Wikipedia talk:WikiProject COVID-19/Archive 16

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

New study out in The Lancet regarding COVID-19 vaccine booster dose

• Munro, Alasdair P S; Janani, Leila; Cornelius, Victoria; Aley, Parvinder K; Babbage, Gavin; et al. (December 2021). "Safety and immunogenicity of seven COVID-19 vaccines as a third dose (booster) following two doses of ChAdOx1 nCov-19 or BNT162b2 in the UK (COV-BOOST): a blinded, multicentre, randomised, controlled, phase 2 trial". The Lancet: S0140673621027173. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(21)02717-3.

Thanks 2402:3A80:6E8:2C90:59DA:42FC:1E3D:B10E (talk) 10:05, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Primary source, so not reliable per WP:MEDRS for medical content. Alexbrn (talk) 10:20, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

@Alexbrn: But this article is from the prestigious journal The Lancet and looks it has been accepted after a peer-review only. 2402:3A80:6E8:2C90:59DA:42FC:1E3D:B10E (talk) 10:57, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

If you don't want to read MEDRS, maybe WP:MEDFAQ#Sourcing would be quicker. OTOH, given the likely push for inclusion I wouldn't object to something like "A clinical trial reported in December 2021 that there were no safety concerns with a third "booster" vaccine following double vaccination with the Oxford–AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine or the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine". Alexbrn (talk) 12:06, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Usefuless of medical cases charts

Are those kinds of templates still useful? Most of those templates have become severely outdated. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 02:59, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

UK maps

Could somebody please update the maps for COVID-19 pandemic in the United Kingdom? I think maps are more neutral than the other images on the page and so should remain but they are now almost a year out of date. --Arcahaeoindris (talk) 12:31, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Embolic and thrombotic events after COVID-19 vaccination#Requested move 18 December 2021

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Embolic and thrombotic events after COVID-19 vaccination#Requested move 18 December 2021 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:45, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Australia numbers all wrong

The box in COVID-19_pandemic_in_Australia#Timeline is all wrong. It claims that we've had about 185,000 total cases, including about 280 in the last two weeks. But according to its source, we've had almost 240,000 total cases, including more than 1,000 per day in the last several months. 122.150.71.249 (talk) 20:50, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Circling back on Dr. Vin Gupta AfC

Dear Colleagues,

Im hopeful for your re-review of Dr. Vin Gupta -- NBC News's COVID-19 analyst -- and a critical care pulmonologist by training. He continues to be on primetime cable TV nonstop for over the past 2 years and feel like there's a clear void on wikipedia that can provide people relevant background info on him -- "Vin Gupta wikipedia" is a frequent search term.

Given the state of the pandemic, hopeful you can please help me bring this over the top. Thank you,

CG.

https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Draft:Vin_Gupta — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caroline grossman23 (talk • contribs) 05:36, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

3-way merge proposal being drafted at Draft:Chinese government response to COVID-19

A merge proposal is in the process of being drafted that may interest watchers of this talk page. For details please see Draft talk:Chinese government response to COVID-19 § About this article ––FormalDude ^talk 08:06, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

"Omicron wave appears milder"

The BBC is reporting today on a number of studies that suggest that Omicron infection may result in a milder illness (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-59758784). I wanted to include mention of this in History of the COVID-19 pandemic in the United Kingdom, as it adds additional information to the impact of our current wave of omicron-driven cases. However it occurs to me that discussion of variant potency might count as biomedical claims, and I'm not sure which if any of the BBC's source studies, or their article itself, would be acceptable under WP:MEDRS. I feel like there's probably something that can be included here - at the very least, it is a fact that the national press is reporting this - but I'd appreciate guidance on the wording/sourcing if possible. BlackholeWA (talk) 21:50, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

I think it's going to need more than the preliminary reports to confirm it. The "appears" milder may turn out not to be. I'd keep that on your short list of things to add to the article if it pans out to be accurate imo. MartinezMD (talk) 22:14, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Can't really trust newsorgs nor single studies for biomedical information. Best avoided. Need to wait for organizations like NHS or the WHO to release a statement about it, or for review articles in medical journals to be published. Better to lag behind a bit than to be wrong. –Novem Linguae (talk) 15:06, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Agree with everyone above. This is way too big for anything other than an impeccable source. Alexbrn (talk) 15:15, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

@MartinezMD, Novem Linguae, and Alexbrn: - the UK government has started commenting on these reports about the "milder" wave in their messaging, and the UKHSA has apparently released a report about the matter (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-59769969). This is clearly becoming a pretty large part of the narrative that needs to be properly addressed in the article in some way - and another user has already inserted mention of it, although it's poorly spelled and needs refactoring. Would appreciate insight on how to proceed, whether to merely neutrally state what is being said by the authorities about the matter without weighing in on the facts of it, or whether the new UKHSA report is a satisfactory secondary source. BlackholeWA (talk) 19:31, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

If any policymakers say that these reports are influencing their decisions, one could say "HM Government did ___, based on reports that the omicron variant tended to be milder". But that would only fit in a history-of-responses section, not in a section reporting on the virus itself. 122.150.71.249 (talk) 19:58, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Broadly agreed, we could mention where action was taken based on a perception of lower mortality. Especially if there's a national health agency explicitly citing it (how does UKHSA compare to NHS? are they notable for such statements?). Though wikivoice discussions of relative mortality and severity of symptoms is clearly BMI requiring MEDRS. Bakkster Man (talk) 02:17, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

I would be okay with something to the effect of "Based on preliminary reports that the omicron strain may be less severe, X government did Y". This would be factual and not make a medical assertion. MartinezMD (talk) 02:20, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

I like the "based on preliminary reports" wording for the same reasons. Good call. Bakkster Man (talk) 02:51, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

AfC for Dr. Vin Gupta, NBC News/MSNBC COVID-19/Medical Analyst (hoping for review)

Colleagues,

Ive been working to publish an AfC for Dr. Vin Gupta, who is a frequent medical analyst for NBC News and MSNBC --- viewers here in the US of those channels reliably see him daily for the last 2+ years. They should know his background, since he primarily provides COVID-19 analysis.

