Talk:COVID-19 pandemic/Archive 2

The table showing quarantined cities is a day or two outdated. It states a total of 30m quarantined but the current number is around 50m . If no one can compile a list of cities I propose we remove the table and simply list the current number quarantined. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Colin dm (talk • contribs) 17:04, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

@Colin dm: The number of cities have expanded to 15, from the 11 in the table, this may lead to a lower total as well. Also, I have double checked on the numbers in the table. As noted by SmokeyShyla, the number for Wuhan was initially understated. Upon checking for the population of long-time residents of each city (of as recent year as possible), the numbers for the other cities were mostly understated as well. I have updated the table to include all 15 cities and their long-term residents population. The total now stands at approximately 41 million. This is however 9 million short from the number as reported by AP News. robertsky (talk) 21:59, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

I understand that statistics are hard to come by so I appreciate the effort. Thank you. --Colin dm (talk) 03:13, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

What is the make and model of this hazmat apparel? Haven't seen it before. Why blue stripes?

A doctor wearing special protective suit for the Wuhan coronavirus outbreak treat patient in Hubei TCM Hospital, Wuhan.jpg

kencf0618 (talk)

I guess that's made of nylon and the blue stripes are hook-and-loop zippers. --Techyan（Talk） 21:26, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Most likely Tyvek or the like. kencf0618 (talk) 04:03, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello @El C:, I just want to ask out of curiosity what was the reason for the page protection, that was implemented on the page yesterday to expire on the 31st of January, to be lifted? (2001:8003:4E48:8600:1DFF:8071:601E:451F (talk) 02:49, 26 January 2020 (UTC))

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#2019%E2%80%9320_Wuhan_coronavirus_outbreak --Eric1212 (talk) 02:55, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you very much @Eric1212:. (2001:8003:4E48:8600:1DFF:8071:601E:451F (talk) 02:56, 26 January 2020 (UTC))

And see my notes farther up the page. Acroterion (talk) 02:57, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks @Acroterion:. (2001:8003:4E48:8600:1DFF:8071:601E:451F (talk) 04:20, 26 January 2020 (UTC))

Many cooks in this kitchen! The protection was my bad. EvergreenFir (talk) 02:59, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

No worries, there's no way to please everybody who want/don't want semi-protection, and the sheer volume of diligent editors seems to be keeping bad edits under control right now. You might want to watchlist Novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), which has gotten some genuine vandalism. Acroterion (talk) 03:02, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Will do! EvergreenFir (talk) 03:05, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Veteran editors probably know that already, but this starts to look suspiciously like the H1N1 article first drafts. The viruses are first tested on people extremely sick and dying. But as the tests become more widely available, the virus is detected literally everywhere in the world it's tested with lower and lower death rate as more people with less severe symptoms are tested. Keep an eye on this possibility.

67.68.202.134 (talk) 03:17, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

We know that the infected person with the earliest reported symptoms was on the 1st December and never visited the seafood market, but as of now the majority of the cases have been within Wuhan (Huanan province) and the majority of the earliest cases were from those linked to the market (66%). The identification occurred in Wuhan but the source has not been found (which is likely to be bats). Tsukide (talk) 06:57, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

If you look at the second citation of the amount of Chinese cases confirmed. Should it not be 2,013 Ask ehx udnd (talk) 08:14, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Some references are out of date, the first reference is more up to date at the moment. But the second one may catch up soon. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:46, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Due to the high connection to the China, Chinese media are coming as choices of sources. Given the controversial nature of Chinese media, should we discuss that when to use them and when not to use them? (When it comes to issue related to China, there are always political conflicts and other stuffs)Mariogoods (talk) 09:02, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

The most current article relating to ages was http://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/23/world/asia/coronavirus-victims-wuhan.html and it'd be useful to know if this remains the case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.72.19.187 (talk) 10:07, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

I guess we don't know, but any sources with prelim est? -- GreenC 14:44, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

• Comment 2–3% based on current available stats of 900+ confirmed cases vs 26 deaths. Could be a quick entry in the summary table to save mental calc. PenulisHantu (talk) 20:34, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
  • No, those are CONFIRMED case. For each patient who seek medical attention there could be 100 to 1000 who just stay home and treat it as a normal flu. 67.68.202.134 (talk) 03:01, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Personally, i think talking of fatality rate is currently way too early. We doesn't know how much time between normal infection and recovery or death. We need data, i think we should be able to answer this during march. --Eric1212 (talk) 11:00, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

I found that two statements that was like this:

• Warning! Please do not copy the number of cases from Chinese state media sources into this field directly without checking if they include Hong Kong (香港), Macau (澳门) and Taiwan (台湾). If and only if they are included, these cases need to be manually subtracted.
• For DXY.cn, the number of cases (例) listed at the top is as follows: the first number is confirmed (确诊), second is suspected (疑似), third is deceased (死亡) and the fourth is recovered (治愈).

The warning is interesting to me, because all three cities are well known around the world. Why these names includes Chinese characters that doesn't includes romanization in pinyin or jyutping?. This is English Wikipedia, and all these places (HK, Taiwan, Macau) are well known place worldwide. IMO, including Chinese Characters without romanization will be confused, as many readers in languages of non-Chinese or Japanese characters (Kanji) doesn't know what it is. In addition, these characters like 例, 确诊, 疑似, 死亡 and 治愈 doesn't understand by billions on non-Mandarin speakers even if they knows that meaning. Should it include Pinyin romanization as well? these romanization needs to avoid Communal violence in China. the situations in China same as India with multilanguage society. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 36.76.226.238 (talk) 07:45, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

The reason that the note is there with Chinese characters is because the first source uses simplified Chinese, the characters are there so that people can identify the numbers for the three regions in order to subtract. If you or others can't read the Chinese as it stands then don't attempt to update the figures. Traditional or Rominised or Jyutping are not helpful as the source does not use it. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:49, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

I know but romanised Jyutping or Pinyin was included in order to distinguished what is people pronounce their characters, for example Hong Kong spelt Xianggang in Mandarin or Hoeng Gong in cantonese. Any characters that doesnt including it Will result same linguistic conflict as India decades ago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 36.76.226.238 (talk) 09:12, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

It is only in a comment to help editors. People do not need to know how the names are said in different regions. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:49, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

I think the bar chart showing the number of cases was useful in visualizing the data, it seems to have been removed (unless there was a reason for it) Mealworm17704 (talk) 13:44, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

