Wikipedia talk:WikiProject COVID-19/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 15

Proposed change to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject COVID-19/Current consensus: naming conventions

Right now under item 2, the current consensus page says "There is consensus on naming guidelines for the virus" and explains that the virus is called COVID-19. This is factually incorrect. The disease is called COVID-19, the virus which causes it is called SARS-CoV-2. I propose changing this sentence to "There is consensus on naming guidelines for the disease" (emphasis mine). Chess (talk) (please WP:PING when replying) 06:27, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Chess, given the use of punctuation, and that it reads Coronavirus disease 2019 is the full name of the disease, I wouldn't say it's factually incorrect, but it is confusing. I agree with the proposed change. I guess this should be uncontroversial. --MarioGom (talk) 10:08, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

My bad. The irony...--Gtoffoletto (talk) 19:15, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Fixed it. --Gtoffoletto (talk) 19:21, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

SARS-CoV-2 naming convention

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

---

We should maybe have the same discussion about Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) Following the same reasoning we should ensure the full name is in the article title while SARS-CoV-2 is used everywhere else. --Gtoffoletto (talk) 19:21, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

• Re a SARS-CoV-2 guideline, that sounds reasonable. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 06:12, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
• +1, I'll notify Talk:Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 to get more input. --MarioGom (talk) 08:16, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

What is your position on what to use in the Anthony Fauci article? I made this change after reverting this edit, which just meant two names for the same thing, but I went to the talk page to ask what to do. I got no response.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 18:11, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

@Vchimpanzee: Using COVID-19 is appropriate in the body as per consensus here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject COVID-19#Current consensus, item 2. Incidentally we have a problem getting those guidelines seen by everyone. We have a proposal to fix this problem by placing it in all pages more prominently and more eyes + editors with experience with templates are needed: [2] --Gtoffoletto (talk) 22:26, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

• Text to add: There is consensus on naming guidelines for the virus: 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 to discussion. --Gtoffoletto (talk) 08:24, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

This is not the name of the disease at all.Graham Beards (talk) 22:11, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

@Graham Beards: this is the name of the virus that causes the disease (COVID-19). It's easy to confuse the two. That's why this item is so important. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 15:12, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

@Gtoffoletto: So why have you written "Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 is the full name of the disease" just a few lines above? Graham Beards (talk) 17:26, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

@Graham Beards: this is why a new set of eyes is always a good thing! Fixed. It was an obvious mistake nobody had noticed! Thanks -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 20:49, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

• Agree. While less commonly used than COVID-19, I can see editors using its full name or calling it the COVID-19 virus. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:37, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
• Comment: There is a move discussion in progress at Talk:Severe acute respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus#Requested move 24 April 2020 which affects this discussion. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 19:45, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

@Rotideypoc41352: Don't forget to vote in favour so we can add this to the shared consensus and avoid discussions like that one! -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 22:08, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

@Gtoffoletto: what do you think of (exact capitalisation and punctuation) instead of (exact capitalisation)?

Should this consensus come with the caveat expressed in responses to Liz's !vote at the COVID-19 naming discussion? Namely, this only applies going forward, not retroactively, so extant pages must go through WP:RM and WP:CFD with an organized proposal, listing every page you want changed, the old & new title.

I didn't think much of this discussion when it opened because I didn't expect someone invested enough to open a move discussion. After that NPOVN virus name discussion, I was hoping we could finally move on figuring out how to explain to our readers how this virus works! Alas... Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 23:23, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

I think going forward some to the names of some articles should be reviewed based on this consensus. But that should come at a later stage. Let's start ensuring new pages follow this standard. No rush to fix existing pages in a disorderly manner. I've inserted and puctuation in the text as I think it's a pretty minor change but clears things up so no-one else should object. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 21:12, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Update: The move discussion was withdrawn on 25 April 2020. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:38, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

• Agree with full name in the title, SARS-CoV-2 everywhere else. Feelthhis (talk) 12:45, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
• Agree with full name in title, in the first sentence, and SARS-CoV-2 elsewhere. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 08:20, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Do we have consensus? This has been here a while an no-one seems to be against it. If somebody seconds it I will add it to the consensus list. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 23:43, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Another useless move discussion we could have averted with this item in the consensus list: [3] -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 22:00, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Agree. Seeing as the discussion has closed, I will add here that I believe that the virus' full scientific name should be used in the title, and that something like "COVID-19 virus" redirects to it. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:28, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Done! -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 07:50, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

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

Proposed change to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject COVID-19/Current consensus regarding the use of Current

The linked discussion in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject COVID-19/Current consensus [4] seems to support REMOVING the template. We have 4 votes for support and 1 vote against. Other users have not expressed their disapproval but have just suggested to take it slow before making such a big change.

A specific version of the template has been created Template:Current_COVID which has been voted upon here [5].

I think there is at least a local consensus and since the consensus might be shown in more pages soon (see [6]) I propose that we vote to change the consensus to:

OPTION A 1. The Template:Current should not be used at the top of articles covered by this project. Include the project specific Template:Current_COVID only for less-trafficked articles but not for the most heavily trafficked ones. --Gtoffoletto (talk) 23:59, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

What do you mean by "trafficked"? Pageviews? Searches? Edits? At any rate, that's backwards. {{Current}} was designed to be used on only the most heavily-edited articles. Elizium23 (talk) 23:55, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

@Elizium23: Would you rather just remove it altogether from all pages? I would second that. It is now apparent to all that COVID-19 is not a short term event but a long term crysis so the template should not apply. --Gtoffoletto (talk) 00:02, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I would remove it from all pages. If a particular article was attracting hundreds of edits in a day, for a particular new development, then we can think about adding {{Current COVID}} there. Otherwise, no. Elizium23 (talk) 00:06, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

@Elizium23: See option B below. --Gtoffoletto (talk) 00:13, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

I support this option. The big articles are unlikely to miss major updates, but some of the side articles can easily be outdated. --mfb (talk) 01:48, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

