This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

This template is built on the model of {{ 2009 flu pandemic}}. Yug (talk) 11:26, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

See also commons:Category:Diagrams about 2019–20 outbreak of novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV).

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

Yug (talk) 21:51, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

The order is currently: Origin, Virus, Institutions, People, Locations, Data and figures, Vaccines/treatments

I propose that it be changed to: Virus, Origin, Locations, People, Institutions, Vaccines/treatments, Data and figures ParadiseDesertOasis8888 ( talk) 10:06, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

I added back the locations. A nav template is a navigation template. Its role is to points the users to the relevant consultation / contribution points. Countries are significant consultation / contribution points to be included here as does {{ 2009 flu pandemic}}. Yug (talk) 11:26, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

@ Yug: They are not the same. While there are already 10+ articles titled "2009 flu pandemic in x country/continent", there is currently none on 2019-ncov, outside of the 2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak by country and territory main article. If you compare the casualty figures of both disease, you can find that 2019-ncov at the moment is not nearly as global as the 2009 flu. A lot of the countries linked only have one or two sentences in the "outbreak by country" article, and the navbox appears much too crowded with these individual links. Esiymbro ( talk) 15:30, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

This guy may have notability status in Chinese sources. Yug (talk) 22:26, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

I am uncomfortable to have an article on him as his sole notability is being a whistleblower of sorts to the event. In my opinion, incorporate him in one of the current articles would suffice for now, unless he has other notable items. robertsky ( talk) 14:23, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Being a wistleblower is notable in itself.

Li has now been featured in several world-level newsrooms, in English: google news

There is likely more with Chinese newsrooms, East Asian newsrooms. Yug (talk) 21:47, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Can editors remind themselves of WP:NAVBOX guidance? A navigation box is for a set of closely interrelated articles. We've had numerous articles added to this template that themselves make zero mention of 2019-nCoV or the Wuhan outbreak. If Wuhan coronavirus warrants no mention on those articles, we shouldn't be linking to them. Bondegezou ( talk) 11:16, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

You must talk about the biographies : Yes! This template is ahead of those wikipedia biographies articles, which should be updated. Who can do the research and writing to keep these researchers articles up to date ? (No me) Yug (talk) 23:33, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

@ Bondegezou: I added mention of the virus in all researchers articles, with one english references from the news. There is *no doubt* there are dozens more references in English and Chinese as of now. Yug (talk) 12:51, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Great. I think we should focus on getting the articles right before we worry about linking them via a navbox. Navbox links serve little purpose when the article content of interest isn't there. And WP:NAVBOX recommends that "The articles should refer to each other, to a reasonable extent." I interpret that to mean the linked-to articles have more than a passing mention of the Wuhan outbreak and the novel coronavirus. Bondegezou ( talk) 13:51, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Oh, interesting. I consider and use the navbox the other way around : the navbox structure the network of related articles, sections, tables, as soon as possible, creating an higher visibility and call for action to expand these articles and connect them better to each other. Navbar are structuring and they call for action on the listed items. Yug (talk) 06:35, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

We should put the WP:READER first. We should provide navigation links that help take the reader to related articles with pertinent content. If there's no content, the reader isn't going to find anything useful and be frustrated. We should not be using these tools as calls for action to editors: that can be done through Talk pages and WikiProject pages. Bondegezou ( talk) 17:34, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Guan Yi's article makes no mention of the Wuhan virus, so why is he in this template? Can either the article be updated, or removed here? Bondegezou ( talk) 07:59, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

I have updated Guan Yi's article. He is definitely an important figure. He warned the public that it was too late to start controlling the epidemic and estimated that the scale of the epidemic could be 10 times larger than that of Sars in 2003. His speech was attacked by state media, but a day later, Wuhan was locked down. These things just happened so quickly that English-language media failed to give enough attention he deserved.-- 34Unionist ( talk) 14:06, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks 34Unionist for expanding Guan Yi. That's useful. I couldn't completely follow the text you added: could you try re-phrasing? Bondegezou ( talk) 17:36, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Bondegezou How about now? -- 34Unionist ( talk) 17:57, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Are 'Xenophobia and racism' and 'Diamond Princess' really needed for 'Main topics and impact'?-- Kyuri1449 ( talk) 02:42, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

"Xenophobia and racism" is out of place, but "Diamond Princess" is now a major outbreak outside of China. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pestilence Unchained ( talk • contribs) 10:16, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Please, help us keep items in this template and refrain from removing them because "their wikipedia article don't contain enough link to coronavirus".

• Yuen Kwok-yung, removed -- despite news sources in ENGLISH news and in Chinese news
• Guan Yi, removed -- despite news sources in ENGLISH news and in Chinese news

Some of us editors have identified these actors are leading figures in the discourse or fight against the virus, from online news, therefor : 1) in each article, the link is stated : these researchers are involved with the current virus / epidemic ; 2) we increased the visibility of their articles so the wiki process can occur with higher visibility comes higher edits, biography article gets expanded and coverage of the link gets better. If some of us come and delete those articles from this central template, then the left hand and the right hand are cancelling each other to the lose of the encyclopedic community. Also remember : there are English news sources for a mainly Chinese subject. There are more sources in Chinese to dig out. So there is *full confidence* these articles are connected by news sources to the coronavirus. We already have basic English citations stating the link. Help us find more citations is always welcome : it's how wikipedia builds up. If you know the right templates to put on the top of these biography articles to encourage improvement of the said articles based on the news cited above, please help out. Yug (talk) 06:26, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

We discussed this above. Did we really need a new section here?

The purpose of this template is not to increase the visibility of articles that you think could be expanded. If you think there's work to be done on those articles, do it, or write on their Talk pages, or go to WikiProjects. It would also be useful if you offered some specific links to good reliable sources rather just than to Google searches. Bondegezou ( talk) 08:43, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

I disagree with you preference, the purpose of this template is to list items related to the coronavirus. If key scientists are related to it, but have short and poorly filled articles, they should still appear here. There two scientists have a LOT of ressources on their involvement,reviewving the news sources and writing a paragraph would likely need a couple of hours for each article. Also, I spend a good part of my time fishing back contents and arguing against deletionists, as you can see. Defending what have been done. I would surely prefer to build upward and write more in articles' namespace. Yug (talk) 19:36, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm not just expressing a personal preference. I'm following WP:NAVBOX, which is an editing guideline. We are meant to follow editing guidelines.

