preferred over "physical distancing". Link 1, Link 2
Page title
1.Coronavirus disease 2019 is the full name of the disease and should be used for the main article. COVID-19 (full caps) is preferable in the body of all articles, and in the title of all other articles/category pages/etc. Link 1, Link 2
2.Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 is the full name of the virus and should be used for the main article. SARS-CoV-2 (exact capitalisation and punctuation) is preferable in the body of all articles, and in the title of all other articles/category pages/etc. Link 1
Map
1. There is no consensus about which color schemes to use, but they should be consistent within articles as much as possible. There is agreement that there should be six levels of shading, plus gray for areas with no instances or no data. Link 1, Link 2
2. There is no consensus about whether the legend, the date, and other elements should appear in the map image itself. Link 1, Link 2
3. For map legends, ranges should use fixed round numbers (as opposed to updating dynamically). There is no consensus on what base population to use for per capita maps. Link 1, Link 2
Support. It would definitely make reading the consensus easier. There might be a better heading (or headings) instead of "Article content", but with what there is now I think it's fine. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:56, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
Hi all, another question. The US state pandemic articles (COVID-19 pandemic in Colorado, etc etc) seem to be missing info on state-level laws and policies passed in response to the pandemic. I'm thinking of things like eviction and foreclosure moratoria, extending unemployment benefits, etc etc, many of which are on a state-by-state level. Is that an oversight because we haven't gotten to it yet, or has there been discussion about this kind of info? I'm guessing this is a working-on-it situation as some state articles are more detailed than others, but I'm interested in collaborating with anyone working on these articles or who has been thinking about their overall structure. Thoughts? -- phoebe / (talk to me) 14:53, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
In desktop view, there isn't a link to the Bengali page while for the mobile view, there is a link to টেমপ্লেট:২০১৯–২০ করোনাভাইরাসের বৈশ্বিক মহামারীর উপাত্ত/বাংলাদেশে চিকিৎসামূলক ঘটনার রেখাচিত্ which is an empty page. Anyone can help fix it? --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 22:56, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
I'm working on Commons and I've been adding new (US) public domain content when I come across it. Here are some of the latest images I've uploaded. They might come in handy for a some of your work. :) Missvain (talk) 01:58, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
Sdkb Hey there, thanks for tagging me. I feel that the subsections are not necessary is not just because it was too China-centric, but because readers won't read the entire thing in the article if we expand it. It will also be a problem for the size, as we know. If it needs to be revived, it can just be added a main page hatnote and nothing else, considering there is no way to cram the entire thing in. GeraldWL10:22, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
So, I agree on making a new home for it. I feel like the most appropriate title for it is "International aid related to the COVID-19 pandemic". I think given that the subsections are still saved, I could probably create the article, although it won't be complete. It would still be China-centric, will just wait other people to come fill in. GeraldWL10:29, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
I think they could be added to: Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the environment and Economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. The problem with adding it to "Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on science and technology" is that it's less of part of the impacts on science and technology than COVID-19 pandemic-related science and technology. Maybe there could be a new section somewhere – maybe a new article – that is about such science and technology for tracking and assessing impacts. Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic is a set index article.
In addition they and information on the dashboard could also be added some COVID-19 pandemic-unrelated articles like impact assessment-related ones. --Prototyperspective (talk) 21:54, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
The concept itself
There is no COVID-19-test, just a SARS-CoV-2 test. The virus is not the desease, but its cause (for some). By the way, COVID-19 is not SARS.
Although a rRT-PCR test aims to detect the virus, you'll find that antibody tests measure the body's reaction to the disease, so are COVID-19 tests. See COVID-19 testing.
Sounds good. I haven't checked out that page specifically, but in general, we need all the help we can get maintaining/improving the smaller COVID pages. {{u|Sdkb}}talk18:21, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
Last week the article COVID-19 pandemic in the post-Soviet states was created. I just nominated it for deletion since it doesn't seem to make sense to me to have an article which consists of a list of ex-Soviet countries and which just summarises the pandemic in these countries, especially since the Soviet Union ceased to exist nearly three decades before the pandemic began.
