| Revision as of 01:01, 25 January 2020 editLegobot (talk | contribs)Bots1,671,910 edits Adding RFC ID.← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 19:04, 31 December 2024 edit undoOzzie10aaaa (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers214,251 edits →How did covid end in 2024 |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
|
{{British English|date=April 2020}} |
|
{{ds/talk notice|ap|long}} |
|
|
|
{{Contentious topics/talk notice|topic=covid|style=brief}} |
|
{{Controversial}} |
|
|
|
{{Article history |
|
{{ITN talk|20 January|2020|oldid=936682518}} |
|
|
|
|action1 = FAC |
|
{{annual readership|scale=log}} |
|
|
|
|action1date = 28 February 2020 |
|
{{annual readership|scale=log|target=2019–20 outbreak of novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV)}} |
|
|
|
|action1link = Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/2019–20 coronavirus outbreak/archive1 |
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|1= |
|
|
|
|action1result = failed |
|
{{WikiProject Asia |class=B |importance=Mid}} |
|
|
|
|action1oldid = 943074902 |
|
{{WikiProject Australia|class=C|importance=Mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject China|class=B|importance=High|map-needed=yes|image-needed=yes|history=y}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Death|class=B|importance=Low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Disaster management|class=B|importance=Mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject France |class=B| importance=Low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Hong Kong|class=B|importance=High|image-needed=yes}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Japan|class=B|importance=High|history=y}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Korea|class=B|importance=High}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Macau|class=B|importance=High}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Medicine|class=B|importance=High|needs-image=yes|pulmonology=yea|pulmonology-imp=high}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Nepal|class=|importance=Low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Singapore |class=B |importance=High}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Thailand|class=B|importance=High}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Taiwan|class=B|importance=mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject United Kingdom|class=C|importance=Low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject United States|class=B|importance=Low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Vietnam|class=B|importance=Low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Viruses|class=B|importance=High|needs-image=yes}} |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{Old move |date=January 16, 2020 |from=2019–20 outbreak of novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) |result=move |link=Special:Permalink/937266322#Requested_move_16_January_2020}} |
|
|
{{British English}} |
|
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|
| algo=old(14d) |
|
|
| archive=Talk:2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|
| counter=1 |
|
|
| maxarchivesize=150K |
|
|
| archiveheader={{Automatic archive navigator}} |
|
|
| minthreadsleft=5 |
|
|
| minthreadstoarchive=1 |
|
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|action2=GAN |
|
== Adding more content == |
|
|
|
|action2date=10:11, 10 September 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|action2link=Talk:COVID-19 pandemic/GA1 |
|
|
|action2result=failed |
|
|
|action2oldid=977670632 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|action3=GAN |
|
I would suggest that we translate the information from the article in Mandarin and add the content here. Right now the article is too short to provide a comprehensive overview. For example, we can talk about actions taken by other places like Singapore, Taiwan, Hong Kong and so on. Thanks. ] (]) 17:35, 6 January 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|action3date=22:24, 2 January 2022 (UTC) |
|
:the only case ex-China is in Thailand, so far. What do you mean, talk about airport screening? I don't see an article on that. Would probably be a good idea. ] (]) 05:03, 15 January 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|action3link=Talk:COVID-19 pandemic/GA2 |
|
|
|action3result=failed |
|
|
|action3oldid=1063341310 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|action4=GAN |
|
==Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) outbreak in China== |
|
|
|
|action4date=11:03, 27 October 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
|action4link=Talk:COVID-19 pandemic/GA3 |
|
|
|action4result=failed |
|
|
|action4oldid=1118027541 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|action5=GAN |
|
The CDC (and/or other authorities) seems to have settled -- Shall we change the title of the article to '2019-20 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) outbreak in China' ] (]) 04:57, 15 January 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|action5date=13:15, 12 June 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|action5link=Talk:COVID-19 pandemic/GA4 |
|
|
|action5result=listed |
|
|
|action5oldid=1159777027 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|currentstatus= GA |
|
:Maybe, see what everyone else calls it. let's wait a little. ] (]) 06:47, 15 January 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|topic=Biology and medicine |
|
|
|
|
|
| itndate = 20 January 2020 | itnlink = Special:PermanentLink/936682518 |
|
==Confirmed cases in Thailand== |
|
|
|
| itn2date = 28 January 2020 | itn2link = Special:PermanentLink/937918559 |
|
She did visit similar markets, . She was confirmed to have the 2019-nCoV virus. ] (]) 05:30, 15 January 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
| itn3date = 31 January 2020 | itn3link = Special:PermanentLink/938462246 |
|
|
|
|
|
| itn4date = 4 February 2020 | itn4link = Special:PermanentLink/939198475 |
|
is the 5th confirmed case in Thailand as of 1830 24nJan China time, also from Bangkok. One unconfirmed case in Chiang Mai. ] (]) 10:37, 24 January 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
| itn5date = 11 March 2020 | itn5link = Special:PermanentLink/945073804 |
|
|
|
|
|
| itn6date = 16 March 2020 | itn6link = Special:PermanentLink/945890159 |
|
==confirmed case in Philippines == |
|
|
|
| itn7date = 6 May 2023 | itn7link = Special:Diff/1153376409 |
|
|
|
|
|
| otd1date = 2024-01-30 | otd1oldid = 1200660669 |
|
https://news.abs-cbn.com/news/01/21/20/philippines-probes-case-of-child-from-china-who-tested-positive-for-coronavirus?fbclid=IwAR26cLp3Fsk8pg8VLn1EHeoCxTVkOXjcFBiSR9ECpHk147SfjxW8maVgPdE |
|
|
|
}} |
|
] (]) 15:12, 21 January 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=GA|collapsed=y|vital=yes|1= |
|
|
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors|user=Lfstevens|date=25 December 2021}} |
|
== Requested move 16 January 2020 == |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject COVID-19|importance=Top}} |
|
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;"><!-- Template:RM top --> |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Medicine|importance=Top|pulmonology=y|pulmonology-imp=top}} |
|
:''The following is a closed discussion of a ]. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a ] after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. '' |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Viruses|importance=Top}} |
|
|
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Disaster management|importance=Top}} |
|
The result of the move request was: '''moved'''. The !votes for wait and see still apply and this article can be re-moved at that point. -- {{#if:|<small>(])</small>|{{#if:|<small>(])</small>}}}} ] (]) 22:46, 23 January 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Death|importance=High}} |
|
---- |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject China|importance=high|history=y}} |
|
|
|
|
|
{{WikiProject 2010s|importance=High}} |
|
] → {{no redirect|2019–20 outbreak of novel coronavirus}} – "(2019-nCoV)" is redundant because it is a shortened form of "2019 novel coronavirus". A relevant article ] is not ]. ―― ] (]) 22:13, 16 January 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
}} |
|
:(Move history) |
|
|
|
{{tmbox |
|
:*2019-2020 China pneumonia outbreak: Initial title |
|
|
|
|image = ] |
|
:*: ''move to consistent title'' |
|
|
|
|text = '''Want to add new information about COVID-19?''' Most often, it should not go here.<br />Please consider choosing the most appropriate article, for example: |
|
:*: ''formal name from the US CDC'' - https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/novel-coronavirus-2019.html'' |
|
|
|
{{div col}} |
|
:*: ''Moving this because there are now 2 cases outside of China and the new title is still very specific'' |
|
|
|
* ] (the virus that causes COVID-19) |
|
:*: ''Changed the dash code to the larger one'' |
|
|
|
* ] (the disease caused by the virus) |
|
|
|
|
|
* One of the ] |
|
:Other outbreaks pages include the location, the year(s), and the agent (virus, bacteria etc); see ], ], ]. Probably include Wuhan in the title since associated with that one city in China. '2019 novel coronavirus outbreak in Wuhan. China' as in this ] (]) 01:51, 17 January 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
* One of the ] articles |
|
*'''Oppose''' While "2019-nCoV" is derived from "2019 novel coronavirus", it is also now a name for a particular strain of virus and thus differentiates this article. {{u|Jtamad}} has a point that other outbreak article pages use geography, so we could do that here. ] (]) 14:53, 17 January 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
{{div col end}} |
|
|
|
|
|
... or dozens of other places, as listed in {{tl|COVID-19 pandemic}}. Thanks! |
|
