Wikipedia talk:WikiProject COVID-19

WikiProject COVID-19

• 
  Main
• 
  Talk
• 
  Alerts
• 
  News
• 
  Sources
• 
  Missing topics
• 
  Messages
• 
  Assessment

Highlighted open discussions

• Talk:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic § Highlighted open discussions
• Template talk:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data § Highlighted open discussions

Current consensus

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

General

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 Superseded by TfD October 2020 and later practice - consult regular {{Current}} guidance.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

Page title

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

Map

1. There is no consensus about which color schemes to use, but they should be consistent within articles as much as possible. There is agreement that there should be six levels of shading, plus gray   for areas with no instances or no data. (May 2020)
2. There is no consensus about whether the legend, the date, and other elements should appear in the map image itself. (May 2020)
3. For map legends, ranges should use fixed round numbers (as opposed to updating dynamically). There is no consensus on what base population to use for per capita maps. (May 2020)

Proposed change to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject COVID-19/Current consensus: naming conventions

Right now under item 2, the current consensus page says "There is consensus on naming guidelines for the virus" and explains that the virus is called COVID-19. This is factually incorrect. The disease is called COVID-19, the virus which causes it is called SARS-CoV-2. I propose changing this sentence to "There is consensus on naming guidelines for the disease" (emphasis mine). Chess (talk) (please WP:PING when replying) 06:27, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Chess, given the use of punctuation, and that it reads Coronavirus disease 2019 is the full name of the disease, I wouldn't say it's factually incorrect, but it is confusing. I agree with the proposed change. I guess this should be uncontroversial. --MarioGom (talk) 10:08, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

My bad. The irony...--Gtoffoletto (talk) 19:15, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Fixed it. --Gtoffoletto (talk) 19:21, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

SARS-CoV-2 naming convention

We should maybe have the same discussion about Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) Following the same reasoning we should ensure the full name is in the article title while SARS-CoV-2 is used everywhere else. --Gtoffoletto (talk) 19:21, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

• Re a SARS-CoV-2 guideline, that sounds reasonable. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 06:12, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
• +1, I'll notify Talk:Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 to get more input. --MarioGom (talk) 08:16, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

What is your position on what to use in the Anthony Fauci article? I made this change after reverting this edit, which just meant two names for the same thing, but I went to the talk page to ask what to do. I got no response.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 18:11, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

@Vchimpanzee: Using COVID-19 is appropriate in the body as per consensus here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject COVID-19#Current consensus, item 2. Incidentally we have a problem getting those guidelines seen by everyone. We have a proposal to fix this problem by placing it in all pages more prominently and more eyes + editors with experience with templates are needed: [1] --Gtoffoletto (talk) 22:26, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

• Text to add: There is consensus on naming guidelines for the virus: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 is the full name of the disease and should be used for the main article. SARS-CoV-2 (exact capitalisation and punctuation) is preferable in the body of all articles, and in the title of all other articles/category pages/etc. Link to discussion. --Gtoffoletto (talk) 08:24, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

This is not the name of the disease at all.Graham Beards (talk) 22:11, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

• Agree. While less commonly used than COVID-19, I can see editors using its full name or calling it the COVID-19 virus. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:37, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
• Comment: There is a move discussion in progress at Talk:Severe acute respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus#Requested move 24 April 2020 which affects this discussion. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 19:45, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

@Rotideypoc41352: Don't forget to vote in favour so we can add this to the shared consensus and avoid discussions like that one! -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 22:08, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

@Gtoffoletto: what do you think of (exact capitalisation and punctuation) instead of (exact capitalisation)?

Should this consensus come with the caveat expressed in responses to Liz's !vote at the COVID-19 naming discussion? Namely, this only applies going forward, not retroactively, so extant pages must go through WP:RM and WP:CFD with an organized proposal, listing every page you want changed, the old & new title.

I didn't think much of this discussion when it opened because I didn't expect someone invested enough to open a move discussion. After that NPOVN virus name discussion, I was hoping we could finally move on figuring out how to explain to our readers how this virus works! Alas... Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 23:23, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

I think going forward some to the names of some articles should be reviewed based on this consensus. But that should come at a later stage. Let's start ensuring new pages follow this standard. No rush to fix existing pages in a disorderly manner. I've inserted and puctuation in the text as I think it's a pretty minor change but clears things up so no-one else should object. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 21:12, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

• Agree with full name in the title, SARS-CoV-2 everywhere else. Feelthhis (talk) 12:45, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
• Agree with full name in title, in the first sentence, and SARS-CoV-2 elsewhere. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 08:20, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Do we have consensus? This has been here a while an no-one seems to be against it. If somebody seconds it I will add it to the consensus list. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 23:43, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

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

Proposed change to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject COVID-19/Current consensus regarding the use of Current

The linked discussion in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject COVID-19/Current consensus [3] seems to support REMOVING the template. We have 4 votes for support and 1 vote against. Other users have not expressed their disapproval but have just suggested to take it slow before making such a big change.