I approve of the deletion. You are right, the Soviet Union has ceased existing quite a while ago. And while the concept of post-Soviet states can certainly be helpful in other contexts (e.g. foreign politics, military), it is not for COVID-19. Indeed as you said the article does not give an explanation of why these states should be grouped together in relation to the pandemic either, there is no "general" section indicating any connection. It's just a list of states that – like other states – happen to have cases of COVID-19. --LordPeterII (talk) 15:12, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
"Long COVID" refers to the phenomenon of some people having symptoms for many months after infection. Also referred to as "long haulers". Bondegezou (talk) 14:01, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
It's great to hear that this is starting to become something people are taking seriously, but it might take more studies and more secondary sources reporting on the issue before it becomes WP:MEDRS-worthy: Mahase mentions that [a]side from anecdotal evidence, there is as yet little research on this issue. However, it is being actively discussed within the research community. It sounds a little too early for the subject to be considered notable enough for its own article. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 14:35, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
Bondegezou, it definitely sounds like something that might eventually warrant an article. Maybe put together a draft, and it can be moved to mainspace once ready? {{u|Sdkb}}talk01:51, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
How to cover COVID-19 in Donald Trump's lead
You may be interested in participating in this discussion[1] on the Donald Trump page about how to cover the COVID-19 pandemic in the lead to his article, and be included in this beautifully formatted table of red and green squares[2].
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Snooganssnoogans (talk • contribs)
Together with the 2020 Beirut explosions and now the the resignation of the complete lebanese cabinet the covid-situation can sorrowly be expected to be and expand chaotic.
Hey there, IP. Acknowledging the recent Beirut explosions, there could be new changes and maybe anyone (I don't really have the expertise on that particular subject) can try edit it, but for cases, we can't use Worldometers. That's prob what I can say. GeraldWL08:38, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
As I have seen in the article en:WP-editors use national info sources. As systems there might break down your up to try something like this:
If you're talking about Worldometer, as said in Talk:COVID-19 pandemic: "Refrain from using Worldometer (worldometers.info) as a source due to common errors being observed as noted on Wikipedia:WikiProject COVID-19/Case Count Task Force#Common errors. Link 1, Link 2." Quotes from the cited pages include "several updates lack a source, do not match their cited source or contain errors," and "Aggregate sources may include presumptive or suspected cases in the total of confirmed cases." So its best to refrain from using it,<ref>{{Cite web|title=The mystery behind the data aggregation site Worldometer|url=https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2020/05/world/worldometer-coronavirus-mystery/|access-date=2020-08-11|website=www.cnn.com}}</ref> although I am very confused with this claim. GeraldWL13:15, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
Davidwr, so I just took a look at the Australia page. There appear to be quite a few charts there, which is good for interactivity, but also what's probably causing the issue. The entire reflist is not displaying currently. {{u|Sdkb}}talk00:30, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
Hey, I'm in the middle of a BRFA for a bot that sweeps articles containing Covid rates and updates them. I'm looking to replace all the rates tables and charts with templates managed by the bot, will this be ok? WikiMacaroonsCinnamon?09:23, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
Bot updating of COVID data is something that's desperately needed, but it's been a much rockier path than would be hoped; see here and other related discussions. {{u|Sdkb}}talk10:24, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
WikiMacaroons, sounds promising! Will the tables be hosted on Wikipedia, Commons, or Wikidata? I'm not too familiar with translations/off-wiki retrievals, but it may be easier for other language wikipedias and/or non-Wikipedia entities to retrieve the data if it's at a multilingual project. {{u|Sdkb}}talk18:01, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
Taken together, the available evidence does not point definitively toward a natural origin for SARS‐CoV‐2, rather, much of it is more consistent with what would be found if the novel coronavirus had arisen from serial passage of a “precursor” progenitor virus in a lab, or from bats infecting a commercial mink farm somewhere in China, which would also provide the conditions for serial passage. However, more evidence is required before a conclusive judgement can be made one way or the other.
