This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the COVID-19 pandemic article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to COVID-19, broadly construed, which is a contentious topic. Please consult the procedures and edit carefully.
This article was copy edited by Lfstevens, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on 25 December 2021.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject COVID-19, a project to coordinate efforts to improve all COVID-19-related articles. If you would like to help, you are invited to join and to participate in project discussions.COVID-19Wikipedia:WikiProject COVID-19Template:WikiProject COVID-19COVID-19 articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Viruses, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of viruses on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.VirusesWikipedia:WikiProject VirusesTemplate:WikiProject Virusesvirus articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject 2010s, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 2010s on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.2010sWikipedia:WikiProject 2010sTemplate:WikiProject 2010s2010s articles
WikiProject COVID-19 aims to add to and build consensus for pages relating to COVID-19. They have so far discussed items listed below. Please discuss proposed improvements to them at the project talk page.
For infoboxes on the main articles of countries, use Wuhan, Hubei, China for the origin parameter. (March 2020)
"Social distancing" is generally preferred over "physical distancing". (April 2020, May 2020)
Page title
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).
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
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)
There is no consensus about whether the legend, the date, and other elements should appear in the map image itself. (May 2020)
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)
To ensure you are viewing the current list, you may wish to purge this page.
Text has been copied to or from this article; see the list below. The source pages now serve to provide attribution for the content in the destination pages and must not be deleted as long as the copies exist. For attribution and to access older versions of the copied text, please see the history links below.
Material from 2019–20 coronavirus outbreak was split to other pages. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter pages, and it must not be deleted so long as the latter pages exist. Please leave this template in place to link the article histories and preserve this attribution. The former page's talk page can be accessed at Talk:2019–20 coronavirus outbreak.
Omer Benjakob (February 9, 2020). "On Wikipedia, a fight is raging over coronavirus disinformation". Wired. Retrieved February 9, 2020. While a short and generic Wikipedia page on "coronavirus" had existed since 2013, the article about the "2019–20 coronavirus outbreak" was created on January 5, 2020.
Mikael Thalen (March 25, 2020). "Meet the Wikipedia editors fighting to keep coronavirus pages accurate". The Daily Dot. Retrieved April 8, 2020. Those pages include the Wikipedia 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.
Shaan Sachdev (February 26, 2021). "Wikipedia's Sprawling, Awe-Inspiring Coverage of the Pandemic". The New Republic. The Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia's project page of article rankings, 'the biggest phenomenon Wikipedia has ever known.'
Jackson Ryan (June 24, 2021). "Inside Wikipedia's endless war over the coronavirus lab leak theory". CNET. 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 Wikipedia's COVID-19 pandemic page. The words 'lab leak' aren't mentioned anywhere.
NOTE: It is recommended to link to this list in your edit summary when reverting, as: [[Talk:COVID-19 pandemic#Current consensus|current consensus]] item [n] To ensure you are viewing the current list, you may wish to purge this page.
01. Superseded by #9
The first few sentences of the lead's second paragraph should state The virus is typically spread during close contact and via respiratory droplets produced when people cough or sneeze.[1][2] Respiratory droplets may be produced during breathing but the virus is not considered airborne.[1] It may also spread when one touches a contaminated surface and then their face.[1][2] It is most contagious when people are symptomatic, although spread may be possible before symptoms appear.[2] (RfC March 2020)
02. Superseded by #7
The infobox should feature a per capita count map most prominently, and a total count by country map secondarily. (RfC March 2020)
04. Do not include a sentence in the lead section noting comparisons to World War II. (March 2020)
05. Cancelled
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. (July 2024)
06. Obsolete
There is a 30 day moratorium on move requests until 26 April 2020. (March 2020)
07. There is no consensus that the infobox should feature a confirmed cases count map most prominently, and a deaths count map secondarily. (May 2020)
08. Superseded by #16
The clause on xenophobia in the lead section should read ...and there have been incidents of xenophobia and discrimination against Chinese people and against those perceived as being Chinese or as being from areas with high infection rates. (RfC April 2020)
09. Cancelled
Supersedes #1. The first several sentences of the lead section's second paragraph should state The virus is mainly spread during close contact[a] and by small droplets produced when those infected cough,[b] sneeze or talk.[1][2][4] 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.[1][5][6] People may also become infected by touching a contaminated surface and then their face.[1][2] The virus can survive on surfaces for up to 72 hours.[7] 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)
Notes
^Close contact is defined as 1 metres (3 feet) by the WHO[1] and 2 metres (6 feet) by the CDC.[2]
^An uncovered cough can travel up to 8.2 metres (27 feet).[3]
011. The lead section should use Wuhan, China to describe the virus's origin, without mentioning Hubei or otherwise further describing Wuhan. (April 2020)
012. Superseded by #19
The lead section's second sentence should be phrased using the words first identified and December 2019. (May 2020)
019. Supersedes #12 and #18. The first sentence is The global COVID-19 pandemic (also known as the coronavirus pandemic), caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), began with an outbreak in Wuhan, China, in December 2019. (June 2024)
And why would we care about the claims of ignorant politicians? They are are not experts on the topic, they have no reputation for fact-checking, and they have a tendency to make self-serving claims. Dimadick (talk) 08:44, 4 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
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. SmolBrane (talk) 16:25, 4 December 2024 (UTC)Reply