I think that adding suspected cases would be helpful as the people would not be shocked if they were to see a jump of 400 cases in a day. I feel that it is needed to improve this page. Please take a moment to consider it and not reject it at first sight. Thank you!Wuhan2019 (talk) 13:50, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

They are already included. What are no longer included are cases that have been shown to be false alarms. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:56, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Canadian case is not fake, please check the other countries section of this page:https://3g.dxy.cn/newh5/view/pneumonia Eray08yigit (talk) 11:37, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

DXY is a Chinese website. It doesn't have authority to report on other countries like Canada. Canadaian media are saying that this is only a "presumptive" case. Please see #Canada "presumptive" confirmed case? Daniel.z.tg (talk) 15:41, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Fewer headlines, I mean.Menah the Great (talk) 14:26, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

can we delete subchapter by nations to have the index only in the form:

• 5 Reported cases and responses
• 5.1 Countries and regions with confirmed cases
• 5.2 Countries with suspected cases
• 5.3 Prevention in other countries

it is becoming very long. instead of ====Australia==== use ;Australia is it a good idea?--Dwalin (talk) 09:57, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

I added TOC limit = 3 which does the same thing you suggest but keeps the sections. I agree that is much more readable. BW |→ Spaully ^~talk~  10:38, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

@Spaully: does TOC works only in this subsection or in all subsections below TOC input?--Dwalin (talk) 15:23, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

@Dwalin:It applies the depth to all subsections, but in practice for this article the countries are the only entries at that level (X.x.x) so the result is the same, while keeping the normal subsection notation. |→ Spaully ^~talk~  16:33, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

The recoveries column is a little odd, and I wonder if this will be kept up to date by the authorities round the world - my experience of other recent outbreaks would suggest not. Counting confirmed cases and deaths is relatively easy, suspected cases and recoveries not so much. Some of the sources say "cured" which is also odd as there is no cure for the virus except ones own immune system. I propose removing the recoveries column altogether as a not very useful and likely out of date set of numbers. |→ Spaully ^~talk~  10:44, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

All data are out of date by definition on an active outbreak, if data aren't good when the outbreak will be ended, it's will be ok to consider removing some data. For now, i doesn't think it's a good idea to hide some data but we should put energy on getting this data more sourced and valid as possible instead. --Eric1212 (talk) 10:53, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, it is rather awkward and goes against precedent when it comes to other articles on similar events. I think it should be removed --Charsum (talk) 16:51, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Somewhat off topic: the Chinese version of the wikipedia article says it does not affect strongly children and young adults. Which implies it is mostly killing those over 60. It would be interesting if we could track recoveries and deaths by age and whether they had pre-existing health issues. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 16:59, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

That would be OR; what is needed is a reliable source we can cite. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:28, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

I've removed all the minutely-detailed coverage of cases that turned out to be false alarms. Do we want to add a single sentence to the effect that "Suspected cases in Foo, Bar, and Bas all turned out to be false alarms"? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:16, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

I think we should have some short note that there have been many false alarms, but we don't need to list all the countries involved. Bondegezou (talk) 17:36, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Can anyone help trim the lead? Whispyhistory (talk) 10:24, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Much of the wp:lead talks about history. What do you think about creating a history section? Much of existing article talks about history so there would be overlap. Perhaps place the context section under a history section. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 17:41, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

I went ahead and trimmed the lead.   Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 17:55, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

What's happening on this page. Ask ehx udnd (talk) 19:23, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

What are you talking about? --RaphaelQS (talk) 19:32, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

The page was briefly shut down for a copyright issue and has been reopened. Does anyone know what happened. --Colin dm (talk) 19:33, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

That was a vandalism. It is fine now. Carlosguitar ^{(Yes Executor?)} 19:37, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

As far as i know, Google is mentioned as copyright owner of some information. Thanks everyone for recovering this page. --46.39.248.49 (talk) 19:42, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Does anyone have the text saved? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaisersauce1 (talk • contribs) 19:24, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

It's back. --Colin dm (talk) 19:37, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

This might not be the correct place for this but I often see outdated maps on this article and was wondering how I could help edit them. --Colin dm (talk) 01:44, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Well how I do it is to download the map, and edit it with vim or inkscape for the .svg pages. Another alternative is to ask a person who edited it before. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:00, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

OK Thank you.--Colin dm (talk) 04:46, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

CT student put into isolation.

https://fox61.com/2020/01/25/wesleyan-student-being-evaluated-for-possible-coronavirus-was-traveling-in-asia/

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.177.16.114 (talk) 22:34, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

MOS:INFOBOXFLAG states, "Generally, flag icons should not be used in infoboxes, even when there is a "country", "nationality" or equivalent field: they are unnecessarily distracting and give undue prominence to one field among many." It continues, "Flag icons should only be inserted in infoboxes in those cases where they convey information in addition to the text." We've had flags added to the infobox, removed and re-inserted, most recently by Ratherous. The Manual of Style is not some optional extra: this is a basic Wikipedia guideline that all articles should follow. We should remove the flag icons in the infobox and keep them out. This is not somewhere where we can establish a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS: we should follow standard practice across Wikipedia, as described in the MoS.

Flag icons don't add any information: we have names already. We already have a lot of political arguments in this article about China vs. Taiwan vs. Hong Kong etc. Flag icons just complicate matters further, they raise hackles and unnecessarily politicise an issue that should be about epidemiology, not politics.

In addition, use of the Hong Kong and Macau flags violates MOS:FLAGRELEVANCE and WP:SOVEREIGNFLAG.

Let's have an article about medicine, not flag-waving. Bondegezou (talk) 13:41, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Specifically because the article mentions the different states of Greater China, the flags really help distinguish the regions further. They genuinely help visually receive the information as there are a lot of numbers involved and it is easy to get lost with the data. In lists like that flags are often included as this is more like a list than just an info box. Many lists of nations with a lot of data on Wikipedia do include flags to help visually simplify the information.--Ratherous (talk) 14:28, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

We have the names of the countries/regions. They are very clear. We don't need more. There are not "a lot of numbers involved": it's a straightforward table with four columns. The flags make the table harder to read, because the first thing you see isn't a word.

MOS:FLAGRELEVANCE and WP:SOVEREIGNFLAG are pretty clear that we shouldn't be using the Hong Kong and Macau flags, not least because they are unfamiliar to most readers. You need good reasons to go against the Manual of Style and you haven't presented any.