I've received multiple points of feedback and several editors have said that he passes notability guidelines. Ive significantly pared back the AfC as well and just hoping to bring this over the finish line. Hopeful for help? Thank you,

CG — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caroline grossman23 (talk • contribs) 17:30, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

More work needed, but I've moved the page to Vin Gupta (pulmonologist). ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:33, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Herman Cain Award

Resolved

FYI, Herman Cain Award at AfD if you're interesting in participating. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:45, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:COVID-19 pandemic in Hubei#Requested move 23 December 2021

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:COVID-19 pandemic in Hubei#Requested move 23 December 2021 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Megan B.... ^{It’s all coming to me} till the end of time 12:51, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Zero Covid

In a GA review, one of the copyedit issues which arose was whether to link the term "Zero Covid".

This search found 29 mentions of the term, and it seemed to me that "Zero Covid" or "Zero Covid strategies" might be a suitable topic for a standalone article, or at least a section in some other article.

A JSTOR search for "Zero Covid" gives 11 hits. Some of those about zero Covid cases rather a zero Covid policy/strategy/goal, but there may be something in the rest.

This is not my field, and I have no agenda other than noting a possible omission. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:21, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

@BrownHairedGirl. Good idea. Looks like this topic passes GNG, so I went ahead and created the article Zero-COVID just now. Thanks for the tip. –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:00, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, @Novem Linguae. That looks like a useful start. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:06, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

B.1.640.2

Moved to Talk:Variants of SARS-CoV-2 § New variant detected in France (B.1.640.2)

I moved your question to the above talk page, to increase its chances of getting put into the correct article, Variants of SARS-CoV-2. –Novem Linguae (talk) 18:47, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

International comparisons in country lead sections

Is there any consensus for mentioning international comparisons in country lead sections? An editor is disputing the inclusion of this information in the lead section of Covid UK, although I have disagreed with this on the basis that this is a neutral way of opening an article where the extent of the outbreak has been considerable, and is used in Covid USA, Covid India, Covid Brazil, Covid Russia, Covid Malaysia and many others, and has not been disputed. Any thoughts? Also Feel free to join the Talk:COVID-19 pandemic in the United Kingdom#International comparisons. Arcahaeoindris (talk) 14:18, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

January 29: COVID-19 Pandemic in the United States Edit-a-thon / Translate-a-thon - Online via Zoom

COVID-19 Pandemic in the United States Edit-a-thon / Translate-a-thon (January 29, 2022)

Hello WikiProject COVID-19 page readers! You are invited to a free online event, open to the public, via Zoom on Saturday - January 29th, 2022, 1pm-3pm E.S.T. We will be focusing our edits on the ongoing Coronavirus pandemic. Click the event page to read more. This event is hosted by Sure We Can, a recycling and community center in Brooklyn. This is the 4th Covid-focused Edit-a-thon that Sure We Can has hosted. Click here to see the last three COVID-19 focused edit-a-thons: Sept 6th, 2020 & Nov 21, 2020 & Feb 6th, 2021. In past events, we translated the COVID-19 pandemic in New York City article into Yoruba, Malagasy, Hebrew, Swahili, Tagalog, Korean, Russian, Japanese, Portuguese, Polish, Greek, Haitian Creole, and wrote the COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in the United States article. We would love for you to join us. All experience levels welcome. COVID-19 Pandemic in the United States Edit-a-thon / Translate-a-thon Saturday January 29, 1PM - 3PM E.S.T (18:00 - 20:00 UTC)

--Wil540 art (talk) 18:28, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

COVIDtests.gov

The US government has launched COVIDtests.gov, a website that Americans will be able to get free rapid antigen tests through starting next week. A Google search reveals extensive coverage, leading me to believe it passes notability guidelines, and so I've written up a stub article. I'm making note of that here in case anyone wants to add more to it. I've been working on it for the last hour or so and I'm gonna take a break. Tisnec (talk) 00:16, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on animals#Requested move 14 January 2022

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on animals#Requested move 14 January 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 03:38, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Requesting some article expansion help

Requesting your visit and help expand article Draft:Humor during the COVID-19 pandemic

Thanks,

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 04:32, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Project N95

I recently created a draft for Project N95, an American nonprofit website which sells N95 masks and tests for an affordable price. Any help would be appreciated. Thriley (talk) 23:06, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Deltacron retarget to Leondios G. Kostrikis#In the media ?