OPTION B 1. The Template:Current should not be used at the top of articles covered by this project. Include the project specific Template:Current_COVID only for articles about major recent developments attracting a large number of edits a day. --Gtoffoletto (talk) 00:13, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Gtoffoletto, could you please clarify by what you mean by "recent events"? Are you talking about outbreaks that are notable enough to warrant their own articles? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:29, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Tenryuu Per discussion below edited to "major recent developments" -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 08:12, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

• I forgot about the TfD nom I made of {{Current COVID}}, and just checked in and realized consensus swung the other way. I think that was a bad call — it looks like many keep !voters didn't do their legwork before !voting and didn't realize that the things they liked about {{Current COVID}} could have been expressed by {{Current}}. But oh well, Wikipedia already has a huge pile of overproliferated duplicate templates, and this just adds one more to that messy pile and neglects the chance to improve the main Current template. (/rant)

Regarding the question here, if we go with option A, it might be helpful to specify an approximate pageview count to delineate what we mean by "high-traffic" (although give pages on the margin the ability to decide for themselves). The last time this was discussed, I think I landed on option A, but the rate of editing has continued to decline and the awareness that this is going to be a longer-term situation has become clearer, so at this point I think we might want to go with option B. Re Tenryuu's question, perhaps the wording "major recent developments" would get the point across? Also, perhaps I'm just dragging my feet here, but a decision to keep {{Current COVID}} doesn't mean a consensus not to use {{Current}}. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 17:33, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

{{current}} is placed based on the number of edits, not pageviews. Who cares how many people looked at a page? Other than those who got pissed off because there was a big ugly template blocking useful information "above the fold" and X'd the tab before interacting in a meaningful way. Elizium23 (talk) 17:53, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

@Elizium23: I agree that editing rate is a better metric than pageview count. I was using pageview count as a proxy for editing rate, since I'm not sure we have a good way to measure editing rate — the xTools editing rate average is over the entire lifespan of the page, whereas we'd want to look at only the past week or so. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:56, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

So @Elizium23:@Sdkb: you both vote for this proposal? I've incorporated "major recent developments" per Tenryuu's question -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 23:48, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I support the proposal. Elizium23 (talk) 00:28, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

@Gtoffoletto: I discovered the other day the existence of User:TedderBot/CurrentPruneBot, which used to (until 2013) remove all instances of {{Current}} more than 2 hours old. I think more generalized discussion is needed to figure out what we want to use that template for and make it better suited for that purpose. Until that happens, removing it from all articles that don't meet the "major recent developments" threshold is a good interim step. But I can't fully endorse its use, either, in anything but the most extreme cases, and I can't endorse {{Current COVID}} over the main template. In short, we need a stronger foundation here before we can apply it to this particular circumstance. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:28, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

@Sdkb: I see your point. The option above primarily suggests to not use the template. We can emphasise the fact it should only be used in exceptional circumstances or add an option C which just suggests to never use the template. What would you prefer? -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 21:56, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Massive Merger or pages being discussed

The page is currently completely overrun by merge notices: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:COVID-19_pandemic_in_New_York_(state)#Merge_discussions -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 13:17, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Using COVID-19 instead of coronavirus in page titles

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

---

The recently closed RM about the collateral move of several pages has been met with support and opposition from both sides, with some editors using similar arguments for both sides. There is a survey that asks if the pages will be renamed in such a way that it prominently features coronavirus instead of COVID-19 per the original proposition that was put forward. In the past few days, I was agreeing that a move would be wanted by a better number of editors. But why was COVID-19 chosen over coronavirus? The term coronavirus is an umbrella term for all coronaviruses, but it now most commonly refers to the SARS-CoV-2 virus, which has infected far more people than SARS-CoV or MERS-CoV. Also, may I ask if the proponent of the RM did it on his own accord, or was there some prior discussion among other editors before one among them came forward to begin RM?

Another issue that I raised in that RM was that such a naming concern could have an adverse effect on page titles. Think of 2020 COVID-19 pandemic in Country X, which may look confusing to some. We could rename that page to 2020–21 COVID-19 pandemic in Country X, but the problem is that the two or more year numbers will contradict each other in the title alone. Some other editors who voted in the RM wanted to have the year removed from the title, but I pointed out that that would cause a problem if the pandemic, or any other outbreak in the future, would need to have the year included in the title. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 09:09, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

I assume you are talking about the RM that moved 2019-20 coronavirus pandemic to COVID-19 pandemic. If you are, then I am the proponent. I did not consult with other editors beforehand, nor do I see that there was any requirement to do so: the RM discussion was a very full discussion, involving about 100 editors. I have no intention of reviewing the discussion here, but my main motivation, and that which I believe most editors agreed with, was that it is proper to call a pandemic by the name of the disease, not of the virus (or even the loose family of viruses) that cause said disease.

I am somewhat confused by your statement "Another issue that I raised in that RM..." as you were not a participant there. Your concern seems founded on a misunderstanding, as there is no intention of moving 2019-20 coronavirus pandemic in Fooland to 2019-20 COVID-19 pandemic in Fooland, but to COVID-19 pandemic in Fooland, without the year prefix. The articles might indeed require renaming, if there is a totally separate outbreak that reaches pandemic proportions before the virus has changed so much that the disease has a different name/number, but no formulation was totally future-proof. Again, all this was discussed in the RM. Kevin McE (talk) 12:54, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

I added a second comment in the section where another editor proposed moving page titles to include coronavirus instead of COVID-19. I have yet to read through the votes again, as some suggested that option, others supported the entirety of the original proposal, and others objected entirely. The pages for the different outbreaks for SARS and MERS were named with those abbreviations, and also included the years in which they happened. And a lot of other topics (those that are not related to COVID-19) have pages about singular events named with years as well. Definitely, editors like myself who opposed the propositions would have to respect consensus, whether it is a simple majority or a supermajority as what we see in voting for RfAs and RfBs. But I am still trying to discern whether that section that received the most votes was implying a consensus for allowing a rename of articles to include coronavirus instead of COVID-19, or whether they simply agreed to everything in your original proposal. Some were trying to agree depending on the statement, but the majority of votes were instead lumped under the modification that was propsed by one other editor. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 14:58, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Apologies: I now see that you had indeed contributed. I had done CTRL-F on the page with your name, I must have misentered it.

