Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:07, 25 January 2020

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.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL

Archives: Index, Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49Auto-archiving period: 14 days

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

A news item involving COVID-19 pandemic was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the In the news section on 20 January 2020.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Asia Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Asia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Asia on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject AsiaTemplate:WikiProject AsiaAsia Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Australia Mid‑importance COVID-19 pandemic is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian at the National Library of Australia. The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. China: History High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Misplaced Pages. 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 High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Chinese history (assessed as High-importance). This article needs a map. Please work with the Maps workgroup to create and add a map to this article. Once the requested map is added, remove the map-needed parameter. An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Death Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Misplaced Pages. 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Disaster management Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management on Misplaced Pages. 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 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. France Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FranceWikipedia:WikiProject FranceTemplate:WikiProject FranceFrance Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Hong Kong High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hong Kong, a project to coordinate efforts in improving all Hong Kong-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other Hong Kong-related articles, you are invited to join this project.Hong KongWikipedia:WikiProject Hong KongTemplate:WikiProject Hong KongHong Kong High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article. Wikipedians in Hong Kong may be able to help! Hong Kong To-do: edit history watch purge Attention needed (60) ...needing expert attention (4) • ...without infoboxes (33) Collaboration needed Recommend topic Improvement needed GA-Class articles (60) • B-Class articles (298) Cleanup needed C-Class articles (1,069) Image needed (347) Destub needed Start-Class articles (5,531) • Stub-Class articles (6,678) Deorphan needed ...orphans Page creation needed Requested articles Miscellaneous tasks ...maintain popularity • ...assess the un-Class (379) • ...assess the un-Importance (1,341) Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Japan: History High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Japan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Japan-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project, participate in relevant discussions, and see lists of open tasks. Current time in Japan: 10:51, January 6, 2025 (JST, Reiwa 7) (Refresh)JapanWikipedia:WikiProject JapanTemplate:WikiProject JapanJapan-related High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the History task force. WikiProject Japan to do list: edit history watch purge Peer review: None A-class review: None Featured content candidates –  Articles: None Pictures: None Lists: None Good article nominations: Vinland Saga (TV series), Godzilla Minus One Add requested images to articles that need them. Pages for Deletion: Participate in Japan-related deletion discussions. Improve and expand Japan-related stubs. Create some requested articles. Help translate an article from the Japanese Misplaced Pages into English. Assess unassessed articles Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Korea High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Korea, a collaborative effort to build and improve articles related to Korea. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how use this banner, please refer to the documentation.KoreaWikipedia:WikiProject KoreaTemplate:WikiProject KoreaKorea-related High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Macau High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Macau, an attempt to better organize and improve articles related to Macau.MacauWikipedia:WikiProject MacauTemplate:WikiProject MacauMacau High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Medicine: Pulmonology High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Pulmonology task force (assessed as High-importance). An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article. Nepal Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Nepal, which aims to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of Nepal-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page and add your name to the member's list.NepalWikipedia:WikiProject NepalTemplate:WikiProject NepalNepal Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Singapore High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Singapore, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Singapore on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SingaporeWikipedia:WikiProject SingaporeTemplate:WikiProject SingaporeSingapore High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Thailand High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Thailand, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Thailand-related articles on Misplaced Pages. The WikiProject is also a part of the Counteracting systematic bias group aiming to provide a wider and more detailed coverage on countries and areas of the encyclopedia which are notably less developed than the rest. If you would like to help improve this and other Thailand-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.ThailandWikipedia:WikiProject ThailandTemplate:WikiProject ThailandThailand High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Taiwan Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Taiwan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Taiwan on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TaiwanWikipedia:WikiProject TaiwanTemplate:WikiProject TaiwanTaiwan Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. United Kingdom Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. United States Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Vietnam Low‑importance This article is part of WikiProject Vietnam, an attempt to create a comprehensive, neutral, and accurate representation of Vietnam on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.VietnamWikipedia:WikiProject VietnamTemplate:WikiProject VietnamVietnam Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Viruses High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Viruses, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of viruses on Misplaced Pages. 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 High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

On 16 January 2020, it was proposed that this article be moved from 2019–20 outbreak of novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV). The result of the discussion was move.

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.

Adding more content

I would suggest that we translate the information from the article in Mandarin and add the content here. Right now the article is too short to provide a comprehensive overview. For example, we can talk about actions taken by other places like Singapore, Taiwan, Hong Kong and so on. Thanks. TheGreatSG'rean (talk) 17:35, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

the only case ex-China is in Thailand, so far. What do you mean, talk about airport screening? I don't see an article on that. Would probably be a good idea. JuanTamad (talk) 05:03, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) outbreak in China

The CDC (and/or other authorities) seems to have settled on a name for it -- Shall we change the title of the article to '2019-20 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) outbreak in China' JuanTamad (talk) 04:57, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Maybe, see what everyone else calls it. let's wait a little. Whispyhistory (talk) 06:47, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Confirmed cases in Thailand

She did visit similar markets, which suggests the virus may have spread to other markets. She was confirmed to have the 2019-nCoV virus. JuanTamad (talk) 05:30, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

This is the 5th confirmed case in Thailand as of 1830 24nJan China time, also from Bangkok. One unconfirmed case in Chiang Mai. JuanTamad (talk) 10:37, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

confirmed case in Philippines

https://news.abs-cbn.com/news/01/21/20/philippines-probes-case-of-child-from-china-who-tested-positive-for-coronavirus?fbclid=IwAR26cLp3Fsk8pg8VLn1EHeoCxTVkOXjcFBiSR9ECpHk147SfjxW8maVgPdE JuanTamad (talk) 15:12, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 16 January 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. The !votes for wait and see still apply and this article can be re-moved at that point. -- JHunterJ (talk) 22:46, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