I have written an article about the scientist Leondios G. Kostrikis, mainly intended to describe the scientist who said to have found the mix-variant sometimes named "deltacron". Afterwards, i saw that the redirect already was written. The redirect targets to the omicron variant. It does not explain to the readers, why they are redirected there. The current target article does not say anything about that. In Talk:Deltacron, i explained why i want to retarget this redirect. I notified / pinged the redirect's author from there. I am a native speaker of German, i do not know much about the en wiki policies, guidelines, uses and habits. May i edit the retarget? However, the article Leondios G. Kostrikis may benefit from Your help, especially if you know quality newspaper sources about that subject in English language. See Talk:Leondios G. Kostrikis. Thank you in advance. --Himbeerbläuling (talk) 09:17, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Living with COVID-19

Any chance someone with more free time than I have could clean up Living with COVID-19? I think it's supposed to be about covid's hypothetical endemic phase when the pandemic ends, but the way it's written is confusing, and it might need to be moved to a page with a clearer title, i.e. "endemic COVID-19". Tisnec (talk) 18:53, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Delete?

Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/United States medical cases by state has been blanked. Should the page be deleted? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 13:52, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Might be a good candidate for WP:PROD WP:TFD. I do like the idea of moving away from detailed stats tracking, per WP:NOTSTATS. Cc Jroberson108. –Novem Linguae (talk) 17:29, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Another Believer and Novem Linguae: I think that it is already time to stop editing all of the templates that are listed here because most of those templates have already become useless. Can they simply be marked as historical or do they need to undergo the usual deletion process? LSGH (talk) (contributions) 12:36, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Polish government reviews of COVID drugs

FYI there is a webpage that has a number of metaanalyses on potential COVID drugs. One drawback: all of these are in Polish and there is no English translation, but otherwise should be useful. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 01:52, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

More eyes need at Zero-COVID article

If anyone is interested we are looking for more input. Talk:Zero-COVID#Delete section "Views on the zero-COVID strategy"?..... simply looking for more experience editors to take part and try to understand what's the POV problem if any.Moxy- 22:47, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Adding SureWeCan COVID19 Task Force to Task Force list

Hello WikiProject COVID-19, I'd like to add the SureWeCan COVID19 Task Force to the Task force list. The Sure We Can COVID19 Task Force has focused on the COVID19 Pandemic in New York City, hosting edit-a-thons with support from Wikimedia New York City. What is the process behind adding a Task Force to the list? Do I need a consensus? --Wil540 art (talk) 23:05, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Chinese government response to COVID-19 has an RFC

Chinese government response to COVID-19 has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 13:30, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

The Core Contest

WP:The Core Contest will take place from April 15 to May 31 this year, in its tenth iteration. It's an exciting contest, running over a period of six weeks, with £250 of prize money for the core articles that are most improved. It would be great if we could get participants to improve topics related to COVID-19. I noticed that none of the top-importance or high-importance articles here have reached WP:GA level yet, so there should be plenty of scope for improvement. Femke (talk) 15:26, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Wuhan flu

The little dab page at Wuhan flu could do with more eyes on it. There is disagreement on whether the term "Wuhan flu" is neutral. – Uanfala (talk) 23:33, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Future of localized COVID-19 articles

Based on a discussion [1] on the local article COVID-19 pandemic in Ontario - which has not seen updates due to lack of general interest, have we begun a discussion on how these local COVID-19 articles should exist in the future? For much of the pandemic they were mainly focused on lockdowns, daily numbers, etc and then moved to movement on vaccination. Given there's a general lack of interest by the public and editors - where should these articles head to? How should they be treated for future readers? CaffeinAddict (talk) 01:49, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

There's probably a bit of a WP:10YEARTEST to be done here, and we're probably at a reasonable time to start thinking about this. My gut feel is that the simplest is probably rolling local pages up to the first level that meets that test. While some cities may be justified in having their own article (NYC, for instance), I'd expect for the most part the long-term notable topic will be national articles. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:58, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

And now we have also timeframe articles like 2019–2020 COVID-19 outbreak in mainland China. I'm not especially opposed to this particular page, but I don't think a new wave is a reason enough for a new page. Discussion is here. LondonIP (talk) 22:55, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

I know that COVID-19 pandemic in British Columbia is facing similar issues. There isn't much to do these days besides update statistics which are weekly now (and I've been feeling a little under the weather to do that), but I've managed to screencap the BC dashboard to do so at a later time. Editors are definitely tired of keeping the pages updated. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:22, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

User script to detect unreliable sources

Main page: User:Headbomb/unreliable

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.

It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Notable COVID-19 cases

Just had a question. Until 1 May 2022, most of the Timeline of the COVID-19 pandemic articles included reports of public figures such as politicians, sportspersons, and celebrities testing positive. However, following an edit war involving User:S201050066, other users working on these articles take the view that these are too trivial for global-related articles. I just wanted to clarify if there is a policy stating that we should not include reports of public figures testing positive or dying from COVID-19. Andykatib 12:53, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Dying yes, positive no, in my opinion. Dronebogus (talk) 21:26, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Particularly post-Omicron, where it seems a significant majority of people have been infected, the difference between a notable case and not is potentially just getting tested and disclosing the results. A timeline article may include notable cases at particular times (sitting government leaders, attention around celebrity cases early in the pandemic, etc), but as a bare list it seems trivial. Bakkster Man (talk) 21:31, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Upon some self-reflection I think that some public figures contracting the disease might be noteworthy of being put in the timeline pages. However, I think it should be limited to figures that have an international influence, like heads of nations. Mentioning an athlete or a singer getting COVID at this point in time seems too general. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:42, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

• As usual, the test for notability on Wikipedia is having some good sources discussing the case. People getting infecting is routine and not a "notable case". A truly notable case might be something like PMID:32618839. Alexbrn (talk) 09:39, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

COVID-19 pandemic in Hong Kong question at talk

I posted a question about a hatnote but it does not look like there are active editors watching the article so would appreciate if anyone here can take a look. S0091 (talk) 18:56, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

From the WikiProject desk at The Signpost

1.  –
2.  –
3.  –
4.  –

Going forward, each participant receives a wikilink to the interview workspace questions about the project's work, problems and achievements.