We also have to follow WP:RS and WP:V: you have to prove content with specific citations, not just claim it exists. This is how Wikipedia works. Bondegezou ( talk) 15:34, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

The Shincheonji Church of Jesus the Temple of the Tabernacle of the Testimony should be mentioned in the template in connection to South Korea's spike in cases, but I don't know where to put it. Jayab 314 13:56, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

The Wikipedia section about the Shincheonji Church's relevance is in 2020 coronavirus outbreak in South Korea#19 February–present outbreak. At the moment, that content is very little developed (despite the obvious importance). If it later becomes significant enough to be split off as its own article, then adding it to the navbox would make sense. Boud ( talk) 20:28, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

For three hours, the 'V T E' links of this template went to Template:WUHAN19 and so on. This would have only affected editors, not readers, but it could have led to a lot of frustrated less-experienced editors, who may not have understood what had happened.

Is this serious enough for semi-protection for this template, keeping in mind the disadvantage of blocking IP editors, many of whom make good edits? Boud ( talk) 14:36, 25 February 2020 (UTC) (s/./?/ Boud ( talk) 18:49, 25 February 2020 (UTC))

Informal proposal: remove the Diamond Princess (ship) World Dream MS Westerdam links from this template, because we already have the 2020 coronavirus outbreak on cruise ships link, and we do not have any other "locations" that link to articles about the locations themselves; the other links are to articles about the COVID-19 outbreak in each location. These have been removed at least once (by me) and restored by someone else. Boud ( talk) 14:40, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

• Support as the proposer for the reasons above. Boud ( talk) 14:40, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
• Support; agree with all that. Bondegezou ( talk) 14:42, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Related proposal

Proposal: state [[2020 coronavirus outbreak on cruise ships|Cruise ships]], instead of [[2020 coronavirus outbreak on cruise ships|International conveyance]] (without italics); because the WHO terminology is likely to be obscure to the huge majority of readers, who will search for "ships" or "Diamond Princess" and find nothing. Also, the term so far only applies to cruise ships (though in the future may apply to other types of ships, and to planes). Boud ( talk) 22:57, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

• Support as the proposer for the two reasons above. Boud ( talk) 22:57, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
• Support too. Bondegezou ( talk) 10:18, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

I've just BOLDly done this. Bondegezou ( talk) 10:19, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Columns of 'SARS-CoV-2 positive' should be eliminated ASAP. It violates 'a honor to living person' on Wikipedias, regardless privacy violations.-- Kyuri1449 ( talk) 08:12, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

• Chinese film director Chang Kai and family die from coronavirus https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/feb/18/coronavirus-kills-chinese-film-director-family-wuhan-covid-19

The source above cites Chang Kai (cineast) and Xu Dapeng as recent notable deads. How to handle them given we have no English article. Yug (talk) 00:46, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

The navbox can only point to articles in this Wikipedia. If there's no article, there's nothing to point to. The way to handle them is to create articles, then link to them. Bondegezou ( talk) 09:43, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

That is the preferred option. If there is existing mention of the person in another article and/or there is not sufficient material to create the article yet, a redirect (with possibilities) to the relevant section is a useful temporary measure. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 08:18, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

The navbox points to a large number of templates. This is very unusual. We don't usually point to a template in any sort of article space. The purpose of a navbox is to point to articles. Articles provide context; templates don't and may be misinterpreted if seen outside of any article context.

I suggest we move all links to templates to articles or article sections. I will seek input on the matter at Wikipedia talk:Categories, lists, and navigation templates and Wikipedia talk:Templates. Bondegezou ( talk) 09:47, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

• Support removal of links to templates. Where the data in templates is useful to readers, the template should be transcluded with appropriate caption in prose, if needed. Editors can use Category:2019–20 coronavirus outbreak templates. —⁠ andrybak ( talk) 14:25, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose removing template links from Template:COVID-19. These are not templates like {{ citation needed}} or {{ t}}; they are referenced tables with data. I think there would have to be a strong consensus here before removing the links to templates. Most of them have {{ main}} links in their top noinclude sections for context written in prose. We have the word templates in this template, and it's the lowest group of items in the navbox. Prose and tables will tend to be updated somewhat in parallel; I don't think that's a problem. It's more useful to have prose that summarises info rather than writes out tabular information in words. Boud ( talk) 20:50, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

  Are the templates used in articles? If yes, why not link to the section where they are used in the most relevant article? If not, what are they for? · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 08:23, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Would anyone else like to weigh in here? Bondegezou ( talk) 16:20, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

The present lead of Li Wenliang states Li Wenliang (Chinese: 李文亮; 12 October 1986 – 7 February 2020) was a Chinese ophthalmologist at Wuhan Central Hospital who warned about COVID-19 on 30 December 2019 on WeChat to fellow colleagues, becoming a whistleblower when his warnings were later shared publicly.[1][2] On 3 January 2020, Wuhan police summoned and admonished him for "making false comments on the Internet".[1][3] Li returned to work, later contracting the virus from an infected patient and dying from the disease on 7 February 2020.[4][5].

It is clear from the first article, including its lead, that what is notable about Li Wenliang in the context of this template is his whistleblowing, and that his death is less notable (though still significant). This is why I reverted this diff. Boud ( talk) 20:37, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Restored again. In Poland people have been suspicious of the authorities, especially prior to the first official infection on 4 March, but there don't seem to have been people who became well-known as whistleblowers on the PL part of the pandemic. Boud ( talk) 02:24, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

I think we should split the navbox into the new template. Thingofme ( talk) 12:31, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Can someone add Israel to the list of countries under Data? It can be linked to this template: Template:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data/Israel medical cases chart

-- Chocom ( talk) 13:59, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

To editor Chocom:  done. Please note that the protection level has been lowered to extended confirmed. P.I. Ellsworth   ed.  ^put'r there 15:38, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

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

Add Michael J Ryan (doctor) to the People -> Official sections as the main person who is dealing with this in the WHO 82.16.105.59 ( talk) 12:01, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

 Done Alucard 16 _{❯❯❯ chat?} 08:00, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

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

I've added a medical cases chart for French Polynesia (Oceania) : /info/en/?search=Template:2019%E2%80%9320_coronavirus_pandemic_data/French_Polynesia_medical_cases_chart DavidChungue ( talk) 10:54, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Added. -- mfb ( talk) 12:45, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

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

Fix typo in in the "impact" section: Change Aviaion to Aviation 70.23.49.244 ( talk) 16:03, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

 Done JTP ^{( talk • contribs)} 22:02, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

The UN has a subcontinent division scheme as in here. I know that different people have different conceptions of how to divide up continents (e.g. the UN scheme has no "central Europe" or "central Asia"), but would this geoscheme be a good enough division for the countries? Also cc @ Uanfala:. Rethliopuks ( talk) 13:17, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