2019–20 outbreak of novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) → 2019–20 outbreak of novel coronavirus – "(2019-nCoV)" is redundant because it is a shortened form of "2019 novel coronavirus". A relevant article 2012 Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus outbreak is not 2012 Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) outbreak. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 22:13, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

(Move history)

• 2019-2020 China pneumonia outbreak: Initial title
• 2019–20 China pneumonia outbreak: move to consistent title
• 2019-20 outbreak of novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) in Wuhan, China: formal name from the US CDC - https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/novel-coronavirus-2019.html
• 2019-20 outbreak of novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV): Moving this because there are now 2 cases outside of China and the new title is still very specific
• 2019–20 outbreak of novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV): Changed the dash code to the larger one

Other outbreaks pages include the location, the year(s), and the agent (virus, bacteria etc); see Western African Ebola virus epidemic, 2016 Angola and DR Congo yellow fever outbreak, List of Ebola outbreaks. Probably include Wuhan in the title since associated with that one city in China. '2019 novel coronavirus outbreak in Wuhan. China' as in this article JuanTamad (talk) 01:51, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose While "2019-nCoV" is derived from "2019 novel coronavirus", it is also now a name for a particular strain of virus and thus differentiates this article. Jtamad has a point that other outbreak article pages use geography, so we could do that here. Bondegezou (talk) 14:53, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

• Comment - The name of the virus is not even firm yet, so if the article is moved now, it will likely be moved again atleast once in the future. "Novel coronavirus" is just a placeholder name. --Nessie (📥) 14:59, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Good point. So let's go back to something like "2019–2020 Wuhan pneumonia outbreak". Bondegezou (talk) 16:02, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

• comment ...something like "2019–2020 Wuhan pneumonia outbreak" is a good ideaOzzie10aaaa (talk) 19:02, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
• Comment—"(2019-nCoV)" does nothing except confuse non-expert readers. I agree with Bondegezou and Ozzie10aaaa, "2019–20 Wuhan pneumonia outbreak" is the best placeholder until there's a settled name in the medical community. Harland1 (/_c) 19:17, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
• rename to 2019–20 Wuhan pneumonia outbreak agreeing with above voters. I certainly agree that the stuff in parenthesis is inappropriate. The virus has been changing names, and "novel" is certainly only ever a temporary name. Since the disease is called Wuhan pneumonia, we should use that. The alternative is using Wuhan coronavirus in the new title. ie 2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:14, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
• comment..."2019–2020 Wuhan pneumonia outbreak" sounds reasonable. Whispyhistory (talk) 06:18, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
• comment... Just 'pneumonia' is not specific enough. Many causes of pneumonia, so coronavirus is a key term - 'coronavirus pneumonia' - the agent and the disease. Don't think WHO will ever refer to it as 'Wuhan pneumonia.' SARS originated in Guangdong province but that isn't part of any article title. JuanTamad (talk) 08:03, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

As per Graeme Bartlett and Jtamad, happy to go with 2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak. Bondegezou (talk) 09:09, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

sounds good. It is still very much associated with Wuhan. Short and succinct. JuanTamad (talk) 11:02, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

"2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak" is ok too. Whispyhistory (talk) 15:02, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

• FYI 2015 Middle East respiratory syndrome outbreak in South Korea is not named 2015 South Korea MERS coronvirus outbreak or 2015 South Korean coronvirus outbreak. The name "2020 Wuhan coronvirus outbreak" may results in an illusion that the coronvirus is scientifically named "Wuhan coronvirus". --173.68.165.114 (talk) 02:16, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
• Thus I'd suggest 2019–20 2019-nCoV outbreak in Wuhan. --173.68.165.114 (talk) 02:21, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

• Rename to 2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak. The Moose 05:33, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose as proposed. It is only "novel" temporarily. Any title with 'novel' or 'nCoV' should not be used (ever, for any article), they are not proper longer term titles (anything longer that short or immediate term), but instead are WP:NOTNEWS WP:RECENTISM-tinged titles. I am good with the suggested 2019-2020 Wuhan coronavirus pneumonia outbreak or similar. -- 67.70.33.184 (talk) 08:37, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
•  Question: :Why not wait until the virus has a formal name to discuss what title should be appropriate for this entry?--　　@舞月書生（Joye Zhang） ..👉Talk👈..『My heart will go on』 08:44, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Oppose as proposed - good point by @舞月書生（Joye Zhang） - much better to wait for a formal (i.e. WHO recognised) name to be agreed: and then use that one. Roy Bateman (talk) 13:22, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Keep current title until the virus are formally named. --173.68.165.114 (talk) 02:09, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

• Comment agree that (2019-nCoV) is redundant and obscure and must go. Novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) should also be renamed. While it is true that "novel" is a relative term, 2019–20 novel coronavirus outbreak would show when it was novel. The names with "Wuhan coronavirus" or "Wuhan pneumonia" also work for me. jnestorius 07:20, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
• Comment The article is about the outbreak rather than the virus (which has another page called Novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV)), so the article should be renamed something similar to "2019-20 pneumonia outbreak". It does not even need to specify Wuhan or China. Tsukide (talk) 13:00, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support per previous reasons Sir Magnus (talk) 17:49, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose This page on the official WHO site defines a novel coronavirus more as a non-specific term that describes "a new strain that has not been previously identified in humans" and gives the name (2019-nCoV) to the strain identified causing the initial cases in Wuhan. That is, without the name (2019-nCoV), the term "novel coronavirus" would technically be pointing to any strain that has not been identified instead of specifically the one that has been identified for the cases in and related to Wuhan. Thus, I oppose removing "(2019-nCoV)" from the title. Hopechen (talk) 19:14, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose As per comments by 舞月書生 and Hopechen. Let's wait for the official name to be determined. robertsky (talk) 02:43, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose for now also as per comments by 舞月書生 and Hopechen, as something more official may develop in the coming weeks or months. Matilda Maniac (talk) 03:58, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per abovementioned reasons. GerifalteDelSabana (talk) 05:38, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
• Comment - Why not just call it "2019-nCoV outbreak in 2019-20"?C933103 (talk) 21:51, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
• Rename to 2019-20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak. "Wuhan coronavirus" is arguably the WP:COMMONNAME for the virus.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 23:08, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