This is an infobox. There are specific guidelines for this situation. Flags do not visually simplify: you are adding visual clutter. The Manual of Style explicitly explains this. The Manual of Style is a considered document that has been developed over many years. We should give it more weight than the views of one editor. Bondegezou (talk) 16:09, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Just look at the many lists of countries there are on Wikipedia. They do indeed use the flags in most cases. It makes it a lot clearer. This case is not any different. --Ratherous (talk) 18:05, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure how much discussion took place in the other articles, but I'd like to note that the MOS is not strictly followed across all articles regarding diseases, and if following the MOS really should be followed, then there is some work ahead.

The following use flags:

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polio_eradication#2016

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015%E2%80%9316_Zika_virus_epidemic#Epidemiology

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kivu_Ebola_epidemic

The following do not use flags:

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Severe_acute_respiratory_syndrome#History

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_African_Ebola_virus_epidemic

An oddball is this article which features infoboxes with and without flags

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_flu_pandemic_by_country

The 2009 flu article which serves as a summary has no country-specific infobox but has continent/region-ish infobox. Since no continent other than EU (which also doesn't really cover all of Europe, nor is all of EU representing only Europe) has a real flag obviously it has no flags.

I'd like to note that MOS:FLAGRELEVANCE talks about political sensitivity, and is also used as part of WP:NPOV. However, there is no specific policy or discussion on MOS on health-related issues. Of note, Taiwan remains a politically sensitive topic but this has not been relevant thus far.

Personally I think that flags are not 'clutter.' I can agree with WP's need of NPOV, but from a design perspective icons are much more universal and are shorter than names. Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwllllantysiliogogogoch should represented with a flag if it has one. Real examples with similar sounding names include Australia and Austria, Togo and Tonga, Sweden and Switzerland, Slovakia and Slovenia. The flags refer to regions in a much quicker way than names especially so for Austria in Europe and Australia by itself or Oceania. Xenmorpha (talk) 18:55, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

As with Mexican states, Chinese provinces do not have their own flags. kencf0618 (talk) 04:20, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Xenmorpha argues that flags are shorter than country names. However, the choice here is not between flag or country name, it's between flag-AND-country name or just country name. Clearly flag-AND-country name is longer. Flags are also less well known by the readership than country names. Togo and Tonga might have similar looking names, but very few people know what either country's flag looks like. (Without looking it up, do you know what Togo's flag is?) Likewise, very few people know what Macau's flag is, so we're just confusing readers by using it (MOS:SOVEREIGNFLAG).

Xenmorpha also says, "Taiwan remains a politically sensitive topic but this has not been relevant thus far". This is mistaken. There have been at least two discussions on this Talk page already about Taiwan's status: should it be listed separately to China, and how is China represented on the map in the infobox. As per MOS:SOVEREIGNFLAG and MOS:FLAGRELEVANCE, we should not have flags for Hong Kong or Macau, and WP:NPOV would suggest avoiding the issue by not having a Taiwanese flag versus a PRC flag.

Xenmorpha thinks that flags are not clutter. S/he is welcome to take that view, but Manual of Style guidance on the use of flags has been worked on by a large number of editors over many years. It's an agreed consensus. If you want to change it, go to the Talk page for the Manual of Style and make your case. Until then, we're meant to follow it. WP:ILIKEIT carries no weight here.

There are other violations of the Manual of Style, so, yes, we should fix those too. WP:OTHERSTUFF doesn't carry any weight either.

We are meant to follow Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I have cited multiple policies and guidelines. Xenmorpha and Ratherous want their personal tastes to stand instead. That's not how Wikipedia works. Bondegezou (talk) 09:39, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Xenmorpha lists three cases that use flag icons: two of these are not infoboxes (2015–16_Zika_virus_epidemic#Epidemiology and Polio_eradication#2016), so they are not relevant to whether the infobox here should. So that's only one infobox example using flag icons and the majority do not. Bondegezou (talk) 09:42, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

PS: 2009 flu pandemic by country, as mentioned by Xenmorpha, also does not have flag icons in its infobox. (It does have other tables with flag icons.) Bondegezou (talk) 09:44, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Bondegezou Re: Macau's flag: I think you'd need more than just stating that people don't know Macau's flag to make it true. Stating it does not make it fact. There seems to be some Chinese interest in this topic, so readership proportion might be quite unlike that of general Wikipedia readership.

Re: Taiwan: Discussion on Talk page is for improving WP's pages. It does not reflect WHO's mission, China's (either, one, both, etc.) mission, health objectives and/or public health outcomes thus far. A counterexample to this is Yemen, which has a problematic political situation and its health outcomes exacerbated by geopolitics.

Re: WP:ILIKEIT - It's a lot more relevant when discussing deletion of articles and provable facts (i.e. answering if there exists a prime smaller than two). It is less meaningful in subjective uses of preferences in a subjective capacity. Unfortunately, user design IS subjective and you do need reader/writer opinion. Obviously both you and I have meaningless opinion, and a much larger group of averaged opinions would be more concrete which is the arguably the MOS.

Re: WP:OTHERSTUFF - It is with regard to deletion of articles, so I don't see why you use it.

I have already stated that MOS has no direct mentions of health incidents. I think it is difficult to talk about "representation of different subjects is pertinent to the purpose of the list or table itself. " - are people representatives of their country? It seems that much discussion relate to the nationality of the people involved, but I do see a slant of the policy referring directly to ministries and government organisations, both of which (of different countries, obviously) also feature extremely heavily in the whole crisis.

In any case, I am not here to participate in any edits regarding flags, nor have I made any flag-related edits. Naming or pinging me will not do anything. Currently it appears that you changed Zika's page with no objections, but I have yet to see the flags go without someone putting it back. Clearly some moderation and/or arbitration would be helpful though I hope not necessary. Xenmorpha (talk) 15:56, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Re: Macau's flag: I think you'd need more than just stating that people don't know Macau's flag to make it true. I referenced a Wikipedia guideline. That is how we are meant to settle disagreements, with reference to policies and guidelines.

user design IS subjective and you do need reader/writer opinion. No, we can use the settled opinion of the Manual of Style, as I have referenced. I am glad you concur that the MoS is more concrete here. Can I take it that you are withdrawing your objection to removing the flag icons?

Re: WP:OTHERSTUFF - It is with regard to deletion of articles, so I don't see why you use it. WP:OTHERSTUFF is commonly referenced more generally. The point is that poor behaviour elsewhere is not an excuse to repeat it.