To me, this looks like advocacy for the fringe view that SARS COV 2 was created in a lab. In response to this, the lead author of the essay turned up to defend himself. I have no particular expertise on the topic but a single essay seems to me to fail WP:MEDRS for contentious issues like this, and lends the essay undue weight. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:50, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
Help needed creating Wikidata bot to update statistics
We're wasting a lot of editor effort trying to update the case/death/recovery counts for every country in the world, in terms of updating Template:COVID-19 pandemic data and its subpages, redirecting editors who post about outdated stats in the wrong forums, forcing map creators to copy data, and not being able to benefit from non-English contributors updating data. There's a solution to this — Johns Hopkins publishes open data in a machine-readable format that could be imported to Wikidata, and we could in turn import the Wikidata values ourselves (as could every other Wikipedia, so that they won't need to keep copying our table). However, the bot proposal at Wikidata has been open for three months as of today, and until it's completed our per capita data table is too unreliable for mainspace use. Does anyone want to help the folks at Wikidata get this up and running? {{u|Sdkb}}talk17:19, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
Thanks! Please help, I have been way busier than I expected and it is not as simple to run a bot on those things as one would expect. TiagoLubiana (talk) 18:08, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
@RayDeeUx: Oops, I just fixed the link. And there are certainly discussions to be had about the data sourcing/some of the nuances, but I think the bigger issue is just making sure that our data for Smallcountryistan isn't two months out of date. {{u|Sdkb}}talk21:34, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
Very general taking stock of our COVID-19 coverage so far
Editing on this page and around COVID-19 topics in general doesn't seem to be super busy these past few weeks, so I think this might be a good time to have a very high-level, broad-minded discussion about how we're doing with our coverage so far. I'm opening up this thread as a space for that, and providing some questions to kick us off:
In what ways/which topics is our coverage of COVID-19 doing well, and in what ways/which topics is it lacking?
How are we doing with regard to meeting WP:MEDRS standards where applicable?
How has the situation changed recently in ways that require us to adjust our approach to editing in this area?
Where should we be focusing our editing efforts over the next few weeks or months?
Sdkb, would love to answer the last question, in which the answer is a question. Considering the lead is sort of a summary for the body of the article, don't you think citations in the lead, unless not described in the body, is not that of reader's best interest? I've never seen a lead in an article using citations to back up all claims it has, when the citations is cited in the body, where descriptions and claims are more specific.
I would also answer number 4. When new information (which in the future there might be explosion of new information) comes out, I feel like the space the COVID pandemic article has will not be that friendly to those new information. In case this happens, I would suggest reducing the "Diagnosis" "Deaths" and "Neational responses" section to just a brief summary, especially since there are main articles on them. GeraldWL12:28, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
For the COVID-19 vaccine article over the rest of 2020, we will be challenged to describe the status of Phase III trials and hastened FDA approval of vaccine candidates, which will be under political pressure from the Trump administration and its accelerated vaccine development program, Operation Warp Speed. This 27 Aug article, "Trump has launched an all-out attack on the FDA. Will its scientific integrity survive?" describes the dilemma: a) vaccine clinical research cannot - and should not - be rushed in its determination of whether a vaccine candidate is safe, immunogenic, and preventive in an aggressive pandemic, possibly requiring the typical multiple-years research phase, but b) under Trump administration pressure to approve a vaccine (or have timely 'good news') near the 3 Nov presidential election to sway voters, will the FDA be forced from its objectivity and decades-long, science-based practices to comply with political will? How will Wikipedia deal with the dilemma of rushed vaccine results under government pressure for the FDA to declare approval, usually a respected WP:MEDRS source? Zefr (talk) 15:32, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
1. I've followed mostly the main articles. I think the slow down in activity indicates that they are starting to solidify a bit. Nice job everyone!
2. I think we are doing a better job since the start at ensuring MEDRS compliance. This usually means removing news sources from medical articles.
3. I don't follow the national responses area as much: but I think it is now very clear to all that this will be a very long ordeal (multi year). We are in it for the long haul. I think this will force us to decide how to cover national responses and the level of detail we want to get into. For example, if we enter a period of multiple "waves" of the virus (the US is in the middle of a second wave and Europe is picking up as well) some articles may explode if they try to cover every measure introduced at each wave etc.
4. Therapies/vaccines hopefully will become a bigger focus and claims will need to be appropriately sourced.
5: I think the work we did with the Template:Current COVID-19 Project Consensus has turned out quite well. A lot of useless discussions have been avoided and discussions are circulating much more.
Gtoffoletto, re 3, the technical limits some of the articles are bumping up against are certainly annoying when they block us from e.g. using templates, but they do have the silver lining of forcing some editorial restraint. I agree that trimming is/will be a big task for many of the country pages.