Hey y'all! Would y'all be down to be interviewed for the next Signpost issue? Would be cool to have some kind of reflection over y'all's work in the two very active years since the March 2020 interview. — Ixtal ⁂ (talk) 18:40, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Pinging interviewees from last time: @Tenryuu, Bait30, Kencf0618, Username6892, MarioGom, Magna19, Gtoffoletto, Bondegezou, and Liz. — Ixtal ⁂ (talk) 10:01, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

I haven't really been active on this project since 2020 so I do not think I should participate in this interview. Username6892 11:48, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

I haven't been active since mid 2020 or so either. MarioGom (talk) 15:34, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

I haven't been active here either for a long while either, but if that doesn't matter, I would be willing to help out with the interview.  Bait30  ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 18:12, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

I've definitely worked less on COVID-19 related pages than at the start of the pandemic, and my participation in the project now is mostly limited to one page. I'd be willing to be interviewed if that isn't a dealbreaker. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:25, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Bait30 and Tenryuu I'd love to interview you, so feel free to join :) Once the others answer I'll send the link to the interview page here and y'all can add your answers. — Ixtal ⁂ (talk) 07:30, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

@Ixtal: I guess it's the same for me as the others. I occasionally pop in to check on some of the main pages etc. in case of big changes but nothing super active as in the initial phases. Let me know if I can be helpful! -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 17:22, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

@Gtoffoletto, Tenryuu, Bait30, Kencf0618, and Bondegezou: feel free to add your answers to Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/WikiProject report. If Liz and Magna19 read this before publication they can also add their comments. MarioGom you did not explicitly decline to participate but I assume you do not wish to do so, but if that changes you can edit the page if you wish to. — Ixtal ⁂ (talk) 23:11, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

BTW make your answers as short or as long as you wish. If any need to be trimmed I'll inform you well in advance, but don't hesitate to get your full thoughts on the questions out there :) — Ixtal ⁂ (talk) 23:12, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

@Tenryuu, Bait30, and Bondegezou: there are 11 days to publication. Please add your answers to the interview page linked above :) The current report is quite short so we probably won't run it without additional input from other project members. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 14:26, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

@Ixtal: Apologies, this slipped my mind. I've added my answers. Cheers! —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:55, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes. kencf0618 (talk)

@Ixtal: Done! thanks -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 19:49, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Living with COVID-19#Requested move 18 May 2022

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Living with COVID-19#Requested move 18 May 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:49, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Infobox maps at COVID-19 pandemic in Tennessee haven't been updated since February & March 2021

This is basically a duplicate of my June 10th post to Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Map workshop in Request: Update 2021 COVID maps at COVID-19 pandemic in Tennessee. I did also post a request on the talk page of one of the original map creators but that editor hasn't edited Wikipedia since May.

So. Can someone please please PLEASE update the following COVID-19 maps:

• File:COVID-19 Cases in Tennessee by counties.svg
• File:Tennessee COVID-19 Deaths.svg
• File:COVID-19 rolling 14day Prevalence in Tennessee by county.svg
• File:COVID-19 Prevalence in Tennessee by county.svg

The most recent information can be found at the following sources:

• Johns Hopkins University - June 9, 2022 info/webarchived URL
• Johns Hopkins University - rolling COVID stats for Tennessee, updated weekly
• State of Tennessee - General TN Stats

At this time, the State of TN stats seem to be updated weekly, BUT if possible check & confirm with other sources before using.

• State of Tennessee - Testing Rates maps
• State of Tennessee - County Data Snapshots
• State of Tennessee - Epidemiology and Surveillance Data

Thanks in advance, Shearonink (talk) 23:02, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Well. I did what had to be done and what I could do.

• I moved the one map into the article's timeline.
• I had to delete the other maps. They were maps based on rolling data and hosted completely on Commons and used complicated syntax that was beyond me and so I had to delete them. Besides, since the infobox is supposed to summarize an article's important points and I couldn't update the data-maps it had to be done. Shearonink (talk) 02:48, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Lab leak consensus

Considering the WHO's recent stance regarding the lab leak, do we need another consensus to decide on whether or not to feature info about the lab leak possibility in articles such as Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 and COVID-19 pandemic? X-Editor (talk) 04:12, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Full discussion here. The gist of it appears to be "newspapers making much ado about nothing in matters where science and politics are mixed, while the actual report is not that dramatically different", IMHO. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:40, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Agreed regarding there not be a huge change in the WHO's investigatory position. It's definitely worth updating our wording with this latest report, but I expect it'll be a much more subtle change than the previous WHO report. Bakkster Man (talk) 11:07, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

I support updating our coverage to include more lab leak for NPOV and we can do another RFC if necessary. Consensus changes over time. Wikipedia follows consensus and this position is now far from FRINGE (which was used to exclude it before). Jtbobwaysf (talk) 02:30, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Actually I don't think much has changed at all in scientific or academic circles. No reliable peer-reviewed review article published in topic-relevant journals has considered the lab leak theory to be likely or substantiated in any meaningful way. It appears there is, recently, more prominent posturing from the small minority of strongly-opinionated theorists who have always considered it likely.

