Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject COVID-19/Archive 10

< Wikipedia talk:WikiProject COVID-19
Latest comment: 4 years ago by Phoebe in topic Housing/eviction?
Archive 5←Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12→Archive 15

Continued discussion on standardizing map format

Latest comment: 4 years ago85 comments14 people in discussion

So Wikipedia talk:WikiProject COVID-19/Archive 9#Best universal colors for maps and graphs? just got archived, which is perhaps for the best since it was somewhat sprawly/unorganized, but we still have a lot of discussion left to do to establish some standards that we could roll out. I'm going to open up a bunch of subsections here to address different questions; feel free to put forth proposals for them or to add additional sections, but please consider collapsing examples to keep the length short. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 10:10, 20 May 2020 (UTC)Courtesy pinging Shawnqual, who spearheaded the just-archived discussion.

Sdkb, It might be worth noticing that any consensus reached here could be hard to implement. Lack of participation is a major issue, of the 10 or so creators I pinged in the previous discussion, only one has participated so far. How could we possibly circumvent this issue? •Shawnqual• 📚 • 💭 20:17, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
@Shawnqual: Policy-wise, I think we're on solid ground due to WP:CONLEVEL, since a project-level consensus will always override the consensus-of-one of an individual map creator. Regarding participation level, the pings and wide invitations we've issued should hopefully head off potential criticisms in that area (I'm going to give the archived discussion a link to this one and issue an invite on Meta/Commons, just to cover our bases.) All that said, when it comes to enforcement, I don't see us blocking rogue map creators, but I would hope that people realize that falling into line is for the best for WP:CONSISTENCY, even if they disagree with some elements of the consensus. And if we manage to get widespread adoption with just a few holdouts, at that point some warnings might be appropriate. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 21:16, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
Pinging participants from last time who may not have seen this yet @HueMan1, Tenryuu, and Raphaël Dunant: we're having a more formalized discussion; feel free to participate. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 21:32, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

@Sdkb: I think standardisation is not possible from this discussion. Users express only their personal preferences and not what makes better maps based on colour differentiation and implementation issues. I will continue making maps using scheme D below and only suggest others follow. Ythlev (talk) 03:28, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Color schemes

Which colors should be used for different types of maps? {{u|Sdkb}} talk 10:10, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

¤Scheme A: 6-5 colors - • Used for the world maps on the main article of COVID-19 pandemic

Colors
a) Confirmed cases:

      

b) Confirmed cases per capita timeline:       

c) Confirmed cases per capita (5 for this):      

d) Confirmed deaths per capita (5 for this):      

¤Scheme B: 6 colors - • Used for multiple country maps on their respective articles (apart from recories scheme which is a new proposal) See, Chile, Pakistan, Oman to mention a few

Colors
a) Confirmed cases:

      

b) Confirmed cases per capita:       

c) Confirmed deaths/deaths per capita:       

d) Confirmed recoveries/recoveries per capita:       

¤Scheme C: 6 colors - • Based on Inkscape 1 and used only for the article of South Africa

Colors
a) Confirmed cases:

 10-99  100-999  1000-9999  10000-99999  100000+ 

b) Confirmed active cases:  1-9  10-99  100-999  1000-9999  10000-99999  100000+ 

c) Confirmed deaths:  10-99  100-999  1000-9999  10000-99999  100000+ 

d) Confirmed recoveries:  1-9  10-99  100-999  1000-9999  10000-99999  +100000 

¤Scheme D: 5 colours - • Cartographer-recommended schemes, designated colour-blind friendly, LCD friendly, and print friendly[1]

Colors
a) Cases:

     

b) Cases per unit population:                     

c) Deaths:      

¤Scheme E: 6 colors - Based on four different base colors from ColorBrewer [Color blind friendly]

Colors
a) Confirmed cases (Red):      

b) Confirmed cases per capita (Orange):      

c) Confirmed deaths/deaths per capita (Blue):      

d) Confirmed recoveries/recoveries per capita (Green):      

¤Scheme F: 5 colors - • Based on four different base colors from ColorBrewer [Color blind friendly, Print and LCD friendly]

Colors
a) Confirmed cases (Purple/Red):     

b) Confirmed cases per capita (Red/Purple):     

c) Confirmed deaths/deaths per capita (Blue):     

d) Confirmed recoveries/recoveries per capita (Green):     

See COVID-19 pandemic in South Africa for an example of color scheme C used for everything except the medical cases chart (which doesn't accept colors as parameters). -- Jeandré, 2020-05-20t12:54z
  • I have added the three schemes currently in use above. I am highly in favor of Scheme B as the number of colors is consistent and they are quite different from each other. Also, as it is already in use in multiple articles, it may be easier to adopt it. The confirmed cases and confirmed cases per capita in Scheme A are very, very similar to each other. A naked eye cannot differentiate between them.•Shawnqual• 📚 • 💭 19:08, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
@Shawnqual: I strongly dislike Scheme B as I don't like how the first three color schemes (cases, cases per capita, and deaths) all manage to be extremely similar to one another, yet all of them are portrayed as different. Also, frankly, and in my opinion, the color schemes just aren't very good. I dislike how the color schemes become much brighter in the middle, and are dull and drab on either end (that's how they appear on my screen). I can't see how I would put such a color scheme on a map and easily understand it afterwards because of the anomaly in the middle of the color scheme. I think Schemes E and F both work better on this respect (personally I prefer Scheme E). --Abbasi786786 (talk) 16:08, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
  • @Sdkb: My preferences has not changed. I still prefer Scheme A than Scheme B because Scheme A is more straight to the point (I don't know if this even makes any sense but the colours are more clear on Scheme A) than Scheme B (it looks too orange for me and the differences are almost unnoticeable). —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 05:06, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Scheme B - especially since it also has recoveries figured out (Don't know if a map for that is considered). I also like Scheme D. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shanze1 (talk • contribs)
  • Scheme E Definitely the best one as it's cartographer recommended, colorblind-friendly, LCD-friendly, distinguishes well between each type of map, also is visually and aesthetically pleasing. Colorbrewer's got some really good color schemes. I think it's better than Scheme F just as well, because Scheme F uses five colors, where I'd prefer six, and also uses two very similar looking schemes for per capita cases and cases. --Abbasi786786 (talk) 15:12, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
  • In schemes B and D, I dislike somewhat how there are very-similar-but-not-identical color schemes for some types of maps. I think there should be only one color scheme for all e.g. red maps. If two types of maps are different enough to warrant separate schemes, they should be different enough to give a clear visual cue to readers, not to prompt a sort of uncanny valley effect. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 17:39, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
@Sdkb: and @HueMan1:, Regarding Scheme B, the colors look quite similar here, because I guess they are displayed next to each other in small boxes. When on a map, they seem quite different. (a) leans tworads light orange/red while (b) is orange. Have a look here:
Scheme B examples for (a) and (b)
 