I have already stated that MOS has no direct mentions of health incidents. No, it's a general guideline, applicable to all articles, including therefore this one.

Naming or pinging me will not do anything. It's polite when quoting someone on a Talk page to ping them, but I will not ping you in this discussion as that is your wish. Bondegezou (talk) 18:35, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Any word on getting any arbitration here? Adding and removing flags doesn't help anyone and it keeps happening. --Colin dm (talk) 19:36, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Since there are many discussions here, should we uses the talk page archive? Mariogoods (talk) 09:07, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

I support. --Eric1212 (talk) 10:56, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Already in hand. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:54, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

The auto archive script has been in place for a while. Just a ton of people commenting.  EvergreenFir (talk) 19:44, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Keep the flags on the table, with more cases being confirmed, flags are easier to identify with. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaisersauce1 (talk • contribs) 17:48, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

See the talk page above about the topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Colin dm (talk • contribs) 17:54, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Flags must be removed as per WP:INFOBOXFLAG doktorb _words^deeds 21:33, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

This page already has 146,969 bytes of markup; we need to trim a good deal of content, or split sections off into new articles. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:13, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

WP:RPS is just 41 kB, so well under WP:SIZERULE. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:44, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

SIZERULE doesn't say what you think it does. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:35, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Now increased to 157,630 bytes in a touch over our hours. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:38, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: This is a mistake that I had made with another 'bloated' article before. As you have noted, the history of the article is now 157+ kB. However, this includes stuff like wiki markups, HTML markups, etc. WP:SIZERULE states that "These rules of thumb apply only to readable prose and not to wiki markup size". Making use of Shubinator's DYK tool as suggested in the same size rule section, the current readable prose size is 42527 characters or ~43kB, which places it between "May need to be divided (likelihood goes up with size)" and "Length alone does not justify division". That being said, we should start looking at how to spin sections of content out given that the readable prose size had increased by 1-2kB in a matter of hours. robertsky (talk) 17:54, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, but SIZERULE is not the determining factor. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:57, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Care to clarify? robertsky (talk) 17:59, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes; the top of Wikipedia:Article size says "There are three related measures of an article's size, and lists them as "readable-prose", "wiki markup size", and "browser-page size". SIZERULE, a subsection of that page, is concerned only with the first of these, and has nothing to say about the other two. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:35, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

From my understanding of the article, the other two are more to do with whether our browsers can handle the large size. In If you have problems editing a long article section, it had indicated clearly that if your browser cannot handle the large wiki markup size, either upgrade your browser (consequentially, laptop/desktop/device as well) or edit the page in sections. As for the browser page size, nothing is indicated in the article, which I suspect is not of our concern here. robertsky (talk) 19:04, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Where did I say anything about having a problem with my browser? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:17, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Apologies if my words are being misconstrued. When I typed 'your', it was in a more generic sense of anyone's, not specifically yours. robertsky (talk) 19:27, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

After another 24 hours, now 196,145 bytes. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:13, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

I believe China mainland infection is not counted right. In BNO news update, Macau, Hong Kong, and Taiwan are included in China. Please note this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luke Kern Choi 5 (talk • contribs)

You're right that it included those, I've manually subtracted them as the comment in the source suggests. Thanks for pointing it out. Chapatsu (talk) 23:54, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello there folks! I believe that we should put the flags back in the information table, since they don’t only make it more aesthetically pleasing, but they make for a faster way of recognition of where the virus has spread to (I believe they do). 2JWE (talk) 22:17, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Fully approve. The list is getting long enough that the flags provide for a faster way to recognize countries. One or two users seem to be consistently removing the flags, but the consensus seems to be that it's better to keep them (see previous post in the talk page) Pie3636 (talk) 22:20, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Oppose as WP:FLAGCRUFT and per WP:INFOBOXFLAG EvergreenFir (talk) 22:28, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Absolutely agree to reinstate the flags. The list is honestly hard to follow now with so many countries. A lot of lists of countries on Wikipedia use flags to make the data easier to read and understand. The info box on this page is genuinely a different case than to what is described in WP:INFOBOXFLAG, as it includes a large list of countries within itself. If a couple of users are that seriously against putting flags in the info box then I would propose to move the list out of it entirely so that the flags can be put in. --Ratherous (talk) 23:50, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Plus in this case WP:FLAGCRUFT doesn’t apply as it is indeed relevant information to see the national citizenship of the fatalities and the people diagnosed with the virus. --Ratherous (talk) 23:53, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

@Ratherous: There is no proof that any the numbers reported correspond to nationality / citizenship, especially in the case of PRC expats returning to their non-Greater China homes. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 00:10, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

a case’s country is counted by where the case is, not the person’s nationality. in this case flags help to identify the country in which the virus hasn’t spread to — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39cookies (talk • contribs) 00:15, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

UTC)

It’s less about their citizenship and more about the number of people infected in each country corresponding to actually population data from nations. This isn’t about what WP:FLAGCRUFT talks about. This doesn’t in any way make nationalities an issue, but rather corresponds to relevant data. Flags genuinely help this list. --Ratherous (talk) 00:17, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Also agree with keeping the flags. When it comes to long series of data, the flags only benefit reading comprehension. ApocalypticNut (talk) 02:02, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Color me suspicious of all these new accounts wanting flags. What is the benefit of these flags? Suggesting that small graphics, some complicated designs, would aid a casual reader? I'm concerned some people want to use them as "badges of shame" or something. EvergreenFir (talk) 02:14, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: That's quite an odd conclusion to draw, I don't really understand how the addition of a flag would 'shame' anyone. One of the primary uses of a flag is as a signalling device. If I were to give you a list of countries in a seemingly random order and ask you to find a given country, I'm sure you would find it easier with a symbol (flag) to draw your attention. Multiple methods of recall aid reading comprehension. It is true of course that not everybody would recognise every flag, but I don't think that detracts from the previous point. To touch on your point of 'new accounts'; everybody is new to something at some point and, whilst I can only speak personally, creating an account now doesn't mean that I haven't been actively using Wikipedia for many, many years. All that said, I'm open to your ideas of course. ApocalypticNut (talk) 16:49, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

MOS:INFOBOXFLAG is clear that we shouldn't have flag icons in infoboxes. There is more leniency on flag icons elsewhere, but they are still discouraged in most cases. The claims that they support reading comprehension were rejected when the Manual of Style guideline was written on this. If you wish to dispute that, go discuss the matter at the Talk page for MOS:FLAG, but we're meant to follow the Manual of Style, as all Wikipedia guidelines. We're not allowed to form our own WP:LOCALCONSENSUS: Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale.