Re 5, the "circulating much more" gives me the thought: should that template also include a spot to list a current active discussion or two, so that it can serve as a kind of project-specific WP:CENT? {{u|Sdkb}}talk16:12, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
@Sdkb: I think that would be great. Ideally linking to large discussions happening on the project page. It should have pretty clear and strict usage guidelines though. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}talk17:38, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
John P. Sadowski (NIOSH), yeah, I saw the transmission page come up for DYK. There's a balance to be made between not enough detail and too much detail. If don't have enough, we don't serve readers as well as we could, but if we have too much, we spread ourselves too thin, leading to poor updating and other gaps. I'm particularly irked by attempts to list data that require constant manual updating, rather than drawing automatically from a centralized source, since those are a huge time sink. COVID-19 pandemic death rates by country was created a little while back and survived an AfD attempt despite my best efforts, and sure enough, it now has a big {{This article needs to be updated}} tag sitting at the top.
Pretty much all of our maps also fall into this category until we find a way to update them automatically, although I think there may be someone working on that (?). And Wikidata has completely and utterly failed to make itself a reliable repository for statistics on case counts and the like, which is disappointing since that's the sort of thing it was supposed to be set up to do. We've come a little ways since the pandemic began, with templates like {{Cases in the COVID-19 pandemic}} seeming to work well, but many other important ones still function terribly. Going forward, I'd like to see us greatly improve and centralize our data management. {{u|Sdkb}}talk17:13, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
Coverage of misinformation coming out of the US is usually decent, but content on even high-profile misinformation coming out of other countries is undercovered, even though there is often content in English on it. In some cases this is doubly problematic as it is being put out by governments of countries with little freedom of speech, limited access to independent sources, and a habit of state manipulation of Wikipedia content. There is also the problem that not every thing claimed to cure COVID-19 can contain a section saying "no, it doesn't"[MEDRS]; and that is where readers will look, not List of unproven methods against COVID-19. Our content is also sometimes excellent but badly-organized, such that it is hard to track down the info you need; a subsection in an article which is only peripherally relevant may have more good content than the main subject article. Finally, as articles get less attention, problematic content (such as poor MEDRS or out-of-date content) is sticking around for longer. The frontpage of this project has a list of COVID-19-related articles needing cleanup, but there does not seem to be a section for articles with medical-content-related tags (like "medrs needed"), though it might help with point number 2. HLHJ (talk) 01:49, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
I think a lot of the geography based articles like "COVID-19 pandemic in..." articles are not high quality and have a lot of cleanup issues. These articles are often not written in an encyclopedic style but instead are a mass collection of information, much of which is unneeded. Because of this, many of these articles are too long, and there are too many articles. I think the following should be done:
1. Across all articles, information should be condensed/reduced in length, only including the important stuff. An example: COVID-19 pandemic in the United States#Testing is about 15 paragraphs in length when it could be less than half that.
2. Continuing from the first proposal, the "Timeline" articles should be condensed and merged into their parent articles. The timeline section should describe major events and trends, not a day-by-day report of cases and minor events.
3. Excluding Hong Kong, Macau, and maybe a small number of others, all sub-national articles should be merged into their national parent articles. A lot of the cleanup issues and outdatedness is on these articles, many of which are not being fully updated and maintained (see: COVID-19 pandemic in Idaho).
The geographic 2009 flu pandemic articles are similar: outdated, subpar quality, with tons of issues. This is where many COVID-19 articles seem to be going and where many already are, so I see this as an area that can be improved significantly. My suggestions aim to help with this and reduce the amount of future work needed to maintain these articles. Velayinosu (talk) 02:14, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
My answers:
Strengths/Weaknesses: Broad, quick coverage in the early days, when readers were looking for anything. Now, we've too much bloat and weak sources, especially WP:PRIMARYNEWS.
WP:MEDRS standards: We're maybe okay in the main articles, but weaker in the others. In particular, it's been difficult/impossible to meet MEDRS's ideal for country-specific statistics.
How has the situation changed: IMO the recent changes should mostly make it easier to write good articles. We are getting less breaking news, and more sources with context and analysis.