a
 
b
•Shawnqual• 📚 • 💭 19:37, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
I guess that's not terrible. But we have the full spectrum to draw from — is there any reason we should limit ourselves to just red-orange and orange-red, rather than just using red and orange? {{u|Sdkb}} talk 19:42, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
No reason, recall when I mentioned in the previous discussion why Scheme B has become the prevalent one, it is because it was first used (most likely) on the article of USA or Italy and other creators simply followed it. Upon further thought, the colors were most likley chosen by Ythlev from here.
You do raise an interesting point of uncanny valley effect, this brings to mind when Jeandre proposed using colors with universal codes in the previous discussion. I guess before we get consensus on a scheme, we need to decide the four colors we would be using for the four maps (cases, cases per capita, deaths and recoveries). If we are to move into this direction, most might agree that green is the obvious choice for recoveries and red for cases. Orange could be used for cases per capita (due to its similarity with red) while for death, either blue or purple could be fitting.•Shawnqual• 📚 • 💭 23:36, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict)@Shawnqual: I agree with that. How about red for total cases, orange for cases per capita, blue for total deaths, purple for deaths per capita, teal for total recoveries, and green for recoveries per capita? We don't have much blue/teal yet, but our framework should be encompassing. Let's also signify rolling averages somehow, such as perhaps desaturated equivalents (so maybe brown for rolling case average, grey for rolling death average, and mustard yellow for rolling recovery average). {{u|Sdkb}} talk 03:09, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
They are similar because they mean similar things. Do we also differentiate between deaths and deaths per unit population? In fact, on professional maps, raw counts are not represented with colours but with circles. Ythlev (talk) 02:58, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
@Sdkb:, red, orange, green and blue seem reasonable. Don't think there's a necessity to differentiate between deaths/recoveries and deaths/recoveries per capita. Most creators are likely to create maps with totals of these two rather than per capita for countries, imo. Creators could simply choose one to create of the two. While for the world map, per capita is more appropriate. Cases per capita is however necessary on its own as it can paint a completely different and an important picture. If we agree on the four colors, a proposed scheme based on ColorBrewer could look like Scheme E, have a look above. In case, a consensus is reached on the necessity of separating deaths/recoveries and deaths/recoveries per capita, colors could be added to it. •Shawnqual• 📚 • 💭 04:05, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
I am sticking with D. Really I only make cases per unit population maps, so I don't really mind what other types use. Ythlev (talk) 04:20, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
@Ythlev: Yes, editors are expressing their personal preferences but that does not mean a consensus cannot be reached. Also, not everyone is well versed in the science of statistics, so they can mostly go on what they think is right. Based on color differentiation, Scheme E is the best, don't you agree? If you think Scheme D is the best and why others should follow it,, state its advantages. Currently it does not have 6 levels which most editors have spoken in favor of.•Shawnqual• 📚 • 💭 18:12, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
Scheme E is the best, don't you agree?. No. It is not LCD friendly and print friendly. Ythlev (talk) 01:42, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
Note I said, Based on color differentiation. And the reason why it isn't LCD and print-friendly is because none of the 6-class colors are LCD and print-friendly. Which if we are going to dive deeper, is that realy an issue? I think the most important thing while we pick a scheme apart from factors discussed here is whether or not it is color-blind friendly. Rest is secondary imo.•Shawnqual• 📚 • 💭 03:36, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
none of the 6-class colors are LCD and print-friendly. Exactly. is that realy an issue?. If you care about the small minority who are colour-blind, why are the people who use laptops and those who print articles "secondary"? Ythlev (talk) 05:25, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
On the other hand, there is no concrete reason why 6 colours is acceptable and 5 is not. Ythlev (talk) 05:34, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
I use a laptop with LCD and even printed a map with the E color scheme. Colors are very discernible. I checked the same file on two other laptops and there was no difference I could notice. So, I don't really know what the website means when it says it isn't print/LCD friendly. The reason why I stated if it is really an issue we need to consider is because if we continue to add factors, we move further and further away from a consensus. So far all editors have stated that they would prefer six, including yourself when you said that you use six. So if there is a consensus there, why complicate things further? •Shawnqual• 📚 • 💭 01:02, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm sure if you randomly picked a colour-blind person, chances are they would be able discern colours in any of the above schemes. But out of the entire population? including yourself. I switched to five and I am not going back. In fact, there are statistical reasons for using five. if there is a consensus. Users who don't contribute to the maps don't get a say. Ythlev (talk) 03:37, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

  • I've implemented a few of them, to see which fits best. Usually, I'd prefer Schema E for having six colors, green for recovered and blue for deaths, but it lacks in contrast for detailed maps. So I ended up using Schema D-ish with an added step for cases per capita maps like this one for Slovenia. Still not sure if this was a step up from the previous scheme. Xplus1 (talk) 20:19, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
@Ythlev: Users who don't contribute to the maps don't get a say., Everyone must be welcome to contribute as Wikipedia is a collaborative effort. At least, the 100+ plus memebers of this project should certainly be allowed to contribute imo. Also, the suggestion of letting only creators being allowed to contribute would have been great had there been enough participation by them. Only three (including you and me) have contributed so far :-/.
@Xplus1: I found the opposite actually, there was enough contrast, however, we could change some colors if there is lack of it. Where exactly did you find less contrast? •Shawnqual• 📚 • 💭 23:16, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
@Shawnqual: Schema E#b from #feebe2 to #7a0177 was my first choice. When applied, it showed that there's less room for nuances to become visible. See here for an example (I didn't adjust gradient offsets for the test) next to this one or this older version. Xplus1 (talk) 01:36, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Looks like the closest thing to a standard for per capita maps is scheme D. Ythlev (talk) 02:40, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
@Xplus1: Yeah, I see that it is indeed less nuanced. Also, I agree that it isn't actually a step-up from the older version (Scheme B), and yep it is certainly pretty in pink/more nuanced. I am sticking to that for now. •Shawnqual• 📚 • 💭 21:53, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Number of levels