• Rename We'll have the conventional name soon enough. Naturally the nomenclature hasn't been settled yet, and this thing is moving very, very fast, far faster than Swine. Wuhan Flu? We'll see. kencf0618 (talk) 15:52, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support we can decide on a better title once the virus is formally named, but for now removing the (2019-nCoV) part seems reasonable Would (oldosfan) 02:32, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support per Oldosfan. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 03:49, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
• Comment - If diseade keep infecting at this rate, unfortunaly we may rename to 2019 coronavirus pandemic. Carlosguitar  16:29, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support removing (2019-nCoV) as redundant / unnecessary. Though I agree that "novel coronavirus" is definitely a temporary title, so the title will presumably need to be changed further when they decide on a permanent name for the virus. Dragons flight (talk) 16:36, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support removing "(2019-nCoV)" (but oppose all other suggestions) for brevity, but current name form has encyclopedic worth. Media reporting clearly suggests the outbreak is well-documented as a coronavirus outbreak. Optakeover 17:18, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support per Optakeover. Willbb234 (please {{ping}} me in replies) 20:23, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Image of Map

As we know, Wiki has strict policies on the use of images and only images from public domain or certain creative commons licenses can be used. The current image of the map of China, which is from Wiki Commons and originally sourced from CIA public domain, highlights areas within China that have territorial claim disputes. As it is NOT a map of India, regions in India claimed by China are NOT highlighted. Since the purpose of the map is to provide a good illustration on the relative locations of the cities, a decision has to be made whether the current image is inappropriate and hence removed. Please opine whether the image of the map should be Keep or Delete. Thanks PenulisHantu (talk) 05:47, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

• There are a lot of NPOV images in Commons you can use. Plus that image from a US security agency (frankly I can't find any point why you emphasized that fact that the map is from an US security agency as an excuse to stand the image) contain two highlighted arrows on that, which clearly POV. The comment on India is not constructive to the discussion, as currently almost all maps of India in Indian-related articles depicts even claimed territories not occupied by India as undisputed Indian territories, so based on that part of your comment a map containing all claimed territories not de facto administrated by China should work with this article. --173.68.165.114 (talk) 06:21, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
• Also to point out this has nothing to do with whether the image should be deleted in Commons, as there's no NPOV requirement in Commons. Commons is used for storage all media from all POV. This map could be used in a Misplaced Pages article about the US stance on different Asian conflicts. It is only inappropriate here. Noticing the map has Wuhan marked on it (and the fact that it's not on Commons), my answer is to Delete.--173.68.165.114 (talk) 06:40, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
• I noticed PenulisHantu didn't transcribe my original reason of the deletion well. Here's a quote of my original edit comment: Removed the anti-Chinese POV map showing only Chinese-administrated Aksai Chin as disputed territory while Indian-administrated South Tibet as undisputed Indian territory. The issue here is indeed two different treatments of two analogical cases in one single map. --173.68.165.114 (talk) 07:58, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Comment I would implore the use of a map with a balanced POV addressing disputed regions of Taiwan, South Tibet/Arunachal Pradesh and Aksai Chin. (Anyone, please replace current image if you know of one. Thanks) In the absence, we have to weigh between a politically imperfect map that provides useful geographical information for the topic (Keep) or do without one (Delete). Thanks. PenulisHantu (talk) 17:20, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

• Thanks to Ravenpuff. I believe this is resolved. PenulisHantu (talk) 04:52, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
• Thank you! --173.68.165.114 (talk) 05:00, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Comment I have replaced the map of "Greater China" with one of Mainland China, and my edit got reverted. Let me explain why I think a Mainland China map is more appropriate here:

• "Mainland China" is a clearly defined and commonly used term, while "Greater China" is a vaguely defined and a less commonly used one, and not without disputes.
• "Mainland China" is itself in the table of confirmed cases, so a Mainland China map can be seen as a breakdown by first-level administrative divisions. "Greater China", as its articles suggests, is an informal term used to refer a geographic area that shares commercial and cultural ties dominated by Han Chinese. A commercial and cultural concept is not quite relevant to an article concerning a epidemic.
• If the rationale to use "Greater China" over "Mainland China" is because Taiwan is infected too, then there is no reason to exclude South Korea, Thailand and Vietnam since those countries report confirmed cases too. It would be good to have a map that shows the first-level administrative divisions of the respective countries so that we are comparing apples to apples, i.e. Incheon, South Korea: 2 compared with to Hubei, China: 1096. --Jabo-er (talk) 23:53, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Hong Kong should be listed separately

The health authorities and immigration borders of Hong Kong are segregated from Mainland China. The method of the dispersal would be different for Hong Kong than any other Mainland Chinese city, though Hong Kong is a major transit and destination for all of China. Hong Kong reports its numbers separately from Mainland China as well. Tsukide (talk) 13:03, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Tsukide, Do you see any particular area of the article requiring improvement? Hoping you can offer some specificity here, unless your concern has been addressed. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:58, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

possible case in Thailand- Chiang Mai

18 year old male on flight from Wuhan placed in local hospital waiting for results from Bangkok— https://www.cm108.com/w/19543/ JuanTamad (talk) 15:19, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Paper on this virus asks for assistance in editing