Focus area: Weeding. I think the important thing is to move from collecting every detail to producing short, encyclopedic summaries of the content. For example, COVID-19 pandemic in the United States#Timeline has a surprising number of exact dates. A single case is reported with three different dates (the day the person entered the US, the day he sought medical care, and the day the the CDC announced that he was infected). Maybe just one date would be enough?
Other: The six-month anniversary of Italy announcing a lockdown is coming up. I'm hoping that September will be rich in retrospective "Where are we now?" articles (in every subject area) that will let us replace multiple primary sources with a single secondary source. We should get another batch of these around New Year's, as newspapers publish their traditional year-in-review content.
There has been lots of good coverage by Wikipedia, often doing what no other resource can. However, the desire to say something and then to cover everything saw WP:MEDRS thrown out the window. There are still articles now, e.g. on a vaccine, where our coverage is inconsistent with what we do for all other medical topics, i.e. MEDRS. Bondegezou (talk) 14:12, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
Information on occurrence of MIS-C in different countries
On a separate MIS-C-related matter, I feel it might be helpful to point out to fellow contributors here that MIS-C#History contains some reliable sourcing on the reporting of this rare condition in different countries around the world (some background information about its recognition, or otherwise, in MIS-C#Epidemiology). The geographical coverage is almost certainly incomplete (highlighting of genuine omissions welcome here :), and information on the actual burden of the disease is much more limited (for the US, this infographic is reliable and informative up to mid-July). MIS-C is a rare childhood condition that has emerged due to COVID-19, and it is a clinically relevant aspect of the pandemic which, imo, deserves appropriate (wp:due), reliably-sourced regional coverage. 86.190.132.245 (talk) 19:09, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
Paediatric multisystem inflammatory syndrome - MOS questions
A minor barnstar for all active participants of WikiProject COVID-19
The Minor Barnstar
As I AWB through COVID-19 articles, I notice very few {{orphan}} and {{underlinked}} tags going up. Having articles that link to each other well may seem minor, hence my choice of barnstar, but I've noticed that having articles that are well-linked to each other tends to increase the quality of said articles. This particular correlation means that well-linked articles are a bigger deal than people sometimes think. Everyone actively participating in this Wikiproject, particularly the wikilink gnomes, deserves a barnstar. I dream of horses(Contribs) Please notify me after replying off my talk page. Thank you. 07:12, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
WhatamIdoing, I don't think we have anything specifically on that. Some of the {{Main}} links from Social distancing may be helpful, though, and if you do create the page, it should certainly be linked from those pages to help build the web. {{u|Sdkb}}talk23:02, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
WhatamIdoing,
correct term is Support bubble (see BBC article below). I hav also seen it being called quarantine bubble.
Support bubble
There is even an image at wiki commons allready it seems (see on the right).
You could simply describe it at COVID-19_pandemic_in_New_Zealand article and then make a new page the redirects to that page (section in which you describe it in detail)
Refs:
Another Believer, how many events are there in those subcategories that aren't related to COVID-19? I think we could make a child subcategory in each month for COVID-19 stuff if it's necessary. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:40, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
Tenryuu, I think most are not COVID-related, but I guess my questions is, how helpful is it to note an event took place in February 2020, March 2020, April 2020, May 2020, June 2020, July 2020, August 2020, September 2020, and October 2020, for example, as opposed to just 2020? ---Another Believer(Talk)03:43, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
Another Believer, ah, I see what you mean. Do we have categories such as "Events in the United States that started in 2020" and "Events in the United States that ended in 2021"? They seem a bit wordy but might help categorise events that span over multiple years. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 13:08, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
Hello, everyone! Hope you are all doing well. I noticed that much of the sources cited by Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 § Reservoir and zoonotic origin didn't support the text. I even removed a biomedical claim supported by a Forbes interview (with an expert, sure), which is not WP:MEDRS. I cleaned it up as much as possible, but someone else needs to double-check my work because we can't really afford to make this mistake twice. It would also benefit from some reorganization of the prose, if that is more your forte. Thank you so much, Rotideypoc41352 (talk·contribs) 15:26, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
Hi Wikipedia, as of right the state of California is now the worse infected state that surpasses the state of New York. I hope anyone to create the title called COVID-19 pandemic in Los Angeles. Currently, the title COVID-19 pandemic in Los Angeles is still a redirect. Los Angeles, is now the worse infected city in the United States. The new title COVID-19 pandemic in Los Angeles will focusing on California's largest city and the second largest city in the United States on how many confirmed cases and how many deaths and the city wide state of emergency was declared back in March. The title COVID-19 pandemic in New York City was already created as an article some months ago that focuses on New York City. Comments are welcome to consider turning from a redirect into a created article for COVID-19 pandemic in Los Angeles for proposal. Thank you. Steam5 (talk) 06:30, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
@Steam5: There's been some debate about whether it's really appropriate to have city-level pages on the pandemic, since they're hard to keep updated, so many fall into disrepair. That said, many cities as big or smaller than Los Angeles seem to have an article, so if you write the page, it's got a decent chance of surviving. (A quick note: article requests aren't RfCs, so I've removed the RfC tag here.) {{u|Sdkb}}talk06:43, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
If the Los Angeles area would be its own US state it would be in the top 10 by population. It's probably getting more attention than many smaller state articles. --mfb (talk) 05:28, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
Sobering and alarming talk page plea for help in Iowa
Iowa has been going through a really rough patch, with the ongoing pandemic, the August 2020 Midwest derecho devastating Cedar Rapids, and the 2019 floods.