However, this looks very like an attempt to challenge the RM. There were three elements to the RM, but only one proposal: it was passed with all three. Kevin McE (talk) 17:49, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

I do think it was a failing that no notice was given on many of the hundreds of pages this decision affected, or as far as I can tell here, prior to the change. The decision made was likely the right one, but the process is not one I think we should replicate in future. I was one of the editors that only became aware of this decision affecting hundreds of articles after the fact. We should avoid that sort of thing whenever possible. If we don't, we greatly increase the risk that uninvolved editors will attempt to set aside such decisions, and even if they are not, we may waste resources and time re-litigating issues. We should try to do better.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 18:08, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

@Darryl Kerrigan: I'm about to close this discussion, but as a courtesy link, here's the notification that was sent to this project. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:10, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

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

Medical Case tables

So i have been maintaining the table {{COVID-19_pandemic_data/Brazil_medical_cases}} updated, even created a simple PHP code to it. However, as days go by, that table is getting longer and longer. This also applies to all the countries that have similar tables, and cases dating from february.
Does anyone have the wiki knowledge to help users define how many days they want to see on this table ? I was considering LUA, but that's waaaaayyy out of my league. I would like to have a button 'Feb', 'Mar', 'Apr', 'Last 15 days', and so on, and only show the data related to the period related to that button. --Hagnat (talk) 22:27, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Proposed change to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject COVID-19/Current consensus: tweak §2

Given the wholescale move of articles from ... 2019-20 coronavirus pandemic ... or ... 2020 coronavirus pandemic ... to ...COVID-19 pandemic ... (and as the instigator of that move, I must thank everyone who has been enacting it so efficiently), and the recognition in the RM at Talk:COVID-19 pandemic that the pandemic should be named for the disease rather than the virus group, I believe an adjustment to §2 in the statement of consensus is due.

To There is consensus on naming guidelines for the disease: 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 I would suggest that we add Accordingly, the pandemic (unless referred to simply as 'the pandemic') should always be called COVID-19 pandemic, with no year(s) as a prefix. Thoughts? Kevin McE (talk) 18:40, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

"always" sounds a little overly strict to me; in a few cases it might be helpful to include the years or make some other tweak for wording variation or some other purpose. But as a general matter, yes, that seems to be the new norm. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:00, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

I have no objection to removing 'always' from my proposal. Kevin McE (talk) 19:32, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

I'd support with "normally". {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 23:24, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Home for criticism of international bodies

This AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticism of response to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic merged most of its content into the new target of Criticism of response to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic. However, international content was orphaned; it may be possible to modify and salvage it for use elsewhere.

Can anyone suggest a good place to put this content? Feel free to just boldly move it there. HLHJ (talk) 02:06, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