*'''Comment''' - The name of the virus is not even firm yet, so if the article is moved now, it will likely be moved again atleast once in the future. "Novel coronavirus" is just a placeholder name. --] (]) 14:59, 17 January 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
}} |
|
::Good point. So let's go back to something like "2019–2020 Wuhan pneumonia outbreak". ] (]) 16:02, 17 January 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
{{Banner holder|collapsed=yes| |
|
*'''comment''' ...something like "2019–2020 Wuhan pneumonia outbreak" is a good idea] (]) 19:02, 17 January 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
{{Current COVID-19 Project Consensus|collapsed=yes}} |
|
*'''Comment'''—"(2019-nCoV)" does nothing except confuse non-expert readers. I agree with Bondegezou and Ozzie10aaaa, "2019–20 Wuhan pneumonia outbreak" is the best placeholder until there's a settled name in the medical community. ] (<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>)</span> 19:17, 17 January 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
{{Banner holder|text=Article history|collapsed=yes| |
|
*'''rename''' to ] agreeing with above voters. I certainly agree that the stuff in parenthesis is inappropriate. The virus has been changing names, and "novel" is certainly only ever a temporary name. Since the disease is called ], we should use that. The alternative is using ] in the new title. ie ]. ] (]) 23:14, 17 January 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
{{Section sizes}} |
|
*'''comment'''..."2019–2020 Wuhan pneumonia outbreak" sounds reasonable. ] (]) 06:18, 18 January 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
{{Copied|collapse=yes |
|
* '''comment'''... Just 'pneumonia' is not specific enough. Many causes of pneumonia, so coronavirus is a key term - 'coronavirus pneumonia' - the agent and the disease. Don't think WHO will ever refer to it as 'Wuhan pneumonia.' SARS originated in Guangdong province but that isn't part of any article title. ] (]) 08:03, 18 January 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|from1=2019–20 coronavirus outbreak|from_oldid1=939276783|to1=2019-nCoV acute respiratory disease|to_oldid1=939278614|date1=5 February 2020 |
|
::As per {{u|Graeme Bartlett}} and {{u|Jtamad}}, happy to go with ]. ] (]) 09:09, 18 January 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|from2=2019–20 coronavirus outbreak|from_oldid2=941907149|to2=2020 coronavirus outbreak in Japan|to_oldid2=941907541|date2=21 February 2020 |
|
:::sounds good. It is still very much associated with Wuhan. Short and succinct. ] (]) 11:02, 18 January 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|from3=Misinformation related to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic|from_oldid3=950541825|to3=2019–20 coronavirus pandemic|to_oldid3=950602338|date3=12 April 2020 |
|
::::"2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak" is ok too. ] (]) 15:02, 19 January 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|from4=Impact of the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic on the environment|from_oldid4=950286586|to4=2019–20 coronavirus pandemic|to_oldid4=950602338|date4=12 April 2020 |
|
::::*FYI ] is not named ] or ]. The name "''2020 Wuhan coronvirus outbreak''" may results in an illusion that the coronvirus is scientifically named "Wuhan coronvirus". --] (]) 02:16, 21 January 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|from5=Impact of the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic on education|from_oldid5=950559816|to5=2019–20 coronavirus pandemic|to_oldid5=950602338|date5=12 April 2020 |
|
::::* Thus I'd suggest ]. --] (]) 02:21, 21 January 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|from6=Travel restrictions related to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic|from_oldid6=950542322|to6=2019–20 coronavirus pandemic|to_oldid6=950602338|date6=12 April 2020 |
|
|
|
|
|
|from7=2020 coronavirus pandemic in Europe|from_oldid7=950598540|to7=2019–20 coronavirus pandemic|to_oldid7=950604430|date7=12 April 2020 |
|
*'''Rename''' to ]. ] 05:33, 20 January 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
}} |
|
*'''Oppose''' as proposed. It is only "novel" temporarily. Any title with 'novel' or 'nCoV' should not be used (ever, for any article), they are not proper longer term titles (anything longer that short or immediate term), but instead are ] ]-tinged titles. I am good with the suggested ] or similar. -- ] (]) 08:37, 20 January 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
{{All time pageviews|83}} |
|
*{{question}}:Why not wait until the virus has a formal name to discuss what title should be appropriate for this entry?-- <span style="text-shadow:0 1px 5px #808808"><big>''']]''' ]</big>『My heart will go on』</span> 08:44, 20 January 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
{{Annual report|] and ]}} |
|
:'''Oppose''' as proposed - good point by ]] - much better to wait for a formal (i.e. WHO recognised) name to be agreed: and then use that one. ] (]) 13:22, 20 January 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
{{Top 25 report|Jan 19 2020 (3rd)|Jan 26 2020 (4th)|Feb 2 2020 (5th)|Feb 9 2020 (3rd)|Feb 16 2020 (20th)|Feb 23 2020 (1st)|Mar 1 2020 (1st)|Mar 8 2020 (1st)|Mar 15 2020 (1st)|Mar 22 2020 (1st)|Mar 29 2020 (1st)|Apr 5 2020 (1st)|Apr 12 2020 (1st)|Apr 19 2020 (2nd)|Apr 26 2020 (4th)|May 3 2020 (4th)|May 10 2020 (3rd)|May 17 2020 (3rd)|May 24 2020 (6th)|May 31 2020 (17th)|Jun 7 2020 (11th)|Jun 14 2020 (11th)|Jun 21 2020 (5th)|Jun 28 2020 (12th)|Jul 5 2020 (11th)|Jul 12 2020 (14th)|Jul 19 2020 (7th)|Jul 26 2020 (13th)|Aug 2 2020 (16th)}} |
|
:'''Keep''' current title until the virus are formally named. --] (]) 02:09, 21 January 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
{{split article |
|
*'''Comment''' agree that (2019-nCoV) is redundant and obscure and must go. ] should also be renamed. While it is true that "novel" is a relative term, '''2019–20 novel coronavirus outbreak''' would show when it was novel. The names with "Wuhan coronavirus" or "Wuhan pneumonia" also work for me. ]<sup>(])</sup> 07:20, 21 January 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|from=2019–20 coronavirus outbreak|to=Timeline of the 2019–20 coronavirus outbreak|date=23 January 2020 |
|
*'''Comment''' The article is about the outbreak rather than the virus (which has another page called Novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV)), so the article should be renamed something similar to "2019-20 pneumonia outbreak". It does not even need to specify Wuhan or China. ] (]) 13:00, 21 January 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|from2=2019–20 coronavirus outbreak|to2=2019–20 coronavirus outbreak by country and territory|date2=26 January 2020}} |
|
*'''Support''' per previous reasons ] (]) 17:49, 21 January 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
{{Old moves |
|
|
|
|
|
| small = no <!-- Just in case --> |
|
*'''Oppose''' This defines a novel coronavirus more as a non-specific term that describes "a new strain that has not been previously identified in humans" and gives the name (2019-nCoV) to the strain identified causing the initial cases in Wuhan. That is, without the name (2019-nCoV), the term "novel coronavirus" would technically be pointing to any strain that has not been identified instead of specifically the one that has been identified for the cases in and related to Wuhan. Thus, I oppose removing "(2019-nCoV)" from the title. ] (]) 19:14, 21 January 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
| oldlist = <!-- Please add to | list = parameter below. --> |
|
*'''Oppose''' As per comments by {{u|舞月書生}} and {{u|Hopechen}}. Let's wait for the official name to be determined. ] (]) 02:43, 22 January 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
* RM, 2019–20 outbreak of novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) → 2019–20 coronavirus outbreak, '''Moved''', 16 January 2020 (]) |
|
*'''Oppose for now''' also as per comments by {{u|舞月書生}} and {{u|Hopechen}}, as something more official may develop in the coming weeks or months. ] (]) 03:58, 22 January 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
* RM, 2019–20 coronavirus outbreak → 2019–20 novel coronavirus outbreak, '''No consensus''', 2 February 2020 (]) |
|
*'''Oppose''' per abovementioned reasons. ] (]) 05:38, 22 January 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
* RM, 2019–20 coronavirus outbreak → 2019–20 novel coronavirus outbreak, '''Speedy close''', 9 February 2020, (]) |
|
*'''Comment''' - Why not just call it "2019-nCoV outbreak in 2019-20"?] (]) 21:51, 22 January 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
* RM, 2019–20 coronavirus outbreak → 2019 Novel Coronavirus Outbreak, '''Speedy close''', 11 February 2020, (]) |
|
*'''Rename''' to 2019-20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak. "Wuhan coronavirus" is arguably the ] for the virus.] (]) 23:08, 22 January 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
* RM, 2019–20 coronavirus outbreak → COVID-19 outbreak, '''Speedy close, no viable consensus and without prejudice''', 11 February 2020, (]) |
|
|
|
|
|
* RM, 2019–20 coronavirus outbreak → 2019-20 coronavirus epidemic, '''Speedy closed. Too soon and snowing.''', 13 February 2020, (]) |
|
*'''Rename''' We'll have the conventional name soon enough. Naturally the nomenclature hasn't been settled yet, and this thing is moving very, very fast, far faster than Swine. Wuhan Flu? We'll see. ] (]) 15:52, 23 January 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
* MRV, 2019–20 coronavirus outbreak → COVID-19 outbreak, '''Endorsed''', 13 February 2020, (]) |
|
*'''Support''' we can decide on a better title once the virus is formally named, but for now removing the (2019-nCoV) part seems reasonable ] 02:32, 23 January 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
* RM, 2019–20 coronavirus outbreak → 2019–20 coronavirus outbreak, '''Moved''', 18 February 2020, (]) |