Evolution of the novel coronavirus from the ongoing Wuhan outbreak and modeling of its spike protein for risk of human transmission from SCIENCE CHINA Life Sciences.Since I am not a medical major and my English is not good, I ask other colleagues for help.Ask wikis who are good at related fields to make appropriate additions based on the content of the paper contained in this source. Thank you.--舞月書生👉☎️👈∮Strive to be a good Wikipedians. 17:54, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Send me a way to contact you. I might be able to help. JuanTamad (talk) 02:20, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

• •  Remark:: from this paper,I find GISAID:CoV2020,but I can't add it in wikidata.--舞月書生👉☎️👈∮Strive to be a good Wikipedians. 18:11, 21 January 2020 (UTC)`

• Add an article about Wuhan virus in Journal of Medical Virology ：Homologous recombination within the spike glycoprotein of the newly identified coronavirus may boost cross‐species transmission from snake to human(Wiley

biorxiv)，Note that this is an unpublished version。--舞月書生👉☎️👈∮Active at zh.wikipedia, strive to be a good Wikipedian. 00:42, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

POV dispute

Can someone rewording the lead section of this article because it give me impression that Novel coronavirus only spread in Wuhan or involved chinese nationals. This statement violates NPOV policy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 36.76.229.208 (talk) 23:37, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Well, the information was true at that point as the virus was confined to China, so the statements aren't bias. How about this: You try and rewrite the statements? Thanks. TheGreatSG'rean (talk) 23:46, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Trust in announcements

Official releases from the Chinese government are often justifiably untrusted by many people, how could we go about researching the trust level on this issue? Anyone got any ideas? 210.121.187.8 (talk) 01:30, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Please justify your accusation with evidence. Thanks. Magnetic Flux (talk) 15:52, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

During the 2003 SARS Epidemic China hid infected patients from the WHO and underreported the number of SARs cases. --Colin dm (talk) 02:58, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

References

1. https://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/asiapcf/east/04/18/sars.china/. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
2. https://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/21/world/the-sars-epidemic-epidemic-china-admits-underreporting-its-sars-cases.html. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

https://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/13/world/asia/13doctor.html 70.178.54.132 (talk) 09:09, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/obituaries/shuping-wang-whistleblower-who-exposed-chinas-hivaids-crisis-dies-at-59/2019/09/25/1dd6c1e2-dfa1-11e9-b199-f638bf2c340f_story.html 70.178.54.132 (talk) 09:15, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Virus, disease, outbreak

Shouldn't the disease, the virus, and the outbreak be treated in separate articles? SARS, MERS 2012/2015/2018 are treated in that manner. We have a virus article and this article, we should have a separate disease article. SARS has 3 articles, for outbreak (timeline), virus, disease. MERS has 3 outbreak articles, 1 disease article, 1 virus article. -- 67.70.33.184 (talk) 05:51, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

There are already separate articles: Novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) and this. robertsky (talk) 06:25, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Agree with Robertsky: we already have two articles. I don't think there's quite enough content yet to separate out a disease article and an outbreak article. Content is growing rapidly: I am happy to support such a split at a later date. Bondegezou (talk) 15:21, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

I worked a great deal on 2009 flu pandemic timeline. The China Corona epidemic isn't a pandemic yet, but that article can serve as a template. Never in the history of public health has a city of 11 million been shut down, and that's just for starters. And parenthetically, I don't feel up to beginning the timeline for this epidemic just yet, but at at the beginning of the Swine Flu Pandemic federal and state warehouses rehearsed shipping out body bags, etc. kencf0618 (talk) 15:41, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

infobox country order

What is the reasoning behind the current order of the countries listed in the infobox? It's not alphabetical, it's not according to date of first reported case, and it's also not ordered by number of cases or fatalities --134.41.201.57 (talk) 15:50, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Put in alphabetical order. Whispyhistory (talk) 16:44, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Whispyhistory, Seems to be sorted by # confirmed cases now. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:00, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Sorted by number of confirmed cases. 39cookies (talk) 15:10, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Request removal of chart titled 'Suspected cases of 2019-nCoV in Hong Kong

This chart appears under the 'Global: Reported cases and repsonses' section. It is not factually inaccurate, however I believe it portrays a much more alarming situation than the underlying data presents. The chart, which I believe does not meet Misplaced Pages's formatting rules, presents 'suspected cases' of the virus in Hong Kong. I read the cited source, which is a list of all patients in Hong Kong that were tested for the virus, with almost all (except for 2) NOT testing positive for 2019-nCoV. The graph is not necessary, and similar information about 'suspect' cases of the virus are not presented in chart form for any other data. Tezakhiago (talk) 16:40, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

• Support with the current number of confirmed cases, suspected cases of a specific region may not be as notable to warrant a chart. PenulisHantu (talk) 04:17, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

@Cypp0847: your chart. notifying you to comment on this robertsky (talk) 06:58, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

The graph was first inserted and made when the epidemic was still at small scale, and the graph played a significant role in showing the social awareness of this disease. As time passes, I wouldn't disagree with removing the graph, and to follow the consensus reached. Cypp0847 (talk) 08:22, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

• Comment I haven't seen much discussion generated here, however I'm a little new to discussions about removals on important wikipedia pages. I do, however, disagree with how we are presenting 'suspected' cases at this point in the outbreak. Most of the 'suspect' cases in the Hong Kong graph have been cleared as healthy. I would be more inclined to keep that data but present it in a way that clearly states that there are not 180 people in Hong Kong that have suspected nCoV infections, but 180 people have been, or are being screened for the virus. The Mainland China chart on the page Timeline of the 2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak presents this data in a much clearer light, presenting number of people quarantined (and presumably tested) and number of people cleared. Paging @Pharexia: since your chart also displays countries with 'suspect' cases, although I think all the ones in Canada have been cleared now. It might be time to add a 'previously suspect cases which were cleared' colour. I'm not good at tracking suspect cases, however, so I'll defer here if my information is out of date. Tezakhiago (talk) 15:42, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

One question: Are the time zones consistent in the current article?