original text

original text: World Bank The World Bank has been criticized for the slow response of its Pandemic Emergency Financing Facility (PEF), a fund which was created to provide money to help manage pandemic outbreaks. The terms of the PEF, which is financed by bonds sold to private investors, prevent any money from being released from the fund until 12 weeks after the outbreak was initially detected (23 March). The novel coronavirus outbreak met all other requirements for the funding to be released in January 2020. Critics have argued that the terms of the PEF are too stringent, and the 12-week delay means that the funding will be much less effective than if it was released to assist governments in initially containing the outbreak. They argue that the fund prioritizes the interests of the private bondholders over public health. World Health Organization Main article: World Health Organization § Reactions to WHO response in 2019–20 COVID-19 outbreak Further information: World Health Organization's Response to 2019-20 coronavirus pandemic The WHO's handling of the epidemic has come under criticism amidst what has been described as the agency's "diplomatic balancing act" between "China and China's critics." This has included scrutiny of the relationship between the agency and Chinese authorities. Initial concerns included the observation that while WHO relies upon data provided and filtered by member states, China has had a "historical aversion to transparency and sensitivity to international criticism". The WHO and some world leaders have praised the Chinese government's transparency in comparison to the 2003 SARS outbreak, others including John Mackenzie of the WHO's emergency committee and Anne Schuchat of the US CDC have shown skepticism, suggesting that China's official tally of cases and deaths may be underestimates. David Heymann, professor of infectious disease epidemiology at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, said that "China has been very transparent and open in sharing its data … they're sharing it very well and they opened up all of their files" to the WHO delegation that arrived in Wuhan on 22 February. Responding to criticism of his earlier approval of China's efforts, WHO Director-General Tedros stated that China "doesn't need to be asked to be praised. China has done many good things to slow down the virus. The whole world can judge. There is no spinning here," and further stating that "I know there is a lot of pressure on WHO when we appreciate what China is doing but because of pressure we should not fail to tell the truth, we don't say anything to appease anyone. It's because it's the truth." Tedros also suggested that the WHO would later assess whether China's actions were evidence-based and reasonable, saying "We don't want to rush now to blaming, we can only advise them that whatever actions they take should be proportionate to the problems, and that's what they assured us." Some observers have framed the WHO as being unable to risk antagonizing the Chinese government, as otherwise the agency would not have been able stay informed on the domestic state of the outbreak and influence response measures there, after which there would have "likely have been a raft of articles criticizing the WHO for needlessly offending China at a time of crisis and hamstringing its own ability to operate." Through this, experts such as Dr David Nabarro have defended this strategy in order "to ensure Beijing's co-operation in mounting an effective global response to the outbreak". Osman Dar, director of the One Health Project at the Chatham House Centre on Global Health Security defended the WHO's conduct, stating that the same pressure was one "that UN organisations have always had from the advanced economies." The WHO's daily situation reports recognize Taiwan as a part of China, with the result of Taiwan receiving the same "very high" risk rating as the mainland by the WHO despite only a having a relatively small number of cases on the ROC-governed island. This has led to Taiwan receiving travel bans from other countries. Furthermore, as Taiwan has been excluded from the WHO due to pressure from Beijing after the Tsai's 2016 election, the state may be vulnerable in the case of an outbreak in that territory without proper channels to the WHO. Taiwan president, Tsai Ing-wen, called on the WHO to allow Taiwanese experts to participate in the dialogue and for the WHO to share data on the virus even if it was not possible to admit Taiwan as a member state. In response, the WHO has said that they "have Taiwanese experts involved in all of our consultations ... so they're fully engaged and fully aware of all of the developments in the expert networks." After urging from Japan, the US and the UK, Taiwan was granted participation with Beijing's agreement, who deemed it "necessary under the circumstances to let Taiwan participate in sharing information on the virus." Taiwan has called the move a "meaningful development" in response. Some Taiwanese political observers have viewed such criticism of the WHO as "more politics than real needs," suggesting that "even though we are not in WHO, we can still get this info from many, many other places." European Union Although some European politicians have called for Europe's internal borders to be temporarily closed, the European Union decided to turn down the idea of suspending the Schengen free travel area and introducing border controls with Italy. The deputy leader of the Swiss Ticino League, Lorenzo Quadri, criticized the decision: "It is alarming that the dogma of wide-open borders is considered a priority." United States President Donald Trump said the European Union had "failed to take the same precautions and restrict travel from China and other hot spots" as the U.S. had implemented. Czech Prime Minister Andrej Babiš stated that "European countries cannot ban the entry of Italian citizens within the Schengen area. The only possible way is to have the Italian prime minister call on his fellow citizens to refrain from traveling to other countries of the European Union." After Czech Republic, Slovakia, Poland and Denmark announced complete closure of their national borders, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said that "Certain controls may be justified, but general travel bans are not seen as being the most effective by the World Health Organization. Moreover, they have a strong social and economic impact, they disrupt people’s lives and business across the borders." Von der Leyen also apologised to Italy, amidst widespread discontent among Italians for the lack of solidarity shown by Europe. Initially some countries restricted export of medical equipment to other member states. In response, Commission President von der Leyen stated that "National bans on selling protective equipment to other member states are not good," and that "We need to help each other ... today it is Italy that rapidly needs large quantities of medical goods, but in a few weeks other countries will need it too." As supplies began to dwindle, a dozen European countries began taking unusual steps of acquiring medical equipment, either paying companies to reroute or seizing shipments intended for other nations (see Shortages related to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic#Supplies competition). Pharmaceutical interests Doctors without borders warned that high prices and monopolies on medicines, tests, and vaccines would prolong the pandemic and cost lives. They urged governments to prevent profiteering, using compulsory licenses as needed, as had already been done by Canada, Chile, Ecuador, Germany, and Israel. On 20 February, 46 US lawmakers called for the US government not to grant monopoly rights when giving out taxpayer development money for any coronavirus vaccines and treatments, to avoid giving exclusive control of prices and availability to private manufacturers. Alex Azar speaks at the press briefing at which it was announced that Mike Pence was taking over the coronavirus response (video) On 26 February 2020, the US Health and Human Services Secretary (former pharmaceutical CEO Alex Azar, known for the doubling of the price of insulin while he was at Eli Lilly) testified before the House Energy and Commerce Committee. At this meeting Azar repeatedly refused to say that any coronavirus vaccine or treatment would be made accessible to all Americans, not only to those wealthy enough to pay. Representatives questioning him criticized his position. Hours later, President Trump, who was said be skeptical of the secretary's ability to handle the job, abruptly transferred responsibility for the pandemic to vice-president Mike Pence. Some attached importance to the fact that the president then walked out on Azar's explanation to the press that he was remaining as Health and Human Services Secretary; it was reported that Trump had not dismissed him during a crisis for the sake of appearances. On 2 March, US Representative Jan Schakowsky wrote to Alex Azar, saying "You must understand that the House of Representatives would find it unacceptable if taxpayer dollars were used to develop a vaccine for COVID-19 and the rights to produce and market that vaccine were subsequently handed over to a pharmaceutical manufacturer through an exclusive license with no conditions on pricing or access, allowing the company to charge whatever it would like and essentially selling the vaccine back to the public who paid for its development." Trump, with Azar, signs the Coronavirus Preparedness and Response Supplemental Appropriations Act into law on 6 March The 6 March Coronavirus Preparedness and Response Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2020 originally allowed the US government to bring in compulsory licensing where prices are excessive; after lobbying, this was removed, and a provision was added to prevent the US government from taking any action on affordability if it might delay coronavirus vaccine or treatment availability. Observers disagreed as to whether the bill would help or hinder affordability. Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, home to the two highest-paid pharmaceutical executives, made a deal with the US-government Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority that the government would fund 80% of the costs for Regeneron to develop and manufacture coronavirus treatments, and Regeneron would retain the right to set prices and control production. This deal was criticized in the New York Times. Such deals are not unusual for routine drug development in the American pharmaceutical market. American pharmaceutical company Gilead sought and obtained "orphan drug" status for remdesivir from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on 23 March 2020. This provision is intended to encourage the development of drugs affecting fewer than 200,000 Americans by granting strengthened and extended legal monopoly rights to the manufacturer, along with waivers on taxes and government fees. Remdesivir is a candidate for treating COVID-19; at the time the status was granted, fewer than 200,000 Americans had COVID-19, but numbers were climbing rapidly as the COVID-19 pandemic reached the US, and crossing the threshold soon was considered inevitable. Remdesivir was developed by Gilead with over $79 million in U.S. government funding. After facing strong public reactions, Gilead gave up the "orphan drug" status for remdesivir on 25 March. Gilead retains 20-year remdesivir patents in more than 70 countries. US diagnostic test maker Cepheid Inc received a US FDA Emergency Use Authorization for a COVID-19 test called Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2. The test uses the same machines which are commonly used to test for tuberculosis and HIV, among other diseases, and gives results in 45 minutes, faster than some other tests. Cepheid announced that they would charge US$19.80 per test in developing countries. Doctors without borders stated that that price was not affordable in countries where people live on less than two dollars a day. They estimated that the cost to Cepheid of providing the test is as low as $3, and called the offered price profiteering, asking that Cepheid make a more moderate profit by selling the tests for US$5 each. The Treatment Action Group (TAG) seconded this request, saying that the development of the tests, and their purchase and global deployment, has been done with public funds, while the owners of Cepeid made profits of $3 billion in 2019. TAG also started started the "Time for $5" campaign. Analogous tests for hepatitis C virus (another RNA virus) cost from 50 US cents (for five-minute antibody tests) to US$5 (for more complex genome tests similar to Cepheid's). Widespread testing with these cheap tests has been critical to eliminating hepatitis C in Egypt, and similar mass-testing techniques have regionally been successfully used against COVID-19. References