|
*'''Support''' per Oldosfan. ] (] · ]) – <small>(Don't forget to share a ] <span style="color:#4dac8b;">♥</span>)</small> 03:49, 23 January 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
* RM, 2019–20 coronavirus outbreak → Coronavirus disease outbreak, '''Speedy close''' without prejudice to renomination, 3 March 2020, (]) |
|
*'''Comment''' - If diseade keep infecting at this rate, unfortunaly we may rename to ]. ] ] 16:29, 23 January 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
* RM, 2019–20 coronavirus outbreak → 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic, '''Moved''', 11 March 2020 (]) |
|
*'''Support''' removing (2019-nCoV) as redundant / unnecessary. Though I agree that "novel coronavirus" is definitely a temporary title, so the title will presumably need to be changed further when they decide on a permanent name for the virus. ] (]) 16:36, 23 January 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
* RM, 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic → Coronavirus pandemic, '''Closed''', 15 March 2020 (]) |
|
*'''Support''' removing "(2019-nCoV)" (but '''oppose''' all other suggestions) for brevity, but current name form has encyclopedic worth. Media reporting clearly suggests the outbreak is well-documented as a coronavirus outbreak. ]<sup>]]]</sup> 17:18, 23 January 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
* RM, 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic → 2019-2020 COVID-19 pandemic, '''Closed''', 15 March 2020 (]) |
|
*'''Support''' per Optakeover. ]<sup>]</sup> <small>(please {{]}} me in replies)</small> 20:23, 23 January 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
* RM, 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic → Wuhan Chinese Coronavirus Pandemic, '''Closed''', 15 March 2020 (]) |
|
---- |
|
|
|
* RM, 2019–20 coronavirus outbreak → 2019-20 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) outbreak in China, '''Closed''', 15 March 2020 (]) |
|
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a ]. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this ] or in a ]. No further edits should be made to this section.''<!-- Template:RM bottom --></div> |
|
|
|
* RM, 2019–20 coronavirus outbreak → novel-coronavirus-2019 outbreak, '''Closed''', 15 March 2020 (]) |
|
|
|
|
|
* RM, 2019–20 coronavirus outbreak → 2019-2020 2019 nCoV coronavirus outbreak in Wuhan, '''Closed''', 15 March 2020 (]) |
|
== Image of Map == |
|
|
|
* RM, 2019–20 coronavirus outbreak → Coronavirus outbreak, '''Closed''', 15 March 2020 (]) |
|
|
|
|
|
* RM, 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic → 2019–20 coronavirus disease pandemic, '''Closed''', 15 March 2020 (]) |
|
As we know, Wiki has strict policies on the use of images and only images from public domain or certain creative commons licenses can be used. The current image of the map of China, which is from Wiki Commons and originally sourced from CIA public domain, highlights areas within China that have territorial claim disputes. As it is NOT a map of India, regions in India claimed by China are NOT highlighted. Since the purpose of the map is to provide a good illustration on the relative locations of the cities, a decision has to be made whether the current image is inappropriate and hence removed. |
|
|
|
* RM, 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic → 2019-20 Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 pandemic, '''Closed''', 15 March 2020 (]) |
|
Please opine whether the image of the map should be '''Keep''' or '''Delete'''. Thanks ] (]) 05:47, 21 January 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
* RM, 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic → 2019–2020 coronavirus pandemic, '''Not moved per ]''', 19 March 2020 (]) |
|
* There are a lot of NPOV images in Commons you can use. Plus that image from a US security agency (frankly I can't find any point why you emphasized that fact that the map is from an US security agency as an excuse to stand the image) contain two highlighted arrows on that, which clearly POV. The comment on India is not constructive to the discussion, as currently almost all maps of India in Indian-related articles depicts even claimed territories not occupied by India as undisputed Indian territories, so based on that part of your comment a map containing all claimed territories not de facto administrated by China should work with this article. --] (]) 06:21, 21 January 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
| list = <!-- Please keep at most three here and move all others to | oldlist = parameter above. --> |
|
* <S>Also to point out this has nothing to do with whether the image should be deleted in Commons, as there's no NPOV requirement in Commons. Commons is used for storage all media from all POV. This map could be used in a Misplaced Pages article about the US stance on different Asian conflicts. It is only inappropriate '''here'''.</S> Noticing the map has Wuhan marked on it (and the fact that it's not on Commons), my answer is to '''Delete'''.--] (]) 06:40, 21 January 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
* RM, 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic → Coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, '''Consensus to not move''', 23 March 2020 (]) |
|
*I noticed PenulisHantu didn't transcribe my original reason of the deletion well. Here's a quote of my original edit comment: ''Removed the anti-Chinese POV map showing only Chinese-administrated Aksai Chin as disputed territory while Indian-administrated South Tibet as undisputed Indian territory.'' The issue here is indeed two different treatments of two analogical cases in one single map. --] (]) 07:58, 21 January 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
* Proposal: Move moratorium, '''30-day moratorium''', 26 March 2020 (]) |
|
'''Comment''' I would implore the use of a map with a balanced POV addressing disputed regions of Taiwan, South Tibet/Arunachal Pradesh and Aksai Chin. (Anyone, please replace current image if you know of one. Thanks) In the absence, we have to weigh between a politically imperfect map that provides useful geographical information for the topic ('''Keep''') or do without one ('''Delete'''). Thanks. ] (]) 17:20, 21 January 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
* RM, 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic → COVID-19 pandemic, '''Moved''', 4 May 2020 (]) |
|
*'''Thanks''' to ]. I believe this is resolved. ] (]) 04:52, 22 January 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
* RM, COVID-19 pandemic → Coronavirus pandemic, Not moved, 25 August 2020 (]) |
|
* Thank you! --] (]) 05:00, 22 January 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
}} |
|
'''Comment''' I have replaced the map of "Greater China" with one of Mainland China, and my edit got reverted. Let me explain why I think a Mainland China map is more appropriate here: |
|
|
|
}} |
|
* "Mainland China" is a clearly defined and commonly used term, while "]" is a vaguely defined and a less commonly used one, and not without disputes. |
|
|
|
{{Annual readership|days=180|scale=log}} |
|
* "Mainland China" is itself in the table of confirmed cases, so a Mainland China map can be seen as a breakdown by first-level administrative divisions. "Greater China", as its articles suggests, ''is an informal term used to refer a geographic area that shares'' commercial and cultural ''ties dominated by Han Chinese''. A ''commercial and cultural'' concept is not quite relevant to an article concerning a epidemic. |
|
|
|
{{section size}} |
|
* If the rationale to use "Greater China" over "Mainland China" is because Taiwan is infected too, then there is no reason to exclude South Korea, Thailand and Vietnam since those countries report confirmed cases too. It would be good to have a map that shows the first-level administrative divisions of the respective countries so that we are comparing apples to apples, i.e. Incheon, South Korea: 2 compared with to Hubei, China: 1096. --] (]) 23:53, 24 January 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
{{Press|collapsed=yes|1= |
|
|
|
|
|
|subject=article|author=Omer Benjakob|title=On Misplaced Pages, a fight is raging over coronavirus disinformation|org='']''|url=https://www.wired.co.uk/article/wikipedia-coronavirus|date=February 9, 2020|quote=While a short and generic Misplaced Pages page on "coronavirus" had existed since 2013, the article about the "2019–20 coronavirus outbreak" was created on January 5, 2020.|accessdate=February 9, 2020 |
|
== Hong Kong should be listed separately == |
|
|
|
|subject2=article|author2=Stephen Harrison|title2=The Coronavirus Is Stress-Testing Misplaced Pages’s Policies|org2='']''|url2=https://slate.com/technology/2020/03/coronavirus-wikipedia-policies.html|date2=March 19, 2020|quote2=At press time, more than 2,100 editors have contributed to the pandemic’s main Misplaced Pages article.|accessdate2=March 19, 2020 |
|
|
|
|
|
|subject3=article|author3=Laurence Dodds|title3=Why Misplaced Pages is winning against the coronavirus 'infodemic'|org3='']''|url3=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2020/04/03/wikipedia-winning-against-coronavirus-infodemic/|quote3=Against all odds, Misplaced Pages's eccentric volunteer editors are holding back the tide of coronavirus misinformation|accessdate3=April 6, 2020|date3=April 3, 2020 |
|
The health authorities and immigration borders of Hong Kong are segregated from Mainland China. The method of the dispersal would be different for Hong Kong than any other Mainland Chinese city, though Hong Kong is a major transit and destination for all of China. Hong Kong reports its numbers separately from Mainland China as well. ] (]) 13:03, 21 January 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|subject4=article|author4=Omer Benjakob|title4=Why Misplaced Pages Is Immune to Coronavirus|org4='']''|url4=https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/.premium.MAGAZINE-why-wikipedia-is-immune-to-coronavirus-1.8751147|accessdate4=April 8, 2020|date4=April 8, 2020 |