If the scientific and academic consensuses have not changed, I do not see why Wikipedia's should. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 12:16, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes, and if anything the new SAGO (preliminary) report is even more circumspect than the previous WHO one. It talks about leaks and biosafety more in the abstract and does not directly address the likelihood of it for SARS-CoV-2, so far as I can see. On the other hand, it is still bullish about the natural zoonosis route. Alexbrn (talk) 12:32, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm a bit concerned that 'a lab escape was mentioned again' is being portrayed as 'the lab leak scenario must be more likely'. I read it more as SAGO putting the details behind the previously nebulous statements by both the first origins report and the WHO Director General that 'more studies would be required'. SAGO just defined exactly which studies and information would be required to get that more definitive answer. Obviously the text needs an update with this additional detail, but the same old WP:BATTLEGROUND is opening back up and I'm not looking forward to that. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:27, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

The SAGO report says nothing new on lab leak results, but it does explicitely, unambiguously and almost-unanimously call for investigations on lab leaks in general. If the SAGO protocols were applied in January 2020 in Wuhan, and Chinese officials were hiding something, it would have come to the light by sheer peer-pressure. If this were the stock market and a new protocol was enforced to have more transparency on behalf of firms, it would be implicitly understood that the old protocols were insufficient. From reading the SAGO preliminary report I get the message that lab leaks in previous pandemics were under-investigated by authorities, and they are fixing it. Forich (talk) 02:02, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

• I don't believe there is a change in scientific consensus, as there never was one. There does need to be a change of consensus on Wikipedia. Perhaps an RFC on a noticeboard is the way to go. ScrumptiousFood (talk) 17:08, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2#Requested move 21 June 2022

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2#Requested move 21 June 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:03, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

PSA: that RM has just been closed in favor of moving Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 to SARS-Cov-2, overturning the previous consensus of this WikiProject. As such, I have updated Wikipedia talk:WikiProject COVID-19/Current consensus. InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:45, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Point of clarification: It was actually agreed that it would be named SARS-CoV-2, not "SARS-Cov-2". Please, let's be careful with our capitalization since it was such a big argument early on in the pandemic! — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 20:57, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Edit request at COVID-19 pandemic in the United States

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

 Done --mfb (talk) 04:48, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

@David Fuchs: this is a great idea I totally agree... having monthly timelines 28 months in is definitely untenable. We really need to reduce the editing overhead as the number of editors inevitably dwindles. Won't be simple to find a good solution. Probably makes sense to keep the initial period of the pandemic at a high level of detail (2020?) and then consolidate the following periods? {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 13:52, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Have there been any good longer-form pieces on the pandemic that can be used as guidance on how much detail is relevant? While I definitely think consolidating the later stuff entirely is the right call, for the earlier bits perhaps it makes sense to go through each and see which entries were actually germane versus just latest data on caseloads-type stuff—first noticed cases in a new country, global tallies, major vaccine breakthroughs, that sort of thing. One you hack it down, it might make it clearer if you need month-by-month articles or a Covid in 2020, 2021-type article(s) could do it all. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 17:14, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

The monthly articles should obviously stop at this point per WP:NOTNEWS Dronebogus (talk) 17:25, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

As a sample, I went through the March 1 entry of the March 2020 list, and cut out everything that wasn't a first confirmed case or death; in addition I imagine major thresholds (1000/10,000/etc cases/deaths-type numbers), major policy changes by country, etc. would make sense to keep as well. So trimming the lists down to this might give a better idea of what major info there is and what should be collapsed further. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 20:01, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

I'd support a cessation of these articles. Getting a blow-by-blow report each day of arbitrarily chosen nations isn't what I'd call notable. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:25, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Support cessation generally, there are a lot of timelines on COVID articles that could also (eventually) be diminished. SmolBrane (talk) 22:59, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree with the points raised by David Fuchs. There was a lot of interest in COVID-19 cases back in 2020 but interest diminished in 2021 and 2022. I have been doing the Malaysian and New Zealand daily reports. If we do phase out the monthly timeline articles, we could retain the national and sub-national timeline articles such as the Malaysia, New Zealand, and Ontario articles. They may be of significant historical importance for epidemiologists, historians, and other researchers. While NZ and Malaysia still do daily reports, other jurisdictions such as Ontario have shifted to weekly reports with major media outlets ceasing to publish them. Agree that we need to tackle this issue collaboratively. Andykatib 03:21, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

If the concern is losing raw data, I don't think articles are really the place for that—we're not a directory or database, are we're supposed to cover material with summary style. Seems like it'd mostly be a function of graphs (such as {{COVID-19 pandemic data/Canada/Ontario medical cases chart}} and such on Commons where that would fall under our purview. Either way, I'm going going to focus on the main articles and go from there. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 15:13, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Okay, I understand. Have poured a good deal of energy over the past two and a half years into the daily COVID-19 reports for NZ, Malaysia and Ontario. But, I will respect whatever decision we come up with. Guess that there is a time and season for everything and that certain things have to come to an end eventually. On another matter, what should we do about the various continental COVID-19 template articles: eg. Template:COVID-19 cases in Asia, Template:COVID-19 cases in Africa, Template:COVID-19 cases in Europe, Template:COVID-19 cases in Oceania, Template:COVID-19 cases in North America, and Template: COVID-19 cases in South America. Do we still continue updating them or are they to be phased out as well? Andykatib 02:51, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Biographies and recentism