Can I declare a {{UTC}}(?) in an article?--舞月書生👉☎️👈∮Active at zh.wikipedia, strive to be a good Wikipedian 18:39, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

• Support Currently the updates can be confusing due to the speed the event is unfolding and the time differences. PenulisHantu (talk) 14:07, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Mexico's President, Confirms first Coronavirus case.

The President of Mexico, Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador has confirm the first case of coronavirus in a press conference today 01/22/2020. The carrier is was introduce as a 57 year old from Asian origin. The man had travel to Wuhan, China on the 25th of December and traveled back to Mexico on the 10th of January. The men is currently under observation from his own home in Reynosa, Tamaulipas a town that borders with the Texas, USA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fgonzalez78582 (talk • contribs) 21:50, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Removal of the cases distribution map

I have removed this graphic map, as multiple issues listed on the talk page of the correspondence Chinese Misplaced Pages article. The large Wuhan circle has covered a lot of provinces outside Hubei and looks like cases all over China; the skull next to the PRC flag looks like a curse of the entire nation. The word, Wuhan, consequently, has been squeezed to the extremely left of the map, at a location near Qinghai, making the entire pictures geographically terrible (also to notice he put Washington State to the extreme west of the map instead of the extreme east of the map, leaving huge area of blankness and an unreadable graph). The info are also extremely outdated.

The author of the graph has been notified in Chinese Misplaced Pages article talk page, but for more than 24 hours he not only didn't improve any of the issue raised but deteriorated them, so the map has already been removed in Chinese Misplaced Pages. --173.68.165.114 (talk) 04:17, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Allow me to clarify that, I didn't receive any notification in Chinese Misplaced Pages (probably technical issues). Speaking of location distribution, Europe can be assumed as the center of the map, hence Washington at the left of the map. And after all, thank you for the suggestions provided, they would be great improvements. Cypp0847 (talk) 08:33, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Organization of "No confirmed cases" section

The "No confirmed cases" has a long list of pretty short sections. Thoughts or merging some of these section into subsections for each continent? My thinking is sections for Asia, Australia, Europe, North America, and South America would reduce the number of section headings.

But, since this article is changing quickly, I also wonder if keeping content separated by country for now is easiest until editing starts to wind down and we have a better sense of how text might be organized. Thoughts? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 05:38, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Infected Indian nurse in Saudi Arabia

Should that case be labeled under India or Saudi Arabia? It's not clear if they were infected in India or Saudi Arabia. MrTempestilence (talk) 13:51, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

• If the infected person is in Saudi Arabia, I would say Saudi Arabia. PenulisHantu (talk) 14:05, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
• I'm not sure. I think Saudi Arabia but if they were infected in India it would be both, but we don't know where they were infected. 39cookies (talk) 15:08, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
• At this point, I would want better confirmation and I doubt the accuracy of this information. The referenced articles 1 and 2 have very minimal information about the actual diagnosis, and another third party news article I found here confuses information about MERS and nCoV-2019 throughout the article. The original source seems to be a reporter for the Economic Times, and there is reference to a Philipino Nurse who was infected. I haven't read about a case like that. At this point I am not convinced that this isn't a seperate infection from the ongoing 2018 Middle East respiratory syndrome outbreak. Tezakhiago (talk) 16:40, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
• If true, I'd say Saudi Arabia, since that's where the nurse is working. Dege31 (talk) 16:58, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
• Please note that the original tweet from the Indian Minister here, which seems to be the only primary source for this case, does not actually mention nCoV-2019. It only mentions Coronavirus, which is not specific. I know this is a twitter thread, but this shows there is considerable debate about how factual the report of nCoV-2019 in this nurse is, despite the info coming from the Minister of International Affairs. It is much, much more likely this is a case of MERS. I am removing the Saudi Arabia case from tables. Tezakhiago (talk) 17:20, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

New Article: Wuhan Flu Timeline

I have shifted the entirety of the Chronology section to Wuhan Flu Timeline (for obvious reasons).

I would recommend that the timeline here be limited to major announcements. kencf0618 (talk) 17:16, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

• Comment Wuhan flu may not be a term commonly used to refer to the novel corona 2019-nCoV. PenulisHantu (talk) 18:37, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

• Comment I am not well-versed with viruses, but it seems that Flu/influenza viruses are very different from the coronaviruses. Xenmorpha (talk) 19:14, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: Flu has vaccine but Wuhan Virus doesn't. --Discern irony (talk) 19:15, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

I have noted the distinction, but it'll take a while for the nomenclature to firm up (it's not as fast as the virus). For that matter, the title of this article is doubly redundant. kencf0618 (talk) 19:29, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Because it was erroneous and awkward — and practically no one is calling this "the Wuhan Flu" — I moved that new article to the title "Timeline of the 2019–20 outbreak of novel coronavirus". Paintspot Infez (talk) 20:02, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Fine by me. kencf0618 (talk) 01:23, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Greater China map

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)

Survival time of virus outside animal or man body?

Is there any knowledge about the survival time of the virus outside of the animal or man body? It is imortant to know if for deciding if I can reuse may mask or I can enter a room in which an infected (or prabably infected) person was.

They have deciphered the virus, so I think they are making tests of this kind because this is highly inportant. At least they must give the information that they are testing this.

For SARS I just checked it was 24 hours living time outside human / animal body.