|
:{{u|Tsukide}}, Do you see any particular area of the article requiring improvement? Hoping you can offer some specificity here, unless your concern has been addressed. ---] <sub>(])</sub> 22:58, 22 January 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|subject5=article|author5=Mikael Thalen|title5=Meet the Misplaced Pages editors fighting to keep coronavirus pages accurate|org5='']''|url5=https://www.dailydot.com/debug/wikipedia-coronavirus-page/|quote5=Those pages include the Misplaced Pages article for the virus itself, known as Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2, the disease it causes, COVID-19, and the ongoing global pandemic the coronavirus has caused.|accessdate5=April 8, 2020|date5=March 25, 2020 |
|
|
|
|
|
|subject6=article|author6=Farah Qaiser|title6=Like Zika, The Public Is Heading To Misplaced Pages During The COVID-19 Coronavirus Pandemic|org6='']''|url6=https://www.forbes.com/sites/farahqaiser/2020/03/18/like-zika-the-public-is-heading-to-wikipedia-during-the-covid-19-coronavirus-pandemic|accessdate6=June 21, 2020|date6=March 18, 2020 |
|
==possible case in Thailand- Chiang Mai == |
|
|
|
|subject7=article|author7=Shaan Sachdev|title7=Misplaced Pages's Sprawling, Awe-Inspiring Coverage of the Pandemic|org7='']''|url7=https://newrepublic.com/article/161486/wikipedia-coverage-pandemic-covid|date7=February 26, 2021|quote7=The Misplaced Pages article for the Covid-19 pandemic didn't exist until January 2020. By June, it was one of the site's most visited entries of all time. It became, according to Misplaced Pages's ] of article rankings, 'the biggest phenomenon Misplaced Pages has ever known.'<!--|archiveurl7=https://web.archive.org/web/20210228122324/https://newrepublic.com/article/161486/wikipedia-coverage-pandemic-covid|archivedate7=February 28, 2021|accessdate7=February 28, 2021--> |
|
18 year old male on flight from Wuhan placed in local hospital waiting for results from Bangkok— https://www.cm108.com/w/19543/ ] (]) 15:19, 21 January 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|author8=Jackson Ryan|title8=Inside Misplaced Pages's endless war over the coronavirus lab leak theory|org8=]|url8=https://www.cnet.com/features/inside-wikipedias-endless-war-over-the-coronavirus-lab-leak-theory/|date8=June 24, 2021|quote8=In recent weeks, increasing press coverage from the likes of The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal and The Washington Post has seen the lab leak hypothesis endlessly debated on social media, talk radio and primetime TV. It's become unavoidable. Unless you visit Misplaced Pages's COVID-19 pandemic page. The words 'lab leak' aren't mentioned anywhere. |
|
==Paper on this virus asks for assistance in editing== |
|
|
|
}} |
|
from SCIENCE CHINA Life Sciences.Since I am not a medical major and my English is not good, I ask other colleagues for help.Ask wikis who are good at related fields to make appropriate additions based on the content of the paper contained in this source. Thank you.--<span style="font:11px 黑体,黑体;text-shadow:0 1px 2px #feffef">]]<span style="color:#224462;font:9px">∮Strive to be a good Wikipedians.</span></span> 17:54, 21 January 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
}} |
|
:Send me a way to contact you. I might be able to help. ] (]) 02:20, 22 January 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
{{To do}} |
|
**{{Remark}}: from this paper,I find ,but I can't add it in wikidata.--<span style="font:11px 黑体,黑体;text-shadow:0 1px 2px #feffef">]]<span style="color:#224462;font:9px">∮Strive to be a good Wikipedians.</span></span> 18:11, 21 January 2020 (UTC)` |
|
|
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
::*Add an article about Wuhan virus in Journal of Medical Virology ：Homologous recombination within the spike glycoprotein of the newly identified coronavirus may boost cross‐species transmission from snake to human( |
|
|
|
| algo = old(60d) |
|
)，Note that this is an unpublished version。--]]<span style="color:#224462;font:9px">∮Active at ], strive to be a good ].</span> 00:42, 24 January 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
| archive = Talk:COVID-19 pandemic/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|
|
|
|
| counter = 48 |
|
==POV dispute== |
|
|
|
| maxarchivesize = 100K |
|
Can someone rewording the lead section of this article because it give me impression that Novel coronavirus only spread in Wuhan or involved chinese nationals. This statement violates NPOV policy? <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 23:37, 21 January 2020 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
| archiveheader = {{Automatic archive navigator}} |
|
|
|
|
|
| minthreadsleft = 5 |
|
Well, the information was true at that point as the virus was confined to China, so the statements aren't bias. How about this: You try and rewrite the statements? Thanks. ] (]) 23:46, 21 January 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
|
{{TOC limit|3}} |
|
==Trust in announcements== |
|
|
|
{{clear}} |
|
Official releases from the Chinese government are often justifiably untrusted by many people, how could we go about researching the trust level on this issue? Anyone got any ideas? ] (]) 01:30, 22 January 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Please justify your accusation with evidence. Thanks. ] (]) 15:52, 23 January 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
During the 2003 SARS Epidemic China hid infected patients from the WHO and underreported the number of SARs cases.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/asiapcf/east/04/18/sars.china/}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/21/world/the-sars-epidemic-epidemic-china-admits-underreporting-its-sars-cases.html}}</ref> --] (]) 02:58, 24 January 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
{{reflist-talk}} |
|
|
|
|
|
:https://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/13/world/asia/13doctor.html ] (]) 09:09, 24 January 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/obituaries/shuping-wang-whistleblower-who-exposed-chinas-hivaids-crisis-dies-at-59/2019/09/25/1dd6c1e2-dfa1-11e9-b199-f638bf2c340f_story.html ] (]) 09:15, 24 January 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Virus, disease, outbreak== |
|
|
Shouldn't the disease, the virus, and the outbreak be treated in separate articles? SARS, MERS 2012/2015/2018 are treated in that manner. We have a virus article and this article, we should have a separate disease article. SARS has 3 articles, for outbreak (timeline), virus, disease. MERS has 3 outbreak articles, 1 disease article, 1 virus article. -- ] (]) 05:51, 22 January 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
: There are already separate articles: ] and this. ] (]) 06:25, 22 January 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
::Agree with {{u|Robertsky}}: we already have two articles. I don't think there's quite enough content yet to separate out a disease article and an outbreak article. Content is growing rapidly: I am happy to support such a split at a later date. ] (]) 15:21, 22 January 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::I worked a great deal on ]. The China Corona epidemic isn't a pandemic yet, but that article can serve as a template. Never in the history of public health has a city of 11 million been shut down, and that's just for starters. And parenthetically, I don't feel up to beginning the timeline for this epidemic just yet, but at at the beginning of the Swine Flu Pandemic federal and state warehouses rehearsed shipping out body bags, etc. ] (]) 15:41, 23 January 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== infobox country order == |
|
|
|
|
|
What is the reasoning behind the current order of the countries listed in the infobox? It's not alphabetical, it's not according to date of first reported case, and it's also not ordered by number of cases or fatalities --] (]) 15:50, 22 January 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Put in alphabetical order. ] (]) 16:44, 22 January 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
::{{u|Whispyhistory}}, Seems to be sorted by # confirmed cases now. ---] <sub>(])</sub> 23:00, 22 January 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
:Sorted by number of confirmed cases. ] (]) 15:10, 23 January 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Request removal of chart titled 'Suspected cases of 2019-nCoV in Hong Kong == |
|
|
|
|
|
This chart appears under the 'Global: Reported cases and repsonses' section. It is not factually inaccurate, however I believe it portrays a much more alarming situation than the underlying data presents. The chart, which I believe does not meet Misplaced Pages's formatting rules, presents 'suspected cases' of the virus in Hong Kong. I read the cited source, which is a list of all patients in Hong Kong that were tested for the virus, with almost all (except for 2) NOT testing positive for 2019-nCoV. The graph is not necessary, and similar information about 'suspect' cases of the virus are not presented in chart form for any other data. ] (]) 16:40, 22 January 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
* '''Support''' with the current number of confirmed cases, suspected cases of a specific region may not be as notable to warrant a chart. ] (]) 04:17, 24 January 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
<small>{{ping|Cypp0847}} your chart. notifying you to comment on this ] (]) 06:58, 24 January 2020 (UTC) </small> |
|
|
|
|
|
The graph was first inserted and made when the epidemic was still at small scale, and the graph played a significant role in showing the social awareness of this disease. As time passes, I wouldn't disagree with removing the graph, and to follow the consensus reached. ] (]) 08:22, 24 January 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