Hi folks,

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

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

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

Disinformation research

There is some research into what different communities are doing to handle disinformation and misinformation: https://diff.wikimedia.org/2022/08/09/help-wikimedia-counter-disinformation/ I thought that the people here might be interested. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 16:28, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

COVID-19 pandemic in Kuwait

At 574,553 bytes, COVID-19 pandemic in Kuwait is the second-largest on Wikipedia. How can it best be reduced, or subdivided? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:48, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

I replied at the article talk page. –Novem Linguae (talk) 02:15, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Videos

I have uploaded and translated these CC videos by the actor Rafael Baronesi where he monologues about the pandemic and its impact (like depression and anxiety). It may be useful to illustrate the Wikipedia: 1, 2 and 3. Cheers, Erick Soares3 (talk) 11:46, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Is the pandemic ending? Should an article be created?

Inviting editors to comment here Talk:COVID-19 pandemic#The bigger issue--the end of the pandemic. I'm not sure that Endemic phase of COVID-19 is up to the task. SmolBrane (talk) 19:55, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Continental templates

Hi there, I noticed that the continental COVID-19 template pages (eg. Template:COVID-19 cases in Asia, Template:COVID-19 cases in Africa, Template:COVID-19 cases in Europe, Template:COVID-19 cases in Oceania, Template:COVID-19 cases in North America, and Template: COVID-19 cases in South America) haven't been updated regularly. For example, the African page hasn't been updated since 14 August 2022. I update the Malaysian figures in Template:COVID-19 cases in Asia daily and the New Zealand figures in Template:COVID-19 cases in Oceania weekly but don't have time to go through the other countries. Do you think we should discontinue these templates if no one is updating them regularly? Andykatib (talk) 01:46, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Excessive stats

I have noticed many articles and templates related to COVID stats have excessive information and need some serious clean up. I just spent some time cutting down this monster (be warned opening it might crash your browzer) which was the most bloated page I had seen in wikipedia. We should not be displaying so much stats per WP:NOTDATABASE. Having intricate daily stats of the last two and half years is unencyclopedic. ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 10:17, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

I agree. The entire COVID-19 topic area is probably going to need condensing once the recentism of it dies down and folks become amenable to it. –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:47, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Usual thing for big stories. We fill up with detailed, up to date statistics, and then the event dies down, English speakers lose interest, and only desultory trimming and consolidation ever gets done. See for example Timeline of the First Libyan Civil War. Jim.henderson (talk) 05:18, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost entry

• Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Single/2022-11-28#Recent_research

• https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=lang_en&id=fGdxEAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA37#v=onepage&q&f=false

---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:14, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Endemic COVID?

There is a merge discussion at

• Talk:Endemic COVID-19#Proposed merge

which may be of interest to member of this WikiProject. Bon courage (talk) 12:23, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

RfC on the 2022 COVID-19 lockdown protests

Feel free to participate at Talk:2022 COVID-19 protests in China#RfC on status of the protests. Firestar464 (talk) 10:26, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Invitation

I started an informal, unofficial contest with Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine about adding citations to articles. As there is some overlap between this group's scope and WPMED's, I invite you all to join us. Just start at https://outreachdashboard.wmflabs.org/courses/Wikipedia/WikiProject_Medicine_reference_campaign_2023?enroll=qyoufwds (or let me know, and I can add you myself). Only refs added to articles tagged by WPMED are counted by the dashboard. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:18, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

GAN: Wikipedia coverage of the COVID-19 pandemic

Wikipedia coverage of the COVID-19 pandemic has been nominated for Good article status (not by me). Article improvements and talk page suggestions are welcome ahead of the review! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:44, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Spillover infection and SARS-CoV-2

An editor wants to remove SARS-CoV-2 from the list of spillover infections. Your participation would be appreciated at the relevant discussion. Thank you. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:24, 22 February 2023 (UTC) — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:25, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:PeduliLindungi#Requested move 2 March 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:PeduliLindungi#Requested move 2 March 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ❯❯❯ Raydann^(Talk) 17:22, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Building Special Projects on Wikipedia: The Covid Case Study

"Building Special Projects on Wikipedia: The Covid Case Study" presented by International Science Council

30 March 2023 | 13:00 – 14:15 UTC | 14:00 – 15:15 CET

• https://council.science/events/building-special-projects-on-wikipedia/

Bluerasberry (talk) 20:48, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Update for Covid-19 Bereaved Families for Justice

Hi there - an article that I created (Covid-19 Bereaved Families for Justice, a British advocacy group) is in need of an update/overhaul re new information. If anyone is interested in this topic area I would greatly appreciate some more eyes on this. 82.23.242.26 (talk) 18:08, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Johns Hopkins closed

Johns Hopkins has stopped tracking data. Will https://ourworldindata.org/coronavirus now be used for everything instead? —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 18:46, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

• @Lights and freedom:. Our World In Data seems like a legitimate source, possibly academic. In the absence of John Hopkins data, we could use that website. Still, we need to prepare for a time when governments, institutions and international organisations cease releasing COVID-19 data. My thoughts. Andykatib 8:40, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

User:S201050066

Hi there, User:S201050066, who was banned in May 2022 for disruptive editing and creating sockpuppet accounts to evade bans, has reached out to me via Facebook Messenger. I have copied his message from Facebook Messenger: Hi Andrew I'm reaching out to say we are sorry for the whole incident last year on April 30th and May 1st 2022 The Ontario and Quebec references on the international timeline pages, Trying to keep led to us being topic banned from covid topics blocked indefinitely with talk page access revoked and site banned On November 8th 2022 and globally locked and now looking back I think it is fare to say that I think the month by month COVID Timeline pages should include non international countries as well as the international countries I think I am ready for a second chance and I think we can do better than we I was last year and I think you can continue with putting the COVID cases in The Ontario COVID pages for 2022 and create a new one for 2023 you could put the cases on the day when the reports come out but you can put the data for hospitalizations on the other have a nice day.