Alas, the COVID-19 pandemic in Iowa talk page now says:
"Because the day-to-day updates have ceased with 13 July 2020, I can make the assumption that a) No additional cases or deaths have occurred, b) The Wikipedia editors with knowledge of the Iowa sources have succumbed to Covid-19, c) The state health department has ceased publishing their collated data, d) Nobody cares about Iowa."
The county-specific sources also are being updated, though it's harder to see a day-to-day trend from those. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 16:12, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
Further to discussion here in August, a new article was created out of the former redirect Long Covid. The article is slim, but could be expanded using the bibliography I've added to the Further reading section. Most of it is simply news articles with the comments of experts in the field and editorials in medical journals, but there is also a handful of more substantial sources. I ask for volunteers to help expand the article in a project-compliant way, though I'd prefer to keep the "further reading" section as full as possible until there's more in the article's body, since many of the reports mention scientists with studies underway or projects completed that might produce proper papers in the fulness of time, or have already done so since the news' publication, and that can be of help to the article's future editors. GPinkerton (talk) 21:30, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
COVID or Covid?
Given that 'Covid' and 'Covid-19' are now listed as nouns in the OED[3] and Lexico[4], and most recent RS coverage in the UK seems to use this form, I think it's time to recommend this form, rather than the all-caps version, for British English at least. What do we think? -- DeFacto (talk). 07:01, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
It seems the brits are using this standard: I explained that, like most British newspapers, the Guardian’s style is to use uppercase for abbreviations that are written and spoken as a collection of letters, such as BBC, IMF and NHS, whereas acronyms pronounced as words go upper and lower, eg Nasa, Unicef and, now, Covid-19.https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/apr/19/covid-pedantry-national-crisis-spelling-grammar I wouldn't go in to change all the articles because of this though... it is a minor item and isn't "better" than what we have. So I would keep the current standard. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}talk11:44, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
New World Health Organization Content collaboration
ViperSnake151, I'd say no, it's not appropriate to put the seven-day moving average in the lead, per WP:NOTNEWS. It's one thing to have maps with more recent case information, so long as there's a systematic way to update them, but having plain text in an article will go out of date extremely fast and isn't relevant to the overall arc of the pandemic in the region, which is what concerns us from an encyclopedic perspective. {{u|Sdkb}}talk04:18, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
The editor reverted me, saying that "there is no reason that Wikipedia should stick to a static and anodyne lead that hides the severity of the pandemic". Do you agree with this as an WP:IAR argument? ViperSnake151 Talk 16:09, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
Technical options for revising COVID-19 data template
Two articles badly need merging. The current article COVID-19 pandemic in Ohio is only focused on the government and private sector response, with a link to a separate article called "Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic in Ohio." Other states have a single general article about the pandemic in the state, not two separate articles about "Government and Private Sector Response to Covid-19 in [name of state]" and "Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic in [name of state]." Could we please merge the two articles about Ohio into a single article covering the pandemic in the state, as its title suggests? -- Oliveleaf4 (talk)
The WHO just uploaded some free images are relating to COVID-19, The Wikimedia Foundation and the World Health Organization to open access of free illustrations are being shared by the WHO such as infographics, infodemic, and informational video. If would be possible within facts or fears are being caused during the pandemic? --122.2.10.69 (talk) 01:50, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
Could you rephrase what you mean by If would be possible within facts or fears are being caused during the pandemic? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:53, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
"Wikipedia and W.H.O. Join to Combat Covid-19 Misinformation", The New York Times
"Some pages can be “locked” and cannot be changed until one of more than 200 volunteer editors on WikiProject Covid-19, many of whom are doctors or academics, review it."