How many different colors should be used on maps? {{u|Sdkb}} talk 10:10, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Cynthia Brewer says five to seven. I use six, but five is probably better as it is LCD friendly. With six (      ),   and   are too similar. Ythlev (talk) 05:31, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
I am in support of using six, it provides a good range. Similar colors can be tweaked a bit.•Shawnqual• 📚 • 💭 19:12, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
Agree with using six. Should give enough variety. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:45, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
I prefer Scheme A with 7 colours. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 05:09, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
Scheme A seems to include the gray for no data as a color, whereas the other ones don't. So the 7/6 people might actually be saying the same thing? {{u|Sdkb}} talk 05:32, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
You're right. Gray must be added as an extra color in the legend only when in use. I have added that above to make this clear.•Shawnqual• 📚 • 💭 19:41, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
Six looks best. I support staying with that. Shanze1 (talk) 16:58, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
Six and Scheme E. Those are what I support --Abbasi786786 (talk) 17:11, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Not Fixed A map with only a few provinces will not need to have 6 or 7 categories. And it would make no sense to force maps (e.g. File:COVID-19 Outbreak World Map.svg) to add another category when no countries would fit into this category. We could have six or seven as a recommendation, but not as a fixed value. Raphaël Dunant (talk) 20:35, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Legend ranges

Should legends use fixed ranges with nice round numbers, or update dynamically to keep the map as balanced as possible? {{u|Sdkb}} talk 10:10, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

If everyone uses orders of magnitude (1, 10, 100, 1000...), then it's much easier to compare maps, tho articles for countries with small numbers of cases would probably do better with smaller numbers (1, 5, 25, 125...). -- Jeandré, 2020-05-20t12:58z
Dynamic. There is nothing "nice" about round numbers. Practically, as with File:COVID-19 Outbreak World Map per Capita.svg, one power of ten is too big. The map uses "half a power" (1–3, 3–10), and the denominator is not fixed; it changed from millions to now 1,000. All those measures to make it seem "nice" is pointless. With my maps, I set the ranges based on the average value of all areas. That way you never have to worry about all areas turning to darkest. Ythlev (talk) 05:47, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
Fully agree with this right here. But we should always make sure to use somewhat round numbers, such as 20, 50, 100. --Abbasi786786 (talk) 15:04, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Fixed: Expecting readers to check the range upon every time they are reading the map is a bit ridiculous honestly, especially when the legend was different just the previous day. A fixed legend is easier in comparison as one can familiarize themselves with it. Once the map is displaying only three or two colors, then it can be revised, which would happen in a couple of days or even weeks. There is something "nice" about using round numbers actually, the simplicity of it.
It must be noted that the discussion for fixed and dynamic legends is not regarding usage of only one type of legend for all the maps of the pandemic articles. It is for determining if each article should keep a fixed or a dynamic legend. Example: South Korea could be using the legend, (1,100,500,1000,3000 and so on...) while Argentina could use (1,49,99,299,499 and so on...) depending on their number of cases. Instead of say, USA, for which the legend on one day goes something like (1,249,536,785,823 etc...) and the next day changes to a completely different one with no apparent relationship between them understandable to readers. It is only known to the creator, what is the point of that?•Shawnqual• 📚 • 💭 19:28, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
File:COVID-19 Outbreak World Map per Capita.svg has been different every time I read it. And I don't think 1–3, 3–10 are "apparent" to the average reader. Look, if you want the actual figures, you should resort to a table of actual figures. The point of such maps is to see geographical trends, which if you bin areas based on values, does not change much day-to-day. And as long as the binning formula is consistent, their relationship, the geographical trend is consistent. When you say "Once the map is displaying only three or two colors, then it can be revised", that's when the reader actually needs to check the legend. Ythlev (talk) 03:07, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
Fixed. Regular readers may not notice the shift change unless the change is blatantly clear. Because of this I suggest rather wide ranges so that maps don't change colours too often. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:47, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
Fixed for per capita maps, this maps gives a big picture to compare between different regions (This map should come before the total map in placement the articles). Dynamic for various country-level total maps, all the sub-regions may follow respective country maps range. -   Timbaaa -> ping me 05:15, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
Fixed: When the color of a map region changes, the first assumption is a change in cases. Xplus1 (talk) 16:57, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
I'm using fixed ranges for the maps that need to be updated: if the legend is outside the image, it would need constant updating. I want to reduce overhead of maintenance. I would also argue for something that is both round-ish and somewhat exponential. effeietsanders 00:06, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Fixed, with rounded numbers. John Jones (talk) 05:28, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Legend in image

Should the image file itself include the legend, or should that always appear in the caption? {{u|Sdkb}} talk 10:10, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

  • Caption. Per my previous comment, I strongly support legends in the caption rather than the image file. It's more accessible, easier to translate, better-sized, and less visually cluttered that way. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 10:10, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Image. It is a hassle to update the captions, not to mention other wikis may use the map and have their captions. As mentioned above, even if the legend is not updated daily, it would still need to be updated at some point. Ythlev (talk) 05:53, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
    Updating the captions is certainly a challenge, but I still think resorting to including the information in the image itself is a clumsy solution with significant downsides. It's certainly not acceptable longer-term at the most prominent articles (e.g. COVID-19 pandemic), which we are ultimately going to want to move toward GA or FA status; we won't be able to say "not all places where this image is used can update frequently" as an excuse for an uglier/inaccessible presentation during a GAN. My preferred solution here would be to work toward automating the map updating process, which is something I would highly encourage more technically-minded editors to take on, given that the data is already being systematically collected here and at Wikidata. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 06:54, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
    Clumsy how? What downsides? Ythlev (talk) 07:35, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
    The downsides I mention above. First, accessibility (e.g. some people with poor eyesight might increase the text size on their browser; that won't work if the legend is in the image). Second, sizing — the maps need to be able to be used/viewed at different sizes, and an embedded caption may be way too small at some of them. Third, visual clutter — the logical separation is to have the image be, well, the image, and to have information about the image as a caption. Just as we wouldn't want to put text description in the image file itself, so too readers will find it cleaner to have the legend appear as a caption. Fourth, it's best to not just put a contextless number in the legend (e.g. "40-70"), but to have a label (e.g. "40-70 cases per 1000 people"), but for translation reasons you can't do that if the image has the legend embedded. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 07:49, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
    Okay, but until there is a way to update the captions, those downsides don't matter. Ythlev (talk) 08:21, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
    Does Wikipedia have a way to import portions of captions from Commons automatically? That would be one way to do it. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 16:34, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
    You would still need to update the captions on Commons. Ythlev (talk) 02:41, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Caption. The main issue for me which Sdkb has also mentioned is the accessibility. For the articles of Italy, USA, Iceland (to name a few), one has to click the image to read the legend. Then click back to go to the main article? Why have this extra step? In comparison, check the articles for Morocco, Oman, Pakistan etc...where legends are displayed in the infobox, aid the reader in easier comprehension. I personally do not think updating the captions is that big of a challenge or even a challenge at all, especially when the legends are fixed. This is another benefit of having fixed legends. Creators must claim responsibility for updating the legends, it is not a hard task. I am also on board with captions due to the issues mentioned clearly by Sdkb above, sizing, visual clutter and translation reasons. And Ythlev, the downsides mentioned do not become insignificant just because another issue has arisen.•Shawnqual• 📚 • 💭 20:07, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
I see it as a huge challenge and am certainly not willing to do it. Ythlev (talk) 03:09, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Image. It is inconvenient to update dates inside articles. If it's embedded to the image, we can just press upload and be done with it. I think readers will usually enlarge the image to look at it, so the text size shouldn't be a worry imo. Shanze1 (talk) 17:04, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
    @Shanze1: If we're able to find a way to make it so that updating the caption on Commons is all that would be needed, would that change your stance? Since we're having a discussion here where we're trying to lay down some precedent, the questions of "what should we do right now?" and "what should we be working toward?" become somewhat separate. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 17:28, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
Yes, I would. That should be manageable. Shanze1 (talk) 21:35, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
Thanks to Naypta, we now have a way of automatically update the date of maps directly in every place the date is used! See this request. Raphaël Dunant (talk) 20:27, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Date and other annotations