The question is whether we want the subdivisions to look something like this (navbox organised by continents first, and then within each continent by alphabetic order), or something like that (organised by content, then by region (East Asia, Southeast Asia, etc.), and then alphabetically within each region). I don't believe it's necessary to break down by regions: to begin with, almost all navboxes that I know of are organised by continent, with subdivision only distinguishing sovereign states from dependencies (see for example any of the templates here). Another reason is that smaller regions are not as readily recognisable to most readers as are continents, and for Europe in particular any subdivision into more than two regions is bound to be counter-intuitive to many (for example, the one attempted in an earlier version of this template had Greece in West Europe, while its northern neighbours of Macedonia and Bulgaria were respectively in South and in East Europe). – Uanfala (talk) 17:58, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

@ Rethliopuks: The UN geoscheme does have a subcontinent Central Asia. gidonb ( talk) 09:46, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

I think this should be removed, as it will quickly become unwieldy. It already misses a number of notable people who have the disease. All the best: Rich Farmbrough (the apparently calm and reasonable) 18:38, 9 March 2020 (UTC).

• Probably better converted into a list article, when that time comes. Jdcooper ( talk) 23:25, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support removal. The notable deaths row seems adequate; it seems superfluous to add every famous person who suffers a mild illness here. — Nizolan ^{( talk · c.)} 00:36, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support removal. Bondegezou ( talk) 09:02, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support removal. If the number of infected outside China grows 20% a day it's going to be longer than all articles on coronavirus in like a month. Juxlos ( talk) 17:22, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Given the unanimity here, I've boldly removed this from the template. Bondegezou ( talk) 17:25, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

And I did that again - the "Others" list pointed to people who each had one or zero sentences mentioning that they happened to be SARS-CoV-2 positive. With 126,000 confirmed cases, there's not much point. Boud ( talk) 02:18, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

• Support removal - just to clarify my POV here. Boud ( talk) 02:19, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

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

Turkey is a transcontinental country located in Western Asia and Southeastern Europe. While 95% of the country is in Asia, nearly 20 million Turkish people are living in the European side of the country. Turkey must be included in both of the categories (Asia and Europe). 78.190.227.142 ( talk) 16:33, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

 Already done This appears to be done. Interstellarity ( talk) 14:05, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Why is she listed in the table? I find no mention of the outbreak in her article. 2607:FEA8:1DDF:FEE1:81AE:8E3C:BF30:D275 ( talk) 01:38, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Didn't check the history but at the moment she is not so I guess this section is done. -- mfb ( talk) 00:48, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Why are these mentioned specifically? Worth keeping or too tangentially related to the pandemic? --- Another Believer _{( Talk)} 22:11, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

I'd say keep the ones covering large countries, or countries particularly affected by the outbreak. Those institutions are the most important ones in relation to this pandemic. Gust Justice ( talk) 18:43, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

@ Britishfinance: How is this relevant with the topic? Would it just lead to some confusion? — hueman1 ( talk • contributions) 11:25, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

That fact that several RS are running pieces on COVID-19 possibly being the WHO's "Disease X" seems notable (e.g. New York Times. SKY, Bloomberg, and many more). The Disease X article needs updating/expanding, but I think it is an interesting aspect to the COVID-19 story? thanks. Britishfinance ( talk) 11:29, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

I have added these refs to Disease X, and also note that a key source was Marion Koopmans (a major figure in virology, and on the WHO's emergency committee), who wrote an article in Cell (journal) (one of the highest ranked journals in this field), that COVID-10 could be Disease X [1], [2]. Britishfinance ( talk) 11:51, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

A template is meant to encapsulate primarily articles which serve as subtopics of the main topic. So for example, even though Wuhan is very relevant to coronavirus and vice versa, we do not link to it in the template. Disease X has existed before COVID-19, and although people have written about it, on the grand scheme of things it's just too obscure of a connection to justify its inclusion IMO. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:18, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

King of Hearts. I think it is relevant (and interesting), however, I am in the minority here and thank you for coming back to the Talk Page to explain your reasoning. Britishfinance ( talk) 12:17, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

What organisational purposes does it serve to establish a country-level group header for the US? It is alphabetically the last in North America anyway, so there's no worry of not being able to locate it or any territories behind it, and giving it its own lines should suffice. Establishing a new header level would on the contrary make the template appear confusing, and I don't see enough reasons to justify doing that. Rethliopuks ( talk) 15:53, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Rethliopuks, I support having a header level for the United States for organizational purposes. There are already 20+ U.S.-related pages and by the time this is over, there may be 50+ pages. Grouping these together looks cleaner and make the template more readable, IMO. To be clear, here's an example displaying the US subheader under "Locations", which I'd like to see restored. --- Another Believer _{( Talk)} 16:12, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

agreed. i actually found the lengthy listing under north america very confusing and wondered why the united states wasn't just set apart. i was actually going to do it myself but came here to the talk page to see whether there was any controversial issue i may have missed. seeing that there apparently used to be a separate section for the united states that rethliopuks had removed unilaterally, i want to also express my disapproval, and would also like to see the previously-existing header restored. if there were a similarly large number of articles for various provinces of china, i would also argue for setting them apart. for me, the issue is not one of politics; it is one of user interface design.

admittedly, i have not had enough experience dealing with controversial issues on this high-visibility template to know how many opinions are generally required to reach a consensus here, but if the next editor to also disagree with the unilateral change decided to restore the header, i would personally consider consensus to have been achieved. dying ( talk) 00:31, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

I think it is cleaner with its own header, too. It's a region that covers more than half of the population of North America, so it's not disproportional weight either. -- mfb ( talk) 03:13, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

(Pinging @ Another Believer:)It is a WikiProject dedicated to the coronavirus, so I think it should belong on the footer, next to the category and commons links. CoronavirusPlagueDoctor ( talk) 19:21, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

This should not be permitted per WP:SELFREF. The Commons link also needs to be removed, as this is an external link, which are not permitted in navboxes. 212.135.65.247 ( talk) 11:35, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

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

Please could someone remove the Commons link from the footer, as external links are not permitted in navboxes. See also this discussion. 212.135.65.247 ( talk) 11:35, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

@ 212.135.65.247: I don’t know... I’ll discuss with the others. In the mean time, why not create an account? You get access to lots of cool features, and once you have autoconfirmed rights, you can edit yourself here! See this page, and once you’re ready, click here! - Littlecat, is your mailbox really in the wall? 11:47, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Actually, according to that, the admin took no action, as there was insufficient support to a change to the WP:NAVBOX guidelines. So no, sorry, that edit will not be made. And I’m keeping this page on my watchlist, so please don’t try anything funny if you do make an account. - Littlecat, is your mailbox really in the wall? 11:56, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