Compare other articles in Category:2010s medical outbreaks and Category:2000s medical outbreaks. They nearly all avoid flag icons in infoboxes, although some use flag icons in other tables. Bondegezou (talk) 17:46, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

I've just checked and there's not a single flag icon used for any article in Category:1990s medical outbreaks, Category:1980s medical outbreaks, Category:1970s medical outbreaks or Category:1960s medical outbreaks. Bondegezou (talk) 17:50, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

@Bondegezou:, so I read the talk page you referenced, and noted that the claims regarding reading comprehension aren't so much rejected as disputed. In addition, on that page there is a lot of discussion regarding the use of flags within national elections, which I agree is unnecessary, however I still firmly believe that they do aid comprehension when you have data from a large number of countries. In fact, you yourself quote 'The allowed examples in MOS:INFOBOXFLAG are generally situations where multiple countries are involved, e.g. FIFA World Cup.'; what is this if not a situation involving multiple countries?

Furthermore, I checked the categories you mentioned: from all four categories (1990s, 1980s, 1970s, and 1960s) there were zero pages covering international outbreaks of disease. In contrast, looking at the 2000s and 2010s, there were five pages covering international outbreaks of disease with a comparable table, of which three do have flags accompanying their respective countries (somewhat ironically Severe_acute_respiratory_syndrome, as well as Global_spread_of_H5N1, and 2015-16_Zika_virus_epidemic; the two that did not were Middle_East_respiratory_syndrome and Western_Africa_Ebola_virus_epidemic). I believe this shows that the rules you're proselytising are in fact contentious at best for this particular scenario, and are not often enforced.

The fact that this article references a number of different countries with distinct, well-known flags, and not something akin to national elections with lesser known flags such as those for specific states or counties, makes this a very good example of an allowed exception. I appreciate that you seem to have a strong view on this topic, and I mean no disrespect, but to say that 'The claims that they support reading comprehension were rejected when the Manual of Style guideline was written on this' is incorrect, and to cite a number of categories with no comparable pages again isn't reasonable justification to oppose flags in the infobox. You often cite the idea of overruling MOS:INFOBOXFLAG as an example of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, but I think you're being quite hypocritical there. ApocalypticNut (talk) 21:04, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

My input. Bougz is right. No flags is part of Wiki's Manual of Style. That's not a "maybe", it's a "rule". One we have to follow. I remember an old Wikipedia rule of thumb which said "if you're bothered by the colour of the fence than the location of the fire exit, you're doing it wrong." Flags are NOT important in this article: death counts, quotes, medical information all are. If something is only included for looking pretty, then it's nothing to do with the article, it's just pretty colours. So as per Wikipedia's own MoS, and therefore as part of the guiding editorial principles, there must be no flags on the table. doktorb _words^deeds 21:27, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

It's a rule, with exceptions as Bondegezou has himself pointed out in previous discussions of the topic. However, as my edit was removed by the administrator @EvergreenFir:, I am content to defer to their judgement on the topic. I do still believe that, as in the other pages I mentioned previously, the addition of flags has a positive effect on comprehension. ApocalypticNut (talk)

I've made an ANI post requesting outside input from admins and experienced editors: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Flags_on_2019–20_Wuhan_coronavirus_outbreak EvergreenFir (talk) 21:39, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

• I oppose the flag icons and think that this article should conform to the Manual of Style. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:54, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

When editors are reverting flags, would they please refrain from also deleting the country links beside them? Jw 193 (talk) 23:55, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Indonesian Wikipedia now have discussion about should it update the cases reported in UTC time in Indonesian talk page. The statement stats because there are many complexity to update many cases because of different time zone for example China use UTC+8, France use UTC+1, etc. I know because there are many time zones to reported the cases. Should it agree to use UTC in id-wiki, English wiki should be also UTC time for update the cases. Any thoughts?

Things should be in UTC, otherwise we will get confusion between countries what day it is. Earlier in the talk there was full support for use of UTC. Events in a country could be their own local time though. But for stats, maps, charts, general statements we should use UTC. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:22, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Why was this created? I don't remember a talk page being created or a consensus reached on the topic? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Colin dm (talk • contribs) 00:00, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Discussed here: #Page_size   Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 00:41, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

It is distracting, alarmist, 9/10 times inaccurate, and has no informative value. Every country is going to screen suspected people at some point and most times they are going to come out negative. Just look at Brazil. It's been colored as suspected since the start of the epidemic. If there was a real case it would have been confirmed already, so it's probably not, but negative results make fewer headlines in English than suspicions and positive cases.Menah the Great (talk) 13:41, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree, and as the virus spreads it will become more difficult to even keep up with the confirmed cases, let alone suspected ones. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Colin dm (talk • contribs) 16:37, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! Wuhan2019 (talk) 01:03, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

https://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2020/01/24/result-will-be-out-in-2-days-indonesia-puts-2nd-suspected-coronavirus-patient-under-close-observation.html TheMarsian (talk) 05:29, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Confirmed not NCOV-2019 Ckfasdf (talk) 01:33, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

I've seen several anonymous users manipulating the counter for confirmed cases with unreliable sources (they don't even read the comments) or some other stuff you'd expect an anonymous user would do such as this, this, this, and this. What those IPs did are mostly minor changes in numbers instead of chunks of new content to the article, and I suppose autoconfirmed users could make those minor changes as well, maybe just a bit slower. We still have editprotected for IP users if they want to add something. @Acroterion: I think we need to reconsider semi-protection. --Techyan（Talk） 00:17, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

In addition many of these edits did not reflect that spelling use in that page that using British English. While is acceptable to use ise and ize interchangeably, but not for other spelling with exception of proper name such as US CDC which use Center and many place in China that use Center. I suggest that editnotice regarding WP:Reliable source be applied to this article same as Chinese Wikipedia in addition to spelling ones.