Should the image file itself include the date? Can it include other optional annotations such as the count for different countries? {{u|Sdkb}} talk 10:10, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Different date formats used by different countries would suggest not putting dates on images, leaving it for captions instead, but I do put them on daily changed maps because of how much of a hassle it is to go edit all the captions in Commons and in Wikipedia articles in different languages. When they are added, I recommend using ISO 8601 (2020-05-20) because it's the only good format. -- Jeandré, 2020-05-20t12:51z
It's good to know that that's the only format to use. But it's definitely ugly. And most of the same concerns I express above about the legend apply to the date as well. So if we're able to get the updating automated enough, I'd want to take the date out of the image itself. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 07:52, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
It is not ugly dude. You are just not used to it. Ythlev (talk) 08:23, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
I think there are objective downsides to the format that go beyond just my lack of familiarity with it. For instance, the year is the least useful piece of information if our goal is to identify rapid updates, yet it's what has to come first. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 16:30, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
The year is the most important piece of information when someone sees the map in the future. The format wouldn't have become the standard otherwise. Ythlev (talk) 04:52, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
Don't include: It is best to leave dates and any other clutter from the images. A cleaner file is more pleasing to the eye. Plus, any other information can be easily stated in the captions. The ISO 8601 (2020-05-20) is quite messy in my opinion.•Shawnqual• 📚 • 💭 20:13, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
Remove all legends, dates, and other annotations on the actual map. This is not really helpful and a huge clutter. Dates can be automated, legends can be fixed in place, and annotations should be on the notes section. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 05:17, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
Comment I would prefer having existing dates and legends in images but I also have to agree with the above points. They're valid. Some Indian maps use automated today template. If that's ok, I guess we can use infobox legend parameter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shanze1 (talk • contribs)
Include - date and legend. Don't include - other annotations. With standard date format suggested by another editor. -   Timbaaa -> ping me 05:10, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
I would argue not to include any legend or context unless absolutely necessary (e.g. in an animated GIF where the date changes) for the simple reason that these images should be possible to use in multiple languages. Adding dates/legends makes the image language sensitive, and adds a huge maintenance overhead. effeietsanders 00:01, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Include - Date and legend, probably with a standard format. --Abbasi786786 (talk) 14:57, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Don't include especially now that we have a way of automatically update the date on every wiki: see this discussion. Raphaël Dunant (talk) 20:29, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Base population

I suggest standardising to only two kinds: a million and 10,000. Map makers can choose based on division size. Ythlev (talk) 04:32, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

This has been an obvious choice in most maps I have checked, countries with less than million population per region have been using 10,000, while countries with a million or more population per region have used a million as their base. •Shawnqual• 📚 • 💭 18:15, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
Some use 100,000. Ythlev (talk) 01:44, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
Which is actually standard and most common practice. There may or may not be 100,000 residents in the county under review, but multiplying the result by 100,000 makes that rate comparable with counties with more than 100,000 or less than 100,000. From here. This could however be left up to the creators, every country has a different population, naturally per capita for a country like Iceland or Luxembourg would not make sense if 100,000 is used as the numbers would be minuscule. While on the world map, 100,000 would be apt. •Shawnqual• 📚 • 💭 03:42, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, I would suggest to stick with either 100k or go to percentage. The first because it's most common in other sources in the media, the second because people know it from other topics. effeietsanders 23:59, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Flag icons in navboxes

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

@Sea29: is adding flag icons to navboxes for this project. I fear that this may run afoul of WP:INFOBOXFLAG. Elizium23 (talk) 05:58, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

COVID-19 pandemic data updating

Latest comment: 4 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

Hey. Do you use a bot for updating the data? If so, mind sharing the code? We're looking into automatic updates for other wikis. Cheers. --Олександр Кравчук (talk) 15:07, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm curious about this too. Ideally, the data should be stored at Wikidata and just imported from there so that it can be updated multilingually. But it doesn't look like that's the case yet at {{COVID-19 pandemic data}}. Pinging RayDeeUx, who has been active at the data page and might know about this. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 06:33, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Sdkb: Much of the updating is done manually, as seen by the countless edits made by Capewearer and dellux mkd. As for the possibility of updating figures by bots, I'm still a novice at Wikipedia and don't want to drop any false hopes or claims. Cheers, u|RayDeeUx (contribs | talk page) 14:46, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
@Олександр Кравчук: Actually, I am using a bot to update pt:Template:Dados da pandemia de COVID-19 from Template:COVID-19 pandemic data. Albertoleoncio (talk) 03:05, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
@Albertoleoncio: Mine sharing the code? --Олександр Кравчук (talk) 09:09, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
@Олександр Кравчук: Sure, it's here. Albertoleoncio (talk) 13:17, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Large table at COVID-19 pandemic in Pennsylvania

Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
  Resolved

I see there's a very large template at COVID-19 pandemic in Pennsylvania. Many other articles have collapsible ones. Can someone here help? ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:56, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Another Believer,   Done -   Timbaaa -> ping me 11:02, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Timbaaa, Thanks! ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:03, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Coronavirus pandemic impact on children

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi all

I just started Coronavirus pandemic impact on children, children are impacted in many ways, this UNFPA resource has a lot of good information on the topic but I'm sure there are many others. Please contribute to the article.

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 16:45, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Several topics

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I don't have time to do the research but I saw these topics in an actual newspaper.

With all the vaccine research, some people are not getting vaccines for other diseases.

Some jobs are gone for good.