Isn't there a linke where we can find scientific findings pertaining the virus in a concentrated way? 130.92.100.253 (talk) 20:10, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Inappropriate article title

"2019–20 outbreak of novel coronavirus 2019-nCoV" is something that some geeky editor came up with with only one thing in mind: official scientific nomenclature. That is inappropriate for a general purpose Misplaced Pages. It also reeks of a breach of Misplaced Pages rules (WP:ORIGINAL since this is definitely not the most common or even a rarely used name for the epidemic. Use something like "2019-20 corinavirus epidemic". There is no other competing epidemic in a different but related virus so there will be no confusion and so no need to get granular and elongate the name beyond practical use. --Loginnigol (talk) 20:28, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

You must have missed the move discussion above, the title is now 2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak, a much more accessible title. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:14, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

8 December 2019: the real outbreak date

Could someone explain why this section exists? Whispyhistory (talk) 21:24, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Seconding this. This seems like a NPOV error at least. I'm going to take the liberty of deleting it; if important NPOV information comes up, it can simply be restored, but otherwise it seems to be detracting from the article. Aqua817 (talk) 22:24, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

It was added by User:Discern irony, who turns out to be another sockpuppet of a blocked user. -Zanhe (talk) 00:22, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Adding new contents

I have seen social-political controversy section in Chinese Misplaced Pages. Should the English Misplaced Pages add such content? (if with realiable source support)Mariogoods (talk) 23:59, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Taiwan is not a member of WHO due to PRC pressure. kencf0618 (talk)

@Kencf0618: The issue you methioned is one of the social-political controversies, but there are other controversies surrounding the event. But the current article does not methioned such controversies. Mariogoods (talk) 05:17, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

I've added that context here just in case. kencf0618 (talk) 11:27, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Here's a video

It appears to be public domain if anyone wants to migrate it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v7am-CtOVB0

Victor Grigas (talk) 00:50, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

South Korea second confirm

https://news.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2020/01/24/2020012400518.html Just to note that new confirmation occurred in South Korea. Luke Kern Choi 5 (talk) 03:22, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Casualties Table

I think that there should be a row for the entirety of China, as recognised by the United Nations (incl. mainland, Hong Kong, Macau and Taiwan). This would include a total figure for all regions of the PRC. There could be sub-rows underneath China which detail the figures for the mainland, SARs and self-governing Taiwan. Thoughts? 07:04, 24 January 2020 (UTC)JMonkey2006 (talk)

I don't think so, as these jurisdictions have their own health systems, immigration and reporting. It may also give a biased political point of view. We do not have to follow the political bias of WHO/UN. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:56, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Keep them separate: they have their own health systems, Taiwan is under a different administration, and we have separate figures to report. Bondegezou (talk) 08:16, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Mistake in the map

There is a mistake in the map. It indicates "as of 2019-01-24"" and it should be 2020. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.176.159.64 (talk) 08:59, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Someone corrected it. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:40, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

2 new cases in Hong Kong

https://twitter.com/rthk_enews/status/1220649721800249344 need better source — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.157.95.111 (talk) 10:42, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Adding nationality note to infobox country

Can someone add note for nationalities in infobox country order, because I found that despite many countries reported their cases, their nationality can actually Chinese, for example In Singapore, there are 3 cases, but they all originated from mainland Chinese, or in South Korea there are 2 cases, but 1 cases is actually originated from mainland Chinese and 1 from South Koreans. The infobox in Ukraine International Airlines Flight 752 can explained that as example for this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.245.103.83 (talk) 12:49, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

• Support - putting this in in some fashion, if the information is available. It may be better presented as a simple, seperate chart, tabulating nationality and/or suspected location of infection. I personally would feel better assured if I knew every case had originated in China but I haven't seen that information presented anywhere. Tezakhiago (talk) 15:47, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose I would rather have a breakdown of confirmed cases by age rather than nationality. That would lead to allocation of blame or alienation, which is not helpful, when we already know all cases can be traced back to the epicenter. What if a victim has dual nationality? How about naturalized American Chinese or even naturalized Singaporean Chinese for that matter? PenulisHantu (talk) 20:31, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 January 2020 - First confirmed case in Nepal

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

Please update what has happened in Nepal. The new content I have included has been highlighted next to the existing content on the page. Here is the source to support the updated information.

A suspected case was reported in Nepal on 16 January 2020. The Nepali national had returned from Wuhan and was quarantined in Kathmandu. The first case in the country was confirmed on 25 January 2020 and three more people with symptoms were quarantined in the capital. 2001:8003:4E48:8600:1DFF:8071:601E:451F (talk) 13:21, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Confirmed case in Nepal has been included. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:13, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

@Graeme Bartlett: Okay thanks but I don't see any information on the three suspected cases. Here is the source for confirmation. Also, I don't see any reason why the fact that this is the first case reported in South Asia needs to be included. It kind of sounds trivial. (2001:8003:4E48:8600:1DFF:8071:601E:451F (talk) 00:36, 25 January 2020 (UTC))

Suudi arabia

This news is turkish https://www.cnnturk.com/dunya/suudi-arabistanda-hintli-hemsirede-corona-virusu-saptandi Eray08yigit (talk) 13:33, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

No flags in infoboxes

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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages. 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/Polio_eradication#2016

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

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

The following do not use flags:

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

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

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

* https://en.wikipedia.org/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)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 January 2020 - Two suspected cases in India

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

On 25 January 2019, two individuals returning from China were placed under quarantine in Mumbai.