A specific version of the template has been created Template:Current_COVID which has been voted upon here [4].

I think there is at least a local consensus and since the consensus might be shown in more pages soon (see [5]) I propose that we vote to change the consensus to:

OPTION A 1. The Template:Current should not be used at the top of articles covered by this project. Include the project specific Template:Current_COVID only for less-trafficked articles but not for the most heavily trafficked ones. --Gtoffoletto (talk) 23:59, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

What do you mean by "trafficked"? Pageviews? Searches? Edits? At any rate, that's backwards. {{Current}} was designed to be used on only the most heavily-edited articles. Elizium23 (talk) 23:55, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

@Elizium23: Would you rather just remove it altogether from all pages? I would second that. It is now apparent to all that COVID-19 is not a short term event but a long term crysis so the template should not apply. --Gtoffoletto (talk) 00:02, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I would remove it from all pages. If a particular article was attracting hundreds of edits in a day, for a particular new development, then we can think about adding {{Current COVID}} there. Otherwise, no. Elizium23 (talk) 00:06, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

@Elizium23: See option B below. --Gtoffoletto (talk) 00:13, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

I support this option. The big articles are unlikely to miss major updates, but some of the side articles can easily be outdated. --mfb (talk) 01:48, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

OPTION B 1. The Template:Current should not be used at the top of articles covered by this project. Include the project specific Template:Current_COVID only for articles about major recent developments attracting a large number of edits a day. --Gtoffoletto (talk) 00:13, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Gtoffoletto, could you please clarify by what you mean by "recent events"? Are you talking about outbreaks that are notable enough to warrant their own articles? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:29, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

• I forgot about the TfD nom I made of {{Current COVID}}, and just checked in and realized consensus swung the other way. I think that was a bad call — it looks like many keep !voters didn't do their legwork before !voting and didn't realize that the things they liked about {{Current COVID}} could have been expressed by {{Current}}. But oh well, Wikipedia already has a huge pile of overproliferated duplicate templates, and this just adds one more to that messy pile and neglects the chance to improve the main Current template. (/rant)

Regarding the question here, if we go with option A, it might be helpful to specify an approximate pageview count to delineate what we mean by "high-traffic" (although give pages on the margin the ability to decide for themselves). The last time this was discussed, I think I landed on option A, but the rate of editing has continued to decline and the awareness that this is going to be a longer-term situation has become clearer, so at this point I think we might want to go with option B. Re Tenryuu's question, perhaps the wording "major recent developments" would get the point across? Also, perhaps I'm just dragging my feet here, but a decision to keep {{Current COVID}} doesn't mean a consensus not to use {{Current}}. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 17:33, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

{{current}} is placed based on the number of edits, not pageviews. Who cares how many people looked at a page? Other than those who got pissed off because there was a big ugly template blocking useful information "above the fold" and X'd the tab before interacting in a meaningful way. Elizium23 (talk) 17:53, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

@Elizium23: I agree that editing rate is a better metric than pageview count. I was using pageview count as a proxy for editing rate, since I'm not sure we have a good way to measure editing rate — the xTools editing rate average is over the entire lifespan of the page, whereas we'd want to look at only the past week or so. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:56, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

So @Elizium23:@Sdkb: you both vote for this proposal? I've incorporated "major recent developments" per Tenryuu's question -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 23:48, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I support the proposal. Elizium23 (talk) 00:28, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

@Gtoffoletto: I discovered the other day the existence of User:TedderBot/CurrentPruneBot, which used to (until 2013) remove all instances of {{Current}} more than 2 hours old. I think more generalized discussion is needed to figure out what we want to use that template for and make it better suited for that purpose. Until that happens, removing it from all articles that don't meet the "major recent developments" threshold is a good interim step. But I can't fully endorse its use, either, in anything but the most extreme cases, and I can't endorse {{Current COVID}} over the main template. In short, we need a stronger foundation here before we can apply it to this particular circumstance. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:28, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

@Sdkb: I see your point. The option above primarily suggests to not use the template. We can emphasise the fact it should only be used in exceptional circumstances or add an option C which just suggests to never use the template. What would you prefer? -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 21:56, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

New pages to help collate information and to make expert contribution easier

Hi all

Following this community discussion I've added 3 new pages to the Wikiproject with the aim of making it easier to collate information and missing topics on the wide impacts of the pandemic and for making expert contribution easier from people who are not in the existing Wikimedia community.