The U.S. economy is making a faster comeback than expected (this one has probably already been covered).— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 18:18, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:COVID-19_pandemic_in_Tamil_Nadu#Merge

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

  You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:COVID-19_pandemic_in_Tamil_Nadu#Merge. Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 06:22, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

The Big Thank You

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

For details, read the comment shown below the comic strip here. Obviously this is not an independent source, but I was hoping someone could find one. I don't really have time today after I got tempted to do some other things, and it might take a lot of effort to figure out not only what's there but how to put it on Wikipedia.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 19:40, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

This is what I did. It's probably not the right place. Numerous comic strips featured characters and situations related to the pandemic.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:18, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Tear gas

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

A new editor is trying to add content to Tear gas that ties the use of tear gas at some BLM protests to the spread of COVID-19. There are comments on the talk page starting at Talk:Tear gas#Long-term heath effects of tear gas. Please see what you can do to help this article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:36, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

I forget where I saw it, but I saw this too. Tear gas makes you cough and sneeze which, if you have the virus, can spread it more effectively.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:36, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Transclusion sections

Latest comment: 4 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

So some time has passed and things are slowing down... it seems like a good time to fix up all the transclusion of sections that has us duplicating the same info across 3 or 4 articles. What would be the best approach here to fix our Wikipedia:Content forking problems. Good example for cleanup is COVID-19 pandemic and Coronavirus disease 2019 where we are saying the same thing in the intros of 2 different articles. Lets spend sometime on bring theses up normal standards.--Moxy 🍁 16:48, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

The sections are fine; transclusion is working as intended. {{u|Sdkb}} talk
Will take care of the duplication this weekend.--Moxy 🍁 11:03, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
Moxy, the transclusions have been present for months; you need to seek consensus before removing them. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 21:51, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
Will be bold a see what happens ...we look like fools having 2 pages with the same intro.--Moxy 🍁 21:57, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
Moxy, boldly editing against consensus is disruptive editing. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 21:58, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
Nobody needs to seek consensus before making edits unless there is an explicit consensus against them, and even then consensus can change. If there is a discussion that establishes consensus for the transclusions, then it requires a fresh discussion to establish a new consensus, but as the policy says: Editors may propose a consensus change by discussion or editing ... Editors who revert a change proposed by an edit should generally avoid terse explanations (such as "against consensus") which provide little guidance to the proposing editor (or, if you do use such terse explanations, it is helpful to also include a link to the discussion where the consensus was formed). I think that a failure to observe that would be regarded as disruptive. --RexxS (talk) 22:29, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Possible Updating Problem: TEMPLATE "COVID-19 cases in Minnesota, United States"

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There appears to be a problem with the method that Wikipedia follows when updating the template "COVID-19 cases in Minnesota, United States".

This 'Talk Page' describes that problem, and identifies a possible cause.

Symptom: The webpage for MN Dept of Health has become out-of-synch with the Wikipedia webpage. Two JPGs are attached for comparison purposes. PLEASE NOTICE: The "Total Number of Cases" shown in this Wikipedia table are significantly understated when compared to total number of cases published by MN Dept. of Health.

 
 
Wikipedia: "COVID-19 cases in Minnesota"


Possible Cause: It appears that MN Dept. of Health has changed the methodology they use as they update their "Positive Cases By Date Specimen Collected Table" and that Wikipedia is not yet matching this new methodology for data-entry.

Beginning May 13th, MN Dept of Health began doing daily updates for historic test-case numbers. Since Wikipedia is not yet doing daily updates within their table for test-cases that are backdated, there is an increasing daily disparity in reporting. EMPHASIS: This disparity creates a significant reporting problem. It's significant because it undermines the trending daily percentage # of cases being published by Wikipedia. NOTE: I have NOT evaluated whether the reporting for # of deaths is also affected.

It's hoped that the detail here in this 'Talk Page' will allow Wikipedia page authors to adjust their methodology doing for daily table updates... adjusting to match the methodology used by MDH. The detail provided in this Wikipedia table is valued a great deal!

OUTinMN (talk) 21:55, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Social distancing: whether it includes a decrease in activity outside the home

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I wish that some editors reading this page can please comment on the discussion I started at Talk:Social distancing#Social distancing: whether it includes a decrease in activity outside the home. I'm mentioning it here because the determination would end up affecting quite a few other pages that use the term. Kudu ~I/O~ 22:12, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Mobile view

Latest comment: 4 years ago31 comments5 people in discussion
 

This is how the main page of this WikiProject looks on a mobile phone.

I really don't think that the present layout is at all mobile-friendly, requiring sideways-scrolling to see content. Bearing in mind that the majority of page views in general come from mobile users, even if a smaller proportion actually view this page, it's counter-productive to use a layout that is awkward for a significant proportion of our readership to use. I think it needs to be redesigned to be more usable on mobile interfaces. --RexxS (talk) 21:30, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