* '''Comment''' I haven't seen much discussion generated here, however I'm a little new to discussions about removals on important[REDACTED] pages. I do, however, disagree with how we are presenting 'suspected' cases at this point in the outbreak. Most of the 'suspect' cases in the Hong Kong graph have been cleared as healthy. I would be more inclined to keep that data but present it in a way that clearly states that there are not 180 people in Hong Kong that have suspected nCoV infections, but 180 people have been, or are being screened for the virus. The Mainland China chart on the page ] presents this data in a much clearer light, presenting number of people quarantined (and presumably tested) and number of people cleared. Paging {{ping|Pharexia}} since your chart also displays countries with 'suspect' cases, although I think all the ones in Canada have been cleared now. It might be time to add a 'previously suspect cases which were cleared' colour. I'm not good at tracking suspect cases, however, so I'll defer here if my information is out of date. ] (]) 15:42, 24 January 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== One question: Are the time zones consistent in the current article? == |
|
|
Can I declare a {{tl|UTC|+8}}(?) in an article?--]]<span style="color:#224462;font:9px">∮Active at ], strive to be a good ]</span> 18:39, 22 January 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
* '''Support''' Currently the updates can be confusing due to the speed the event is unfolding and the time differences. ] (]) 14:07, 23 January 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Mexico's President, Confirms first Coronavirus case. == |
|
|
|
|
|
The President of Mexico, Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador has confirm the first case of coronavirus in a press conference today 01/22/2020. The carrier is was introduce as a 57 year old from Asian origin. The man had travel to Wuhan, China on the 25th of December and traveled back to Mexico on the 10th of January. The men is currently under observation from his own home in Reynosa, Tamaulipas a town that borders with the Texas, USA. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 21:50, 22 January 2020 (UTC)</small> |
|
|
|
|
|
== Removal of the cases distribution map == |
|
|
|
|
|
I have removed this graphic map, as multiple issues listed on the talk page of the correspondence Chinese Misplaced Pages article. The large Wuhan circle has covered a lot of provinces outside Hubei and looks like cases all over China; the skull next to the PRC flag looks like a curse of the entire nation. The word, Wuhan, consequently, has been squeezed to the extremely left of the map, at a location near Qinghai, making the entire pictures geographically terrible (also to notice he put Washington State to the extreme west of the map instead of the extreme east of the map, leaving huge area of blankness and an unreadable graph). The info are also extremely outdated. |
|
|
|
|
|
The author of the graph has been notified in Chinese Misplaced Pages article talk page, but for more than 24 hours he not only didn't improve any of the issue raised but deteriorated them, so the map has already been removed in Chinese Misplaced Pages. --] (]) 04:17, 23 January 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Allow me to clarify that, I didn't receive any notification in Chinese Misplaced Pages (probably technical issues). |
|
|
Speaking of location distribution, Europe can be assumed as the center of the map, hence Washington at the left of the map. |
|
|
And after all, thank you for the suggestions provided, they would be great improvements. ] (]) 08:33, 24 January 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Organization of "No confirmed cases" section == |
|
|
|
|
|
The "No confirmed cases" has a long list of pretty short sections. Thoughts or merging some of these section into subsections for each continent? My thinking is sections for Asia, Australia, Europe, North America, and South America would reduce the number of section headings. |
|
|
|
|
|
But, since this article is changing quickly, I also wonder if keeping content separated by country for now is easiest until editing starts to wind down and we have a better sense of how text might be organized. Thoughts? ---] <sub>(])</sub> 05:38, 23 January 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Infected Indian nurse in Saudi Arabia == |
|
|
|
|
|
Should that case be labeled under India or Saudi Arabia? It's not clear if they were infected in India or Saudi Arabia. ] (]) 13:51, 23 January 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
* If the infected person is in Saudi Arabia, I would say Saudi Arabia. ] (]) 14:05, 23 January 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
* I'm not sure. I think Saudi Arabia but if they were infected in India it would be both, but we don't know where they were infected. ] (]) 15:08, 23 January 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
* At this point, I would want better confirmation and I doubt the accuracy of this information. The referenced articles and have very minimal information about the actual diagnosis, and another third party news article I found confuses information about MERS and nCoV-2019 throughout the article. The original source seems to be a reporter for the Economic Times, and there is reference to a Philipino Nurse who was infected. I haven't read about a case like that. At this point I am not convinced that this isn't a seperate infection from the ongoing ]. ] (]) 16:40, 23 January 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
* If true, I'd say Saudi Arabia, since that's where the nurse is working. ] (]) 16:58, 23 January 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
* Please note that the original tweet from the Indian Minister , which seems to be the only primary source for this case, does not actually mention nCoV-2019. It only mentions Coronavirus, which is not specific. I know this is a twitter thread, but shows there is considerable debate about how factual the report of nCoV-2019 in this nurse is, despite the info coming from the Minister of International Affairs. It is much, much more likely this is a case of MERS. I am removing the Saudi Arabia case from tables. ] (]) 17:20, 23 January 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== New Article: Wuhan Flu Timeline == |
|
|
|
|
|
I have shifted the entirety of the Chronology section to ] (for obvious reasons). |
|
|
|
|
|
I would recommend that the timeline here be limited to major announcements. ] (]) 17:16, 23 January 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Comment''' Wuhan flu may not be a term commonly used to refer to the novel corona 2019-nCoV. ] (]) 18:37, 23 January 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
*'''Comment''' I am not well-versed with viruses, but it seems that . ] (]) 19:14, 23 January 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
*'''Comment''': Flu has vaccine but Wuhan Virus doesn't. --] (]) 19:15, 23 January 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
:I have noted the distinction, but it'll take a while for the nomenclature to firm up (it's not as fast as the virus). For that matter, the title of <i>this</i> article is doubly redundant. ] (]) 19:29, 23 January 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
::Because it was erroneous and awkward — and practically ''no one'' is calling this "the Wuhan Flu" — I moved that new article to the title "]". <small>] (])</small> 20:02, 23 January 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::Fine by me. ] (]) 01:23, 24 January 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Greater China map == |
|
|
|
|
|
Nguyen QuocTrung |
|
|
|
|
|
*Taiwan is not part of China. The so-called greater China is the concept invented by ]. |
|
|
*Such image is not verifiable. |
|
|
*No reference directly identifies the prevalence of Wuhan Virus in such PRC-invented concept. |
|
|
*That section is talking about global prevalence not PRC alone. |
|
|
|
|
|
--] (]) 19:59, 23 January 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
: I don’t care about politics because this article is about a virus, I’m only care why you removed an image just because it conflicted your ideology. ] (]) 20:07, 23 January 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
::Such image is not supported by any reference and it doesn't fit in the section of global prevalence. --] (]) 20:18, 23 January 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Go to talk to another editor who reverted your edits and explain this to them. I’m not talking to a person who deleted my reply just because he don’t like it. ] (]) 20:24, 23 January 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
* '''Note''' Please see prior discussion above on image of map. Thanks. ] (]) 02:55, 24 January 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
* I changed to a map of (Mainland) China showing the confirmed cases by province. I think it is more relevant to the epidemic.--] (]) 17:47, 24 January 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
::That’s okay. The user that posted this was blocked for being a sock puppet so the Greater China Map can go back. It is also clearly the more appropriate one as every state in Greater China had confirmed cases.--] (]) 00:16, 25 January 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
], stop changing map without consensus.--] (]) 00:38, 25 January 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Survival time of virus outside animal or man body? == |
|
|
|
|
|
Is there any knowledge about the survival time of the virus outside of the animal or man body? It is imortant to know if for deciding if I can reuse may mask or I can enter a room in which an infected (or prabably infected) person was. |
|
|
|
|
|