Issues of attributed opinion regarding the terminology of SARS-CoV-2

There is an ongoing discussion around the due weight of attributed opinions around whether Donald Trump's use of the term "Chinese virus" encourages racism and what sources can be considered appropriate to be in the section. The discussion only involves myself and one other contributor at the moment, so other users are needed to reach concensus. Kind regards Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:08, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Index case in China?

There are now reports of cases as early as November in Sweden and in France.[7] This is before the first case in China was reported. I am suggesting that we change "origin" or "index case" parameter value in the infoboxes of COVID-19 articles to "unknown" as patient zero is not confirmed to be in China.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 19:55, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

The article you linked talks about cases in Swedish travelers who had visited Wuhan. I'd need to see a lot more speculation about this from authoritative sources before I'd be willing to change the infobox. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 20:06, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Implementing page moves

Per Tariqabjotu's close renaming 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic to COVID-19 pandemic and the sidebar agreeing to rename similar pages for consistency, we have a lot of page moves to do. We also have a fair amount of reworking article text to re-write where the old titles were used (they'll still work as redirects, but it'd be better to change them). I'm starting this thread to discuss our implementation strategy. Tariqabjotu, do you have any initial thoughts? You mentioned using a bot to help rename the pages, which I think is a good idea; I see you've made a BOTREQ for that. Are there other loose ends you see us needing to tie up? Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 04:35, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Sdkb, there are actually several people doing this manually, so the page moves may even be accomplished without a bot. I've moved at least 100 pages either manually or with AutoWikiBrowser (which admittedly only admins can do); it's considerably faster than doing it manually; as far as I can tell, I believe I have moved nearly every article with "2019–20 coronavirus" in the name. Next are the ones that just say "2020 coronavirus", but there are some people even going through those (and there are over 300 instances of those). Also Template:COVID-19 pandemic data has a ton of subpages that require moving. Regrettably, some of the categories have been nominated for speedy moving, so those will need to be processed in 48 hours' time.

Text changes are much faster to do in AWB, so once the page moves are complete, it'd just be a matter of running AWB with some find/replace commands. -- tariqabjotu 05:36, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

I shall perform some page moves relating to the COVID-19 pandemic. --Soumyabrata ^talk _contribs ^subpages 09:32, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Finally! "Consistence is better than perfection" the previous name was driving my OCD crazy. Nice work with the moving. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 23:40, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Social vs. Physical

Is there a consensus on the wording we need to be using? You know what I'm talking about. ViperSnake151  Talk  15:19, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

I think the proper approach to this is to follow the lead set at Social distancing. There was a big RM that decided against moving it to physical distancing, so I think we should add an item to the current consensus list linking that. The non-admin closer's statement doesn't give me faith in the strength of their close, but no one seems to have challenged it and the !vote totals seem at a glance to support it. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:06, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

I just added an item on this to the current consensus list, since no one seems to be objecting here. If anyone does want to discuss further, happy to do so. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 00:53, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Is coverage really 'neutral' enough? specially in article leads & 'impact' articles & sections

As a reader, each of my subsequent visits to various COVID-19 pandemic related articles bemuse me more.

If there were no human individual & group failures, then how did the decease spread ? If failures at multiple levels contributed spread of decease where is adequate Wikipedia coverage?

People and groups not following expected precautions on various pretexts- whether for secular or non secular reasons does not seem to to be adequately covered. Whether it is half-heartedness of W.H.O. in issuing timely advisories; to governments, to groups, to individuals; not following advisories. Failures are at multiple level and media seems to have if not enough minimal coverage of the criticism of human failures in giving pandemic proportions to the decease .

My contention is Wikipedians do not seem to cover criticism, as I said each of my visit I find refrain, avoidance, curtailment, window dressing and at places undeclared censorship that criticism does not get wider attention. On side note many times I find Wikipedia consensus more of a democratic process than logical process which tends to indirectly compromise on neutrality.

Most of 'impact' articles & sections are unidirectional, how the COVID-19 pandemic affected 'So and so' but hardly any mention of the 'so and so' were likely contributors to spread of pandemic and many not taking seriously and flouting public health wise very important advisories.

Is not main article COVID-19 pandemic indirectly connected to sub topic article? and talk page of main article does not want to entertain failure of neutrality in subtopic article than how does main article remains neutral?

As a Wikipedia editor my present focus is some other topics, still I attempted to give minor coverage to criticism part, but as a reader and frank reviewer I find information gaps on above mentioned topics.

