Cannabis Ruderalis

thcscience_admin
Former good article nomineeCOVID-19 pandemic was a Natural sciences good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
In the news Article milestones
DateProcessResult
February 28, 2020Featured article candidateNot promoted
September 10, 2020Good article nomineeNot listed
January 2, 2022Good article nomineeNot listed
In the news News items involving this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "In the news" column on January 20, 2020, January 28, 2020, January 31, 2020, February 4, 2020, March 11, 2020, and March 16, 2020.
Current status: Former good article nominee
NewFavicon icon.svg           Other talk page banners
NewFavicon icon.svg           Article history
Stock post message.svg To-do list for COVID-19 pandemic: edit · history · watch · refresh · Updated 2020-11-25


Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
  • Cleanup : Hold another large discussion similar to the one that led to current consensus item 5 to figure out how to apportion space to different countries/continents in the domestic responses section
  • Maintain : PEIS limits Emojione 2611.svg

Current consensus[edit]

NOTE: The following is a list of material maintained on grounds that it represents current consensus in the article. In accordance with Wikipedia:General sanctions/COVID-19, ("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 [[Talk:COVID-19 pandemic#Current consensus]], item [n]. To ensure you are viewing the current list, you may wish to purge this page.

1. Superseded by 9.
The first few sentences of the 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]" ( March 2020)

2. The infobox should feature a per capita count map most prominently, and a total count by country map secondarily. (March 2020)

3. The article should not use {{current}} at the top. (March 2020 (informal), March 2020 (informal))

4. Do not include a sentence in the lead section noting comparisons to World War II. (March 2020)

5. Include subsections of the "Domestic response" section 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. (March 2020) Include a short subsection on Sweden focusing on the policy controversy. (May 2020)

6. Superseded by 10.
There was a 30 day moratorium on move requests until April 26 2020: this has now expired. (March 2020)

7. The infobox should feature a confirmed cases count map most prominently, and a deaths count map secondarily. (May 2020 (prevailing)) Consensus is currently unclear on this issue.

8. Superseded by 15.
The clause on xenophobia in the lead 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. Link 1
9. Superseded as this content is now transcluded from Coronavirus disease 2019

The first few sentences of the 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.

  1. ^ Close contact is defined as one metre (three feet) by the WHO[1] and two metres (six feet) by the CDC.[2]
  2. ^ An uncovered cough can travel up to 8.2 metres (27 feet).[3]
Link 1, Link 2

10. The title of the article was decided to be "COVID-19 pandemic". It was also decided that the title of related pages should follow this scheme as well. (April 2020, August 2020)

11. The lead paragraph should use Wuhan, China to describe the virus's origin, without mentioning Hubei or otherwise further describing Wuhan. (April 2020)

12. The second sentence of the lead paragraph should be phrased using the words "first identified" (not "originated") and "December 2019" (not "early December 2019"). (May 2020)

13.
File:President Donald Trump suggests measures to treat COVID-19 during Coronavirus Task Force press briefing.webm should be used as the visual element of the misinformation section, with the caption U.S. president Donald Trump suggested at a press briefing on 23 April that disinfectant injections or exposure to ultraviolet light might help treat COVID-19. There is no evidence that either could be a viable method.[8] (1:05 min) Link 1, Link 2. An RfC regarding this issue is currently awaiting closure following an overturned close attempt.
File:President Donald Trump suggests measures to treat COVID-19 during Coronavirus Task Force press briefing.webm should not be used as the visual element of the misinformation section. (November 2020 RFC)

14. Do not mention the theory that the virus was accidentally leaked from a laboratory in the article. May 2020

15. Incidents of xenophobia and discrimination are considered WP:UNDUE for a full sentence in the lead. (January 2021)

16. Only include one photograph in the infobox. The exact image in question has no clear consensus. (May 2021)

17. The first sentence is The COVID-19 pandemic, also known as the coronavirus pandemic, is an ongoing global pandemic of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). (August 2021)

References

  1. ^ a b c d e f g Cite error: The named reference WHO2020QA was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ a b c d e f "Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) - Transmission". Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 17 March 2020. Retrieved 23 March 2020.
  3. ^ Cite error: The named reference Bourouiba, JAMA, 26 March was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  4. ^ Cite error: The named reference ECDCQA was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  5. ^ "Modes of transmission of virus causing COVID-19: implications for IPC precaution recommendations". World Health Organization. 29 March 2020. Retrieved 3 April 2020. According to current evidence, COVID-19 virus is primarily transmitted between people through respiratory droplets and contact routes.
  6. ^ Organization (WHO), World Health (28 March 2020). "FACT: #COVID19 is NOT airborne. The #coronavirus is mainly transmitted through droplets generated when an infected person coughs, sneezes or speaks.To protect yourself:-keep 1m distance from others-disinfect surfaces frequently-wash/rub your -avoid touching your pic.twitter.com/fpkcpHAJx7". @WHO. Retrieved 3 April 2020. These droplets are too heavy to hang in the air. They quickly fall on floors or sufaces.
  7. ^ Cite error: The named reference StableNIH was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  8. ^ Rogers, Katie; Hauser, Christine; Yuhas, Alan; Haberman, Maggie (24 April 2020). "Trump's Suggestion That Disinfectants Could Be Used to Treat Coronavirus Prompts Aggressive Pushback". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 25 April 2020.