They have deciphered the virus, so I think they are making tests of this kind because this is highly inportant. At least they must give the information that they are testing this. |
|
|
|
|
|
For SARS I just checked it was 24 hours living time outside human / animal body. |
|
|
|
|
|
Isn't there a linke where we can find scientific findings pertaining the virus in a concentrated way? ] (]) 20:10, 23 January 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Inappropriate article title == |
|
|
|
|
|
"2019–20 outbreak of novel coronavirus 2019-nCoV" is something that some geeky editor came up with with only one thing in mind: official scientific nomenclature. That is inappropriate for a general purpose Misplaced Pages. It also reeks of a breach of Misplaced Pages rules (] since this is definitely not the most common or even a rarely used name for the epidemic. Use something like "2019-20 corinavirus epidemic". There is no other competing epidemic in a different but related virus so there will be no confusion and so no need to get granular and elongate the name beyond practical use. ] (]) 20:28, 23 January 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
:You must have missed the move discussion above, the title is now ], a much more accessible title. ] (]) 01:14, 24 January 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== 8 December 2019: the real outbreak date == |
|
|
|
|
|
Could someone explain why this section exists? ] (]) 21:24, 23 January 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Seconding this. This seems like a NPOV error at least. I'm going to take the liberty of deleting it; if important NPOV information comes up, it can simply be restored, but otherwise it seems to be detracting from the article. |
|
|
] (]) 22:24, 23 January 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:It was added by ], who turns out to be another sockpuppet of a blocked user. -] (]) 00:22, 24 January 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Adding new contents == |
|
|
I have seen social-political controversy section in Chinese Misplaced Pages. Should the English Misplaced Pages add such content? (if with realiable source support)] (]) 23:59, 23 January 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Taiwan is not a member of WHO due to PRC pressure. ] (]) |
|
|
:: {{re|kencf0618}} The issue you methioned is one of the social-political controversies, but there are other controversies surrounding the event. But the current article does not methioned such controversies. ] (]) 05:17, 24 January 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::I've added that context here just in case. ] (]) 11:27, 24 January 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Here's a video == |
|
|
|
|
|
It appears to be public domain if anyone wants to migrate it: |
|
|
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v7am-CtOVB0 |
|
|
|
|
|
] (]) 00:50, 24 January 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== South Korea second confirm == |
|
|
|
|
|
https://news.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2020/01/24/2020012400518.html |
|
|
Just to note that new confirmation occurred in South Korea. |
|
|
] (]) 03:22, 24 January 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Casualties Table == |
|
|
|
|
|
I think that there should be a row for the entirety of China, as recognised by the United Nations (incl. mainland, Hong Kong, Macau and Taiwan). This would include a total figure for all regions of the PRC. There could be sub-rows underneath China which detail the figures for the mainland, SARs and self-governing Taiwan. Thoughts? 07:04, 24 January 2020 (UTC)] (]) |
|
|
:I don't think so, as these jurisdictions have their own health systems, immigration and reporting. It may also give a biased political point of view. We do not have to follow the political bias of WHO/UN. ] (]) 07:56, 24 January 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
::Keep them separate: they have their own health systems, Taiwan is under a different administration, and we have separate figures to report. ] (]) 08:16, 24 January 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Mistake in the map == |
|
|
|
|
|
There is a mistake in the map. It indicates "as of 2019-01-24"" and it should be 2020. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 08:59, 24 January 2020 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
:Someone corrected it. ] (]) 22:40, 24 January 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== 2 new cases in Hong Kong == |
|
|
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/rthk_enews/status/1220649721800249344 need better source <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 10:42, 24 January 2020 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
== Adding nationality note to infobox country == |
|
|
Can someone add note for nationalities in infobox country order, because I found that despite many countries reported their cases, their nationality can actually Chinese, for example In Singapore, there are 3 cases, but they all originated from mainland Chinese, or in South Korea there are 2 cases, but 1 cases is actually originated from mainland Chinese and 1 from South Koreans. The infobox in ] can explained that as example for this. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 12:49, 24 January 2020 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
* '''Support''' - putting this in in some fashion, if the information is available. It may be better presented as a simple, seperate chart, tabulating nationality and/or suspected location of infection. I personally would feel better assured if I knew every case had originated in China but I haven't seen that information presented anywhere. ] (]) 15:47, 24 January 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
* '''Oppose''' I would rather have a breakdown of confirmed cases by age rather than nationality. That would lead to allocation of blame or alienation, which is not helpful, when we already know all cases can be traced back to the epicenter. What if a victim has dual nationality? How about naturalized American Chinese or even naturalized Singaporean Chinese for that matter? ] (]) 20:31, 24 January 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Semi-protected edit request on 24 January 2020 - First confirmed case in Nepal == |
|
|
|
|
|
{{edit semi-protected|2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak|answered=yes}} |
|
|
Please update what has happened in Nepal. The new content I have included has been highlighted next to the existing content on the page. Here is the to support the updated information. |
|
|
|
|
|
A suspected case was reported in Nepal on 16 January 2020. The Nepali national had returned from Wuhan and was quarantined in Kathmandu. {{highlight|The first case in the country was confirmed on 25 January 2020 and three more people with symptoms were quarantined in the capital.}} ] (]) 13:21, 24 January 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
:Confirmed case in Nepal has been included. ] (]) 00:13, 25 January 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
::{{ping|Graeme Bartlett}} Okay thanks but I don't see any information on the three suspected cases. Here is the for confirmation. Also, I don't see any reason why the fact that this is the first case reported in South Asia needs to be included. It kind of sounds trivial. (] (]) 00:36, 25 January 2020 (UTC)) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Suudi arabia == |
|
|
|
|
|
This news is turkish https://www.cnnturk.com/dunya/suudi-arabistanda-hintli-hemsirede-corona-virusu-saptandi ] (]) 13:33, 24 January 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== No flags in infoboxes == |
|
|
|
|
|
] states, "Generally, flag icons should not be used in infoboxes, even when there is a "country", "nationality" or equivalent field: they are unnecessarily distracting and give undue prominence to one field among many." It continues, "Flag icons should only be inserted in infoboxes in those cases where they convey information in addition to the text." We've had flags added to the infobox, removed and re-inserted, most recently by {{u|Ratherous}}. The Manual of Style is not some optional extra: this is a basic Misplaced Pages guideline that all articles should follow. We should remove the flag icons in the infobox and keep them out. This is not somewhere where we can establish a ]: we should follow standard practice across Misplaced Pages, as described in the MoS. |
|
|
|
|
|
Flag icons don't add any information: we have names already. We already have a lot of political arguments in this article about China vs. Taiwan vs. Hong Kong ''etc.'' Flag icons just complicate matters further, they raise hackles and unnecessarily politicise an issue that should be about epidemiology, not politics. |
|
|
|
|
|
In addition, use of the Hong Kong and Macau flags violates ] and ]. |
|
|
|
|
|
Let's have an article about medicine, not flag-waving. ] (]) 13:41, 24 January 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Specifically because the article mentions the different states of Greater China, the flags really help distinguish the regions further. They genuinely help visually receive the information as there are a lot of numbers involved and it is easy to get lost with the data. In lists like that flags are often included as this is more like a list than just an info box. Many lists of nations with a lot of data on Misplaced Pages do include flags to help visually simplify the information.--] (]) 14:28, 24 January 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
::We have the names of the countries/regions. They are very clear. We don't need more. There are not "a lot of numbers involved": it's a straightforward table with four columns. The flags make the table harder to read, because the first thing you see isn't a word. |
|
|