Requested on WP:RFPP. Darylgolden^(talk) Ping when replying 02:01, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

 Done EvergreenFir (talk) 02:22, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Shouldn't this article use Hong Kong English, as the relevant dialect of English? It is not exactly the same as British English, and it is the local English language variant that is native to some part of China, where this originated, and the first/only English speaking jurisdiction with some form of state of emergency. -- 67.70.33.184 (talk) 06:22, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

The question is then what is Hong Kong English? China (along with most of East Asia) uses American English but will primarily read information in their own languages. The English-speaking countries in the region speak "Commonwealth English" but younger people lean towards "American English" and most people write in whatever English they are exposed to through media (especially true in places such as Hong Kong or Singapore) which can often be American English. The international English spoken in East Asia will be a sort of American English as well. Tsukide (talk) 07:04, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

{{Hong Kong English}} / {{Use Hong Kong English}} -- Hong Kong English is the form of English used in Hong Kong, such as in legislation, schools, literature, media, and we have templates to handle that case. Same as {{Singapore English}} and {{Use Singapore English}} -- We should not be discriminating against all Englishes that are not British nor American. Your statement makes it seem that there are only two Englishes in the world, but the same statement with inpection, results in "what is British English or American English" (they are not static either) and not really separate then (afterall, "football" is changing in American to cover 'soccer', just look at MSL team names and media reports concerning the MSL; or the increasing use of Americanisms in Britain). This event is not something that is highly affecting the U.S. or UK, so neither of these Englishes are particularly tied to the event. -- 67.70.33.184 (talk) 02:54, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

British English isn't widely spoken in the Asia-Pacific region. The official languages all use varieties of Commonwealth English while unofficially American English is the lingua franca.

• China, along with most of East Asia, uses American English. These people aren't likely to seek information in English however.
• Hong Kong, Malaysia and Singapore, the only regions in East Asia that use English officially, use a mixture of American English and Commonwealth English due to the influence of US media. India is also in a similar situation as well.
• Canada, Australia and New Zealand are closely liked to China but all three have adopted a similar position to Hong Kong in terms of how American spelling is used.

I suggest that anyone who is able to understand the medical terminology used in this article would also be able to understand the differences between American English and British English. The locals would probably use whatever form of English they come across the most, meaning that there will be a mixture of spelling norms that lean towards American English.

Therefore the article should use whatever English norms that they naturally use, whether British or American or Commonwealth.

Tsukide (talk) 07:17, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

The simple answer is that there are many zealous promoters of British English on Wikipedia, and few people who care enough and have the ability to oppose them. jej1997 (talk) 07:25, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

The real answer is that this is Wikipedia policy. Whatever the article starts with, then that is what we use. It is lower quality if it is mixed. Don't be too stressed if you don't know how to write in British English, as the zealous will fix it. See WP#Langvar with the section labelled "Consistency within articles" Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:54, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

The first edit where a language variant can be noted is here . In this edit the American date format is used. However, the first edit where a spelling variant is evident is this one . Here, we have "travelling" as opposed to "traveling" (some of my American colleagues actually use "travelling" - not sure why). However, does it matter? I think not. There are very many articles on Wikipedia where AmE is mandated for no good reason. It doesn't matter what version of English they use in China. In that country they don't speak English and they have their own Wikipedia. Also, it's good that Wikipedia (or is it Wikipaedia) supports and encourages English language variants; it highlights the issue of variants to younger readers and hopefully gives them a more global perspective of life. For this article - I suggest it's just left as it is. 31.52.163.28 (talk) 13:45, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

"In that country they... have their own Wikipedia." To be clear; no they do not. There is a Chinese-language Wikipedia, not a China-country Wikipedia. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:53, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Correct. My mistake. Excellent pedantry, by the way. 31.52.163.28 (talk) 14:30, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Vote we get rid of the British English Zealots and just use the more common English. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 14:45, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Don't drag Singapore, Malaysia, Hong Kong and India, please. We adopt UK spelling for 99% of the time. At the very least for Singapore centric articles, many of our articles are declared EngVarB. Personally, I am flexible as to which variants to use. However, I am conditioned to default to UK variant. robertsky (talk) 14:52, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

@Robertsky Hong Kong, Malaysia and Singapore use Commonwealth English and increasing saturation by US media means that usage of American English is widespread and common especially in Hong Kong. India probably retains more of the British English but they've also got a large amount of native vocabulary and are more exposed to American media than Commonwealth media.Tsukide (talk) 16:36, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Agree. I'd rather take the WP:DATETIES and WP:TIES view on the primacy of those than the opinion of an IP on nebulously to conflating to a tangential alignment with British English, which WP:LANGVAR, by the way, does not unambiguously support as claimed. As the national dating format appears to be Y-M-D, the dating format will be changed to reflect the M-D style at the very least. Other reversions may come hereafter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sleath56 (talk • contribs) 17:34, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Am I that IP to which you refer? Surely you don't consider the opinion of an IP to be any less important than that of an anonymous user, do you? Regardless, this article is fundamentally about China. To quote WP:DATETIES "Articles on topics with strong ties to a particular English-speaking country should generally use the date format most commonly used in that nation" (my emphasis), so it would seem not to apply here. As for the British English zealots, yes, let's git rid fo them, as long as we also git rid of the American English zealots. 31.52.163.28 (talk) 18:10, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

• I think that ultimately the article is comprehensible enough to anyone who understands either British or American English. Perhaps this article is suitable for a thorough translation into the otherwise rather scrawny Simple English article on the virus to allow for folks who don't fully understand English to be able to get important information from this article. Aqua817 (talk) 03:53, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

• Article starts with “after people developed pneumonia”. Should it be “cluster of people”? Should we be more precise eg two-thirds of original cluster linked to the market rather than "a majority"?

• The incubation period in the lead is quoted as “ time from exposure to developing symptoms) is about two weeks", with an inline citation to a source saying "Incubation is likely 5-7 days, but may be up to 14 days”

However, The Lancet says the incubation period (not exactly known yet) is 3-6 days . This information comes from two recent Lancet papers: where it says “the incubation period was estimated to be between 3 and 6 days” . Another 5-6 day incubation is quoted in . These papers are cited in news too. statnews says where it got its information from.

• The article says “(rate of infection) appeared to escalate in mid-January”. Partially correct I think. It is more accurate to say that the detection rate increased. The more you test, the more you will get a positive result.

• There are increasing articles in peer reviewed journals and are probably preferential to a news article, where possible. Whispyhistory (talk) 18:59, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

*I would prefer to be more specific but the text is constantly changed back to simplify the article.

*It's important to keep in mind that this article is mainly about informing readers about an epidemic that could affect them, without resorting to Simple English Wikipedia standards. The two weeks is currently the maximum incubation period suggested and generally the safer option to state. I am not opposed to rewriting it as "incubation period is up to two weeks".

