Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject COVID-19

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) at 06:15, 4 May 2020 (Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject COVID-19/Archive 7) (bot). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

MainTalkTask forcesAlertsNewsTipsSourcesSources listMissing topicsMessagesAssessmentPortal

This page is under the scope of WikiProject COVID-19.

Skip to top
Skip to bottom

    Template:COVID-19 sanctions

    This page is under the scope of WikiProject COVID-19.

    Highlighted open discussions


    Current consensus

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

    General

    1. Superseded by TfD October 2020 and later practice - consult regular {{Current}} guidance.
    2. Refrain from using Worldometer (worldometers.info) as a source due to common errors being observed as noted on the Case Count Task Force common errors page. (April 2020, April 2020)
    3. For infoboxes on the main articles of countries, use Wuhan, Hubei, China for the origin parameter. (March 2020)
    4. "Social distancing" is generally preferred over "physical distancing". (April 2020, May 2020)

    Page title

    1. COVID-19 (full caps) is preferable in the body of all articles, and in the title of all articles/category pages/etc.(RM April 2020, including the main article itself, RM March 2021).
    2. SARS-CoV-2 (exact capitalisation and punctuation) is the common name of the virus and should be used for the main article's title, as well as in the body of all articles, and in the title of all other articles/category pages/etc. (June 2022, overturning April 2020)

    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. (May 2020)
    2. There is no consensus about whether the legend, the date, and other elements should appear in the map image itself. (May 2020)
    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. (May 2020)

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    My bad. The irony...--Gtoffoletto (talk) 19:15, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Fixed it. --Gtoffoletto (talk) 19:21, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    SARS-CoV-2 naming convention

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    @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: [1] --Gtoffoletto (talk) 22:26, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    This is not the name of the disease at all.Graham Beards (talk) 22:11, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Update: The move discussion was withdrawn on 25 April 2020. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:38, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    Another useless move discussion we could have averted with this item in the consensus list: [2] -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 22:00, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    Header icons

    I like the header at the top of this page, but could we perhaps find a way to display all the icons on a single row? ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:43, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Seconded. It'd also be nice if there was a little more indication of the page you're on, besides just purple->black coloring (which isn't always visible depending on the screen). But overall, it looks great! {{u|Sdkb}} talk 17:31, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi @Another Believer: and @Sdkb: thanks, I created the new header for a couple of reasons:

    1. The current header simply doesn't work on those pages because it breaks Visual Editor and VE makes it possible to edit the tables, I'm currently working with several UN agencies who want to share their knowledge of COVID-19 related topics and we can't really do that without tables.
    2. Some pages simply didn't have a header (talk page and find sources).

    Can you explain what is meant by 'on a single row'? I think it would not work to put the icon next to the text because horizontal space is really limited in a header with so many tabs, especially for people with lower resolution monitors. What colour do you think should be used to indicate which page you're on, I think black would make most sense (I really would not use red). I'm not super good with templates, any idea how to do it, I looked in the documentation but I don't get it? I created a copy of the header to play around with here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:John_Cummings/header .

    Thanks

    John Cummings (talk) 20:41, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @John Cummings: The header currently goes onto a second line for the last icon (portal) for me, and presumably for Another Believer as well. And for indicating the page you're on, I like the solution of the "tabs" header, which uses the green background coloring. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 20:47, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks @Sdkb:, the issue with using the green colouring is it breaks Visual Editor (you just get source editor in a box because it is transcluding something), VE is a key functionality for pages with tables. How can we split the header and the green colouring of the page into two templates or something? That way will can separate the discussion of the header layout and the green background breaking some of the pages. John Cummings (talk) 20:56, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @John Cummings: I don't think it would be advisable to split off the green coloring into a separate template, but I'll add a parameter to suppress it; hopefully that'll work for your needs. VisualEditor overall is a beta editor with a ton of bugs/missing functionality; I'd expect that most editors deep enough into Wikipedia to be editing a WikiProject page will be using the source editor. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 21:05, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It looks like adding a parameter won't be easily possible, since the functionality with the tabs template comes from Template:Start tab, a deeper-level template. You could propose fixes there, but I'm guessing the response would be "not worth it, VisualEditor needs to fix itself". {{u|Sdkb}} talk 21:14, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi @Sdkb: Visual Editor works fine for what is needed on the pages that it is needed for, the issue is that the green background uses transclusion which doesn't play nicely. Can you explain why you don't think it would be advisable to split the template and the background colour? I seems like the only viable option if the deeper level template is difficult to change (I don't have the technical knwoledge to do it myself) and you are unhappy with having two header files. Not being able to use VE on those pages will lead to less contribution of experts on COVID-19 related content. I'm sure we can find a solution that works for everyone :) John Cummings (talk) 21:28, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Just so your aware VE causes us to lose editors VisualEditor's effect on newly registered editors just as non standard multiplte pages do like the WP:Adventure. That said if it works better with VE it should be implemented for the 10 percent that use it.--Moxy 🍁 21:33, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @John Cummings: splitting would have to be done at Template:Start tab; it's not technically possible at {{WikiProject COVID-19 tabs}}. I'll bring it up there, but I'm guessing it won't be the highest-priority fix. And yeah, the lack of solid VisualEditor functionality is constantly losing us editors, but that's a larger problem. Perhaps we'll be able to create some workaround here, but otherwise we may just have to ignore VE. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 21:42, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    New article: Immunity passport