For some background I'm currently working as Wikipedian in Residence at UNESCO (funded by different Wikimedia orgs) where I've been for 5 years helping UN organisations share their knowledge on Wikipedia, I also write a lot of documentation for Wikipedia and Wikidata (which you can see on my WP user page). Like with many organisations most of the UN system is now focused on COVID-19 response in their area of work. The UN is producing very high quality overviews of how COVID-19 is impacting different aspects of life, not just health but also education, agriculture, gender, domestic violence etc. I have contact with several senior people and experts in UN organisations who are really interested in sharing their knowledge on Wikipedia and I think their knowledge could really help. I've been thinking about how I could help them and other organisations do this. The UN staff (like many other orgs) have limited time to share their knowledge because of the pandemic so currently its not realistic to give them training to edit Wikipedia directly, I am working with some of them on open licensing the content, which will happen but not in the short term. I can act as an intermediary, working with them to collate information which I can share and I've been thinking about how best to do this, after talking to them and looking at their resources it seems like the best way to do it (for an org which offers reliable sources) is to create areas on this Wikiproject to share information from them, specifically these pages which I've created these pages and which could easily be used by any other organisation producing reliable sources.

• Missing topics: Which topics related to COVID-19 should Wikipedia cover? (working with experts to identify topic which aren't yet included in Wikipedia), I think this page can be an effective way for the community to collaborate on identifying missing topics and collating resources before creating articles.
• Main messages: What are the main messages organisations have on COVID related topics? These messages would come from organisations websites and also from the staff directly. I've already been given messages from experts at UNFPA and UN Women with references.
• Reference sources: What references sources are available on COVID-19 related topics? I've already gone through UN agency reference sources which include references from their sources.

I've also created a different header and 'background' because the setup of many of the pages was prohibiting the use of Visual Editor which makes using complex tables possible.

Please let me know your thoughts.

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 20:18, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

P.s I've collated a large amount of references and messages on those pages on gender and sexuality education, @Netha Hussain: and @Bluerasberry:. John Cummings (talk) 20:30, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

It's good to centralize things of that sort — please integrate them into Wikipedia:WikiProject COVID-19#Resources. One resource I think we're still missing is just a basic starting point how-to guide for writing and improving COVID-19 articles. It could be linked from the general edit notice I'm hoping we'll be adding soon (see above/below) as a "learn more" link. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:49, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Navboxes

Hello.

Please consider WP:BIDIRECTIONAL and don't routinely add navboxes to articles where they don't belong. For instance, I just removed two templates from the USS Theodore Roosevelt (CVN-71) article. They belong on the 2020 coronavirus pandemic on USS Theodore Roosevelt article, which already has them.

Remember, if an article is not linked in a template, it shouldn't transclude it.

Otherwise, incredibly impressive work here in the project.

HandsomeFella (talk) 11:39, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Am I doing something wrong?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Whywhenwhohow

The above user deleted my edits in 6 pages. He stated that it was NOT NEWS OR NO MEDICAL ADVICE. I have had made sure there were legit references to my contributions. Please guide me.

Can you see his edits? If not then here's one of the pages that was changed (View Edit History)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bezafibrate

TheNavedKhan (talk) 14:30, 29 April 2020 (UTC) 29/04/2020

Yes. You need to read WP:MEDRS. Any COVID article edit is being held to strict standards because of their significant implications. MartinezMD (talk) 14:40, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Header icons

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks

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

@John Cummings: The header currently goes onto a second line for the last icon (portal) for me, and presumably for Another Believer as well. And for indicating the page you're on, I like the solution of the "tabs" header, which uses the green background coloring. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 20:47, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks @Sdkb:, the issue with using the green colouring is it breaks Visual Editor (you just get source editor in a box because it is transcluding something), VE is a key functionality for pages with tables. How can we split the header and the green colouring of the page into two templates or something? That way will can separate the discussion of the header layout and the green background breaking some of the pages. John Cummings (talk) 20:56, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

@John Cummings: I don't think it would be advisable to split off the green coloring into a separate template, but I'll add a parameter to suppress it; hopefully that'll work for your needs. VisualEditor overall is a beta editor with a ton of bugs/missing functionality; I'd expect that most editors deep enough into Wikipedia to be editing a WikiProject page will be using the source editor. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:05, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