RexxS, I think the issue is with {{Start tabs}}, which interferes with both mobile view and VisualEditor; see also this prior discussion (the issue with the fact that we have two separate headers for the project is still the case). {{u|Sdkb}} talk 00:47, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
@Sdkb: you're surely right. I came to the same conclusion following this discussion. I think it's going to need a fairly substantial makeover. My advice would be to start from the mobile view and aim for a responsive style for the header using navigation tabs in an inline-block horizontal list of simple links. Making use of locally defined classes in TemplateStyles should make it portable to the other pages. --RexxS (talk) 01:04, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
Just remove the tabs if its a problem......project has evolved enough to have nav templates etc. I added them in the beginning to help find pages...we are way beyond that now.   Done.--Moxy 🍁 11:07, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
Moxy, the tabs are still a very widely used way to navigate around the project; taking them out will make it a lot harder to get to subpages. I'm going to undo your edits; please get consensus before reinstating them. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 16:14, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
Again great choice for access.... at some point think of what is best for readers. I am out...!!!!--Moxy 🍁 21:17, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
@Sdkb: You're using a layout table to present a navigation menu. That's a really bad idea when you consider how many screens that will cause horizontal scrolling on. The size of the text has been reduced to try to help it fit, another bad idea for links, when we have editors like Moxy who finds it difficult to use a mouse accurately to hit the link. Good interface design for navigation menus is to keep the number of horizontal options to a minimum, render them as large inline-block list elements for screen readers, and use a TOC on each page to navigate that page's content. There's a certain discipline required to balance all the objectives of UX design, but you can't relegate accessibility from being of prime importance. Hope that helps. --RexxS (talk) 23:14, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
RexxS, I wasn't the one who created the tabs. I'd be very happy to see their design improved to make them more accessible, but taking them out because they're not as good as they should be isn't a solution when there is nothing replacing them. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 23:35, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
@Sdkb: Actually, it is a solution if they don't meet a minimum standard of accessibility, because that then becomes discriminatory. Why not start from something more straightforward like Template:WikiProject COVID-19 tabs/sandbox? --RexxS (talk) 20:29, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
RexxS, an inaccessible header is a big problem, but it's better than no header at all. I did my part to draw attention to the issue by starting the merge nomination and posting at Template talk:Start tab, and I would very much love to see you or others carry forward the work. Just do it in a way that doesn't blow up the project's main navigational aid or introduce other major problems and all will be good. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 21:54, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
@Sdkb: I'm sorry, but you're wrong. No header is better than an inaccessible one. Insisting on only having accessible content provides the incentive to create a header that isn't just usable by one section of the audience, because having to put up with inaccessible content is no longer an acceptable expectation in 2020. I'm not blaming you for the content, nor am I asking you to fix it, but I would like you to endorse all efforts to improve accessibility. --RexxS (talk) 22:20, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
RexxS, I absolutely do endorse all such efforts. And I take your point about removing it perhaps providing more incentive to fix it, although I could see there being strong objections to that based on WP:POINT. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 22:31, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
@Sdkb: see WP:NOTPOINTy.   --RexxS (talk) 22:34, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
RexxS, sorry, I think I was unclear: some immediatists might object that removing the tabs is a disruptive action, even if it raises the (valid) point that they need to be accessible. Hopefully that clarifies, and again, I wish you the best addressing the issue; it's undeniably a mess. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 22:42, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
@Sdkb: sure, I understood that. But when you consider that a simple bulleted list of links to subpages (two minute's work) would provide exactly the functionality that they would be complaining about losing, you see that the issue is the amount of effort that has been put into providing fancy, gimmicky displays (that happen to behave badly for a minority), and the reluctance of the people who made that effort to let it go. I hope you can see the POINT from where I'm sitting now. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 22:50, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
Sdkb, why not try merging content to cut down on the number of tabs? For example, Sources and the Sources list could probably be combined together. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:32, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
We might also be able to remove the Assessment tab, as most readers on here who are using it to access relevant articles are probably not interested in learning about how to classify articles by importance and quality. A link to it still exists under the Main Page Task Force. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:36, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
In regards to "Messages", they are essentially sources (albeit important ones), so they could go under the Sources tab. Is there any pressing reason why they should be separate other than their importance to the pandemic? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:41, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
Tenryuu, agreed that some of the tabs are duplicates/could be consolidated. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 21:52, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
Sdkb, as an alternative to tabs, the Sources page is using this header. Perhaps we can consider replacing tabs with this? Both the image and text link to the pages, so it should be easier for mobile and other touchscreen users to tap the links for access. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:17, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
I tried starting a discussion to merge them, but it got no consensus. There are problems with both. The alternative one goes onto two lines for most people. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 04:38, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
I'm having a little trouble following the discussion: is it the icon header or the tab header that's causing troubles with editing in VisualEditor? We might be able to cut down on icons for the other header if we consolidate the groups together (e.g., "Sources" with "Sources list" and so on). Alternatively, have we possibly considered creating a dropdown menu with the pages? I've found them to be accessible for desktop/laptop and mobile users alike. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:39, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Demo of a starting point for an alternative:

--RexxS (talk) 20:29, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Looks good. However, some tabs are missing. --Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 05:06, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

I would stick with the following header, which include graphics:

--Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 05:11, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

I am sandboxing with the project page on here, where you can do some experiments with the alternative headers. --Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 05:18, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
That looks nice and gives a bigger target for clicking on the link, but 11 links is too many for a menu, especially when some are just sub-sections of the same target page and others are very little different from each other. Just a few other points:
  1. It's far better to create a list of the navigation links using inline-block list elements than to have a series of inline-block divs, because it allows screen readers to know how many items there are in the list and skip through it more easily.
  2. The <center>...</center> tag has been deprecated in html for a long time now. You shouldn't be using it for any new content.
  3. If you're going to transclude a template, it's more logical to have it in Template: namespace. It also simplifies the use of WP:TemplateStyles, which helps to separate the styling from the content.
The third is obviously a lot less important than the first two. Hope that helps. --RexxS (talk) 13:33, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
RexxS, I've outlined some suggestions for consolidating icons/tabs higher up in the discussion. What do you think? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:08, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Let me fix those issues pointed out by RexxS.
Issue #1: IDK how to fix this.
Issue #2:   Done, only the captions are using the tag.
Issue #3:   Done
--Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 17:48, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
I have done some other contributions on the header template to make it concise and easy for mobile navigation. Please visit Template:WikiProject COVID-19 header. --Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 18:16, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
@Soumya-8974: Issue #1: Demo of navigation using list at Template:WikiProject COVID-19 header/sandbox. The demo styles are all defined in Template:WikiProject COVID-19 header/styles.css and can be freely tweaked to taste, so you can use it as a starting point. Hope that helps --RexxS (talk) 21:24, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

East StratCom Task Force

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I tagged its talk page with this WikiProject since it recently contains related content. Please also see WT:EU#East StratCom Task Force. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 22:52, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

COVID-19 pandemic in Los Angeles

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello, So the largest city in the state of California is Los Angeles. I hope someone will create the propose article titled COVID-19 pandemic in Los Angeles, its the sister articles to COVID-19 pandemic in California and COVID-19 pandemic in the San Francisco Bay Area. The newly created article will be focused on the pandemic specifically on the city of Los Angeles and the surrounding cities of Los Angeles County including Glendale, Burbank, Beverly Hills, Santa Monica, Long Beach, Pasadena and Culver City. Don't forget the Los Angeles neighborhood of Hollywood that includes the shut down of film and television studios in the filming industry that impacted Hollywood. The propose article will include how many active cases, how many deaths, how many recoveries and how many overall cases on the city of Los Angeles. I will by happy for anyone's reply for the requested article to created and will be focused only on the city of Los Angeles. According to the sister article titled COVID-19 pandemic in California, did you know that Los Angeles is the worse infected city in the state of California? I sure hope so. Once again, I hope anyone will create the article to focus on the city of Los Angeles. Thanks for your consideration. 2001:569:74D2:A800:DD58:FAD9:9766:81E3 (talk) 08:02, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Another way to find COVID-19 content

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

If you're interested in patrolling content, then Special:RecentChangesLinked might be useful to you. For example, Special:RecentChangesLinked/Coronavirus disease 2019 will give you a list of all the changes that have been made to any article that is linked in the COVID-19 article. At the top of the page, you can switch it from the default setting of links in ("from") that article to links to that article, which would let you discover articles (e.g., BLPs, drugs, laws, books, etc.) that have had information added to them about COVID-19. This can help you find articles that interest you. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:32, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Template:COVID-19 testing by country

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Please help with updates to the table. We're falling behind.

