Wikipedia talk:WikiProject COVID-19

Add topic
Active discussions
Skip to top
Skip to bottom
MainTalkTask forcesAlertsNewsTipsSourcesSources listMissing topicsMessagesAssessmentPortal

Highlighted open discussionsEdit


Current consensusEdit

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 Superseded by TfD October 2020 and later practice - consult regular {{Current}} guidance.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)

Is it time to cool it with the month-by-month Covid articles?Edit

We're still trucking with Timeline of the COVID-19 pandemic in June 2022 and Responses to the COVID-19 pandemic in June 2022, 28 months and counting. These lists are getting more and more fragmented and partial as editor and new attention to the pandemic dies down and coverage becomes minor or routine. In the spirit of Gtoffoletto suggesting that consolidation was an important step to take at this point, I wanted to discuss collapsing down these blow-by-blow articles to something that more approaches due weight and summary style, which a month-by-month rundown definitely does not do. Thoughts? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 19:25, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

@David Fuchs: this is a great idea I totally agree... having monthly timelines 28 months in is definitely untenable. We really need to reduce the editing overhead as the number of editors inevitably dwindles. Won't be simple to find a good solution. Probably makes sense to keep the initial period of the pandemic at a high level of detail (2020?) and then consolidate the following periods? {{u|Gtoffoletto}}talk 13:52, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
Have there been any good longer-form pieces on the pandemic that can be used as guidance on how much detail is relevant? While I definitely think consolidating the later stuff entirely is the right call, for the earlier bits perhaps it makes sense to go through each and see which entries were actually germane versus just latest data on caseloads-type stuff—first noticed cases in a new country, global tallies, major vaccine breakthroughs, that sort of thing. One you hack it down, it might make it clearer if you need month-by-month articles or a Covid in 2020, 2021-type article(s) could do it all. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 17:14, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
The monthly articles should obviously stop at this point per WP:NOTNEWS Dronebogus (talk) 17:25, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
As a sample, I went through the March 1 entry of the March 2020 list, and cut out everything that wasn't a first confirmed case or death; in addition I imagine major thresholds (1000/10,000/etc cases/deaths-type numbers), major policy changes by country, etc. would make sense to keep as well. So trimming the lists down to this might give a better idea of what major info there is and what should be collapsed further. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 20:01, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
I'd support a cessation of these articles. Getting a blow-by-blow report each day of arbitrarily chosen nations isn't what I'd call notable. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:25, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
Support cessation generally, there are a lot of timelines on COVID articles that could also (eventually) be diminished. SmolBrane (talk) 22:59, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
I agree with the points raised by David Fuchs. There was a lot of interest in COVID-19 cases back in 2020 but interest diminished in 2021 and 2022. I have been doing the Malaysian and New Zealand daily reports. If we do phase out the monthly timeline articles, we could retain the national and sub-national timeline articles such as the Malaysia, New Zealand, and Ontario articles. They may be of significant historical importance for epidemiologists, historians, and other researchers. While NZ and Malaysia still do daily reports, other jurisdictions such as Ontario have shifted to weekly reports with major media outlets ceasing to publish them. Agree that we need to tackle this issue collaboratively. Andykatib 03:21, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
If the concern is losing raw data, I don't think articles are really the place for that—we're not a directory or database, are we're supposed to cover material with summary style. Seems like it'd mostly be a function of graphs (such as {{COVID-19 pandemic data/Canada/Ontario medical cases chart}} and such on Commons where that would fall under our purview. Either way, I'm going going to focus on the main articles and go from there. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 15:13, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
Okay, I understand. Have poured a good deal of energy over the past two and a half years into the daily COVID-19 reports for NZ, Malaysia and Ontario. But, I will respect whatever decision we come up with. Guess that there is a time and season for everything and that certain things have to come to an end eventually. On another matter, what should we do about the various continental COVID-19 template articles: eg. Template:COVID-19 cases in Asia, Template:COVID-19 cases in Africa, Template:COVID-19 cases in Europe, Template:COVID-19 cases in Oceania, Template:COVID-19 cases in North America, and Template: COVID-19 cases in South America. Do we still continue updating them or are they to be phased out as well? Andykatib 02:51, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Edit request at COVID-19 pandemic in the United StatesEdit

I'd be grateful if someone could take a look at this edit request that's been sitting for a few days. It's similar to this edit I previously made to COVID-19 pandemic in Singapore and based on testing in the sandbox, it should be able to get the post expand include size for the page back down under the limit (for the moment, at least). Thanks in advance. 2406:3003:2077:1E60:C998:20C6:8CCF:5730 (talk) 18:58, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

  Done --mfb (talk) 04:48, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for your help! 2406:3003:2077:1E60:C998:20C6:8CCF:5730 (talk) 06:48, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Biographies and recentismEdit

Hi folks,

We have a small epidemic of WP:RECENTISM in our biographies, where someone has added piece whenever there's been a news report that a person was infected with Covid. For an encyclopedic biography supposed to cover the most central facts in someone's life, this makes little sense in most cases, as most people had a reasonably mild infection with no lasting consequences. Since a lot of the damage Covid-19 has caused is mainly due to how incredibly contagious it is, infecting a significant portion of the world's population, we have a lot of passages like "On 26 November 2020, [someone] announced [someone] had tested positive for coronavirus. [Person] was reported 'feeling relatively well', 'experiencing some flu-like symptoms'" and so on.

There are, of course, a good number of biographies where the inclusion of Covid makes sense, where it had a severe impact on their lives: deaths, drawn-out symptoms, affected careers. But I can't see any reason to keep the "this person was infected by Covid-19 and felt OK" as one of the facts to central to their lives that we announce them to our readers. They seem WP:UNDUE. Is there any reason not to systematically weed out these passages? /Julle (talk) 21:16, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree with your analysis. Feel free to weed out these mild cases as you find them. WP:NOTNEWS. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:11, 21 July 2022 (UTC)