He says that he wants a second chance but still thinks that the COVID-19 for provinces such as Ontario should go in the international timeline pages. He asked if I could put the COVID data for the Ontario timeline pages. User:S20105066 also asked if I could raise his case at Wikipedia:Administrator's Noticeboard. I wanted to get other Wikipedians' advice on this issue. I am aware that the lifting of bans is the prerogative of administrators. I am unsure about how contrite he is. I told him that he needs to show remorse and a willingness to work with others and listen to feedback. I am pinging @Tenryuu:, @Schazjmd:,@Rsjaffe:, @Zaathras:, @SarekOfVulcan:, @Johnuniq:, and @Girth Summit: since they have had dealings with this user. Just wanted advice on how to respond. Andykatib 22:39, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

I'd be careful copy pasting their words here, or thinking about doing edits for them. That seems like it violates WP:PROXYING. If you want to give them advice on how to appeal, the block message on their talk page states their avenues of appeal. It is a checkuser block, and their talk page access has been revoked, so they should appeal via WP:UTRS. Hope this helps. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:52, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, I will thread carefully on this issue. Much as I feel sorry for User:S20105066, I accept that I still need to uphold the rules of Wikipedia. Andykatib (talk) 23:10, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

@Novem Linguae:. User:S20105066 has boasted on Facebook Messenger that he has 100 sockpuppet accounts and has threatened to continue disrupting Wikipedia unless I help him get the ban lifted. I refused due to his track record of disruptive editing and sockpuppet accounts. I have blocked him on Facebook Messenger. I thought it will be wise to inform other Wikipedia users and the administrators in case he launches future attacks. Andykatib 00:54, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Project-independent quality assessments

Quality assessments by Wikipedia editors rate articles in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, etc. Most wikiprojects follow the general guidelines at Wikipedia:Content assessment, but some have specialized assessment guidelines. A recent Village pump proposal was approved and has been implemented to add a |class= parameter to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, which can display a general quality assessment for an article, and to let project banner templates "inherit" this assessment.

No action is required if your wikiproject follows the standard assessment approach. Over time, quality assessments will be migrated up to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, and your project banner will automatically "inherit" any changes to the general assessments for the purpose of assigning categories.

However, if your project has decided to "opt out" and follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, all you have to do is modify your wikiproject banner template to pass {{WPBannerMeta}} a new |QUALITY_CRITERIA=custom parameter. If this is done, changes to the general quality assessment will be ignored, and your project-level assessment will be displayed and used to create categories, as at present. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:52, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

RFC on how to describe DRASTIC over at Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory§ RfC: How should we describe DRASTIC?. Thanks! — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:39, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Chronic fatigue syndrome move discussion

Editors at Chronic fatigue syndrome are currently considering a move to Myalgic encephalomyelitis/Chronic fatigue syndrome--see discussion. This is potentially relevant to WikiProject COVID-19 because long COVID symptoms sometimes resemble ME/CFS. The Quirky Kitty (talk) 15:32, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

End of the pandemic at List of epidemics and pandemics

Hi all, I've seen a few well-intentioned editors adding 2023 as the end date of the pandemic over at List of epidemics and pandemics, likely in response to the WHO's 5 May announcement. I left a message on the talk page there– the gist is: there's no current consensus on the end of the pandemic, and the List article should defer to discussions at the COVID-19 pandemic article.

I'm generally not editing lots of COVID-19 stuff, so I figured this was the best place to share. Thanks! Wracking ^💬 05:15, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on religion

The article Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on religion is quite out of date. We need to fix it to inform what changes have been permanent and which ones were reversed Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 21:34, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Concerns about recent GA status for COVID-19 pandemic

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:COVID-19 pandemic § Breadth/focus concerns. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 23:33, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

'Corona Says', poem notability?

'Corona Says' seems to be an English language poem by Nepalese poet Vishnu Singh Rai, which (the poem) seem to have found it's way into Nepalese high school syllabus. Seems to have only 2 RS from Nepalese academic critics. I am interested in making a stub article if this project is okay with following given sources.