If you decide to help: 1) sort by the "Date" column to see the oldest entries; 2) when updating "Tested" and "Confirmed (cases)" columns, please don't forget to also update the "Date" column, values inside the formulas, and the "Ref." column.

Thank you! — UnladenSwallow (talk) 08:44, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Dexamethasone treatment

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

You've probably seen in the news that scientists in the UK have found what they're calling the first guaranteed treatment for COVID-19, using Dexamethasone. As I'm no expert, I haven't added any information on this anywhere - but neither has anyone else, and it seems significant enough to get at least a mention. Kingsif (talk) 16:18, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

@Kingsif: It was removed. We now have more sources and can say something more reliably. I have reintroduced Dexamethasone in a few articles. Let's hope the results are confirmed! -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 00:12, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Academic pre-print with quantitative analysis of Wikipedia's response

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I co-authored a a new pre-print (not yet published but currently under peer review) analyzing Wikipedia's response to the COVID-19 pandemic. This is not a request for it to be included in any articles, more a notice to the community. Comments, questions, ideas, and other feedback are welcome as comments below or emailed to me. Madcoverboy (talk) 14:27, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

There is a presentation another COVID-19 research paper scheduled for the mw:Wikimedia Research/Showcase#July 2020, too. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:20, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Talk:COVID-19_pandemic#Semi-protected_edit_request_on_17_June_2020

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Since this has been there without an answer from a while and since I have some reservations as I pointed out, would somebody of you knowledgeable persons who somehow missed this in their watchlist please take a look? Thanks, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:17, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Johan Neyts

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This draft could use some eyes from this project - he seems like a borderline case for WP:PROF but if he's such a "big deal" in the arena of COVID one would think there would be more independent news articles about him (not just quotes or brief mentions). Any assistance in either finding sources or improving the draft (or telling me I'm daft and just putting it into mainspace) is appreciated. Primefac (talk) 18:12, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Academic research about Wikipedia's COVID-19 coverage in the upcoming Signpost/research newsletter

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Some here may be familiar with the Signpost's "Recent research" section, a regular survey of academic research about Wikipedia that doubles as the Wikimedia Research Newsletter (now in its tenth volume).

For the upcoming June issue, we plan to cover several new COVID-19 themed papers and preprints (including the two mentioned above):

  • "COVID-19 research in Wikipedia"
  • "A Quantitative Portrait of Wikipedia's High-Tempo Collaborations during the 2020 Coronavirus Pandemic"
  • "Sudden Attention Shifts on Wikipedia Following COVID-19 Mobility Restrictions"
  • "A protocol for adding knowledge to Wikidata, a case report"
  • "Collective response to the media coverage of COVID-19 Pandemic on Reddit and Wikipedia"

If you are interested in reading one of them and contributing a summary or review, please take look at this Etherpad.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 00:57, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Highlighted Yellow Text

Latest comment: 4 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

Hi everybody. I'm wondering about highlighted yellow text in COVID-19 pandemic in Syria.

In all my years on Wikipedia, I never came across yellow highlighting in an article. The page Template:Highlight even stipulates "Please keep template usage to talk pages only".

I removed it, but it was immediately reverted [2]. Does it have a purpose under the Covid project I'm not aware of? Thank you. Gates of Ale (talk) 12:30, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

I just eliminated the highlighting again, it is indeed unusual.--ReyHahn (talk) 12:36, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
And it's now underlined (also against our MoS). I've left a note at User talk:RamiPat referring them to MOS:EMPH and asking them to fix the mistake. --RexxS (talk) 18:46, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
  Resolved
. One other thing I've been noticing recently is that Google has added a feature (maybe just to Chrome or another aspect of the configuration I use) that sometimes highlights in yellow parts of an article that answer a specific query you've searched for. It's a cool feature, but not something Wikipedia-specific (it appears on other websites, too). {{u|Sdkb}} talk 06:06, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Use of deprecated sources for Covid-19 in Turkey

Latest comment: 4 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion

Timeline of the COVID-19 pandemic in Turkey is detailed, but it's substantially sourced to deprecated source Sputnik News. Obviously, a source that's deprecated for fabrication is not a MEDRS. Is there anyone who knows Turkish media well enough to fix this one up? Or is stripping the Sputnik-sourced material - most of it - all that can be done? - David Gerard (talk) 09:45, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

and the editor who put Sputnik there is edit-warring it back in - David Gerard (talk) 15:37, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
I've given a warning, but that's been ignored. The pages are under community discretionary sanctions and I'll sanction the editor if they continue. --RexxS (talk) 16:18, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
First of all, no one is edit warring, so please get your facts straight. I reverted your edit by removing the reference to Sputnik and now I'm changing the Sputnik sources that have been added by an IP and other users on the medical chart data. I also didn't ignore your warning, I simply stated that I'm not edit warring because a single revert is not usually labeled as an edit war. Keivan.fTalk 16:35, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
@Keivan.f: The facts are these: when pages are under discretionary sanctions, any re-insertion of challenged content or sources is usually considered to be edit-warring, and on some pages would lead to an immediate block. I apologise if you didn't previously understand the situation concerning all COVID-19 related pages, and I hope you'll move forward in finding better sources. --RexxS (talk) 17:48, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
@RexxS: Thanks for the information. I thought we were talking about the 3-revert rule; didn't know that another policy was in force here. In any case, I changed the references on both the medical chart and the article on the disease's timeline in Turkey. The IP who was adding the references to the medical chart, which I was simply copying from, has probably noticed what's going on because this time he didn't use Sputnik as a source. I'll try to be more careful next time, and pay more attention to the revision history of each page and the warnings that pop up. Keivan.fTalk 17:53, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
@Keivan.f: Thank you for fixing those sourcing issues: it is appreciated. I've informed the IP about the problem, so let's hope we've seen the last of Sputnik. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 18:02, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Turning 2020 coronavirus pandemic super-spreaders into a redirect?

Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Over two months ago, I create-protected this page because Draft:COVID-19 pandemic super-spreaders was being continually moved from draftspace without proper review. It was suggested to me on my talk page by Pigsonthewing that perhaps this page could be redirected to Superspreader#COVID-19 outbreak 2020. I think this is a pretty reasonable request, but I'd like to ask here first and see what people think. bibliomaniac15 04:49, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

  Done Bibliomaniac15, redirect COVID-19 pandemic superspreaders created after evaluating request. I just want to add that the Superspreader#COVID-19 outbreak 2020 has a scope of expansion as information about many countries are missing/not included ~ Amkgp 💬 18:30, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Is there an article on impacts of COVID-19 on health care systems and/or healthcare policy?