::] and ] are pretty clear that we shouldn't be using the Hong Kong and Macau flags, not least because they are unfamiliar to most readers. You need good reasons to go against the Manual of Style and you haven't presented any. |
|
|
::This ''is'' an infobox. There are specific guidelines for this situation. Flags do not visually simplify: you are adding visual clutter. The Manual of Style explicitly explains this. The Manual of Style is a considered document that has been developed over many years. We should give it more weight than the views of one editor. ] (]) 16:09, 24 January 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Just look at the many lists of countries there are on Misplaced Pages. They do indeed use the flags in most cases. It makes it a lot clearer. This case is not any different. --] (]) 18:05, 24 January 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
: <p>I'm not sure how much discussion took place in the other articles, but I'd like to note that the MOS is not strictly followed across all articles regarding diseases, and if following the MOS really should be followed, then there is some work ahead.</p><p>The following use flags:</p><p>* https://en.wikipedia.org/Polio_eradication#2016</p><p>* https://en.wikipedia.org/2015%E2%80%9316_Zika_virus_epidemic#Epidemiology</p><p>* https://en.wikipedia.org/Kivu_Ebola_epidemic</p><p>The following do not use flags:</p><p></p><p>* https://en.wikipedia.org/Severe_acute_respiratory_syndrome#History</p><p>* https://en.wikipedia.org/Western_African_Ebola_virus_epidemic</p><p>An oddball is this article which features infoboxes with and without flags</p><p>* https://en.wikipedia.org/2009_flu_pandemic_by_country</p><p>The 2009 flu article which serves as a summary has no country-specific infobox but has continent/region-ish infobox. Since no continent other than EU (which also doesn't really cover all of Europe, nor is all of EU representing only Europe) has a real flag obviously it has no flags.</p><p>I'd like to note that MOS:FLAGRELEVANCE talks about political sensitivity, and is also used as part of WP:NPOV. However, there is no specific policy or discussion on MOS on health-related issues. Of note, Taiwan remains a politically sensitive topic but this has not been relevant thus far.</p><p>Personally I think that flags are not 'clutter.' I can agree with WP's need of NPOV, but from a design perspective icons are much more universal and are shorter than names. Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwllllantysiliogogogoch should represented with a flag if it has one. Real examples with similar sounding names include Australia and Austria, Togo and Tonga, Sweden and Switzerland, Slovakia and Slovenia. The flags refer to regions in a much quicker way than names especially so for Austria in Europe and Australia by itself or Oceania. ] (]) 18:55, 24 January 2020 (UTC)</p> |
|
|
|
|
|
== Semi-protected edit request on 24 January 2020 - Two suspected cases in India== |
|
|
|
|
|
{{edit semi-protected|2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak|answered=yes}} |
|
|
On 25 January 2019, two individuals returning from China were placed under quarantine in Mumbai. |
|
|
|
|
|
Here is the to support the updated information. ] (]) 13:48, 24 January 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
:This information has been put in by someone. ] (]) 22:18, 24 January 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Semi-protected edit request on 24 January 2020 - Case in Belo Horizonte, Brazil dismissed == |
|
|
|
|
|
{{Edit semi-protected|answered=yes}} |
|
|
|
|
|
The person from Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais state in Brazil that had travelled to Shanghai is no longer at suspicion. That section has to be edited out. |
|
|
|
|
|
https://www.em.com.br/app/noticia/gerais/2020/01/23/interna_gerais,1116451/ses-mg-descarta-caso-coronavirus-em-protocolo-do-ministerio-da-saude.shtml |
|
|
|
|
|
https://saude.estadao.com.br/noticias/geral,mg-investiga-caso-suspeito-de-coronavirus-chines-em-belo-horizonte,70003168598 <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 13:53, 24 January 2020 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
:These changes were introduced in the revision as of 14:26, 24 January 2020. ] (]) 22:17, 24 January 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Finland coronavirus case == |
|
|
|
|
|
two people are suspected to have corona-virus in Finland. <ref>https://www.dr.dk/nyheder/udland/personer-mistaenkes-coronavirus-i-finland</ref> danish article.] (]) 14:42, 24 January 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
: The tests were negative. <ref>https://svenska.yle.fi/artikel/2020/01/24/turisterna-i-ivalo-i-lappland-bar-inte-coronavirus-karantanen-havd</ref> --] (]) 19:20, 24 January 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
{{reflist-talk}} |
|
|
|
|
|
== Fatality rate == |
|
|
|
|
|
I guess we don't know, but any sources with prelim est? -- ]] 14:44, 24 January 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
* '''Comment''' 2–3% based on current available stats of 900+ confirmed cases vs 26 deaths. Could be a quick entry in the summary table to save mental calc. ] (]) 20:34, 24 January 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== The first Turkey carona case == |
|
|
|
|
|
https://www.ntv.com.tr/turkiye/cinli-hasta-ulkesine-gonderildi,3xSDZb8Aa0SQLthh_iBlAQ ] (]) 15:42, 24 January 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
* '''Not clinically confirmed?''' Just mentions of suspected patient being sent back to China but there's no clinical confirmation. ] (]) 20:42, 24 January 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== US Suspected Cases == |
|
|
|
|
|
We need to update the US suspected cases to contain the following. New here and can't edit the page myself at this moment. |
|
|
|
|
|
US health officials are currently monitoring 63 other potential cases within the US. The cases currently being monitored in the U.S. stretch across 22 different states, including the first patient in Washington state and the new case in Illinois, Dr. Nancy Messonnier, the director of the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, told reporters on a conference call hosted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on Friday. |
|
|
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/01/24/cdc-confirms-second-us-case-of-coronavirus-chicago-resident-diagnosed.html <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 16:29, 24 January 2020 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
:{{done}} - Thanks, I've edited and put this in. |→ ]] |
|
|
|
|
|
== Semi-protected edit request on 24 January 2020 == |
|
|
|
|
|
{{edit semi-protected|2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak|answered=yes}} |
|
|
I have to add a country to the country list. ] (]) 19:52, 24 January 2020 (UTC)] ] (]) 19:52, 24 January 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
:] '''Not done:''' it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a ] if appropriate.<!-- Template:ESp --> ] 21:30, 24 January 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Finland shouldn't be in the "suspected" category of countries == |
|
|
|
|
|
Now that the only 2 cases in Finland were confirmed negative I don't think Finland deserves to be in the "suspected" category and it should be moved somewhere else. --] (]) 20:27, 24 January 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Finland removed. ] (]) 20:41, 24 January 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I agree that it should've been removed, but I think it should be moved somewhere else because of it's importance. --] (]) 20:44, 24 January 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
:Second that, maybe a we need a new category for cases like this? ] (]) 21:00, 24 January 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
: I agree. Is there any precedence for this in a previous article? --] (]) 21:10, 24 January 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
: Here is the article about the negative tests, if that's what you're looking for? I suspect there will be more similiar cases gradually. --] (]) 21:33, 24 January 2020 (UTC)<ref>https://yle.fi/uutiset/osasto/news/tests_dispel_coronavirus_fears_in_finland/11174109</ref> |
|
|
|
|
|
== More suspected US cases == |
|
|
|
|
|
4 under investigation in NYC for Coronavirus. https://www.timesunion.com/news/article/NY-reports-4-people-under-investigation-for-new-15001917.php |
|
|
|
|
|
3 people in michigan being tested. https://www.fox2detroit.com/news/state-sends-three-possible-cases-of-coronavirus-in-se-michigan-to-cdc-for-testing |
|
|
|
|
|
These can be added to US suspected. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 20:33, 24 January 2020 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
I agree, but adding every individual case may become harder if the number of cases keeps increasing as it is right now. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 21:06, 24 January 2020 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
== Fixing grammar == |
|
|
Can someone change word from this sentence: "Both passengers had '''traveled''' through Schiphol Airport on their way to France." to "Both passengers had '''travelled''' through Schiphol Airport on their way to France." I request to reword "] in the ] and ] and ] in Australia were also reported as popular destinations for people '''traveling''' from Wuhan." to "] in the ] and ] and ] in Australia were also reported as popular destinations for people '''travelling''' from Wuhan." <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 21:33, 24 January 2020 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
== Semi-protected edit request on 24 January 2020 == |
|
|
|
|
|
{{edit semi-protected|2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak|answered=yes}} |
|
|