    I was surprised to find that Wikipedia didn't appear to have any content about the idea of Immunity passports, so I've gone ahead and kicked off the page. Contributions and links to/from relevant pages welcome. Jpatokal (talk) 14:02, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Is a physician suicide a death from the pandemic?

    Should Lorna Breen be listed in the category Category:Deaths from the 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Virginia? ☆ Bri (talk) 18:09, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    That's tragic to hear. I have to say no, since I think expanding that category to anything other than deaths caused by the disease itself will get messy. There are just too many second-order effects that get too blurry. Would we include someone who, say, starved to death because they lost their job from the pandemic? {{u|Sdkb}} talk 18:54, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Bri: you'd probably get some responses to this on the talk page here: List of deaths due to coronavirus disease 2019. Multiple users have had similar questions (for other individuals) and it seems to depend on the exact circumstances. TJMSmith (talk) 19:06, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    New article tips

    I created a page on this project, Wikipedia:WikiProject COVID-19/Tips, which contains some tips for new COVID-19 articles. Please let me know if there's anything big missing! (Although try not to add general editing advice not specific to this project; we already have general help pages for that, and we don't want to duplicate them.) {{u|Sdkb}} talk 19:01, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Reassessing importance of covid in Ghana

    Edit: Sorry, 8000 throughout West Africa but only 1000 in Ghana

    I'm going to be editing the coronavirus in Ghana article for a class project and I noticed that it is currently rated low-importance. Not sure if this is the right way to do this, but I'd like to propose that we raise its importance level. Criteria are, "Locations with articles in this category should have at least 20,000 cases or 500 deaths. Non-country locations (e.g. states and cities) with major outbreaks are mid importance. Other locations with smaller outbreaks but greater risk factors or contextual significance are mid importance." Ghana currently has only 8000 cases, but they are high-risk because of ongoing water and sanitation issues. Ghana also has the most rapidly growing case rate in West Africa, giving it special contextual significance. Slrosen (talk) 20:29, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Template:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data

    Hello Guys, I need your help to update this template Template:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data/Mauritius medical cases chart. I want to include that 3 active patients left the country as from 13 April 2020. This is not reflected in this table. Maybe we can add a new color which will show that 3 patient left which makes the number of active cases less as at date. Thanks Yash400 (talk) 20:33, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    UK (and other) editors

    As part of the Wikipedia:WikiProject COVID-19/WMUK-WPMEDF Joint Support Task Force initiative, Wikimedia UK is going to provide resources to make available online training for editors who wish to get up to speed on the finer points of medical articles. Although the original target audience was UK editors who wanted to join in tackling the issues arising from our COVID-19 articles, I'm sure other will be welcome.