No, the discussion was closed that no action was taken with regards to making a change to the guideline, as external links (which includes sister projects) were already prohibited in navboxes. 212.135.65.247 ( talk) 11:58, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

 Done @ Littlecat456: After careful review of the request, looking at the discussion linked plus Wikipedia talk:Categories, lists, and navigation templates#Links to template space from navboxes (again) and even Template:Wikipedia I went ahead and removed the link to Commons from the template. The reason I have done so is the main page of this navibox 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic has that same link to Commons at the bottom near the navibox alongside other links to other Wikimedia sister-projects. It is unfair to the other sister-projects we link Commons but not them in the navibox. Alucard 16 _{❯❯❯ chat?} 12:57, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

@ Alucard 16: Oh. Okay. Well, nobody’s perfect. - Littlecat, is your mailbox really in the wall? 13:09, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

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

I would suggest to add a link to {{ Hospital beds by country}} or List_of_countries_by_hospital_beds, in the Data > Global section. This issue is central and critical to COVID19 epidemic as it may double the mortality rate. It is also important to raise awareness on this issue so public pressure build on and emergency hospitals are built as soon as possible. We wikipedia should simply inform the public, making critical data easily available. Yug (talk) 11:08, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. ping Yug. El C reduced the protection level. Cabayi ( talk) 14:49, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Cabayi

Unless WP:ECP isn't applicable to templates, why WP:TPROT? Only 1,322 Wikipedians have the WP:TPE privilege, while the number of Wikipedians with WP:XC is 49,621. The COVID-19 pandemic is a rapidly evolving situation and restricting the editing ability of its navigation template to just over one thousand people will make the template very quickly outdated, which negatively impacts the quality of Wikipedia on the COVID-19 pandemic due to an unsuitable navigator. Not to mention, this will stop many good edits from happening because of the trouble of raising a template protection edit request as opposed to a normal edit.

The Wikipedia policy for template protection is "It should be used on templates whose risk factor would have otherwise warranted full protection". Does this template satisfy this condition? cc @ El C:. Rethliopuks ( talk) 10:15, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

WP:ECP is indeed used for many templates, such as Template:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data. So will extended confirmed protection be better? Rethliopuks ( talk) 10:56, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Same feedbacks. Reth and myself are top 5 editors of the template and now prevented to contribute with agility. Seems counter productive no ? Yug (talk) 11:12, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Now that you mention it, none of the top 35 registered editors have this privilege (648 edits, 74.9% of all non-IP edits; folks who've made at least 4 edits). Rethliopuks ( talk) 13:07, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

I've downgraded the protection to ECP per the multiple requests above. Sorry for any inconvenience. El_C 14:35, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Agreed it shouldn't be template protected, EC would seem fine but considering the templates aren't as likely to be seen as text at the top of the page (other than the fact this is widely used) it doesn't seem high risk enough for TE, per Wikipedia:Make protection requests sparingly#Templates the 2nd point about naviboxes seems to apply since many new articles are being added. Crouch, Swale ( talk) 18:34, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

How should U.S. state and local government response to the 2020 coronavirus pandemic be added to the template? --- Another Believer _{( Talk)} 15:03, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

@ Another Believer: I would say under the Untied States section under location (maybe as Response before or after the states/territories). Alucard 16 _{❯❯❯ chat?} 16:40, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Could be listed directly under the "United States" link, if we find a title shorter than "government response". The space is there anyway. -- mfb ( talk) 02:53, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Most of the links in the Lockdowns subgroup are redirects to articles about the pandemic in the country. Should they be retained? Most people would probably just go to the country level article in the first place, even if they knew that a lockdown had occurred. I see no useful purpose in the links where there is no article of that title to link to, and it is not an inherently notable concept deserving its own article. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 06:49, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Would be better to have a list of existing lockdowns. List of 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic lockdowns? The template could simply reference that list (unless the lockdown is so notable that it has its own article). -- mfb ( talk) 02:49, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

San Marino is also in lockdown, until the 6th of April https://www.sanmarinortv.sm/news/politica-c2/nuovo-decreto-legge-in-vigore-fino-al-6-aprile-a185082 PaguroB ( talk) 17:23, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Should White Center COVID-19 quarantine site be added to this template? --- Another Believer _{( Talk)} 04:09, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Too low importance I think. -- mfb ( talk) 05:17, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

But can we include Li Wenliang in the Infected (Deaths) subgroup as well? I'm not too savvy with navbox policies, but he would fit both subgroups. -- Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 01:52, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Seems redundant. We only need links to appear once. Bondegezou ( talk) 10:14, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Two things:

1. I advocate for keeping the "United States" header because there are ~50 pages here to group together. I'm not sure we need to break down Africa, Europe, and other areas by region when there are not nearly as many entries to organize and this just makes the template much larger.

2. If we're going to have region headers, can we make them the same width? So, for example, "United States" and "West Africa" cells are the same width.

--- Another Believer _{( Talk)} 14:44, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

I made the width uniform. While I'm sure all these location articles are interesting, especially for people in these places, this is getting a bit unhandy. -- mfb ( talk) 12:47, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

There have now been (UTC 2020/03/16 5:20) 50 entries under "Asia" and 53 under "Europe", whereas there are 50 under "North America". If people have been apparently uncomfortable with the number of entries under North America, I suggest splitting "Asia" and "Europe" into their respective subcontinents for consistency. Rethliopuks ( talk) 05:22, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

As for the "the number of US state articles will increase" argument, I am in the process of translating Chinese province articles from Chinese wikipedia, and more articles for subnational European divisions are bound to pop up (see: North Rhine-Westphalia under Germany). Hence I see the current layout of the template as well as the rationales for it as inconsistent. Rethliopuks ( talk) 05:27, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Parts of Europe and Asia will come with more ambiguity (e.g. "what is Western Europe") and then we make it harder to find countries because they are not a single alphabetical list any more. EU or Schengen area and other countries would be possible, too. We might get too many sub-articles over time to list all of them, then we can do the opposite: List countries and maybe large subdivisions only, let people click on their country of interest for subdivisions. -- mfb ( talk) 06:14, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

There's a UN geoscheme that has been used in other COVID-19 templates. Certainly we can do the EU/Schengen and it makes sense. Once this is offloaded, I don't think we have that many issues left: all of East Asia, SE Asia, South Asia, and Central Asia are pretty unambiguous, which implies that West Asia would be unambiguous too (the only problem with the term I see is how little it's ordinarily used in part due to the unfortunate recent history).