*It was the increase in cases reported that led to the article getting onto the front page and the incident gaining widespread attention. There's no evidence to suggest that it was due to better detection, especially in terms of its spread to other countries. A number of news outlets have stated that officials were worried about the "transmission rate" ballooning due to the new year travel season, which suggests that the term is used to refer to an increase in cases reported rather than just the rate that the virus transmits biologically. The point of the sentence is to describe the increasing number of infections that is causing this issue to be on the front page of Wikipedia and generally be considered an epidemic. Tsukide (talk) 19:34, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Re Whispyhistory, I agree we should use the shorter incubation time if that is now published in the peer-reviewed medical literature. ETA: Latest WHO situation report states 2–10 days. In general, medical journal sources should always preferred to news, but it's hard to keep hold of an article like this. (I must admit, I tend to sit back and wait for the editing frenzy to die down.) Espresso Addict (talk) 23:25, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Tsukide, all the news outlets are not exactly virologists. I think you missed the core of what I said yesterday; Everywhere the virus is tested, it is found. The odds that this virus is just a pretty normal and non-relevant mutation of the common coronavirus as to be taken seriously. The H1N1 flu probably alone killed over 1000 people while we were counting the 56 CONFIRMED deaths of this new coronavirus, but no one care because by now everyone consider the H1N1 as a normal strain. The same thing is highly likely to happen with this coronavirus that may as well been around since 2018 undetected. 67.68.202.134 (talk) 02:53, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a medical journal and this article is aimed at informing regular people. I think the more medically specific details can go in the main body or the actual virus article, whereas this lead should be more cautious at explaining how long the virus might linger in the body before showing symptoms. Several academic publications still list the 14 day incubation period:

• http://campushealth.tulane.edu/health-center/primary-care/infectious-disease-care/coronavirus-2019-ncov (14 days)
• http://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/about/symptoms.html (2 to 14 days)
• http://www.ecdc.europa.eu/en/european-surveillance-human-infection-novel-coronavirus-2019-ncov

I can understand that the shorter estimates should be used in medical literature and even the body of this text, but don't you think that the lead should provide safe advice?

Tsukide (talk) 05:31, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12303690

There are suspected cases, as three tour members are hospitalised: "It comes as three members of a tour group of 19 have been assessed at Rotorua Hospital out of concern they may have become infected with the deadly novel coronavirus infection." ~From the article's URL above Lord A.Nelson (talk) 08:00, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

I'd like consensus or discussion here if possible, as I find MOS:OL (do link other MOS parts if applicable) difficult to interpret with its list including 'countries' and 'locations.' What I think means is that for general Wikipedia articles, it does not make sense to link to China. It also does not make sense to link to China for the Infobox. Unfortunately for this event, locations don't just matter, but they matter to the point of deciding on policy and administration on human lives. The MOS also writes on duplicate links, which I generally agree with. Concretely, I think

• Infobox countries/regions should be ALL linked. This means Mainland China but keep location as Wuhan, Hubei, China.
• Countries/regions in the lead untitled section should ALL be linked, EXCEPT China. This means the following:
  • Thailand, South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Macau, Hong Kong, the United States, Singapore, Vietnam, France, Nepal, Australia, and Malaysia.
  • I do think this list of countries is 1. too long (use larger regions?) 2. weirdly sorted (I can't see the order)
• I also just noticed that the country-by-country breakdown has been moved to its own article, but if they stayed in this article, that the regions/countries not be linked but possibly each region's Ministry of Health or equivalent be linked, though I'm not sure about this.

This linking is independent of whether there should be flags for each region. Xenmorpha (talk) 08:21, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

I just noticed a move of the table, and I do agree with the move. Eitherway, my view is that in either the infobox or the table by itself under the section, that each country or region be linked. Xenmorpha (talk) 08:26, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

@Xenmorpha:, feel free to chip in on the discussion a couple sections above. Admanny (talk) 08:30, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Please replace word "Origin: Wuhan, Hubei, China" to just "Wuhan, Hubei, China" in infobox location because in Indonesian version of this article, (id.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wabah_koronavirus_baru_2019–2020) they doesn't including word Origin (Asal in Indonesian) which the term was ambigous (Former form:Asal:Wuhan, Hubei, Tiongkok; current form:Wuhan, Hubei, Republik Rakyat Tiongkok). Placing word origin with name of cities was confusing because they already know what the origin of the cities. Word "Origin" should be removed in order to easily navigate the virus origin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 36.76.226.238 (talk) 08:27, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Technically "Location" would be "worldwide" but since the definition of "location" is ambiguous in this context I suggest keeping Origin. However, I do feel now that "Location: Origin: Wuhan..." sounds wrong so I've temporarily changed it to "Originating from". Admanny (talk) 08:37, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

The patient who came to Turkey was never tested/confirmed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Colin dm (talk • contribs) 03:48, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

That change was reverted at 04:03, so you may wish to refresh your browser if the image is showing wrongly. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:29, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

If that doesn't work, see Wikipedia:Bypass your cache and WP:PURGE. It can be complicated although generally a little better if logged in. Nil Einne (talk) 11:24, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

This edit request to 2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

First case in Canada. Source Sesved (talk) 13:59, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

@Sesved: When using {{edit semi-protected}}, please provide the exact text that you wish to be added, removed or changed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:19, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

It's on island tv Channels as a breaking news Nickayane99 (talk) 15:37, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

OK I added it to the table --Colin dm (talk) 16:23, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

I think it's better to place the table beside the infobox and move the maps of China somewhere else (as it was before), since the infection has international status and the very presense of this table at the top of the article allows for a quick analysis of the international situation and severity of the outbreak, which are, probably, the main two things people expect from reading this article in those times of ambiguity and showers of press reports. -- Nicholas Velasquez (talk) 12:26, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, that table is the selling point of this article. It is compact, alarming, and fully referenced. People come here to look at it, so it should be in the top of this article. Tuanminh01 (talk) 12:32, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Definitely agreed, the table is the first thing people look for.--Colin dm (talk) 16:30, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

We now have two cases in Canada, yet the first one was removed from the casualties total. Maplesyrupcan (talk) 12:40, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

No cases have been officially confirmed in Canada yet. Strongly suspected yes, but not officially confirmed. Should happen today. Canterbury Tail talk 13:24, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Two cases are confirmed now. "The Chief Medical Officer of Health confirmed that the wife of the province's first case of Wuhan novel coronavirus has tested positive for the virus at Ontario's public health laboratory." Xenagoras (talk) 16:17, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

I know people are harping over Canada's use of 'presumptive positive', however they have positive sequencing matches for both cases, which is the same criteria all other countries are using to report positives. Canada however has decided to be ultra-conservative and require a second independent lab verification. These are positive cases by the standards being set by other countries.Tezakhiago (talk) 16:30, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

I seem in English wiki, the confirmed Case totaled at 2,809. but in Chinese (and possibility Indonesian) Wiki, the Cases totaled at 2,802. Where is the correct number? If 2,809 is true, which country that confirmed 7 Cases? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 36.76.226.238 (talk) 04:38, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

I suggest that we should waiting for further information. Mariogoods (talk) 07:15, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Numbers are much larger than what Chinese censorship allows to publish.