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi all

I'm aware there is an article for impact on hospitals but is there an article on something like healthcare systems or healthcare policy? I know that in some country articles there is mention of this but there are wider patterns, impacts and recommendations that should be written about, I'm unsure if I'm just using the wrong words when searching for it though....

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 20:12, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

John Cummings, there's Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on other health issues, in addition to Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on healthcare workers and Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on hospitals. Depending on what you're looking to write about, it might be better to expand the scope of the hospitals one than to create a new one. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 23:03, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Graphics and text related to women and COVID-19 released by UN Women under open license

Latest comment: 4 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Hi all

UN Women have released a batch of graphics related to women and COVID-19. They've also released some text information about the impact of the pandemic on women under open license so can be copied from their website

You can find instructions of how to use open license text at Help:Adding open license text to Wikipedia, please make sure to use the template described so I can let them know where their content is used.

Many thanks

<gallery mode=packed widths="250px" heights="250px"> 136 million women migrants, 66 million women migrant workers, 8.5 million women migrant domestic workers.png 810 women die every day from preventable causes related to pregnancy and childbirth, 94% occur in low and lower middle-income countries.png Children and youth out of school due to COVID-19 closures and Young people classified as NEET.png Domestic violence before the pandemic and since the lockdown.png Global health and social care workers 70% women, leaders in the global health sector 30% women.png Share of employed in informal employment.png Unpaid work before and since the COVID-19 pandemic started.png Violence against women, especially domestic violence has intensified.png Women's representation in major peace processes from 1992 to 2018.png </gallery

John Cummings (talk) 13:15, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Are there also some analogous materials about the impact of the pandemic on men, produced by "UN Men"? --ŠJů (talk) 10:02, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

I can't tell if this question is serious or not... Kingsif (talk) 15:37, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
@ŠJů: please take some time to speak to women in your life about their experience and issues they've had around work life, harassment, education etc. John Cummings (talk) 17:30, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
Many people have their experiences. Women, men, intersexuals, children, seniors, healthy, handicapped, black, white... As regards the mentioned problems, aren't rather with some cultures than with men or women? --ŠJů (talk) 19:22, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

COVID-19 pandemic in Turkey graphs

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi. I actually need someone with a good knowledge of math or graphs to take a look at the graphs on COVID-19 pandemic in Turkey. I have been updating all of them regularly except "Growth factor of total case number (since 100th case)" and "Growth factor of total death number (since 100th case)". I wasn't able to figure out what method or formula has been used for calculating those figures, and they haven't been updated in two weeks, so I thought someone might be interested to help. Keivan.fTalk 20:54, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Template:COVID-19 pandemic data

Latest comment: 4 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

Hi guys, please correct me if I am wrong but this edit says there is current consensus to not use columns, but it seems I can't find one. Am I wrong in reverting this user? Starzoner (talk) 03:04, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

@Starzoner: See here, §3. Albertoleoncio (talk) 03:08, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
Starzoner, there is a current consensus on item 3 to not add more columns. The link to that discussion is here. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:13, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
Ok Thank you. That should be more obvious somewhere. Starzoner (talk) 03:15, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
Starzoner, adding a population column definitely isn't needed, but we are waiting on someone with the requisite technical expertise to add a switcher for a population-adjusted version of the table; see here. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 23:33, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
Latest comment: 4 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Is this really appropriate? We could argue that literally everything in the world has been touched by COVID-19, but are we really saying that means every article needs a COVID nav template? —valereee (talk) 10:36, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Valereee, I removed it. It's definitely not needed for an article about an upcoming film that has no connection to the pandemic other than that it will be released during it. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 23:30, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
Sdkb, that's what I was thinking. Is there any way for us to see what all uses this template? Because I'm a little concerned lol
@Valereee: this search shows 143 pages with the template. You can also follow "What links here" on the template page, but the search will also find aliases of the template. --RexxS (talk) 00:19, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
RexxS, thank you! I had tried the what links here but it made me crazy. :) —valereee (talk) 00:25, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Wikimedia Germany summer 2020 report including COVID

Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
 
Policy Letter Summer 2020 Wikimedia Deutschland

Wikimedia Germany is quite organized and developed. Their staff produces documentation and policy briefs. This document describes how Wikimedia projects addressed COVID-19. Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:58, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Bluerasberry, Would you mind sharing this at Talk:Wikipedia's response to the COVID-19 pandemic as well? Thank you! ---Another Believer (Talk) 00:07, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
Done thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 11:31, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

a classification request

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Paediatric multisystem inflammatory syndrome (a.k.a. multisystem inflammatory disorder in children) appears to be a rare complication of (delayed response to) SARS-CoV-2 infection in certain children. It has been in the news as a novel Kawasaki-like disease that has emerged during the pandemic.

I've done my best to categorize the page, but I'm not sure how it should be listed/appear in the COVID-19 portal etc. I'd be grateful if somebody could check/complete my (limited :) efforts. Thank you, 86.186.155.159 (talk) 16:18, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Broadband Internet needs to be for everyone

Latest comment: 4 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

I was just reading an article in an actual newspaper that says the pandemic has made it clear that Internet access has to be universal. The article, of course, focuses on the United States, but even for this country, I looked around at various topics and didn't see this idea covered. At least I didn't see how the pandemic has made the need more urgent.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 16:32, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Reminder about irresponsible editing

Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I understand this is not COVID per se, but it's related and part and parcel of that which has been furthered by COVID editing on Wikipedia: please see the talk page of "NEW" (not) virus, G4 EA H1N1 as a reminder to take greater care to respect MEDRS and NOTNEWS. [3]SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:52, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Continue discussion of mobile view

Latest comment: 4 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

​​​​Original discussion is archived at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject COVID-19/Archive 10#Mobile view. --Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 05:57, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Just remove them....only half there anyways and we have a navigation template. Do we need links to other pages before the content of the main page is seen? I equate this to banner and hatnote spam. No need to redirect readers to other pages off the bat.--Moxy 🍁 20:36, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Housing/eviction?

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi all, I'm seeing an increase in coverage and discussion of the impact of coronavirus on housing and eviction, particularly in a US context but maybe elsewhere. There's a national eviction-related law and many state measures, but also concerns about mass evictions this summer. I'm not seeing anything about housing in Economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States (and Eviction in the United States is short and doesn't mention covid) so those will both be places to start, but is there are another more appropriate article? Has there been any discussion of this topic? (I'm not up to date on covid discussions). Would it be worthwhile starting a new article? Thoughts welcome. (my article notes are here) -- phoebe / (talk to me) 21:17, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_COVID-19/Archive_10&oldid=1045699695"