So I propose splitting Europe by EU/Schengen and non-EU/Schengen, and splitting Asia by subcontinents.

As for the case of too many subnational articles, using the US as an example, we could just create a new article containing links to all existing US states and link that article in this template. Rethliopuks ( talk) 09:13, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

The division of Europe into Schengen and non-Schengen strikes me as arbitrary (relevant though it might be for how countries have been dealing with the crisis). Most readers won't know which countries are in the area and which aren't. Also noting that subdividing the continents was discussed in this thread above: #Subcontinents. – Uanfala (talk) 22:15, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I started a discussion below proposing merging of the Europe subsections, which I find unnecessary and not intuitive to many readers. I'd like to see the Africa and Asia sections merged as well. We should only be creating subsections when necessary for organizational purposes, not just for the sake of creating subsections. --- Another Believer _{( Talk)} 18:20, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

The New Brunswick link for the article titled " 2020 coronavirus pandemic in New Brunswick" because it was already created and it was missing under Canada then under "North America" at "Locations". Could you add "2020 coronavirus pandemic in New Brunswick" and cover it and it would say "New Brunswick" under Canada and North America at "Locations". This is an urgent edit request. Thanks. 2001:569:74D2:A800:C955:CE75:3DDA:DC2A ( talk) 00:07, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

It's in the template at the moment, someone added it. -- mfb ( talk) 02:51, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

I propose removing the region headers in the Europe section. I'm not European and I'm unfamiliar with the definitions of "Schengen Area" and "Common Travel Area". Perhaps these are familiar terms for Europeans but I'm guessing many other editors and readers are in the same boat as me. Previously, I've advocated for keeping the U.S. subsection header, but that's because there are ~50 pages for the U.S. The same cannot be said for these regions of Europe. Again, I propose removing the region headers and just having a single section for Europe. I plan to make similar proposals for other sections. --- Another Believer _{( Talk)} 18:18, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Also, "Rest of Eastern Europe" as a subsection? We can do better... --- Another Believer _{( Talk)} 18:24, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

User:Another Believer, as has also been noted also above, the subheaders for Europe are a qualified disaster. Total OR. Unclear. Riddles of sorts. Given some time, I will fix this and standardize the subcontinents with those of the other continents. If someone beats me to it, good for him/her! gidonb ( talk) 00:50, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Schengen Area is the name of the area in which residents of those member countries can travel freely within them. It is basically European Union but with a number of subtle difference (Like including Switzerland but excluding Croatia). If anything, this and the British Islands one are the two that actually serve a purpose. I would suggest desubcategorizing the remaining countries. C933103 ( talk) 00:54, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Seconded. Especially as these two categories functionally act like countries in terms of the movement of people. Not a European myself either but I don't see Schengen as a poorly known concept at all. Given that, I wouldn't support removing the category just like I wouldn't support removing the category of "Central Asia" just because a non-Asian might not be familiar with that concept. Rethliopuks ( talk) 02:17, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

There are currently 69 pages under "Europe", and 33 just under "Schengen Area". This is with only one subnational article (North Rhine-Westphalia). If some user came along and created separate articles just for all the German states like you did for U.S. states, the article count under Schengen would burgeon to 48. Not to even mention Swiss cantons, Spanish autonomous communities, Italian regions, or metropolitan French regions such as Île-de-France, among others. Rethliopuks ( talk) 02:24, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Not even the German Wikipedia has articles for the individual states at the moment. In the other countries the individual subdivisions are even less important. If we do get so many articles in the future I would suggest limiting the template to countries, let the country articles link to individual regions. -- mfb ( talk) 07:11, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

My point still stands, there's 33 articles under Schengen Area already. 19:44, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Please do not add countries/regions that have recommendations that people stay at home or other suggested protective measures. These are not governmental "lockdowns". A lockdown is a government act to force people to adopt or restrict certain behavior, such as no unnecessary movement, traveling outside an area or no trips outside of ones home. For example, California (U.S.) was added to this section the other day but they are not under a lockdown. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:54, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Sorry if I wasn't clear on the nuance. Google search for California + lockdown seems to return loads of reputable secondary sources calling it a "lockdown". And I thought that even though it was styled as a "shelter in home" order, it was a governmental restriction on people's behaviours and movements? Rethliopuks ( talk) 20:49, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

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

The data section in this templates, are all link to templates (+ 1x svg). Other links in this templates are links to articles. This is not visible. Can this be changed:

| group7 = Data

to

| group7 = Data (templates)

31.201.130.50 ( talk) 14:45, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Done. This section might change based on the discussion at the top of the talk page, but for now they are templates. -- mfb ( talk) 02:48, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Just as the list of infected people in this template was removed for being too long eventually, there will unfortunately be a time when the list of notable deaths will become very large in comparison to more limited fields, such as that of researchers or government officials.

The problem with the header "notable deaths" is that its notability criteria is being notable for a Wikipedia article. I watch the BBC News every night and with the exception of Li Wenliang and maybe some of the other early cases of medical staff in China, not one of these people has even been mentioned on national news for their death - I would say that is the definition of a "notable death", as the mere infections of some people like Tom Hanks has been lead news here.

As this list gets longer, it may become more handy to make for example a template for the pandemic per country. In that template could be listed all the officials, deaths, and related topics such as lockdowns and other policies and effects. I think for example a box on the pandemic in Italy would be a more suitable template for stub pages such as Italo De Zan and Francesco Saverio Pavone, instead of a huge template with everything about the pandemic from all over the world.

Wallachia Wallonia ( talk) 22:36, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Support. The template is way too long! We need to break it into subsections. gidonb ( talk) 00:17, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Better link to a single list article only, that list article can be split into sub-lists later. -- mfb ( talk) 02:49, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Is Template:Hospital beds by country specific to COVID-19? If not, should be removed. --- Another Believer _{( Talk)} 18:08, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

yes because it s each country's ability to respond 'medically(with equipment/beds)' to the outbreak...IMO-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 14:52, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

The article is not specific to COVID-19 but it's an important article for the pandemic (adding the ventilators was done specifically for COVID-19). Similarly, all the entries in the "people" section were notable for other things before, but they are relevant in the context of the outbreak as well. -- mfb ( talk) 02:53, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Should it be integrated into the template ? Similar to Covid-19 related shortage (which is more international). Yug (talk) 21:03, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