It looks like adding a parameter won't be easily possible, since the functionality with the tabs template comes from Template:Start tab, a deeper-level template. You could propose fixes there, but I'm guessing the response would be "not worth it, VisualEditor needs to fix itself". {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:14, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Sdkb: Visual Editor works fine for what is needed on the pages that it is needed for, the issue is that the green background uses transclusion which doesn't play nicely. Can you explain why you don't think it would be advisable to split the template and the background colour? I seems like the only viable option if the deeper level template is difficult to change (I don't have the technical knwoledge to do it myself) and you are unhappy with having two header files. Not being able to use VE on those pages will lead to less contribution of experts on COVID-19 related content. I'm sure we can find a solution that works for everyone :) John Cummings (talk) 21:28, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Just so your aware VE causes us to lose editors VisualEditor's effect on newly registered editors just as non standard multiplte pages do like the WP:Adventure. That said if it works better with VE it should be implemented for the 10 percent that use it.--Moxy 🍁 21:33, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

@John Cummings: splitting would have to be done at Template:Start tab; it's not technically possible at {{WikiProject COVID-19 tabs}}. I'll bring it up there, but I'm guessing it won't be the highest-priority fix. And yeah, the lack of solid VisualEditor functionality is constantly losing us editors, but that's a larger problem. Perhaps we'll be able to create some workaround here, but otherwise we may just have to ignore VE. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:42, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

• For anyone interested in this and not already following along, I've proposed merging the templates here. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:06, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Reader Vector Insight on Covid readership

Hi all, I wanted to highlight another piece of data that we were able to develop within the Foundation. Collaborating with User:MGerlach (WMF), we were able to develop a list that helps us learn from reader behaviour, which articles that folks are likely to engage with beyond the “obvious” topics related to Covid. By tracing the paths that readers take while reading Wikipedia, we can see that a lot of readers are asking a lot of questions about contextual topics related to the public health response to the pandemic.

We published this data on a page on meta, and we would appreciate any feedback on how such information might be useful for you as editors or organizers. Astinson (WMF) (talk) 18:21, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

We're missing good Oceania and Africa photos

The photo we had used at 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic for the Oceania section was recently deleted as a copyright violation that was actually from Italy 🤦. And we don't really have a good one for Africa — when I dug through Commons, the best I could find was File:Woman washing hands in DRC - Covid-19.jpg, and I didn't include it since it seems a bit stereotypical. Anyone want to try to find/upload better options? It'd be nice to have a photo of an African hospital, perhaps, and a photo representing what life is like on one of the Pacific islands that are comparatively well off. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 18:35, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you

		COVID-19 Barnstar
		I just want to say thank you to the many editors who are doing great work here. I don't know if User:Jimbo Wales will be announcing a Wikimedian of the Year for 2020 or not, given postponement of Wikimania, but in my mind the editors of WikiProject COVID-19 are the winner. :) Stay safe, --Another Believer (Talk) 19:01, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Hear, hear, HandsomeFella (talk) 19:12, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

General edit notice proposal

The discussion at the Village Pump about the discretionary sanctions notice seems to have stagnated a bit, with some work still left to be done to agree on a template. As part of that discussion, though, it became clear that there is a desire not just to warn bad-faith editors but to provide welcome and advice to good-faith editors. As part of that, I propose that the below be added as a edit notice that will appear in the edit window anytime someone edits a page in the scope of this project.

Would there be support for this? Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:55, 29 April 2020 (UTC) ^{Courtesy pinging Naypta, who started the DS notice discussion {{u|Sdkb}} talk 21:59, 29 April 2020 (UTC)}

@Sdkb: Thanks for the ping. My immediate thinking is will new people understand this? - if the objective is to give advice to new editors, that is. If it's for existing editors, perhaps it could be of more use - but I think even that might be somewhat limited, as from what I've seen it tends to be the case that WikiProject experts go to articles, and experts don't tend to come directly from articles to WikiProjects. It doesn't really do any harm, though, and it's very nicely designed, so weak support I guess. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 22:06, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic

 Courtesy link: Talk:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic § Requested move 26 April 2020

All of you may want to go there and discuss the pending RM, if no one already knows. Starzoner (talk) 23:53, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Added courtesy link to the mentioned section. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:27, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

New article: Immunity passport

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

Is a physician suicide a death from the pandemic?

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

That's tragic to hear. I have to say no, since I think expanding that category to anything other than deaths caused by the disease itself will get messy. There are just too many second-order effects that get too blurry. Would we include someone who, say, starved to death because they lost their job from the pandemic? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 18:54, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

@Bri: you'd probably get some responses to this on the talk page here: List of deaths due to coronavirus disease 2019. Multiple users have had similar questions (for other individuals) and it seems to depend on the exact circumstances. TJMSmith (talk) 19:06, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

New article tips

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

Reassessing importance of covid in Ghana

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

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

Template:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data

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

UK (and other) editors

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

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

Editors of the Week

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

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

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

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

{{User:UBX/EoTWBox}}

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