Here is the source to support the updated information. 2001:8003:4E48:8600:1DFF:8071:601E:451F (talk) 13:48, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

This information has been put in by someone. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:18, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 January 2020 - Case in Belo Horizonte, Brazil dismissed

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The person from Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais state in Brazil that had travelled to Shanghai is no longer at suspicion. That section has to be edited out.

https://www.em.com.br/app/noticia/gerais/2020/01/23/interna_gerais,1116451/ses-mg-descarta-caso-coronavirus-em-protocolo-do-ministerio-da-saude.shtml

https://saude.estadao.com.br/noticias/geral,mg-investiga-caso-suspeito-de-coronavirus-chines-em-belo-horizonte,70003168598 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flamesii (talk • contribs) 13:53, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

These changes were introduced in the revision as of 14:26, 24 January 2020. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:17, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Finland coronavirus case

two people are suspected to have corona-virus in Finland. danish article.Ragoris (talk) 14:42, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

The tests were negative. --Znuddel (talk) 19:20, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

References

1. https://www.dr.dk/nyheder/udland/personer-mistaenkes-coronavirus-i-finland
2. https://svenska.yle.fi/artikel/2020/01/24/turisterna-i-ivalo-i-lappland-bar-inte-coronavirus-karantanen-havd

Fatality rate

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)

The first Turkey carona case

https://www.ntv.com.tr/turkiye/cinli-hasta-ulkesine-gonderildi,3xSDZb8Aa0SQLthh_iBlAQ Eray08yigit (talk) 15:42, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

• Not clinically confirmed? Just mentions of suspected patient being sent back to China but there's no clinical confirmation. PenulisHantu (talk) 20:42, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

US Suspected Cases

We need to update the US suspected cases to contain the following. New here and can't edit the page myself at this moment.

US health officials are currently monitoring 63 other potential cases within the US. The cases currently being monitored in the U.S. stretch across 22 different states, including the first patient in Washington state and the new case in Illinois, Dr. Nancy Messonnier, the director of the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, told reporters on a conference call hosted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on Friday. https://www.cnbc.com/2020/01/24/cdc-confirms-second-us-case-of-coronavirus-chicago-resident-diagnosed.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmanndriver (talk • contribs) 16:29, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

 Done - Thanks, I've edited and put this in. |→ Spaully  

Semi-protected edit request on 24 January 2020

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

I have to add a country to the country list. Onche de Bougnadée (talk) 19:52, 24 January 2020 (UTC)Onche de Bougnadée Onche de Bougnadée (talk) 19:52, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

 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. Melmann 21:30, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Finland shouldn't be in the "suspected" category of countries

Now that the only 2 cases in Finland were confirmed negative I don't think Finland deserves to be in the "suspected" category and it should be moved somewhere else. --Colin dm (talk) 20:27, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Finland removed. Znuddel (talk) 20:41, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree that it should've been removed, but I think it should be moved somewhere else because of it's importance. --Colin dm (talk) 20:44, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Second that, maybe a we need a new category for cases like this? Znuddel (talk) 21:00, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree. Is there any precedence for this in a previous article? --Colin dm (talk) 21:10, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Here is the article about the negative tests, if that's what you're looking for? I suspect there will be more similiar cases gradually. --Znuddel (talk) 21:33, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

More suspected US cases

4 under investigation in NYC for Coronavirus. https://www.timesunion.com/news/article/NY-reports-4-people-under-investigation-for-new-15001917.php

3 people in michigan being tested. https://www.fox2detroit.com/news/state-sends-three-possible-cases-of-coronavirus-in-se-michigan-to-cdc-for-testing

These can be added to US suspected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmanndriver (talk • contribs) 20:33, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree, but adding every individual case may become harder if the number of cases keeps increasing as it is right now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Colin dm (talk • contribs) 21:06, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Fixing grammar

Can someone change word from this sentence: "Both passengers had traveled through Schiphol Airport on their way to France." to "Both passengers had travelled through Schiphol Airport on their way to France." I request to reword "Dubai in the United Arab Emirates and Sydney and Melbourne in Australia were also reported as popular destinations for people traveling from Wuhan." to "Dubai in the United Arab Emirates and Sydney and Melbourne in Australia were also reported as popular destinations for people travelling from Wuhan." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.245.103.83 (talk) 21:33, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 January 2020

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

Please change, in the section "Confirmed cases, France", the current text "Both passengers had traveled through Schiphol Airport on their way to France." to "The passenger to Bordeaux said he had recently been in the Netherlands and Wuhan - from the context it seems he traveled back via the Netherlands." The originally cited source merely speculates that this passenger might have been travelling via Schiphol Airport. A better source to cite is the SOS doctors report on which reads "A doctor from SOS Doctors Bordeaux, at the consultation centre, receives a patient for fever and cough. At the beginning of the exam, the doctor asks the patient if he has traveled recently. He says he came from the Netherlands but reports that he came from China. Immediately the doctor asks him to indicate whether he has stayed or has been in contact with people from wuhan province. The answer is positive." Regarding the other (Paris) passenger, there is no indication for any travel through the Netherlands. Arnold1122 (talk) 21:39, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

I have removed the sentence. It is no longer supported by the source anyway. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:21, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

We should add a warning for viewers that Chinese cases are likely being underreported

Chinese cases have likely been underreported by both not testing patients for the virus and classifying them as "severe pneumonia" and by turning away potential virus patients due to overcrowding. However, I think we should keep the Chinese statistics alongside an asterisks since no WHO estimates are available yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Colin dm (talk • contribs) 21:42, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 January 2020

It is requested that an edit be made to the semi-protected redirect at 2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak. (edit · history · last · links · protection log) This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y". The edit may be made by any autoconfirmed user. Remember to change the |answered=no parameter to "yes" when the request has been accepted, rejected or on hold awaiting user input. This is so that inactive or completed requests don't needlessly fill up the edit requests category. You may also wish to use the {{ESp}} template in the response. To request that a page be protected or unprotected, make a protection request.