Thanks and greetings

Bookku (talk) 02:11, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, Bookku. Could you point to some more specific instances where you see missing coverage, and perhaps bring it up on those talk pages? I just re-read the lead of COVID-19 pandemic in the United States, the most obvious spot where the central narrative seems to be that leadership failures greatly exacerbated the pandemic, and it seems to do an adequate job of citing the facts to give readers a clear impression of what happened without straying into NPOV territory. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 02:37, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

The biggest failure is the one of the media. As everyone who communicate the 99.99% probable model where any standard coronaviruses mutate around Halloween which fit with each and every data points are put in a box as if they were trolls. It's astonishing that the Wuhan's lab managed to do the RNA test in only 2 months. Instead we all gonna go with a story about federal spies in an evil chinese lab. Because media have an hard time understanding that when serious epidemiologists say "hey it's just a flu yay !", they really mean "Wow, lucky this time it won't kill much more then 1% of us all" and there is not even a contradiction. Iluvalar (talk) 15:54, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Category:Deaths from the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic

I am reviewing/improving/assessing the articles in Category:Deaths from the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic. Some (Daniel Azulay, Ho Kam Ming, Marguerite Lescop. Naomi Munakata) have the {{WikiProject COVID-19}} template on their talkpage but most don't. I read this Wikipedia:WikiProject COVID-19/Assessment#Other parameters; and I am aware of this conversation in the talkpage archives. But I am hoping to re-open the conversation, and perhaps hear from more people, now that some time has passed. Thanks. --Rosiestep (talk) 18:12, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Also asking here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red#Women in Red task force for WikiProject COVID-19. --Rosiestep (talk) 19:09, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Template talk:COVID-19 pandemic data#Proposal: Add a check box to display per capita data

 You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:COVID-19 pandemic data#Proposal: Add a check box to display per capita data. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 09:23, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Input requested at Talk:COVID-19 pandemic in mainland China

Should the article summarize and quote an editorial from the tabloid Bild saying that "China planned to strengthen itself by exporting a plague and then sending aid in the form of masks"? Please give your input at Talk:COVID-19 pandemic in mainland China#Bild editorial. —Granger (talk · contribs) 14:45, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

First case in France in December

I don't have a link yet but I saw it an actual newspaper. The man was really sick and they told him he had a very unusual pneumonia. His sample has since been tested and found to be COVID-19.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 17:59, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Okay, here is a story which says the same thing.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 18:04, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

I found it in the appropriate articles.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 15:51, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Accessibility issues in COVID-related articles

Since there has been an explosion of content related to this topic and many, many articles contain the same errors repeatedly, I am hoping that I can alert users here so that the best practices can spread as these articles are updated:

• Data tables require captions. Please use them. In many cases, there are purely decorative (i.e. non-semantic) cells that already span across the entire table to essentially perform the function of a caption.
• Include col and row scopes. Without these, very long data tables will end up being virtually unintelligible for screen readers.
• Do not use only color to represent meaningful data. E.g if a certain day in a table is the highest value for infections, do not only mark it as red but make sure to include some other signifier such as emphasized text or a dagger (†) with an appropriate legend.
• Avoid small text. If, for some reason, you need to make text smaller, do not use the small HTML tag (e.g. <small>some small text</small> as that refers to fine print semantically.
• Include alt text for images. This also applies to examples like the dagger I gave above: don't just insert the raw character of <†>, but the template {{dagger}} with alt text, such as {{dagger|alt=Highest value for infections}}.

For an example, see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=COVID-19_pandemic_in_Sweden&type=revision&diff=955516435&oldid=955511868. There are other issues and there are other types of articles that have these same problems but with so many editors working on so many high-profile pages all at once, it's much easier to get the visibility of having many editors fixing these problems simultaneously as we go. It's a lot harder for one person to trawl thru every article trying to clean up these errors. Thanks for all the good work you're doing. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:52, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Article viewership analysis

Just FYI, most articles in the list of COVID-related articles by viewership have disappeared, so that we are seeing flawed statistics. --Ritchie92 (talk) 09:26, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

A related question: do we have more detailed analytics that could suggest what the hot times are? We could then try and schedule major edits around times when viewers are sparse, and other things. Kingsif (talk) 14:00, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

That's a good thought, Kingsif. Hopefully the move frenzy (which has gone surprisingly quickly/smoothly from my view) will be our last major event for a while, but if there's another, we should consider this. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 20:08, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

The name of the template has moved thus User:Ritchie92 you will find that data here now. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:45, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

The tool however does not seem to be taking into account redirects which this tool does.[8] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:53, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't think wikiproject consensus is valid

As I stated when the wikiproject started, if hidden discussions happen here as opposed to the pages, then decisions can be made without the knowledge of contributors to the articles. For example the discussions around naming. Furthermore, the naming discussions appear to be overriding Wikipedia community consensus about things like WP:ACRONYMTITLE and then imposing it with a template on the related articles. Strongly oppose. --Almaty (talk) 11:22, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Project-level consensus is less local than article-level consensus, and thus has more authority. If you don't like the decisions being made here, then just participate and have your say. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 11:26, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

But the discussions are hidden from the contributors to the articles, on a regular basis. This new project is unknown to longstanding contributors. What is the precedent of other projects doing this? I dont think I should have to participate here, and we're not even told that a discussion is going on. --Almaty (talk) 11:41, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

8 editors only contributed to this hidden discussion, as opposed to hundreds upon hundreds of editors who have contributed to title discussions at COVID-19 pandemic. Therefore I support removing this from current consensus of the COVID-19 project. If there is to be another discussion about things affecting all of the articles, it needs to be repeatedly visibly posted to the talk pages of all related articles, otherwise this is the local consensus from a nearly unknown wikiproject overriding far more appropriate discussion on the pages. --Almaty (talk) 11:58, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Yup this was mentioned before...small talks with little value to them. Was afraid this would happen. --Moxy 🍁 12:30, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

This is among the most active topic-specific WikiProjects on Wikipedia — it got featured in the Signpost the other month, just got the EOTW award, and has even attracted external media attention. "Unknown" is a non-starter. And regarding notifying talk pages, the whole purpose of a WikiProject is to discuss things that affect all articles in its domain. Sure, editors might put a "please see" on a popular or particularly affected page on occasion, but the notice you're asking for is the WikiProject banner that's been on every COVID-19 talk page for months. If you want a seat at the table, come here and take a seat, don't try to claim the table is somehow invalid. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 13:00, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Policy states that it is invalid. I dont want to take a seat at the table because I strongly oppose you making consensus here and imposing them. That is against wikipedia consensus policy. However, in a few cases, projects have wrongly used these pages as a means of asserting ownership over articles within their scope - that is Wikiproject COVID-19 at this stage. You must stop imposing hidden consensus on the articles. You can make suggestions or guidelines. Your consensuses, according to policy are essays only An advice page written by several participants of a project is a "local consensus" that is no more binding on editors than material written by any single individual editor. Any advice page that has not been formally approved by the community through the WP:PROPOSAL process has the actual status of an optional essay. Contents of WikiProject advice pages that contradict widespread consensus belong in the user namespace. --Almaty (talk) 13:22, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