Please change, in the section "Confirmed cases, France", the current text "Both passengers had traveled through Schiphol Airport on their way to France." to "The passenger to Bordeaux said he had recently been in the Netherlands and Wuhan - from the context it seems he traveled back via the Netherlands." The originally cited source merely speculates that this passenger might have been travelling via Schiphol Airport. A better source to cite is the SOS doctors report on <ref>https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=468734604034408&set=a.269066014001269&type=3&theater</ref> which reads "A doctor from SOS Doctors Bordeaux, at the consultation centre, receives a patient for fever and cough. At the beginning of the exam, the doctor asks the patient if he has traveled recently. He says he came from the Netherlands but reports that he came from China. Immediately the doctor asks him to indicate whether he has stayed or has been in contact with people from wuhan province. The answer is positive." Regarding the other (Paris) passenger, there is no indication for any travel through the Netherlands. ] (]) 21:39, 24 January 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
:I have removed the sentence. It is no longer supported by the source anyway. ] (]) 00:21, 25 January 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== We should add a warning for viewers that Chinese cases are likely being underreported == |
|
|
|
|
|
Chinese cases have likely been underreported by both not testing patients for the virus and classifying them as "severe pneumonia"<ref></ref> and by turning away potential virus patients due to overcrowding<ref></ref>. However, I think we should keep the Chinese statistics alongside an asterisks since no WHO estimates are available yet. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 21:42, 24 January 2020 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
== Semi-protected edit request on 24 January 2020 == |
|
|
|
|
|
{{edit semi-protected|2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak|answered=no}} |
|
|
Add hyperlinks to the countries that have been infected. ] (]) 21:59, 24 January 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== United States Paragraph about prevention should be moved to the prevention section from the confirmed cases section == |
|
|
|
|
|
The paragraph "Between 60,000 and 65,000 people travel from Wuhan to the United States every year, with January being a peak. At San Francisco International Airport, Los Angeles International Airport, and John F. Kennedy International Airport in New York City, arriving passengers began to be screened for symptoms of the virus ahead of the Chinese New Year peak travel season. As the number of cases started to increase, O'Hare International Airport in Chicago and Hartsfield–Jackson Atlanta International Airport have also started screening arriving passengers." should be moved from the "confirmed cases" section to the "prevention" section, since it is related to prevention rather than detailing cases.--] (]) 22:00, 24 January 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Semi-protected edit request on 24 January 2020 == |
|
|
|
|
|
{{edit semi-protected|2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak|answered=yes}} |
|
|
Change France in the chart from 2 to 3 |
|
|
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2020/jan/24/french-cases-show-coronavirus-has-reached-europe ] (]) 22:33, 24 January 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
:It has been updated. ] (]) 00:15, 25 January 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Change death toll in China == |
|
|
In French wiki, the death toll of the virus in China hits 41, can someone in English also edited it, I found from CBS News. |
|
|
<!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 23:01, 24 January 2020 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
New sources claim 1287 cases https://www.nhc.gov.cn/xcs/yqfkdt/202001/a7cf0437d1324aed9cc1b890b8ee29e6.shtml |
|
|
|
|
|
== Potential cases in Zimbabwe == |
|
|
|
|
|
Zimbabwe has isolated 22 people from Wuhan for potential Coronavirus. https://www.herald.co.zw/22-under-monitoring-for-coronavirus/ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
==Current consensus==<!-- This header must be on this page, not the subpage, to support mobile users. --> |
|
However, I could only find one reputable source for this and it provided little information. I'm unsure on whether I should add this to "suspected" right now or wait for more information. --] (]) 23:51, 24 January 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
{{/Current consensus}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== The US Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic investigation == |
|
== RfC on map == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
After a 2-year investigation, the US Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic has confirmed what the conspiracy theorists determined FIVE years ago: EVERYTHING about the COVID pandemic was fraudulent. |
|
{{rfc|sci|rfcid=47035D3}} |
|
|
|
https://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/12.04.2024-SSCP-FINAL-REPORT.pdf ] (]) 06:44, 4 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
Per discussions above (] and ]), I have replaced the map of "Greater China" with one of Mainland China, and my edit got reverted. Let me explain why I think a Mainland China map is more appropriate here: |
|
|
* "Mainland China" is a clearly defined and commonly used term, while "]" is a vaguely defined and a less commonly used one, and not without disputes. |
|
|
* "Mainland China" is itself in the table of confirmed cases, so a Mainland China map can be seen as a breakdown by first-level administrative divisions. "Greater China", as its articles suggests, ''is an informal term used to refer a geographic area that shares'' commercial and cultural ''ties dominated by Han Chinese''. A ''commercial and cultural'' concept is not quite relevant to an article concerning a epidemic. |
|
|
* If the rationale to use "Greater China" over "Mainland China" is because Taiwan is infected too, then there is no reason to exclude South Korea, Thailand and Vietnam since those countries report confirmed cases too. It would be good to have a map that shows the first-level administrative divisions of the respective countries so that we are comparing apples to apples, i.e. Incheon, South Korea: 2 compared with to Hubei, China: 1096. |
|
|
] kept reverting my edit without ANY explanation, so I am requesting a Request for comment to avoid embroiling myself in an unwanted edit war. IMHO a Mainland China map is clearly more relevant to the ongoing epidemic outbreak. |
|
|
<gallery> |
|
|
File:2019-nCoV cases in Greater China.svg |
|
|
File:2019-nCoV cases in Mainland China.svg |
|
|
</gallery>--] (]) |
|
|
:], you were editing without any consensus. That discussion was originally started by a sockpuppet account which was then banned, so not many people took it seriously to begin with however you did not attempt to reach any consensus whatsoever. These reasons that you are giving would be a lot more appropriate for the original discussion section rather than here. Plus I’m not sure why you keep saying i was reverting without explanation as I clearly have a very specific explanation as to why your edits were reverted. Stop edit warring to POV push and reach consensus. --] (]) 00:55, 25 January 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:Just political silliness, of no relevance to Misplaced Pages (until/unless some decent sources analyse it). ] (]) 07:29, 4 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::The existence of this report is in fact relevant to WP, and the analyzation of the findings of it are in the report itself. Might want to give it a read. Past that - any further commentary regarding it in here violates ] ] <b style="color:red">•</b> ] ] <b style="color:red">•</b> 14:59, 4 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::We have plenty of high-quality sources on the lab leak nonsense. This is more of the nonsense. In time the ] might cover it. ] (]) 15:12, 4 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:And why would we care about the claims of ignorant politicians? They are are not experts on the topic, they have no reputation for ], and they have a tendency to make self-serving claims. ] (]) 08:44, 4 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:, but you have to jump to conclusions that this report PROVES that EVERYTHING "THEY" were LYING about. Right? IP from Russia. ] (]) 15:23, 4 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:A substantial report, not one reasonably considered silly or nonsense, that's for sure! CNN, ABC, Al Jazeera have articles but I'm mobile right now. ] (]) 16:25, 4 December 2024 (UTC) |
Include subsections covering the domestic responses of Italy, China, Iran, the United States, and South Korea. Do not include individual subsections for France, Germany, the Netherlands, Australia and Japan. (RfC March 2020) Include a short subsection on Sweden focusing on the policy controversy. (May 2020)
Subsequently overturned by editing and recognized as obsolete. (Supersedes #1. The first several sentences of the lead section's second paragraph should state The virus is mainly spread during close contact and by small droplets produced when those infected cough, sneeze or talk. These droplets may also be produced during breathing; however, they rapidly fall to the ground or surfaces and are not generally spread through the air over large distances. People may also become infected by touching a contaminated surface and then their face. The virus can survive on surfaces for up to 72 hours. Coronavirus is most contagious during the first three days after onset of symptoms, although spread may be possible before symptoms appear and in later stages of the disease.
(April 2020)
level-4 vital article is rated GA-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
.svg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=link}