I understand that some users want to avoid listing countries twice in the template, but as some of you may already know, Russia, Kazakhstan, Turkey and Azerbaijan are located in both Asia and Europe. There have been a number of users that keep removing and adding them to both sections (including me!), but it seems that a general consensus has not been reached. I'll be glad if users help with making a final decision here. Keivan.f ^Talk 00:40, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Certainly list them in the continent where (a) most of their area is and (b) most of the people live. That means Russia should be in both, Azerbaijan should be in both as the border between the continents is not clearly defined there, Turkey and Kazakhstan should be in Asia at least, but I support adding them to both to avoid endless discussions about "what is enough to include it". -- mfb ( talk) 06:19, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi. As time goes on, the number of deaths goes up, as does the number of notable people who died from COVID19. There could be hundreds, if not thousands of people in this template in the upcoming weeks. Therefore, is it time to stop listing every single person on the template, and simply link to the parent category? Thoughts? Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:28, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree with this. The list is going to get way too long for the template, and I don't really see any benefit in linking completely unrelated people just because they died from the same pandemic. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 17:37, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

• For now it is fine but in the future it will need to be move to another template or removed entierly. — RealFakeKim T 19:32, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Maybe just replace it to one link to an article about people who have died from the disease. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 21:53, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Agree. This template is already too big. Link to List of deaths from the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:04, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Agree. Link to the list only. -- mfb ( talk) 02:45, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

I was just thinking of this as I ventured to this talk page; agreed with just linking to the list. Connormah ( talk) 20:59, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

I think a separate template would be more appropriate. Although, if the numbers get even higher in the future and reach thousands, then we should just keep the category and get rid of the template altogether. Keivan.f ^Talk 00:34, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

I see consensus for removal and removed them. Last version with the list in case someone wants to see the former list. -- mfb ( talk) 06:24, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

This is becoming a general list of important politicians in the world, and it's getting way too long. We don't need a list of every prime minister/president in every country here. Can we cut that list down to the most important people where their relevance comes from the pandemic? -- mfb ( talk) 06:15, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree.-- Emyil ( talk) 08:06, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

What on earth? This template should stick to entries specifically about the pandemic, not a list of world leaders. Remove. --- Another Believer _{( Talk)} 00:13, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Should be removed ASAP...temp needs a good cuddling and first to go should be links to pages with very little info on the topic.-- Moxy 🍁 02:48, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

The section seems to have just exploded. Some of these officials are working on COVID-19 response like Dr. Fauci in the U.S. He has been the main source of authority on national response to coronavirus. But I think we should remove Presidents and Prime Ministers. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:24, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

I cut it down to 6 people. Three from the WHO, and the leading responsible person in the US, China and Italy (excluding elected officials whose notability comes from their job, not from the pandemic), as these three countries have the largest case counts. -- mfb ( talk) 04:45, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

• The goal is not to cram as many related articles as possible into one space. Ask yourself, does this help the reader in reading up on related topics? Take any two articles in the template. Would a reader really want to go from A to B?-- Sunfyre ( talk) 05:02, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

I expect that this template will be split up in the future, with some general links common across all pandemic articles and more specialized templates where suitable (by region, most likely). Currently the situation is still evolving rapidly, hard to tell what we will end up with. -- mfb ( talk) 05:43, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

I propose that the most entries in the "Institutions" section be removed. The various Centers for Disease Control, hospitals, and virology institutes listed are not specifically relevant to the pandemic. For the remaining institutions which are specifically related, it may be reasonable to reorganize them into a merged "People and organizations" section. -- Yair rand ( talk) 22:30, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

I feel like the ECDC is as relevant to the pandemic as Neil Ferguson or Michael J. Ryan or Li Keqiang is. And most of the hospitals are in fact specific to this pandemic. Rethliopuks ( talk) 17:58, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Per WP:NAV-WITHIN, "every article listed on a particular navigation template generally has the template placed on its page", and navboxes are intended to link related articles to each other.

The ECDC existed for 15 years before the pandemic started. The article barely even mentions the pandemic. It is not an article specifically about an aspect of the pandemic. For individuals, unless they're notable at least significantly because of the pandemic, I don't think they should be listed. -- Yair rand ( talk) 01:22, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Is Vietnam Eastern Asia, or Southeast Asia? In my opinion, we should classify Regions of Asia as 「 East Asia and ASEAN」, and rest of Asia. If you consider it in other ways, then please share your thought for this topic. Thanks for reading this opinion. 11:17, 22 March 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.237.125.110 ( talk)

Vietnam is centrally located in Southeast Asia. We should use only the conventional WP geographic hierarchy: countries, subcontinents, and continents. gidonb ( talk) 13:02, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't think the East Asia and Southeast Asia subheaders are necessary. I vote to upmerge and just display Asia. --- Another Believer _{( Talk)} 16:51, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Strongly oppose. By the same rationale there shouldn't even be a United States header because it would be more unnecessary than the subcontinents. There's currently 64 articles under "Asia", whereas the United States was made into a header there was only 50 under North America in total, and some people were apparently so uncomfortable about the number of articles under North America that they felt compelled to set up the first national-level header, even though everything that did was to move an already distinctively identifiable group of articles at the end of the list into a separate sublist that followed the end of the original list. Rethliopuks ( talk) 19:45, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Disagree. When there are 10 items or more per subcontinent, subcontinents can be really helpful. gidonb ( talk) 20:02, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

This just makes the template larger than necessary. I assume people using this template can easily find a country of interest sorted by continent. The only reason I was advocating for a U.S. subheader was because there are 50+ pages about the country regardless of the total number of entries in North America. If other nations had 50 related articles I'd propose a similar subheader. But in general, the region subheaders are unnecessary and not necessarily intuitive to readers. --- Another Believer _{( Talk)} 22:37, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

On the extreme, we can do away with all categories and the template will be very short. That said, I partially agree with your point and believe Rethliopuks went to an extreme again with subcontinents while incorporating OR. Let me tone North America down to categories with 10+ and it will be so much compacter than it is now! gidonb ( talk) 22:48, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

You personally created most of the at least 44 out of the 50 U.S. state articles though, even when most of them had little content to qualify as separate if they were normal parts of any other country. Plus, the US came at the last in North America, there's no issue of any difficulty of finding a country or the US states. Rethliopuks ( talk) 06:42, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Also, as a friendly reminder, you made the U.S. into a subheader when there was a grand total of 9 articles under it as well. Rethliopuks ( talk) 06:47, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Just looked a little further and it turned out that you did so when the US state article count was six. Rethliopuks ( talk) 07:18, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Hey guys. This should not be a historic analysis, but a discussion on how to perfect the template for the present situation. gidonb ( talk) 14:22, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