As mentioned before by a few here at this project ....listing small talks in this manner with very few involved that covers hundreds of pages gives the impression of false consensus and impedes wider talks on the subject. Its the presentation of the talks in a banner giving the impression of a huge talk about a contentions topic that is the problem not the small talks themselves.-Moxy 🍁 13:41, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree on parts of your consensus. but that doens't mean that I was involved in the discussion and thats the point. According to Policy, these are essays by the people who made them, and you cannot represent them as such. I removed them from the three main pandemic, virus and disase page and expect you to remove the rest of them. What you need to focus on is making a guideline, giving it community attention and propose it as a guideline. I also propose renaming the project "Pandemic preparation and response" so that there are guidelines for this pandemic and the next one. --Almaty (talk) 13:46, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

I see your removing the template from talks pages (with red links). I agree in principle with this action...but will advice you that if reverted to let other chime in here. I also think it was a bad idea to begin-with...however; others have worked hard on it and should have a say before mass removal (yes a wider talk should have happened before implantation - but its been there now for sometime). Edit wars over the banner would be more detrimental then having it sit there till a decision is made.--Moxy 🍁 14:53, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

I have reverted the removal of the template without any discussion. Obviously not the appropriate way of changing the consensus we have built through thoughtful discussion. And I would caution against this kind of behaviour which is inappropriate and inconsiderate. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 15:06, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

P.s. the whole concept behind this template is to CENTRALISE discussion to avoid local pages discussing issues independently and redundantly. This is the exact goal of the work we did and I think it's been working so far. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 15:08, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Am I right to assume the only problem right now with this list is the "origin" part ? Because the consensus is to use Index case. But in the model the attribute is called "origin" still. Iluvalar (talk) 02:02, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

I support you building consensus but not imposing it with templates on pages that have had far wider discussion. The discussion was hidden, even from a prolific editor such as myself, so it is not right and against policy to impose it. Literally less than 10 editors agree on the consensuses of the project as far as I can see, but orders of magnitude higher have discussed it on the pages. This has no precedent in wikiproject history either, unless like wikiproject medicine, you make a guideline, that has thorough community vetting and consensus. --Almaty (talk) 09:50, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

No one is imposing anything. We are just sharing discussion and consensus in a wide way and attempting to unify discussions so that users (like you for example) don't miss important discussions.

What specific discussion are you referring to? Those consensus items can be changed if consensus changes. This is exactly why this template exists. To ensure everyone is aligned. Not to dictate what must be done. It is NOT a guideline. If the consensus formed there supersedes the current project consensus we should edit the template and link to that discussion.

This is exactly why the template exists and this discussion is proof that it works. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 12:03, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

• I see the same type of complaint has come up again on a country article. Perhaps best to drop the "COVID-19 Wikipeoject concensus" and just say "current concenus" as per WP:ADVICEPAGE, WP:CONLIMITED. Just need to drop the project connection that is causing many to think its a project ownership cabal.... rather then genuine discussions.--Moxy 🍁 03:41, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

@Moxy: Do you have a link to that discussion? This might make sense. How could we distinguish this from the article consensus? Maybe change the title to something like "General consensuses regarding pages covered by WikiProject COVID-19"? -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 07:38, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

• To quote your template "The following consensuses for most COVID-19 pages as been established by WikiProject COVID-19. You may revert edits against them, preferably with a link to this list in your edit summary, as Wikipedia talk:WikiProject COVID-19#Current consensus, item [n]. Please discuss proposed changes to them at the project talk page." Whilst also being gramattically incorrect, they are exhibiting WP:OWNERSHIP against policy please remove them and stop doing this. You can say maybe something like "Wikiproject COVID-19, as a small subgroup of editors, aims to align consensus around the following topics. We have so far discussed the following" --Almaty (talk) 10:25, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
• I still believe you should remove the template. However, what I have done is I have rewritten it so it actually reflects what it is which is a hidden discussion between less than 10 editors two weeks ago that decided unilaterally to attempt to override all previous discussions on every topic related to COVID-19. It is without precedent and your project should be ashamed of attempting to impose it on the community without thorough vetting and consensus. Thankyou. --Almaty (talk) 11:26, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Proposal to write a guideline

I propose writing a guideline for future outbreaks and pandemics. I proposed this in the teahouse in january. It would be combination of MEDRS/MEDMOS but how it uniquely applies to outbreaks and pandemics. 1. Where the disease is first identified is where it is first identified, not the origin. 2. Avoid geographical titles 3. Use epidemic curves where possible 4. If an novel disease, epidemiology, transmission and prevention would be the first three sections

Use of CFR vs IFR and their downsides, no mortality rate, so those discussions dont have to happen again

Theres heaps I can think of. --Almaty (talk) 14:06, 3 May 2020 (UTC)14:05, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

CFR and IFR are mortality rates. Graham Beards (talk) 14:42, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Are they? I thought that mortality rates were unknown until the disease is characterised, and thats the whole point? --Almaty (talk)

That's not the whole point at all. So what's the difference between "fatality" and "mortality"? The point is that CFR includes only those that show symptoms. The IFR includes asymptomatic infections, currently thought to be at least 20%. Graham Beards (talk) 10:37, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Not exactly. CFR includes those that are diagnosed as having the disease. For COVID-19 that depends on testing, and testing regimens vary widely across countries, and even within the same country, over different time periods. So, CFR is not particularly helpful. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:20, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Coordination of cross-wiki COVID-19 work

Hi there. Is there a platform where COVID-19 work is being coordinated across sister projects (other language Wikipedias, Wikidata, etc.)? For example, there are a lot of Telegram channels these days being used for wiki work. Perhaps someone is coordinating occasional Zoom calls? --Rosiestep (talk) 17:06, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

@Rosiestep: Check out meta:COVID-19. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:08, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Nikkimaria. That was exactly what I was seeking. --Rosiestep (talk) 17:16, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

transclusion of most of the charts?