So why is it not back at the top? Maplesyrupcan (talk) 17:07, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

The table as it currently stands inside the infobox is already cluttered and has formatting issues. As more countries and sources pile up it will be a matter of time before it becomes a disorganized eyesore. Thus I propose moving the table to section "Countries with confirmed and suspected cases and country prevention" as currently that section has nothing but a main article link to a separate article detailing each country's specific situation with maps and whatnot, so I think this would be extremely fitting, as the table would serve as a quick rundown of each country and it's right next to a map of the world. Should users want to see more, they can click the main article link. As for the infobox, we can simply link to the section with a "See below" type of comment. Edit: I have made a demonstration edit to show what this might look like. Admanny (talk) 07:57, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

That looks like a good idea to me. The table is (sadly) getting longer and longer. Moving it out of the infobox would be sensible.

However, I note that infoboxes are not meant to have "see below" comments as per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE. That's what the Table of Contents is for. Bondegezou (talk) 10:54, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

The infobox should certainly have the total number of cases and deaths included, even if there is no list of countries there. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:25, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

They should be included back in the total. The first case was on the list yesterday when it was still at the top of the page where it belongs. Maplesyrupcan (talk) 17:06, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Having a grand total in the infobox seems sensible to me. Bondegezou (talk) 17:10, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

https://news.ontario.ca/mohltc/en/2020/01/ontario-confirms-second-presumptive-case-of-wuhan-novel-coronavirus.html As cited here, 1 person is positive(second case)Luke Kern Choi 5 (talk) 14:24, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

OK I'll add it to the table--Colin dm (talk) 15:47, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

And Canada was removed again. 170.225.9.141 (talk) 17:23, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Canada confirmed two cases, not one. The map should be updated too.--180.129.83.227 (talk) 17:29, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

This edit request to 2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Specialty hospitals

China is building at least four coronavirus hospitals in a desperate bid to curb the spread of the life-threatening disease. Two of the urgent projects are in Wuhan, one in nearby Huanggang city and one in Zhenzhou in central China's Henan Province.

Source: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7933719/Incredible-footage-shows-Chinas-1-000-bed-coronavirus-hospital-taking-shape-four-days.html Rebelbear (talk) 18:56, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Daily Mail isn't a proper source Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 220#Daily Mail RfC --Colin dm (talk) 19:21, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

This edit request to 2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change confirmed cases in Mainland China to 2863 because Jiangxi province is reporting 24 new cases. Here is the source: http://hc.jiangxi.gov.cn/doc/2020/01/28/137758.shtml

For more updates you can follow my spreadsheet at -> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1fgSAvyLrLSaV5bkRl8Ju7Xc0bdoXJu1yKMhVVLjYLpM/edit?usp=sharing CryticalOG (talk) 20:02, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

With each country commencing repatriation of its citizens from China, are we going to include those? Example: http://www.adaderana.lk/news_intensedebate.php?nid=60459 – NirvanaToday^t@lk 20:50, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

This edit request to 2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

There are now 2 cases in Canada not 1. 142.55.0.13 (talk) 20:46, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

I'll update to 2 cases in Canada. (Source: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-health-canada/wife-of-canadas-first-coronavirus-patient-tests-positive-19-under-investigation-idUSKBN1ZQ1NS) – NirvanaToday^t@lk 20:54, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Nguyen QuocTrung

• Taiwan is not part of China. The so-called greater China is the concept invented by People's Republic of China.
• Such image is not verifiable.
• No reference directly identifies the prevalence of Wuhan Virus in such PRC-invented concept.
• That section is talking about global prevalence not PRC alone.

--Discern irony (talk) 19:59, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

I don’t care about politics because this article is about a virus, I’m only care why you removed an image just because it conflicted your ideology. Nguyen QuocTrung (talk) 20:07, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Such image is not supported by any reference and it doesn't fit in the section of global prevalence. --Discern irony (talk) 20:18, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Go to talk to another editor who reverted your edits and explain this to them. I’m not talking to a person who deleted my reply just because he don’t like it. Nguyen QuocTrung (talk) 20:24, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

• Note Please see prior discussion above on image of map. Thanks. PenulisHantu (talk) 02:55, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
• I changed to a map of (Mainland) China showing the confirmed cases by province. I think it is more relevant to the epidemic.--Jabo-er (talk) 17:47, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

That’s okay. The user that posted this was blocked for being a sock puppet so the Greater China Map can go back. It is also clearly the more appropriate one as every state in Greater China had confirmed cases.--Ratherous (talk) 00:16, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Jabo-er, stop changing map without consensus.--Ratherous (talk) 00:38, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

For the record, Re: The so-called greater China is the concept invented by People's Republic of China. Given the sourcing on the history of the term, this conspiracy-theory-like, outlandish claim itself is a fabrication indicative of a hyper-partisan, racist, ultra xenophobic pan-Green-ite mindset. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 19:42, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

See above discussion: Why aren't Mongolia and Vladivostock in this map of 'Greater China'? Geographyinitiative (talk) 00:48, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Geographyinitiative, I was refuting the absurd-on-face-value claim made by the sockpuppet. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 04:04, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Taiwan has been placed under administration of Chinese government since 1945, Hong Kong since 1997, and Macau since 1999. Change of regime within a certain country will not affect its territories; for example, can you say since Benghazi is not currently under control of Libyan central government in Tripoli, Benghazi is not part of Libya? Or Abkhazia not part of Georgia; Transnistria not part of Moldova, for that matter? Taekhosong (talk) 21:12, 27 January 2020 (UTC)