My point is we should maintain consistency, otherwise that'd probably violate WP:NPOV, not least as a glaring instance of Anglo-American bias. Rethliopuks ( talk) 18:03, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Let's not worry about when the U.S. subheader was added -- doesn't matter... The Europe section looks much cleaner than the Africa and Asia sections, and makes finding specific countries easier. I hope the Africa and Asia subsections are upmerged soon, too. --- Another Believer _{( Talk)} 18:51, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Why not? We need to maintain consistency in our arguments cited. If you cite the argument of "you can establish a country-level header because it has X number of subarticles", then your logically consistent claim is to support/not oppose setting up a country-level header when there are X number of subarticles under it, because your rationale there was in essence the same as how you phrased it here. If X=6, then it means that, for example, India would qualify for its own subheader with 8 articles now. Again, I am doing this for WP:NPOV. Rethliopuks ( talk) 17:46, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Alternatively, you can give up your argument of "I did this because it has X number of articles" and find something else. Rethliopuks ( talk) 17:52, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm not going to keep going back and forth here, but for the record, I'd like to see the Asia subheaders removed. Alphabetical sorting for all of Asia makes finding specific locations easier, and removing the subheaders would help reduce the overall size of the template. --- Another Believer _{( Talk)} 04:01, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't understand what part of my edit qualified as WP:OR. I was also only reverting to a previous version because the removal of these two did not have a consensus. Ping @ Gidonb:. Rethliopuks ( talk) 17:34, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

As for my African/North American subcontinent division, as I have referred to in my edit summaries, it comes from the UN geoscheme available here. Rethliopuks ( talk) 17:36, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

We don't need these subheaders. --- Another Believer _{( Talk)} 18:46, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Who's "we", why, and who are you speaking for? Rethliopuks ( talk) 17:42, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

These two and a third unnamed category are not the standard division of Europe. We list countries, subcontinents (or not), and continents. gidonb ( talk) 12:24, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Isn't it in Central Asia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kittens n thugs ( talk • contribs) 00:57, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

It sure is. gidonb ( talk) 03:24, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

There should be no distinction between countries in europe and the eu for two reasons. First, if you search for a european land you have to look into both lists as nobody knows if the searched country is in the eu or not. Second reason is, that the horrific construct eu will finally get destroyed by the china-virus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.209.6.128 ( talk) 07:39, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree that EU does not belong under Europe as long as it isn't a proper federation. gidonb ( talk) 12:19, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

WP:CRYSTALBALL re your second point, and generally isn't it pretty clear whether you are in the EU unless you're confused with the legal niceties of Brexit re: the UK? Rethliopuks ( talk) 06:29, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Agreed that the split is more confusing than helpful. Even loyal subjects of the EU, such as myself, are unsure which countries are currently members, and I'd expect people from other parts of the world to know even less, just like most Europeans have no idea which African countries are in the AU. 92.251.20.136 ( talk) 13:08, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

This article seems interesting for this template. Yug (talk) 19:20, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

I didn't find a suitable place. Maybe a row's title must be tinkered. Yug (talk) 17:32, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

The interwiki for this template is gone. Now only 1 page is connected. I try to find the old item on Wikidata but no luck. Diki Ananta ● Talk 02:11, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Interwikis everywhere broke earlier today. They're trying to fix it, but in the meantime there's a bit of an issue with new items being created by people who aren't aware of what's going on... The original Wikidata item is at d:Q83761248. -- Yair rand ( talk) 02:48, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

The list of hospitals in Wuhan is getting a little old — they're definitely not the only hospitals involved at this point. Time for a change? {{u| Sdkb}}  ^talk 04:52, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

This template is quite large. In an attempt to reduce the template's overall size, I propose removing the subheaders for Africa (Central, East, North, South, and West), and just grouping all African locations together. We're not talking about an overwhelming number of entries, and for those who may not be very familiar with Africa's geography, I think alphabetical is better than making people search within specific regions. --- Another Believer _{( Talk)} 03:59, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

seems reasonable-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 01:54, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. gidonb ( talk) 12:17, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

+1. Additional reason: The boundaries between the regions of Africa aren't so clear-cut, relative to other areas. -- Yair rand ( talk) 18:46, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

@ Rethliopuks: There is support for removing the Africa subheaders. Will you please undo your re-addition of the Africa subheaders? --- Another Believer _{( Talk)} 13:59, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

To be clear, it was restoring removals that had no consensus, not re-addition. And I oppose this based on the grounds of WP:NPOV. We should treat continents equally -- personal unfamiliarity with a specific region shouldn't be a reason for such a Wiki change. As a counterexample, I may be unfamiliar with what Western/Central Asia countries count as European or Asian; does that in itself constitute a reason to remove the headers of Europe and Asia in favor of a "Eurasia"? Additionally, many Wikipedians are not familiar with what countries belong in the Caribbean, or what countries belong in North America as opposed to South America; are these reasons to remove the category of "Caribbean" or merge "North America" and "South America"? Many people can't pinpoint which countries belong to SE Asia and which belong to Oceania; is that a reason to remove the header of "Oceania"? I disagree that the reasoning is valid for Wikipedia's purposes. Subregions of Africa aren't obscure or not notable concepts, to make an extreme understatement; and I can't quite imagine that people who need to look up or maintain the articles would generally have no basic familiarity with the basic geographical location of the country or territory. I disagree that it would be a fair assumption that we should make for Wikipedia's readers, or editors for that matter. Rethliopuks ( talk) 05:58, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Just checked and the template is automatically collapsed for Wiki articles that cite it, so I don't see a size issue even (unless there's a server-side processing limit that I'm not familiar with); the only time it appears large would be on it own template page with everything expanded. I feel like the crux of your issue isn't the size of the template either, it's the number of the countries worldwide, which we really wouldn't be able to help (because at this time, this part of the template is essentially structured as a "template of countries in the world", with some subnational regions getting their own articles because of various reasons). Rethliopuks ( talk) 06:26, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Rethliopuks, You're welcome to oppose, but there's consensus to remove these subsection headers. I've asked you to revert your structural change because I don't want to spend the time removing the headers only to have you revert again. Can you either remove the headers or confirm you won't revert if I spend time making this change? --- Another Believer _{( Talk)} 15:11, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

I do not understand why I need to point out again that, even if I were to make this change, it would not be reverting "my change" -- I would be undoing a revert. The change was not mine. On the opposite, I was restoring the subheaders for all continents because they were removed unilaterally before a discussion had concluded. This is a very important distinction to make. Rethliopuks ( talk) 04:33, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

I've removed the subheaders, so there's now a single section for Africa. --- Another Believer _{( Talk)} 15:25, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Requesting revert