Hi. Recently I came across a few articles where statistics, or at least one or two charts were not updated. Like in COVID-19 pandemic in Pakistan, only template:COVID-19 pandemic data/Pakistan medical cases chart. Rest of the charts have not been updated since May 5.

Should we transclude numbers from template:COVID-19 pandemic data/XYZ country medical cases chart to every other chart? It will be time efficient, and everything will stay updated automatically. I am talking about every article as well. Regards, —usernamekiran (talk) 08:09, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Sure, I'm all for centralizing data collection. Applies to the maps, too. The main challenge is implementing well, though. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 20:12, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

COVID-19 posters available in many languages

I've uploaded three COVID-19 posters from U.S. CDC and OSHA that are available in ~20 languages each. Please feel free to add these to the relevant Wikipedia language editions. See Stop the Spread of Germs, 10 Things You Can Do to Manage your COVID-19 Symptoms at Home, and Ten Steps All Workplaces Can Take to Reduce Risk of Exposure to Coronavirus. John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 00:04, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks John -- that's great! – SJ + 11:50, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Agree very nice. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:28, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

How much money would the U.S. government save?

I just saw this help desk question which came before the various stimulus plans. I'm not sure what the person was trying to ask. Maybe the person thought the U.S. government could save money on Social Security if more people died.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 16:56, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

This isn't the right place for this. Please head to the Talk page for the US article: here.Shawnqual (talk) 17:13, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm thinking that's not the right place either. If you look at the response, two articles were suggested, but I'm not sure they're right either.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 17:19, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

wuhanvirus, wuhan virus, etc. as redirects

wuhanvirus, wuhan virus, etc. are currently redirects to SARS-CoV-2. However, a new genus was recently established that is called "Wuhanvirus" and which is a member of Autographiviridae. I'm not sure how to address this, but maybe some of you guys here might know what to do. Velayinosu (talk) 21:43, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Sounds like a case for a disambiguation page, I think. Or alternatively a hatnote. —Granger (talk · contribs) 22:04, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

• I prefer hatnoting over disambiguating. --Soumyabrata ^talk _contribs ^subpages 05:06, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Hatnote over disambiguation. While it is considered a WP:COMMONNAME in some parts of East Asia, I think the term has more merit being dedicated to a genus of viruses. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:26, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Addendum: Shouldn't this be discussed over at RfD? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:29, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

I've created a discussion at RfD here. Velayinosu (talk) 01:13, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

• Agree with hatnote Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:29, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Less wordy titles for 'Impact' articles?

I have suggested a style shift towards rather less wordy titles, for our important series of 'Impact' articles, see discussion started at: Talk:Social impact of the COVID-19 pandemic#Less wordy title?.--Pharos (talk) 18:33, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Drug shortages?

Drug shortages seem to be one of the many themes shared across countries during this pandemic, although the details still play out differently. For example, here is a list that the Food and Drug Administration is maintaining for the U.S., and here is a similar one for Canada. On that basis, I checked whether there is an article like Drug shortages during the COVID-19 pandemic or so but noticed that not only do we not have that, but we do not even have drug shortage, nor a mention in drug distribution, and the only mention of drugs in shortage is about recreational drugs, which fits with us having Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the cannabis industry, which does not seem to mention shortages either. To complicate things further, the term does not only have the economic sense drug shortage (Q94443615) affecting a given population but seems to be also occasionally used in the (patho)physiological one of drug shortage (Q94449989) for a patient or other biological entity not having sufficient levels of a given drug with respect to the needs of their body, and of course, an economic drug shortage can cause or exacerbate a physiological one. To begin to address this apparent gap around our coverage of drug shortages, I have started to construct a Scholia profile for the economic shortage, which I am linking here. If I have missed any relevant pages that do or should have information on either aspects of drug shortages, I would appreciate pointers. -- Daniel Mietchen (talk) 23:29, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Visitor attractions

An edit on my watchlist gave me pause for thought. Someone added text saying that a historic site was (under normal circumstances) open to the public. When I've been looking at websites for visitor attractions there are very prominent banners letting people know they are closed. If it was possible to include a note on articles about tourist attractions suggesting that people should check whether a place is open before visiting, would that be desirable or is it straying beyond what Wikipedia tries to do? Richard Nevell (WMUK) (talk) 17:26, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

I think that's more in WikiVoyage's scope. Kingsif (talk) 18:59, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

New Module for table creation based on Tabular data stored on Commons.

Hello during last Hackathon, I volunteered to help with phabricator:T252307 ticket to create a module for displaying of Tabular Data stored on Wikimedia Commons as wiki tables, resulting in {{Json2table}} template. Tabular Data which is stored on Wikimedia Commons, is accessible from all the Wikimedia projects, and is used by some to store COVID-19 data, which can be now easily displayed with the template. --Jarekt (talk) 04:49, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, J, this should be really useful for displaying any selection of related tables without having to build the tables or update the data! What a neat build. Kingsif (talk) 04:53, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Fixing a link on the template

Posting here since the relevant page is itself a talk page (shouldn't it be moved to template namespace or something?). Link 2 for "Social vs. Physical" (item no. 6) links to the wrong place, since the relevant discussion is now archived. It should be corrected to link to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_COVID-19/Archive_8#Social_vs._Physical instead. Thanks. RandomCanadian (talk | contribs) 15:50, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: The last protection of Wikipedia:WikiProject COVID-19 expired about three weeks ago. Please indicate which page you want to be edited. Victor Schmidt (talk) 16:14, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject COVID-19/Current consensus if it wasn't clear enough... RandomCanadian (talk | contribs) 16:25, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done – Thank you for pointing this out! --Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 06:35, 16 May 2020 (UTC)