Journalism looks worst when it's about something you actually know about haha. The WP/WHO collaboration is also definitely not the most newsworthy happening here of late. But positive coverage is nice regardless. {{u|Sdkb}}talk16:57, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
I think a task force is needed for health departments dealing with archaic technology and reporting procedures. As far as I can ascertain this is almost entirely at the county level, but the mish-mash of statistics is definitely a public health issue (and arguably a public relations issue). We need to be paying close attention to the reportage on the gubernatorial level. kencf0618 (talk) 11:50, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
Hi all, I'd like some help tidying up this navbox - I thought members here might have some clues given how important many aspects of the navbox area in relationship to the COVID epidemic. (I have cross posted at WP:MED, too).
I have come across this navbox and find it particularly difficult / ugly - the sections are weighted weirdly, the structure makes me worry there are missing topics, and some sections such as "Transmission" seem to be a long list that could be structured in a more easy to understand way. Unfortunately I don't have a great broad understanding of this area enough to make some changes to this navbox, and thought editors here might be able to have a look. Thanks, I hope! --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:43, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
Soumya-8974, sorry, I can't say I like it. Most of the talk pages should be redirected to this talk page, among other things. We already have two proposed talk headers—what's needed is to merge them, not to introduce a third header. {{u|Sdkb}}talk01:25, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
Also not a fan...loOKs complicated and causes the whole project page to side scroll. Would recommend rethinking this type of banner for WP:ASTRONOMY if you want all readers to be able to have proper access to that page.--Moxy🍁03:28, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
Hello WikiProject COVID-19!! Please join the Brooklyn based Sure We Can community for our 2nd NYC COVID-19 themed Wikipedia Edit-a-thon / translate-a-thon - ONLINE - this Saturday, Nov 21st, 2020 11am - 1pm. The edit-a-thon is part of Sure We Can's work with NYC Health + Hospitals to stop the spread of Covid-19. We plan to continue to work on translating the COVID-19 pandemic in New York City article into some of the many languages spoken in New York City; as well as, work on other ideas about how wikipedia could slow the spread of Covid-19.
I shared this once again since the consensus we have reached in this discussion will touch the major pages of this project so I'll share it with everyone here once again in case somebody missed it. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}talk11:24, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
I shared this once again since the consensus we have reached in this discussion will touch the major pages of this project so I'll share it with everyone here once again in case somebody missed it. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}talk11:24, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
Split-off bare bones stats article - does this make sense?
Hiya project members, Statistics of COVID-19 pandemic in Sri Lanka is currently sitting in the NPP queue, and I'm having my doubts about the format. Have extended COVID statistics been split off into separate articles before? If so, does that make sense in this case? Some comments and/or proactive merging would be welcome - I'm leaving it unreviewed for the time being. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:46, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
Elmidae, quite a few articles on other places have, on account of transcluded templates (usually from statistics) breaking PEIS limits (which prevents templates further down the page like {{cite}} templates from transcluding). I don't see any discussion about it on the talk page, though. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:07, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
Just a heads up, Bait30 has started making edits to this consensus that occurred in March/April. I personally do not have sufficient knowledge to make a comment, but I am just curious what is it for. Just felt like mass changes should be told here. Starzoner (talk) 20:42, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Bait30, what's your perspective here? As a general principle, RfC results should be abided by unless there is evidence that consensus has changed. {{u|Sdkb}}talk21:08, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
I'm confused as to the issue here. I'm making edits in order to comply with that RfC. I started the RfC months ago, but now I finally have the time and the means thanks to AWB to be able to do this much more easily. Bait30 Talk 2 me pls?21:10, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Bait30, oh, that sounds fine. I read edits to this consensus as saying you were contravening the result, not implementing it. {{u|Sdkb}}talk23:26, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Resolved