    The Task Force is still encouraging UK editors to help out with the myriad of tasks and Wikimedia Medicine is interested in how we can mobilise geographical areas to tackle issues most relevant to them. --RexxS (talk) 20:51, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Editors of the Week

    Editor of the Week
    Your ongoing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed: As a group, you have been selected as Editors of the Week in recognition of maintaining the high standards of editing for all to see. Thank you for the great contributions! (courtesy of the Wikipedia Editor Retention Project)

    The clerks of the Editor of the Week Award submitted the following nomination for Editor of the Week:

    We have chosen the members of WikiProject COVID-19 to receive this week's award. Since the onset of the worldwide coronavirus pandemic, Wikipedia has been one of the "go-to" choices for individuals who are searching for clarity in a muddled and constantly evolving universe. Wikipedia influences and informs the media and the public by way of dedicated editors. The researchers and readers of Wikipedia face the challenge of finding a reliable source for the urgent informational needs that are in high demand during a crisis. These demands for coronavirus-specific content and the natural magnet quality of "Hot Topic" articles show the importance of having a high quality community of editors who can generate and manage such content. The 150+ members of the COVID-19 project do their very best to protect the over 900 important articles related to COVID-19 by striving to consistently protect the articles from vandalism and bias, organizing reliably sourced data into a readable format and, most importantly, instilling and maintaining accuracy amongst all edits. These editors provide factual reliable data for public consumption and do so with the expertise and professionalism that is expected by the Wikipedia community. Of course, it is acknowledged that a multitude of editors take part in creating and nurturing into being the close to 1000 virus articles, and many of them are not formal members of the COVID-19 project. This Award encompasses all the editors who have worked toward the goal of focussed collaboration. The three most edited articles are 2020 coronavirus pandemic in the United States, 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic and 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Africa.

    You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week: 

    {{User:UBX/EoTWBox}}
    Wikipedia:WikiProject COVID-19
     
    Editor of the Week
    for the week beginning May 3, 2020
    Wikipedia influences and informs the media and the public by way of dedicated editors who provide reliable sources for coronavirus-specific content. The 150+ members of the COVID-19 project consistently protect these articles from vandalism and bias, organize reliably sourced data into a readable format and, most importantly, instill and maintain accuracy amongst all edits with the expertise and professionalism expected by the Wikipedia community. This Award encompasses all the editors (members or not) who have shown focussed collaboration.
    Recognized for
    continuous dedication to Wikipedia's coverage of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, the COVID-19 disease, and the 2019–20 COVID-19 pandemic.
    Submit a nomination

    Thanks again for your efforts! ―Buster7 ☎ 15:27, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Congratulations to all for your tireless effort! Keep up the good work. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 15:42, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Well deserved! I've watched the nonstop hard work on these articles that past few months in admiration, and this project's accomplishments have done the whole Wikipedia community proud. Schazjmd (talk) 16:43, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, EOTW folks! It's unusual to give the award to a project rather than an individual, right? Has it happened before? {{u|Sdkb}} talk 16:48, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    This is the 353rd EDDY Award. The others have always been individual editors and are are listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/Editor of the Week#Recipients of Editor of the Week aka The Eddy. ―Buster7 ☎ 16:59, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, Editor of the Week was designed to recognize specific efforts by a single editor, so this week is a departure to recognize many unsung heroes collectively rather than just one. Thanks to everyone who is contributing towards improving articles on this important topic area. isaacl (talk) 17:02, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the award, Buster7! We are glad to see that our efforts are being appreciated.
    ​—Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:06, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Perhaps rename Category:COVID-19 to Category:Coronavirus disease 2019

    Hi,

    I am proposing this category renamed to Category:Coronavirus disease 2019. I'm proposing it to be there as to match the main article page. I had nominated it to be renamed but came back "no consensus", thus I am here. Starzoner (talk) 22:18, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]

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

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

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

    Date of updated source

    There may be a better place to ask this question, but since this is COVID-19 related, what do you do when a source is dated March 16 but updated March 30? A lot of the information in the source was not known before March 30. I didn't get very specific where I used the source, but the article Socio-economic impact of the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic‎ didn't have updated information.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 17:25, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Symposium on Wikipedia and COVID-19 on May 9

    Hello WikiProject!

    Next Saturday, May 9, at 6:00 PM Eastern Time, Wikimedia New York City is hosting a Symposium on Wikipedia and COVID-19.

    Four speakers, Netha Hussain, Another Believer, TMorata, and Bluerasberry, will present about different aspects of the pandemic's coverage on Wikipedia and Wikidata, including time for audience questions.

    It will be streamed live on YouTube and Facebook. Find more information here: Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Symposium on Wikipedia and COVID-19. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 01:58, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    Discussion on how to describe Hubei in article leads

     You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:COVID-19 pandemic#Hubei description in the lead. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 04:53, 4 May 2020 (UTC)Template:Z48[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_COVID-19&oldid=954767691"