Add hyperlinks to the countries that have been infected. Samozd (talk) 21:59, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

United States Paragraph about prevention should be moved to the prevention section from the confirmed cases section

The paragraph "Between 60,000 and 65,000 people travel from Wuhan to the United States every year, with January being a peak. At San Francisco International Airport, Los Angeles International Airport, and John F. Kennedy International Airport in New York City, arriving passengers began to be screened for symptoms of the virus ahead of the Chinese New Year peak travel season. As the number of cases started to increase, O'Hare International Airport in Chicago and Hartsfield–Jackson Atlanta International Airport have also started screening arriving passengers." should be moved from the "confirmed cases" section to the "prevention" section, since it is related to prevention rather than detailing cases.--Colin dm (talk) 22:00, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 January 2020

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

Change France in the chart from 2 to 3 https://www.theguardian.com/science/2020/jan/24/french-cases-show-coronavirus-has-reached-europe 50.35.120.54 (talk) 22:33, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

It has been updated. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:15, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Change death toll in China

In French wiki, the death toll of the virus in China hits 41, can someone in English also edited it, I found from CBS News. China coronavirus outbreak: Death toll hits 41 as second case confirmed in U.S. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.245.103.83 (talk) 23:01, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

New sources claim 1287 cases https://www.nhc.gov.cn/xcs/yqfkdt/202001/a7cf0437d1324aed9cc1b890b8ee29e6.shtml

Potential cases in Zimbabwe

Zimbabwe has isolated 22 people from Wuhan for potential Coronavirus. https://www.herald.co.zw/22-under-monitoring-for-coronavirus/

However, I could only find one reputable source for this and it provided little information. I'm unsure on whether I should add this to "suspected" right now or wait for more information. --Colin dm (talk) 23:51, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

RfC on map of infected cases

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following list: Maths, science, and technology When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Which is better, a map of Greater China or a map of Mainland China?--Jabo-er (talk)

Per discussions above (#Image of Map and #Greater China map), I have replaced the map of "Greater China" with one of Mainland China, and my edit got reverted. Let me explain why I think a Mainland China map is more appropriate here:

• "Mainland China" is a clearly defined and commonly used term, while "Greater China" is a vaguely defined and a less commonly used one, and not without disputes.
• "Mainland China" is itself in the table of confirmed cases, so a Mainland China map can be seen as a breakdown by first-level administrative divisions. "Greater China", as its articles suggests, is an informal term used to refer a geographic area that shares commercial and cultural ties dominated by Han Chinese. A commercial and cultural concept is not quite relevant to an article concerning a epidemic.
• If the rationale to use "Greater China" over "Mainland China" is because Taiwan is infected too, then there is no reason to exclude South Korea, Thailand and Vietnam since those countries report confirmed cases too. It would be good to have a map that shows the first-level administrative divisions of the respective countries so that we are comparing apples to apples, i.e. Incheon, South Korea: 2 compared with to Hubei, China: 1096.

User:Ratherous kept reverting my edit without ANY explanation, so I am requesting a Request for comment to avoid embroiling myself in an unwanted edit war. IMHO a Mainland China map is clearly more relevant to the ongoing epidemic outbreak.

--Jabo-er (talk)

Jabo-er, you were editing without any consensus. That discussion was originally started by a sockpuppet account which was then banned, so not many people took it seriously to begin with however you did not attempt to reach any consensus whatsoever. These reasons that you are giving would be a lot more appropriate for the original discussion section rather than here. Plus I’m not sure why you keep saying i was reverting without explanation as I clearly have a very specific explanation as to why your edits were reverted. Stop edit warring to POV push and reach consensus. --Ratherous (talk) 00:55, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Maybe you can try to give your arguments rather than attacking a blocked sockpuppet. That would be more productive to the discussion. --Jabo-er (talk) 01:06, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

1. https://yle.fi/uutiset/osasto/news/tests_dispel_coronavirus_fears_in_finland/11174109
2. https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=468734604034408&set=a.269066014001269&type=3&theater
3. "severe pneumonia"
4. overcrowding

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• Misplaced Pages In the news articles
• All unassessed articles
• B-Class Asia articles
• Mid-importance Asia articles
• WikiProject Asia articles
• C-Class Australia articles
• Mid-importance Australia articles
• WikiProject Australia articles
• B-Class China-related articles
• High-importance China-related articles
• B-Class China-related articles of High-importance
• B-Class Chinese history articles
• High-importance Chinese history articles
• WikiProject Chinese history articles
• Misplaced Pages requested maps in China
• Misplaced Pages requested photographs in China
• WikiProject China articles
• B-Class Death articles
• Low-importance Death articles
• B-Class Disaster management articles
• Mid-importance Disaster management articles
• B-Class France articles
• Low-importance France articles
• All WikiProject France pages
• B-Class Hong Kong articles
• High-importance Hong Kong articles
• Misplaced Pages requested photographs in Hong Kong
• WikiProject Hong Kong articles
• B-Class Japan-related articles
• High-importance Japan-related articles
• WikiProject Japan articles
• B-Class Korea-related articles
• High-importance Korea-related articles
• WikiProject Korea articles
• B-Class Macau articles
• High-importance Macau articles
• WikiProject Macau articles
• B-Class medicine articles
• High-importance medicine articles
• B-Class pulmonology articles
• High-importance pulmonology articles
• Pulmonology task force articles
• Misplaced Pages requested images of medical subjects
• All WikiProject Medicine pages
• Unassessed Nepal articles
• Low-importance Nepal articles
• WikiProject Nepal articles
• B-Class Singapore articles
• High-importance Singapore articles
• WikiProject Singapore articles
• B-Class Thailand articles
• High-importance Thailand articles
• WikiProject Thailand articles
• B-Class Taiwan articles
• Mid-importance Taiwan articles
• WikiProject Taiwan articles
• C-Class United Kingdom articles
• Low-importance United Kingdom articles
• WikiProject United Kingdom articles
• B-Class United States articles
• Low-importance United States articles
• B-Class United States articles of Low-importance
• WikiProject United States articles
• B-Class Vietnam articles
• Low-importance Vietnam articles
• All WikiProject Vietnam pages
• B-Class virus articles
• High-importance virus articles
• Misplaced Pages requested images of viruses
• WikiProject Viruses articles
• Misplaced Pages articles that use British English
• Misplaced Pages semi-protected edit requests
• Misplaced Pages edit requests possibly using incorrect templates
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment