Wikipedia talk:WikiProject COVID-19/Archive 13

Category:Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the food industry
Many many restaurants have closed during the COVID-19 pandemic. Would Category:Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the food industry be appropriate to add to articles about restaurants that closed during the pandemic, or, would it be appropriate to create a subcategory along the lines of Category:Restaurants closed during the COVID-19 pandemic? Asking because I noticed User:Valereee added the category to Shady Grove (restaurant), but so far that's the only restaurant article in the category when many others apply. (Note: We do have Category:Restaurants disestablished in 2020.) --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 16:08, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , I was wondering about that, too, this morning. I'm thinking restaurants permanently closed during, as a sub of economic impact? —valereee (talk) 17:42, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , I'm not opposed. Not sure if we need to place emphasis on 'permanently' (?) since of course many establishments closed temporarily. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 17:44, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think we need to emphasize it necessarily, but if a restaurant only closed temporarily, it probably shouldn't be in the category? What I mean is, I'm looking for a category of restaurants that failed because of the pandemic. —valereee (talk) 17:46, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , Agree, work for me as long as intuitive enough for readers. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 17:48, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * What about Category:Restaurants disestablished during the COVID-19 pandemic, as a subcategory of Category:Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the food industry and Category:Restaurants disestablished in the 21st century? We can't categorize by 2020 or 2021 since the pandemic spans both. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 17:50, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , that works for me! Hm, why won't WMF's reply script work on this page? —valereee (talk) 17:53, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , ✅ --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 17:55, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I've populated with all the entires in Category:Restaurants disestablished in 2020 attributed (at least in part) to the pandemic. --- Another Believer  ( Talk ) 18:17, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Edit-protected request to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject COVID-19/Current consensus
There is no consensus about whether to use Template:Current at the top of articles covered by this project. The de facto practice has been to include them for less-trafficked articles but not for the most heavily trafficked ones. Link 1 Superseded by TfD and later practice - consult regular Current guidance.

Please remove this line, since most of it is stricken, and the rest is just "do like normal". Including superseded instructions can be confusing, and "do like normal" doesn't need to be stated, since in the absence of instructions, people should know that they should keep doing like normal. 64.203.186.67 (talk) 18:32, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

The Top 50 Report - 2020
Wow, so many entries related to COVID-19 and the ongoing pandemic:
 * Top 50 Report

--- Another Believer ( Talk ) 22:44, 1 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Appalled fascination is applicable here. I began the timeline on COVID19 on January 23, 2020 (the day they shut Wuhan down); I knew back then this bug would be all over us like a cheap suit, albeit not like {waves vaguely around}. I am rather curious about the number of Wikipedia articles which have links to COVID-19 pandemic and the like given its omnibus impact, and about any estimations of the global mass of the virus. kencf0618 (talk) 15:30, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

You're invited! Coronavirus in New York City: Translate-A-Thon - ONLINE - January 23rd, 2021
--Wil540 art (talk) 19:42, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Month categories on Covid-19 location pages
Good morning fellow Wikipedians. With the new year upon us, I would like to return to a topic I raised last month, which is the use of categorization by month on Covid-19 by Location articles. For instance, the article COVID-19 pandemic in Alabama, is currently included in the following categories (among others):


 * Category:2020 in Alabama
 * Category:2021 in Alabama
 * Category:April 2020 events in the United States
 * Category:August 2020 events in the United States
 * Category:December 2020 events in the United States
 * Category:January 2021 events in the United States
 * Category:July 2020 events in the United States
 * Category:June 2020 events in the United States
 * Category:March 2020 events in the United States
 * Category:May 2020 events in the United States
 * Category:November 2020 events in the United States
 * Category:October 2020 events in the United States
 * Category:September 2020 events in the United States

This seems to me to be overcategorization; I think that the "2020 in Alabama" and "2021 in Alabama" categories should be sufficient. Unless anyone has a rationale to the contrary, I am going to start trimming the month categories from our Covid by Location articles soon. Thanks, and let's discuss as appropriate. KConWiki (talk) 15:18, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , I agree, categorizing by month is too much. Thanks for doing this work. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 00:59, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree. Yearly categories are sufficient for now, but if this drags on even those might become obsolete; we'll cross that bridge when we get to it. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 07:59, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

"Lab Leak" being pushed again
There is again agitation to push for the credibility of the "lab leak" origin for SARS-CoV-2 at Talk:Wuhan Institute of Virology and Talk:Misinformation_related_to_the_COVID-19_pandemic. After many months of dealing with this I am honestly tired of it. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:06, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Misinformation related to the COVID-19 pandemic seems to be a a bit of a mess today. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 18:43, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Articles for English counties
Back in March I asked about the UK countries, now such articles exist, see Category:COVID-19 pandemic in the United Kingdom and each country (unfortunately the England articles have somewhat become forks of the UK ones) has its own category and timeline article. I'm now wandering about if we should have separate articles for each (or some) counties such as COVID-19 pandemic in Essex or COVID-19 pandemic on the Isle of Wight? We have decided to create separate articles for US states and English counties are somewhat similar in recognizability to the US states but have much less powers than them. I'd note that with respect to the likes of Essex the article (as most articles do) should cover the whole geographical county (meaning Southend-on-Sea and Thurrock are included) not just the area covered by Essex County Council. I'm not incredibly keen on creating lots of sub articles for a topic though. The Isle of Wight might be an interesting one since it was the lowest of the 314 districts (though the Isles of Scilly data had maybe been merged with Cornwall) at the beginning of December but as of data from 29 December-5.January it is the 21st highest (note that the Isle of Wight is both a county and district) Thoughts?  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 18:25, 11 January 2021 (UTC) And more stories 71-fold increase which says "13th highest infection rate in the UK this week" though its not clear if that's by county or district.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 19:15, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Too much sprawl in an already-sprawling topic space. Any country-specific content which has high WP:WEIGHT (which is rare) can appear in the host country article. Alexbrn (talk) 18:29, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * There is perhaps an argument for regional articles in the same way that we have one for London, but creating them for each county could make the whole thing difficult to manage and keep up to date. This is Paul (talk) 00:36, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

I think that it may be a good idea to create articles for some English regions, somewhere like Cornwell has had quite a different experience of Covid-19 than somewhere like Manchester for example. At the same time you wouldn't want to create a handful of regional articles that aren't really needed. It might make sense to create drafts for articles covering places which have had a more eventful pandemic and see if there is enough information for a decent length page. Llewee (talk) 01:40, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * And now the Isle of Wight is 5th according to the Guardian by district in the week to 10 January maybe a chart relative to the other parts of England. Maybe we could create an article for each of the regions and have county data in them?  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 22:23, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Symptoms of COVID-19
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Symptoms of COVID-19. The current image depicting common symptoms can be dangerously misleading. The percentages are completely made up. Does anyone have the time to edit this image and remove the percentages? &#123;{u&#124; Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 18:28, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ It would be nice to have accurate percentages but no recent source found so far (the best we have is an old ECDC list of symptoms). -- &#123;{u&#124; Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 23:37, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Yearly top views
In all, seven of the top 25 articles were directly related to COVID-19, and just these alone recorded around 225 million pageviews.-- Moxy 🍁 16:36, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Created Investigations into the origin of Covid-19
I created an entry on compile data on the various investigations into the origin of Covid-19.

Question: can Chinese state media be considered reliable sources for reports on their investigations? So far, I have covered it only on the provincial level (with WHO as the source), but there were subsequent investigations by the central government, though details are sparse in English media.

For those who would like to help with this entry, I am currently trying to figure out the link between the WHO investigation and the Lancet commission, as they seem to be coordinated, but have different team members. I am not sure what can be said of the US government investigation, as the real details are likely classified, and it can be easily politicized in the last days of Trump.

ScrupulousScribe (talk) 08:53, 15 January 2021 (UTC)


 * ScrupulousScribe, I think editors often encounter some concerns about citing the Chinese state media, and this effect will be stronger because you're writing about a subject of multiple conspiracy theories. This doesn't mean that the statements aren't correct, but it does mean that you are likely to encounter editors won't trust those sources and who don't necessarily care whether we get all the significant POVs in the article.  You might be able to avoid needless disputes at the article if, whenever it's feasible, you cite a non-Chinese news story that says the same things.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:36, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

COVID-19 and Namaste Trump event
There appears to be some debate about the Namaste Trump event and its link to the spread of COVID-19. I’d appreciate anyone with experience with this kind of debate to please moderate the article as some editors seem to have political biases. Thank you! Thriley (talk) 18:38, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

New Draft
There is a draft waiting at AfC about a vaccine in development. I did not review it as I was unable to locate anything about notability for vaccines (if they are notable when approved or still in development). Thought I would reach out here in case anyone has an interest in reviewing it. --CNMall41 (talk) 05:23, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Someone needs to watchlist, this redirect keeps being repointed to something other than the determination of the RfD. -- 70.31.205.108 (talk) 08:50, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I would expect that  may suffer from the same issues in the future. -- 70.31.205.108 (talk) 08:54, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

FYI, has been nominated for discussion at Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 17 -- 70.31.205.108 (talk) 09:06, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

At variants of sars-cov-2, there is an enormous explanation section at the top that explains why the category is named the way it is. This seems like it should be a talk page infobox, for editors, and not on the user facing subjectpage for the readership. -- 70.31.205.108 (talk) 09:13, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Article on Investigations into the origin of COVID-19
An article on Investigations into the origin of COVID-19 has recently been created. Editors here may be interested in looking at it. -Thucydides411 (talk) 11:57, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic
See Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and its talk page to help clarify the purpose of this page. Thanks! --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 20:43, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , I'm not seeing anything there on the topic other than my post from October; do you mean to revive that discussion? &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 22:14, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , Sure, I think some clarification around the page's purpose is still needed. When I stumbled upon this page, I wasn't sure if I was looking at a disambiguation page, an index, something else... --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 22:16, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Virus origins
Please see Reliable sources/Noticeboard

Part of this is related to Investigations into the origin of COVID-19. There is confusion about whether this article is meant to be a summary of investigations (like it says in the title) or about the origin itself (which is currently described in a section of Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus). WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:38, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Two articles at AfD
Community input welcome! XOR&#39;easter (talk) 15:12, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Articles for deletion/Misinformation related to the COVID-19 pandemic by China
 * Articles for deletion/Misinformation related to the COVID-19 pandemic by the United States
 * Both have been kept. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 22:04, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Reminder about WHO Partnership, especially the Vaccine
Hi all, in the past several weeks, as part of the ongoing partnership with the Wikimedia Foundation,WHO has shared infographics explaining the COVID-19 vaccines on Commons. We know that much of the content writing in the community is shifting towards topics related to the Vaccine rollouts and increasing variability in the virus. If you need additional graphics, media or reports from WHO, they may be able to release them: you can make additional requests of their team at commons:Commons:World_Health_Organization. Astinson (WMF) (talk) 19:55, 22 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I think photos are more likely to be useful than infographics; we don't really tend to put infographics into articles that often, especially when they go against WP:HOWTO. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 21:38, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * We have a project at WikiProject COVID-19 Graphics ...its aim is to translate infographics related to the COVID-19 pandemic and there usage. We use them now...but would have to review each by each...normally at the medical project.-- Moxy 🍁 22:13, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I am confused -- these are explanatory documents done by public health professionals, from a world authority on the topic. Do you have specific concerns with these kinds of images? Or are you explaining general principle why you aren't using them? I have requested some photographs of uses of the vaccines -- hopefully they will also be shared. Please make additional requests at Commons: commons:Commons:World_Health_Organization.
 * I am aware of the project, but it hasn't been active recently -- unless I am missing something? Please let me know if I should be highlighting them elsewhere. Astinson (WMF) (talk) 18:36, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , it's fine and useful for them to be putting the infographics on Commons, but I was saying I don't anticipate we'll be using them a ton on Wikipedia. Infographics are one way of presenting information, and encyclopedia entries are another, and it's not typically our style to embed infographics within pages. If they're informative, they're likely to duplicate text, and if they're instructional (e.g. "here's how to wash your hands properly"), they're likely to go against WP:HOWTO. Informative photos of WHO engaged in activities responding to the pandemic, on the other hand, would likely be added to pages like World Health Organization's response to the COVID-19 pandemic. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 18:48, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

New article for COVAX
Hello. I've expanded the redirect COVAX into (the beginnings of) a full article for the initiative after the absence of such an article was raised in the discord. I bring this up here to get some more of the collaboration that has built up the rest of our COVID-19 coverage over the last 13 months going on. – ♠Vami _IV†♠  22:02, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Howard Zucker, commissioner of the New York State Department of Health
Hello, I recently created a page for Howard Zucker, the current commissioner of the New York State Department of Health. He has been a major public face during the pandemic in the state of New York, as well as the wider American media market. Any help with the article would be appreciated. Thank you! Thriley (talk) 01:01, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Dear WikiProject COVID-19 members: You're invited! Coronavirus in New York City: Translate-A-Thon - ONLINE - February 6th, 2021 -
--Wil540 art (talk) 20:50, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

CoV2 strains in the USA
Hi all. With the emergence and movements of new CoV2 strains, a sequencing organisation (Mako medical) has agreed to in principle to release its data openly, particularly on detection of different strains in different regions of the USA. I also hope this would set a good example for other organisations & companies in other countries to similarly release their data openly. The plan is to peer review their methods and data via WikiJournal of Medicine for quality control and to provide more in-detail records for specialists, and then to have a summary table in the C19 in the USA article (where rows = US state, columns = strain, cells = date of confirmation). It might also be worth noting the information in the individual state-by-state articles given the level of granular detail typically in those pages. What do people think? A followup topic for Wikidata:WikiProject_COVID-19 may be how best to structure strain first detection per location data in wikidata. T.Shafee(Evo &#38; Evo)talk 02:39, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:COVID-19 testing by country subdivision
Template:COVID-19 testing by country subdivision has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. — UnladenSwallow (talk) 17:44, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Potentially useful source for origin stories
This wire service story might be useful to describe the WHO's investigation into the origin of COVID-19:

WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:37, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Excess Deaths
This is a very useful report on excess deaths, the main measure which will likely be ultimately used in reflecting on the pandemic. Especially notice the extremely high deaths in Mexico, Peru, Bolivia, and Ecuador.....something I do not think is currently being reflected on wikipedia. https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.01.27.21250604v1.full.pdf Jopal22 (talk) 22:20, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Medrxiv source is a preprint, not peer reviewed so not to be used (see General_sanctions/Coronavirus_disease_2019). When it gets peer reviewed or if you find another source it can be considered. MartinezMD (talk) 07:15, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Covid variant naming conventions
I have started a requested move here, since it seemed to me the current solution for coronavirus variants article titles is completely out of touch with the existing article title policy. This might have further implications for other similarly named articles, which I did not expect to be at equally obtuse names. Your opinion is welcomed. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:32, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree. AnotherEditor144talk contribs 17:43, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Peer review for American Rescue Plan
Feel free to leave feedback in the peer review for American Rescue Plan, which is part of this project. If you guys have any suggestions, feel free to let me know there. --AmericanRescuePlan2021 (talk) 07:14, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Should we have a stand-alone page on the Emergence of COVID-19 Outbreak?
I wrote a draft entry about the topic of the Emergence of COVID-19 Outbreak, which has enough notability. In my opinion, having the independent entry would gather in one convenient place many pieces of information currently dispersed at the COVID-19 pandemic (i.e. epidemiological background, 2019 History), SARS-CoV-2 (i.e. Virology section's reservoir and zoonotic origin, and pyhogenetics and taxonomy), and Investigations into the origin of COVID-19 pages. It has also been stressed that the current entry on the Covid-19 pandemic should not be larger, and there is no room for inclusion of the many nuances of the emergence situation (reservoir, intermediate host, zoonotic event, etc). Should I move the draft into article space, thus creating it? Post your comments and opinion at the talk page here, please. Forich (talk) 15:30, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Do what is best for our readers.....Does deletion help? .-- Moxy 🍁 16:00, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

RFC to bring an end to persistent repetitive discussions at COVID-19 misinformation
I have opened an RfC at the talk page of the above article, here. Editors of this WikiProject will most surely want to participate. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:48, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

RfC on editnotice policy
There is an RfC at Wikipedia talk:General sanctions/Coronavirus disease 2019 to answer the question "Should admins have the ability to place the General sanctions/Coronavirus disease 2019 editnotice template on pages in scope that do not have page-specific sanctions?" --RexxS (talk) 22:02, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Edit requests at Template talk:COVID-19 pandemic data
So many of them... I don't know if all the sources there are acceptable. I also don't know if this is always the same person. I've left them a talk page message. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:11, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Save the Symptoms of COVID-19 article
There's been a proposal to remove the Symptoms of COVID-19 article and merge it into Coronavirus disease 2019. The article hasn't been expanded much since it was split a few months ago, but there's clearly a lot to write about this topic. I'm going to take some time to expand it myself, but it would be great if I weren't the only one doing it. John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 04:27, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The merge proposal has been withdrawn, but the article still badly needs to be expanded. There's a lot of information about the mechanisms and consequences of various symptoms that can be added.  Who would like to help expand the article?  John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 02:23, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

WP:MEDRS cleanup needed at the COVID-19 vaccine article

 * See also the discussion in Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_COVID-19/Sources

Help needed. This article is pretty important and we need more experienced editors to trim a lot of bloat and remove the abundant WP:MEDRS violations. -- &#123;{u&#124; Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 13:21, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Primary sources and pre-prints have been accepted for a long time because in the apocalypse, there are no rules (listed in WikiProject_COVID-19). Sources with pre-prints are listed under WikiProject_COVID-19/Sources, including not only medRxiv/bioRxiv but also WHO global research database and Semantic Scholar. Early results should simply be presented as such. Limiting the article to secondary and tertiary sources will require the removal of much, if not most, of the information it currently contains. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 13:07, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * sorry but you are mistaken. The essay you are linking is just an essay and is irrelevant (and I think incorrect). WP:MEDRS is a guideline and reflects the consensus of the entire Wiki project. You can't set it aside without discussing it and modifying it. Preprints are NOT acceptable in medical content. Not now not ever since WP:MEDRS was established. Make sure you read it carefully because failure to comply with WP:MEDRS can result in sanctions being imposed. The fact we have preprints in many articles is a problem I hope you will help us fix :) -- &#123;{u&#124; Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 13:52, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It seems that currently pre-prints are no longer accepted in the article COVID-19 vaccine, but news articles and primary sources are still accepted, which is not WP:MEDRS, correct? Imposing WP:MEDRS strictly requires removing more than 90% of the content of this article and many others on COVID-19, which I obviously will not do since it would be WP:VANDAL. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 14:09, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * You should probably read WP:NOTVAND. MEDRS applies to biomedical content; other content does not require MEDRS. Alexbrn (talk) 14:11, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Also consider that sources such as the WHO, ECDC or CDC all publish guidelines, reviews etc. that often reflect the current scientific consensus as soon as such consensus emerges (even before publication of reviews or final studies). Wikipedia should not be at the "cutting edge" of research: it is a mainstream encyclopaedia and should focus on being accurate rather than being first or we risk giving inaccurate information and (with biomedical claims) causing severe harm. -- &#123;{u&#124; Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 19:10, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Suggestion - List of people vaccinated?
What do you think about adding in a list of people vaccinated? Such as world leaders, celebrities and so on. Adding the vaccine brand would be good as well.

Some possible complications I can think of however - future re-vaccinations

Buggy 88 (talk) 15:41, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * interesting thought, but I would AfD if I came across it. It doesn't pass the WP:Ten year test, which makes it news. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 17:49, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree with Sdkb -- &#123;{u&#124; Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 19:11, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Disagree. Many many many many people will be vaccinated, so the list becomes meaningless at some point. That'd be like having a list of people who've had the flu shot, no? --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 20:01, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Available image
I noticed that this image was put on Commons back in January. It's used on en-WP only so far for the portal, but it looks like a very good image, so we may want to add it elsewhere. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 22:59, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Years with dates
A small recent thread at COVID-19 pandemic is a good reminder: alas, as we are past the one-year point, articles that include dates without the year should have the year added and comply with MOS:CURRENT. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 05:42, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Article in Politico about origin of virus
There is an interesting article on the Politico website by Washington Post columnist Josh Rogin that suggests that there is some evidence that the virus did in fact escape from the Wuhan Institute of Virology, and that the Chinese government covered it up. I am not one to fall for conspiracy theories, but this article looks like it is from a reliable source, and it brings up some good points. If the lab is responsible the Chinese had a strong incentive to deny responsibility, as they would be liable for negligence and millions dead. I am interested to know if anyone else has thoughts on this, and if it is credible at all. Calamagrostis (talk) 00:17, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * -- &#123;{u&#124; Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 14:53, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The story is here. It is pushing a story that goes like this:
 * There's a lab that does research on coronaviruses.
 * If there's a lab that contains ____, then there's always a possibility of ____ leaking out of that lab.
 * The scientist who led most of that work said that she checked the coronaviruses they were working with in the lab, and none of them are SARS-CoV-2.
 * But, hey, she's a Chinese scientist working in China, so they could have just made her lie about that part!
 * Obviously, it's that last step where the story really falls apart.
 * In terms of Wikipedia's policies, though, most information about the origin of SARS-CoV-2 is Biomedical information, which cannot be sourced to a political magazine. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:29, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Article about aftermath of the pandemic
I've created a draft article about the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic in preparation for when it finally does end. If there is anything any of you would like to contribute, please do so. X-Editor (talk) 20:45, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , what do you hope that the article will contain that other articles don't already have space for? We already have a slew (probably too many) of "impact of" articles, and they can presumably include impacts that have consequences after the end of the pandemic itself. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 20:56, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * This article would be a place where all of the impacts of the aftermath will be summarized while linking to the other impact articles . X-Editor (talk) 21:16, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , I can't say I'm convinced. The biggest problem with our COVID-19 coverage is that we have way too many WP:CONTENTFORKs. I'd urge you to keep it in draft state until such a time as we have an aftermath section in Timeline of the COVID-19 pandemic that's so big (while maintaining WP:SUMSTYLE, not because of cruft) that it needs to be spun off. Unfortunately, even if you hold out, someone else will probably launch the article, since too many editors don't seem able to resist the temptation to create new pages rather than fix up existing ones. For a topic like COVID-19, where we need subtopics but they don't have clear names, that's become a huge problem. My secondary recommendation if the article is launched is to make sure you grab every possible redirect, since if you don't, someone will surely create Consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic and then it'll be kept at AfD because it'll be judged notable and has an ever so slightly different scope. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 22:38, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * You make a lot of good points, I'd be fine with keeping it as a draft, which is what I wanted to do anyways. X-Editor (talk) 22:57, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Also, could you give any examples of content forks that should be just one article? X-Editor (talk) 22:59, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , some of it is overly specific pandemic-in-city articles that should be merged up to a higher level. I don't think we need COVID-19 pandemic in Columbus, Ohio to exist separate of COVID-19 pandemic in Ohio when we barely have enough editors to keep the latter from becoming severely outdated. Some of it is structural: having Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on education with a section on Foobaristan, and then COVID-19 pandemic in Foobaristan with a section on education, and no transcluding between them, creates redundancies. And then there's pages with substantial overlap, such as Economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic/COVID-19 recession/Financial market impact of the COVID-19 pandemic/2020 stock market crash—we could justify perhaps multiple of those pages, but not all of them. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 19:46, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the examples. Some of this content could definitely be merged. X-Editor (talk) 23:05, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Citation style and cleanup
I've just had a look at RaTG13 and noticed that some of the citations were duplicated, along with the often times excessive listings of authors. The first requires manual look-up; but the second can be made consistent in an article by using 3 (or some other small enough number). This kind of thing may or may not affect other articles in the topic, and of course these may have many more references than this relatively short one. I don't know if using sfn would have been a better option; though now it's not worth the effort to change all over. Anyway, additional eyes looking for this issue would be appreciated. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:18, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

The usual nonsense...
At Investigations into the origin of COVID-19 and on the TP. Attention from the usual MEDRS conscious editors welcome. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:40, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Help with draft article about NYC chief medical advisor on COVID-19
I have prepared a draft article about Jay Varma Draft:Jay Varma who for the past year has helped lead New York City’s response to Covid-19 as the chief medical advisor to NYC Mayor Bill de Blasio. I am hoping for input and advice from members of this project about how to improve this draft. Since millions of New Yorkers rely on his decisions, including the closing/opening of the NYC public schools, I think it’s important there be an article about him now -- he is constantly quoted by the NY Times. I should disclose that I have a conflict of interest because I have a personal relationship with Varma, which is why I am seeking independent advice about how to make the article better. SugarSpice202112 (talk) 18:18, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

GAN for American Rescue Plan Act of 2021
I will no longer be active on this Wikipedia or any WMF project. I urge any members of this WikiProject, WikiProject Economics or any editor who edited the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 to re-nominate it for GA-status if necessary and if it is ready to be nominated. That said, farewell! ARP2021 (talk) 00:45, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Curious. This seems to all be in good faith, although again suspicious by using the bill's name as your username. If we have a GA-ready article, may as well nominate it. JackFromReedsburg (talk &#124; contribs) 01:40, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * OP appears to have been checkuser blocked earlier today. – Novem Linguae (talk) 04:35, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Smell training
Many articles about helping address loss of smell due to covid-19 have been published in the past few months. It would probably be valuable to the world have reliable content about that easy to find so I made Smell training. It is very barebones right now and additions would be appreciated. RayScript (talk) 18:34, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , I just listened to The Daily podcast about this. Thanks for creating! &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 19:20, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Hey . I just did a quick copyedit, and I also dropped in two medical sources. I would recommend reading the medical sources I dropped in, and then editing the article to include more of that information. I would also recommend replacing the sentences and sources sourced to newspapers, as those are not WP:MEDRS. Hope that helps. – Novem Linguae (talk) 01:15, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , if good newspaper sources are replaced with medical ones, they should be moved to a further reading section rather than taken out completely. Medical sources may be more reliable, but the NYT reporting on smell training is much more accessible. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 01:57, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * RayScript, it looks like there's about seven sentences there. If it were about twice as long, it would qualify for Did you know.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:05, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * thanks for the encouragement. I have expanded the article. It would be great to be featured in DYK. Would you like to nominate the page? Or do you have suggestions for the hook? RayScript (talk) 02:21, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm glad this article got created, I'd had some thoughts that it would be a good article topic. It's close to being WP:MEDRS compliant as there are still popular media articles cited, and some of the journal articles are primary sources that need to be properly contextualized.  Since it was created on March 24 it needs to be nominated by March 31, though work can continue after that point.  John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 02:34, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * RayScript, I think you should nominate it yourself. (DYK isn't as difficult as it looks.)  It needs to be done basically in the next 24 hours, though.
 * I think a simple hook would work. "Did you know ...that smell training exists?"  WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:32, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

COVID-19 vaccine for animals

 * Hi, came across such news of 1st COVID-19 vaccine for animals.    Please include it at COVID-19 vaccine or at any suitable COVID-19 page. Thank you. 2402:3A80:6E5:A642:8959:6ADB:B38F:BA55 (talk) 14:43, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Updating Wikipedia's COVID-19 navbox template image
Do discuss here about my recent updation to the COVID-19 navbox template image. Some feedback would be appreciated about whether I did compile the images together smoothly. I dunno if I did the best job, but I tried... Qwertyxp2000 (talk &#124; contribs) 04:40, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lorna Breen
Possibly of interest to project members: Articles for deletion/Lorna Breen

Thanks! --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 22:13, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Kept. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 23:20, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

COVID-19 vaccine userbox
I have made User COVID-19 vaccine, which is a userbox that you can use to show that you've received a COVID-19 vaccine. It also features a first-dose parameter if you are waiting on a second dose.

Mz7 (talk) 04:20, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Student editor
Just a warning that, despite the talk page even saying it's not a good place for beginners, a(nother) WikiEd student - - has decided to make COVID-19 pandemic their article. And this is their sandbox of proposed changes... so who's going to tell them to pick literally anything else, and then give the instructor a trout for letting them think they could handle such an article? Kingsif (talk) 14:52, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Looks like you might have pinged them when you posted that. So maybe they are already informed. Anyway, I definitely agree that COVID articles are not a good choice for student editors. WP:MEDRS is complicated and takes time to master. Also, COVID-19 pandemic is the parent article of hundreds of child articles, which means that almost any new info should go into the child articles to avoid WP:UNDUE. – Novem Linguae (talk) 22:25, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * and are listed on the course page. There, now everyone's been pinged. &#123;{u&#124;  Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 23:31, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the ping . I agree the main article would be a challenging an article for a new editor. I will leave them a note. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 15:47, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I will add,, that this isn't the first student editor to slap a WikiEd template on the talkpage, but he is the only one who has bothered to even edit their sandbox (hence I was concerned they would attempt to edit the article). Perhaps a general message to all instructors (that hopefully will get through to the few who pay attention) to avoid similar subjects. Kingsif (talk) 18:13, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

COVID-19 program results
If anyone wants to see how it works to train health professionals to edit Wikipedia then check out this report.


 * meta:Wiki Education Foundation/COVID-19 Project Evaluation

The Wiki Education Foundation is a nonprofit organization which supports universities and researchers in editing Wikipedia. They are best known for supporting Wikipedia classroom editing projects and for their meta:Programs & Events Dashboard which is popular for tracking classes who edit Wikipedia articles as a group.

In this report just published, they describe the results of their program to support scholars and scientists in editing Wikipedia articles related to COVID-19. 16 Wikipedia editors made 328 edits to 44 articles. In those edits they added ~13k words and 178 citations to sources. Those articles got 2.7 million pageviews after their edits.
 * results in the dashboard

 Blue Rasberry  (talk)  19:05, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Updating graphics
Do we have any folks here who are good at editing images? Lineage P.1 has a map from 8 February, but things have moved on a bit since then. The current map shows local, imported, or unknown transmission. It might be worth taking a different approach to show number of cases (either absolute or relative to population) as is used at Lineage B.1.1.7 as the data may be easier to collate, eg: Lineage_P.1. Richard Nevell (talk) 17:40, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Drug trials for COVID-19
This question is triggered by the insertion of a new Research section in Atorvastatin and Apixaban by fellow editor Cripplemac, mentioning that they are being researched in post-COVID-19 patients, but it pertains to other drug articles as well: When is it worth mentioning in a drug article if the respective drug is being or has been tested in trials on infected patients (obviously without having entered general use)?

The source is respectable, and it is an NHS trial; however, in my opinion, the fact that atorvastatin and apixaban are being evaluated for post-COVID-19 patients, with no results having been reported yet, is, given the great importance of any information on COVID-19, just not important enough to be included in their articles. Colchicine does have some positive preliminary findings in a trial, but, again, the fact that it is being studied in COVID-19 does not add much to the article. Any thoughts? NikosGouliaros (talk) 10:54, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * If there are only primary sources a plain, one sentence mention may be okay but the general test is: has the research been mentioned in secondary sources? If it hasn't, there is no WP:WEIGHT to the information; and why should Wikipedia (which is meant to be a tertiary source) be surfacing it? Alexbrn (talk) 11:06, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * This is about the fact that atorvastatin and apixaban are currently being investigated; there aren't any actual results reported, so I'm not sure if there's any point in talking about primary and secondary sources. NikosGouliaros (talk) 16:54, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with Alexbrn. Single studies or clinical trials are WP:PRIMARY, and including mention of them if they are not mentioned in secondary sources such as review articles ends up being very problematic, for the reasons described at WP:MEDPRI, and WP:MEDPRI2. – Novem Linguae (talk) 18:22, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi, what was/is the outcome of this discussion? I'm not sure when my original edit should be added, but i found it interesting--Cripplemac (talk) 19:20, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Outdated articles
The following articles on Covid-19 have become outdated and updates would be appreciated: X-Editor (talk) 22:01, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * COVID-19 pandemic in Nova Scotia
 * COVID-19 pandemic in Quebec
 * COVID-19 pandemic in New Brunswick
 * COVID-19 pandemic in Newfoundland and Labrador
 * COVID-19 pandemic in Montreal
 * , Consider posting a similar note at WikiProject Canada? --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 22:03, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Someone already did. X-Editor (talk) 22:32, 9 April 2021 (UTC)


 * , outdated articles are a widespread problem for this project. The root cause is a combination of indiscriminately including excessive detail and a failure to centralize, coordinate, and automate data updating to reduce the maintenance burden. Until we address those failures or the pandemic becomes history, the only way articles like those will be updated is if someone cares about them enough to take on the responsibility. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 22:05, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I suggest this project should put a banner at the top of the main that links to a list of outdated articles and encourages people to update them. X-Editor (talk) 22:32, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * That list would be half the geographic COVID-19 pages, and there's unfortunately a limited amount of editor attention to go around. You can tag relevant pages with Update if you want, which will automatically categorize them, but it's not guaranteed to draw attention. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 22:50, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Is there any other way we can ask people to update them? The pages on Covid-19 in India also need a lot of updating. I tried putting the update template a few days ago but that doesn't seem to work. --Sitaphul (talk) 12:55, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , not that I know of, unfortunately. I fought quite a bit to get the data updating centralized and automated a few months ago (you can look in the archives here to find it), but it never succeeded, and there just aren't enough editors to update everything manually in every language. The consolation is WP:NODEADLINE—after the pandemic ends, we'll eventually catch up on the data, and it'll become clearer over time that some of the information currently present is excessively detailed and not encyclopedic. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 19:42, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot for your help. (❁´◡`❁) Sitaphul (talk) 19:52, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

New ‘double mutant’ strain named B.1.617
Hi, can anyone add/update about new stain named Lineage B.1.617 at the page Variants of SARS-CoV-2. Thank you. Run n Fly (talk) 10:13, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

It's already added Sitaphul (talk) 19:54, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

COVID-19 pandemic in the United Kingdom has an RFC
COVID-19 pandemic in the United Kingdom, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. BlackholeWA (talk) 06:49, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Request for Lineage B.1.617 map
It will be very helpful if someone can provide a map similar to File:B.1.1.7 Cases by country as of 25 Mar 2021.svg for Lineage B.1.617. Thank you. Run n Fly (talk) 09:47, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * can you provide one for Lineage B.1.617 also? Thank you. Run n Fly (talk) 09:49, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I can make the map. Wgullyn (talk) 11:27, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for providing the map. Run n Fly (talk) 12:43, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

New variant B.1.618 (triple mutant)
Hi, can anyone well versed with the variant's notability, add about new variant B.1.618     that been supposed to be originated in India and has been found in US, Switzerland, Singapore and Finland as per reports to page Variants of SARS-CoV-2 or start a standalone article. Thank you. Run n Fly (talk) 07:07, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

COVID-19 in India
The Wikipedia pages on Covid-19 in India are highly outdated especially the ones on the pandemic of every state. There is a complete lack of data / info between September 2020 to March 2021. Considering the second wave of the pandemic, we really need to update the page. Are any Indian wikipedians (any other nationality is fine) are interested in collaborating to update these pages? --Sitaphul (talk) 12:49, 16 April 2021 (UTC)


 * , if you don't get responses here, you could also try posting at WT:INDIA. – Novem Linguae (talk) 23:58, 16 April 2021 (UTC)


 * , I will post there. Tysm for your help. Sitaphul (talk) 03:24, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

I encourage project members to help improve articles in Category:COVID-19 pandemic in India. These entries are especially important this time given current conditions. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 17:47, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Merge discussion
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:COVID-19 pandemic in Italy § Proposed merge of International reactions to the COVID-19 pandemic in Italy into COVID-19 pandemic in Italy. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 19:27, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

==Discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous) § How should the COVID-19 pandemic be handled in article history sections?== You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous) § How should the COVID-19 pandemic be handled in article history sections?. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 21:44, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome
I created a redirect at Thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome (TTS) that links to Heparin-induced thrombocytopenia, as this was them the only place I could find TTS mentioned on WP. Then I found the Post-vaccination embolic and thrombotic events page, which may be a better redirect? TTS is not specifically mentioned there, by that name. 220  of  ßorg 02:52, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * This needs to be discussed probably in the Post-vaccination embolic and thrombotic events (which is problematic I think). -- &#123;{u&#124; Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 08:54, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Language help needed
Dear fellow Wikipedians, i am a native speaker of german, i have limited abilities in English language (vocabulary, grammar and style). Please take a look at my edit in the COG-UK article: COVID-19 Genomics UK Consortium (new section/chapter). In some cases i have indicated alternatives of wording or a german-language-version in inline-comments, always starting with a typographic slash like here: <!--/. Thank you. --Himbeerbläuling (talk) 11:15, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

COVID-19 pandemic in mainland China
I need your opinions at Talk:COVID-19 pandemic in mainland China. Thanks. — hueman1 ( talk •  contributions ) 12:59, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Xenophobia and racism related to the COVID-19 pandemic needs some attention
The current article has severe issues of WP:PROSELINE. I've tried to trim some of the more obvious bits, but further efforts and more watchful eyes would be appreciated. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:00, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Please assist with the COVID-19 Transmission RfC
Please also take into account all the sources, not just the one CDC page which is being selectively quoted. Talk:COVID-19 pandemic --61.68.81.220 (talk) 13:04, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Remove strikethrough from consensus template
Could we move the strikethrough from Template:Current_COVID-19_Project_Consensus? It would be much more readable without it. Vpab15 (talk) 15:42, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Neutral on removing it, but I do find it useful to show prior consensuses. JackFromWisconsin (talk &#124; contribs) 16:04, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * We could copy the old ones to the template's talk page, in case we needed to reference them and didn't want to look in the page history. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:29, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Vaccination rates in multiple countries
There's probably a better/more official source, but https://slate.com/technology/2021/05/covid-vaccines-iran-sweden-brazil-bosnia-georgia.html has some information about vaccination rates in multiple countries, in case anyone is looking for a source that addresses more than a single country. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:30, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Notice about a new WikiProject Proposal
Hey WikiProject COVID-19 members. I recently proposed an idea for a WikiProject for 2021. COVID-19 has been happening for a while now, and it is still happening in 2021 and the proposed WikiProject is dedicated to 2021 articles. So I thought I would drop by and let you know about the proposal. Feel free to drop your opinions here: WikiProject Council/Proposals/2021. Elijahandskip (talk) 19:20, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Mucormycosis
Number of Mucormycosis cases are rising rapidly due to COVID-19, especially in India. The article needs update and improvements with more medical sources. Please do update. -Nizil (talk) 06:02, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Black fungus (COVID-19 condition)  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  01:31, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Independent SAGE
The Independent SAGE article is attracting a certain amount of vandalism lately. Can I ask a few people to watchlist it? Thanks. Bondegezou (talk) 10:12, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Mask refusal
If anyone on this WikiProject could help out the page Mask refusal, I'd appreciate that. I've added some sources to the article but I'm not an expert in what counts as WP:MEDRS. (Also, I'm not sure about the name of the article. However, I do think it is an important topic for a Wikipedia article that shouldn't be deleted.) --Bangalamania (talk) 14:53, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * MEDRS sources are usually found on various online databases rather easily. For example, go on Pubmed, and make sure to select article types "Review" and "Systematic review"; and to filter the journals for those that are MEDLINE-indexed. Or you can just go directly here (one among many plausible queries for your topic). Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:32, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Topic at WikiProject Disability
Please see WT:WikiProject Disability thanks Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:38, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia's coverage of COVID
This is a preprint for now, and subject to change before publication. If anyone has thoughts then post here and ping the authors to check. I expect the authors would especially appreciate criticism or pointing out anything that does not read well from a wiki community perspective. Brief comments and casual feedback are welcome.  Blue Rasberry  (talk)  19:47, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Citation needed?Wikipedia and the COVID-19 pandemic
 * , Wow, thanks for sharing! Once published, I hope you'll remember to share again here and/or post at Talk:Wikipedia coverage of the COVID-19 pandemic. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 21:17, 3 June 2021 (UTC)


 * I think I commented on this paper back in march. Nice paper, a very interesting read. Well done. It's good to see that there'e empirical evidence that Wikipedia COVID articles are using mostly top quality scientific and popular press sources, and are using very few preprints. – Novem Linguae (talk) 00:35, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't know the authors' usernames, would you be able to ping them. I have some brief feedback, though I'm not done reading! Kingsif (talk) 02:01, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The article seems to describe WikiProject COVID-19 as something "official", as if it is formally arranged by WMF. I'm not sure how important the distinction is in terms of the thesis and results, but it's perhaps best not to suggest that this is anything but volunteers, setting this up and coordinating of our own volition. (The WikiProject structure already in place may have served as "training" for such community spirit and good organization out of chaos, rather than anything official keeping it together.)
 * There's a table that says tweets are normally cited with the cite tweet template, though I have found in practice that cite web is more common.
 * The articles ranged from “Severe acute respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus”, “Coronavirus packaging signal” and “Acute respiratory distress syndrome”, to “Charles Prince of Whales” - is this supposed to be "Charles, Prince of Wales" perhaps?
 * I don't know if it would be valuable, but the article mentions a special COVID-19 “Wiki project” was set up at the beginning of March 2020 offering editors a list of “trusted” sources to use (20) - first and foremost was the WHO website, and then moves on, where it might be appropriate to discuss how our "sources list" tab came about (and perhaps the fact WHO is at the top not out of primacy but standard formatting unless I'm mistaken) - that this list was created slightly more "official" than the project, by Wikimedian in Residence at UNESCO.
 * Similar to the cite tweet comment above, a dataset (figure 2) is shown that seems to draw from cite templates, including what appear to be zero values for "newspaper", "tweet", "magazine", "website". Cite news and cite web, in practice, have commonly replaced these, so the dataset, being used to indicate that these low-quality source types are not used, seems misleading here. (Though, again, this doesn't seem to affect results as none of these are academic and so won't change the academic/non-academic comparison)
 * I personally find it odd that the article mentions that those [Wikipedia articles] with the lowest scores (Supplementary Figure S2B) seemed to focus almost exclusively on social aspects of the pandemic and its immediate outcome, and gives some examples, but doesn't discuss whether it really would be appropriate for the social COVID-19 Wikipedia articles to have academic sources - and, in fact, by ending the paragraph saying one article (on gubernatorial response) made scarce use of coronavirus-related research to inform its content, citing a single academic paper related to laws of quarantine among its 244 footnotes, does seem to be suggesting that these articles should be academic-based. I'm not going to pass judgment, but perhaps some expansion in the discussion of findings here. I don't doubt there may be academic reviews of how governments handled the pandemic, what the impact on society has been, that could be used, but those sources don't even seem to have been included in the article's sample: the methodology notes that it only looked at biomedical COVID-19 academic sources (a search of EuroPMC using COVID-19, SARS-CoV2, SARS-nCoV19 keywords was performed; see Europe PubMed Central), not those in social sciences. So it seems ...dubious... to be concluding that the social Wikipedia articles are less scientific at large, when only using medical sources to determine this. (I mean, it's probably an accurate conclusion, since "social" articles aren't bound by MEDRS, but not one I think can be made with the limited data)
 * the main coronavirus article (“COVID-19 pandemic”) which was placed on the English Wikipedia’s homepage, and later on, in a special banner located on the top of every single article in English seems to be referring to the ITN box and the WMF response banner. It may be worthy to note that the first of these efforts was volunteer-driven (and part of a separate process to WikiProject COVID-19, at WT:ITN; archived creation discussion) and "permanent", while the latter was an executive overhead and the banner had an "X" button to dismiss (and was quite unpopular; archived discussion).
 * Without wanting to make addition suggestions, if you wanted to emphasize the point of COVID-19 Wikipedia articles being widely read, you can look at the data of the top 50 articles in 2020 by pageviews.
 * Kingsif (talk) 03:26, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm quite sure they're referring to this Prince of Whales :)
 * On a more serious note, while I'm too tired to give an effective review now, one thing I didn't appear to notice was mention of the WHO's collaboration in some regards. Cheers, further comments tomorrow, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:08, 4 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Congratulations everyone. I think the article reflects positively on our ability to enforce WP:MEDRS to guarantee accurate information. Nice job (so far :-) ). -- &#123;{u&#124; Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 12:29, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom/Covid
I have now opened a new case regarding recent, persistent, widespread disruption at Arbitration/Requests/Case. Feel free to participate, the given list of participants is non-exhaustive. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:43, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I couldn't understand the goal and the complaint of that case. Some comments seemed to agree it wasn't clear. Could you clarify? -- &#123;{u&#124; Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 12:34, 4 June 2021 (UTC)