@ ApprenticeFan: Please undo this edit per this discussion. We don't need these subsections for the Africa section. --- Another Believer _{( Talk)} 14:57, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Y Done. ApprenticeFan work 15:04, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

ApprenticeFan, Thank you. --- Another Believer _{( Talk)} 15:33, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

This template sometimes does not render correctly and instead shows the following code:

#invoke:Navbox with collapsible groups

#invoke:Navbox with collapsible groups

This only happens on certain pages, such as 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Italy. Neither purging the cache of the page nor using a different browser resolves this issue. Anyone know the cause? Ixfd64 ( talk) 19:38, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

This template is too large in terms of code and causes some pages to exceed WP:PEIS. That's what I just learned. -- Ritchie92 ( talk) 17:07, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Agree. This template is too large and unwieldy. I recommend that it is broken up into smaller templates that are applied only on the specific article subsets where they apply. With the exception of List of deaths from the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic, the people section could be removed altogether. This template is causing problems on some pages and editors have started removing it. It needs to be smaller and more practical.
 —  Berean Hunter (talk) 15:05, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

There are now several navboxes like Template:2020 coronavirus pandemic in the United States. I think country-specific bits could be removed from the main navbox. -- Yair rand ( talk) 18:55, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Would there be any consensus for removing most of the "Locations" portion, and only linking to Africa, Asia, Europe, North America, Oceania, South America, Cruise ships, and Aircraft carriers? That would cut the post-expand include size of the template in half from 135kb to 67.5kB. See the sandbox. -- Ahecht ( TALK
PAGE) 20:04, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Continents and the "by country and territory" article nearby should work. Maybe keep the top 10 countries by confirmed cases? They get the most attention. -- mfb ( talk) 04:00, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

I definitely think there are some sections that could be retweaked or reworked, particularly I'd say the "PEOPLE" tab, the "DATA" tab, we could definitely reduce the number of locations in the LOCATIONS tab and that could help it show up on some pages. QueerFilmNerd ^talk 20:20, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

I added a |short= parameter that reduces the length of the "Locations" and "Data" sections, for use on troublesomely large pages. -- Ahecht ( TALK
PAGE) 03:53, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

@ Ahecht: How much does this reduce the PEIS? Also, how do you actually get the measurement of the PEIS? I haven't found a way how. -- Ritchie92 ( talk) 09:54, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Template limits#How can you find out? |short=yes currently reduces it by 180k, from 230,125 to 45,383 bytes. PrimeHunter ( talk) 12:09, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

@ Ahecht and PrimeHunter: the template is not working again on the Italian article for example. -- Ritchie92 ( talk) 09:50, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

It's the same problem of breaking WP:PEIS on some pages. It affects this template because it's at the end of the pages. On 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Italy it's called with short and only uses 48,727 bytes out of the 2MB limit, but the rest of the page uses nearly 2 MB. The references use around 1 MB in total and {{ 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data/Italy medical cases chart}} uses around 500 kB. PrimeHunter ( talk) 11:41, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

@ Ritchie92 and PrimeHunter: I fixed the Italy page by switching {{ 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data/Italy medical cases chart}} to {{ 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data/Italy medical cases chart/sandbox}}, which uses the new Lua module that I wrote to replace {{ Medical cases chart}}. (see Template talk:Medical cases chart#Lua replacement). -- Ahecht ( TALK
PAGE) 18:53, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

@ Ahecht: Why not make the current sandbox the actual main template page? -- Ritchie92 ( talk) 23:30, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

@ Ritchie92: Waiting for consensus to replace {{ Medical cases chart}} with its sandbox version (or at least a lack of opposition after a couple of days). I don't want the main Italy template pointing to a sandbox. I'll probably switch it over tomorrow if no one objects.

Should we include 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Antarctica? I'd add it in but I don't want to mess it up. It's not like adding in another country. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:11, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm a no on this. The template is big enough and there's not enough reason to add it in my opinion. QueerFilmNerd ^talk 20:30, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

We could rename "Ships" to "other" and add it there. Wouldn't change the space demand and that category is small anyway. -- mfb ( talk) 04:47, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Why is there even an article? The stub basically says no COVID there.-- Pestilence Unchained ( talk) 07:16, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

It seems fine to me in the "other" section. Boud ( talk) 22:41, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

The two groups seems to have overlap and may gain to be merged in some way. Yug (talk) 20:04, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

@ Another Believer and Boud:, your view on this refactor/merge ? Yug (talk) 07:38, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Hmmmm... Any chance we could flatten the curve of Wikipedia expansion on the overall COVID-19 topic? The growth in the number of subtopics since last time I checked the template seems to still be exponential.

Prevention and Treatments and research are clearly valuable to keep as sub-subthemes of Issues, and reasonably identifiable.

Problems and restrictions also makes sense, as topics that are directly related to the pandemic. But I think the difference between Problems and restrictions and Impact is rather slippery. So yes, I agree that there's an overlap. Overall, the pandemic most likely impacts almost all major topics of Wikipedia, but in most cases, a sentence, paragraph or section in the relevant article does not justify a link in the template here.

I think that it would be reasonable to try to make Problems and restrictions a bit more ... restrictive (if that's not a problem) and to keep Impact alphabetical to maximise its impact ;), until/if we think of an objective, encyclopedic way to classify the Impact articles. Media coverage of the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic seems to me like it's not really a problem or restriction, but it's not really impact either, and the article is too weakly developed to put in a sub-sub-section on its own.

@ Yug: Probably what is needed are broad categories for the Impact section, e.g. human rights; politics; environment/global warming; economy/industry; transport; justice; social structures; education and culture; geology; not necessarily in that order (the order is arbitrary right now). This is something like the list of broad topics for any country page, although it should be international as much as national. I included geology because of the detected loss of seismic activity (less trucks driving on roads, fewer aeroplanes landing/taking off, less cars driving in some countries) due to the lockdowns in (at least) the UK; we should wait until/if someone starts the geology article before including it. Boud ( talk) 22:17, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

I'am interested to merge "Issues > Problems and restrictions" into Impact, and try to find better sub-grouping under impact. Not so easy. I will do a first push.

More generally speaking, yes, we start to have too many article it's more confusing that properly guiding the readers-flow. The template developed too fast in February, no one piloted a balanced expansion. Yug (talk) 14:48, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

 Done. NEEDS REVIEW.

I think "Issue" can be renamed into "medical" or "Health management" or something around this thematic. I would prefer to let a agile native speaker make this call tho. Yug (talk) 15:31, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

The timeline sub-navbox looks much cleaner and matches the style of the other groups if it is it's own navbox child. Maybe something like this can be created?:

Demo navbox