• Poem itself can be read at this web link along with overview
• Rai, P. . (2023). Logical Fallacies in V.S. Rai’s Poem ’Corona Says’. Rupantaran: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 7(1), 55–62. https://doi.org/10.3126/rupantaran.v7i1.52205 PDF preview seems to be available
• Adhikari, Bhawani Shankar. Yarshagumbaism. United Kingdom, Xlibris AU, 2022. ISBN: 9781669885580 Preview seems available on google books

Requesting inputs Bookku (talk) 08:18, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Source 1 doesn't count towards WP:GNG. Sources 2 and 3 might, if there is WP:SIGCOV of the poem. SIGCOV would be a couple meaty paragraphs of description and analysis of the poem, and not just a cut and paste of the poem. Even with 2 GNG passing sources, 3 would be better. Hope this helps. –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:23, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Proposal for renaming Food security during the COVID-19 pandemic

Good evening! Please see Talk:Food_security_during_the_COVID-19_pandemic#Renaming. Fourmidable (talk) 17:39, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Essential Workers Monument at AfD

• Essential Workers Monument

---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:53, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Investigations into the origin of COVID-19#Requested move 11 July 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Investigations into the origin of COVID-19#Requested move 11 July 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 01:44, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Credibility bot

As this is a highly active WikiProject, I would like to introduce you to Credibility bot. This is a bot that makes it easier to track source usage across articles through automated reports and alerts. We piloted this approach at Wikipedia:Vaccine safety and we want to offer it to any subject area or domain. We need your support to demonstrate demand for this toolkit. If you have a desire for this functionality, or would like to leave other feedback, please endorse the tool or comment at WP:CREDBOT. Thanks! Harej (talk) 17:57, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Manisha Juthani, A new BLP draft review and help request

A new user @DPHMSmith has made a help request at my t/p to help in their new BLP draft Manisha Juthani, MD - Commissioner of Connecticut Department of Public Health . Prima facie seems notable.

Since I am running short of time I would request other users to suitably help in this endeavor. Bookku (talk) 09:18, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Missing Topics- 'social bubble'

Hello. I'm looking to contribute to the wiki project and saw that 'social bubble' is listed under the Missing Topics tab. Is this something an article is still needed/desired for? I would be happy to draft one as well as give a poke over at the talk page here but it seems rather sparse. I did see this discussion but that was 2 years ago and there doesn't seem to be a consensus as to whether or not a full article is necessary. MapleSyrupRain (talk) 00:19, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

COVID-19 pandemic in New Zealand

Can somebody clarify why COVID-19 pandemic in New Zealand says the subject "was" part of the pandemic of coronavirus disease 2019, and why there is a section titled "Post-pandemic"? 2601:644:907E:A450:C468:8473:8405:F250 (talk) 02:32, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

The same is true for most other countries' articles... 2601:644:907E:A450:C468:8473:8405:F250 (talk) 02:40, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

I'd also be interested to know. It's hardly over, but if there's a conversation happening somewhere about how the WikiProject is handling that debate I'd like to see it. MapleSyrupRain (talk) 00:21, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory#Request_for_comment

An editor has started an RfC about whether the announcement by the FBI and the U.S. Department of Energy that they support the COVID-19 lab leak theory should be in the lede of the COVID-19 lab leak theory article. Interested editors are invited to contribute. TarnishedPath^talk 23:39, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Draft review and c/e help

At my t/p, I had received help request from User:DPHMSmith to help out in the article draft Manisha Juthani. Requesting visit to review the draft and c/e if the topic interests you.

Bookku (talk) 10:00, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Rfc - Richard D. Gill and Kate Shemirani

There's an ongoing RfC at Talk:Richard D. Gill#Rfc - Kate Shemirani radio show appearance of relevance to this project. Structuralists (talk) 21:11, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Zoonotic origins of COVID-19

Zoonotic origins of COVID-19 has been nominated at Articles for Deletion. Interested editors may participate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zoonotic origins of COVID-19. TarnishedPath^talk 09:48, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Stats Templates

I know this has been asked several times in previous discussions. Many of the COVID stat templates haven't been updated for more than two years. Many are sitting around not being used. The same arguments can be said for the templates linked in the main COVID navbox in which many of the templates that are used in a way through navbox transclusions haven't been updated for significant periods and could be subject to similar Tfd rationale.

Is there any objection to having at first the unused templates being taken to Tfd? I would like there to be project-wide consensus before taking on this task myself and with members of this project. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:55, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Merge discussion

There's a merge discussion at Talk:Origin of COVID-19#Proposed merge of Zoonotic origins of COVID-19 into Origin of COVID-19. Editors are invited to participate. TarnishedPath^talk 11:27, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Long Covid at Wikidata

Hoi, At this time there is only one scientific paper with the "main subject" long covid. Given the denial of the subject and the consequences.. It is a great idea to consider Wikidata as a source. Here is the [Scholia https://scholia.toolforge.org/topic/Q100732653] for the subject. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 11:49, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Hello, @GerardM:. I'm not sure what you mean by "only one scientific paper" with the main subject being long COVID. I'm seeing the following papers, among others:

• Long COVID: An overview
• Long COVID and its Management
• Long covid—mechanisms, risk factors, and management
• How and why patients made Long Covid
• Attributes and predictors of long COVID
• The immunology of long COVID

Perhaps you could clarify what you actually meant? Thanks! - Cyberflag1 (talk) 12:41, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

When you check the Scholia for the topic, you find that there are now 108 publications. As there is a lot of controversy around the subject, it is vital that for a NPOV we keep on top on adding references.. I blogged about this recently the other day. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 17:14, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi GerardM. I know your post is old, but even in late 2023 there was significant research ongoing regarding Long COVID. I have a number of articles and there are many available online if you search for them but here is a link to the NIH portal for the topic, there is a tab on Long COVID. [2]https://covid19.nih.gov

Thanks to @Cyberflag1for the short list. The Immunology of Long COVID is a great paper.

Thanks, MapleSyrupRain (talk) 03:12, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:SARS-related coronavirus#Requested move 15 August 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:SARS-related coronavirus#Requested move 15 August 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. SilverLocust 💬 05:55, 15 August 2024 (UTC)