500 million cases[edit]

In the article lead it states that case numbers have surpassed 504 million globally, but without citation. Please could someone edit the subheading Cases under the Epidemiology heading to include this statement: As of the 14th April 2022, over 500 million cases have been confirmed globally. along with this citation from reuters (or other suitable citation) https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/worldwide-covid-cases-surpass-500-mln-omicron-variant-ba2-surges-2022-04-14/ Asimoth (talk) 02:32, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

will look.... Done [1]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 01:42, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request: 18-Apr-2022[edit]

The dates mentioned in the following paragraphs is missing the year 2020. I was just wondering if this omission is deliberate? MOS:DATE states to "omit year only where there is no risk of ambiguity". If this isn't on purpose, I'd like to request that the year 2020 be added to these dates please.

  • Section 8.1 (Impact -> Economics): "The pandemic and responses to it damaged the global economy. On 27 February, worries about the outbreak crushed US stock indexes, which posted their sharpest falls since 2008."
  • Section 8.3 (Impact -> Politics -> Italy): "In early March, the Italian government criticised the EU's lack of solidarity with Italy. On 22 March, after a phone call with Italian Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte, Russian president Vladimir Putin ordered the Russian army to send military medics, disinfection vehicles, and other medical equipment to Italy."

2604:3D08:6E7D:2100:4C10:9ADF:D140:590C (talk) 07:04, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Done...[2]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 01:36, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RFC on removal of alt-text related to COVID-19 lab leak theory[edit]

Proposal[edit]

Propose that alt text Wikipedia:Piped link that is currently used that changes "COVID-19 lab leak theory" to "alternative origins" be removed, as demonstrated in this diff. Note that this RFC appears to be subject to Talk:COVID-19_pandemic#Current_consensus #14 (above) and if so, this RFC proposes a reconsideration and modification of May 2020 consensus related to #14 only. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 02:48, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Polling[edit]

Discussion[edit]

  • Comment appears to me that the 2020 consensus we are using is now outdated given the significant media coverage given to the "lab leak theory" and our current implementation is WP:WEASEL. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 02:50, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's not alt text, it's a piped link. Anyway, yes per WP:SUBMARINE it should not be piped in such a misleading manner. I don't see the point in removing sources as the diff does, however.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:16, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, I will change that alt-text link. I changed the source to the current source that is used over at the target article. Dont really have a strong opinion on the sources, the subject of the RFC is really the piped link. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:44, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was randomly chosen by a bot to comment on this RfC. It's difficult to comment without understanding what the sources say and what is the purpose of the paragraph. If the paragraph is not specifically about the COVID-19 lab leak theory, but about different kinds of origins such as animal origin in general and that the lab weak theory is only one specific theory among them, then it should be mentioned only in due proportion, which might mean that it should perhaps not be mentioned at all in such a small paragraph. In any case, it must be either not included or included in a way that intuitively matches with the context. So, my point is that, first, there must be a consensus about whether or not the COVID-19 lab leak theory should be mentioned and, if the consensus is that it should be mentioned. then the phrase should be about the COVID-19 lab leak theory without hiding it under a piped link. Putting it in another way, the first question that must be answered is whether we want to mention the COVID-19 lab leak theory at all. If we want to mention it, then we should not hide it under a non intuitive piped link. Dominic Mayers (talk) 11:59, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding a link with the current consensus statement, I'd suggest that the only appropriate wl would be to Investigations into the origin of COVID-19 instead (though it's the See Also for the section, so it might just not require a blue link here). I'm removing the link until there's consensus to directly mention here. If the consensus item changes, I think we'll need some kind of piping to make the sentence flow, but it should be a direct mention of "leaked from the WIV" or "a lab leak" in that case. If there's desire to update consensus item 14, we should do that directly first. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:21, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Here in this diff you removed the link that is the subject of this RFC. Seems somewhat odd to edit text that is subject of an RFC during the RFC. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 00:36, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with this. Even if it seems that a consensus is emerging, one must wait after the RfC is closed before making edits that can render obsolete its description. Besides, until a RfC is closed, there is always a possibility that the comments go into a different direction. Dominic Mayers (talk) 01:27, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Something being under an RfC does not mean the article needs to be frozen in the previous version. I'd argue that, entirely disregarding item 14; the link as it stood was misleading and quite WP:SURPRISE (a reader looking for "alternative origin scenarios" would be far better served with a link to Investigations into the origin of COVID-19 or/and COVID-19 misinformation#Misinformation regarding virus origin, than for a link singling out one of those alternative scenarios). Now if you add item 14 on top of it, seems rather cut and dry to me. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:01, 21 April 2022 (UTC
    Sure, it does not have to be frozen because of a RfC, but this link is exactly the issue raised by the RfC. What you are saying is that the answer to the RfC is obvious for you. I think people should propose to close the RfC on that basis and see what happens, not act as if we have already the conclusion of the RfC. Actually, I was going to propose that we close this RfC, because though there might be room to discuss (in a different RfC) whether COVID-19 lab leak theory should be mentioned, I agree that the current piped link is too much like a WP:SURPRISE to be kept. Either we mention it properly or we don't. Dominic Mayers (talk) 02:14, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    For the record, I don't think COVID-19 lab leak theory should be mentioned in this article. It can only be mentioned in a more focused article that takes the space needed to be truly informative on this issue. But my opinion and the opinion of others about this is irrelevant to the current issue: we cannot act under the assumption that we know the conclusion of the RfC. Dominic Mayers (talk) 02:30, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am not presuming or advocating this edit as the long-term solution, as my final sentence above indicates. My interpretation of the current wording of consensus item #14 Do not mention the theory that the virus was accidentally leaked from a laboratory in the article is that wikilinking to the lab leak article counts as a mention, and as is typical in RfC discussions the article should maintain a status quo state consistent with previous consensus. I agree we cannot act assuming we know this conclusion of this (or a follow-on) RfC, which is why I believe the article needs to avoid a mention (in the form of a blue link) of the lab leak theory until an RfC concludes it should be included. If there's strong disagreement that a blue link counts as mention I won't edit war over it, but that's my case for the edit. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:53, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The text probably should be left in the article per WP:STATUSQUO. I dont edit this article enough to know how long it was there, but a reasonable guess it has been there for a while. To remove the subject of an RFC in middle of an RFC is WP:TE. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:52, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
From the sidebar in WP:STATUSQUO: Ultimately, when the main question is whether an article should include the disputed content at all (rather than, e.g., which editor's wording to prefer), policy requires the editors who want to continue to include disputed material to demonstrate that there is a consensus in favor of its inclusion. We have established consensus not to mention this topic. As I said previously, I will not edit war over this if there's a strong view that a wikilink does not count as a mention, but per the above policy I believe I've ensured the article abides by current consensus pending this discussion seeking to change it.
Here's the diff adding the piped link, pinging X-Editor as the original author. Bakkster Man (talk) 12:42, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • agree w/ Bakkster Man--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:29, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem has always been one of due weight in relevant sources. I don't see how that has changed. I did a little search on Pubmed for "covid AND origin", and without spending too much time on that, stuff like [3] [4] seems to assume a zoonotic origin; this says that the origin is uncertain, but the uncertainty does not appear to be "zoonotic vs lab leak", but "which animal did it come from and how exactly". This doesn't appear to be a dramatic change from the papers listed here (including the latest paper which seems to have studied this particular topic in-depth, the review by Holmes et al. about 6 months ago; which categorically rejects the lab-based scenarios). So claims that "the 2020 consensus seems outdated" don't seem accurate, hence, without actual evidence that this has actually changed, I don't see the point of this. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:17, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This RFC doesnt address if a scientific consensus change has occurred in the scientific community. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:23, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Dominic Mayers and the proposal, in as much that the wording of the piped link was not appropriate, and that if the consensus is to include a link to COVID-19 lab leak theory that this link should be explicit and the theory directly mentioned in the text. However, I agree with Bakkster Man that, given the broad-brush coverage in this article, the most appropriate link is to Investigations into the origin of COVID-19 which then introduces the broad range of theories. |→ Spaully ~talk~  09:33, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bakkster Man's argument generally makes sense to me. XOR'easter (talk) 15:31, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think in general Bakkster Man is right about this. The mention is mostly concerning alternative origins in general, of which the lab leak is one among many theories. The investigations article also covers the lab leak in detail, with links to it in several places. Nobody is going to get lost here. They will find what they are looking for, and that is the primary purpose of Wikipedia. To preference the Lab leak theory above all others in a wiki link like this would be inappropriate. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 13:44, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 April 2022[edit]

I noticed a few minor problems that I wanted to fix. BOBByjsdf ohsfj (talk) 20:19, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone may add them for you. You are more than welcome to point out what the problems are, how they should be fixed, and provide reliable sources, if relevant. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:27, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Classification of Virus[edit]

Should Covid-19 be considered a respiratory disease? Covid-19 has been shown to affect multiple parts of the body, so why do we say it's just a respiratory disease? BadKarma22 (talk) 01:46, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

this question which is more to the condition, rather than the pandemic, should be taken to COVID-19/talk,--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:11, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 May 2022[edit]

Can you add newer link to other articles? Also, try to add vocabulary and date of word created. 2601:205:C002:D1E0:B0B7:360C:595E:DD5E (talk) 08:21, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 09:03, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
source: https://web.archive.org/web/20220513134105/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:COVID-19_pandemic

Leave a Reply