Category talk:COVID-19 pandemic

Move Category:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic to Category:2020 coronavirus pandemic

This category should remain as is, unless the pandemic stretches into 2021 etc, but most of the indidivual country categories should be moved to 2020 only as they did not have cases in 2019 (except China etc.) Morris Schaffer (talk) 11:33, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

"Coronavirus" is not even the epidemic name, it is not a disease at all. It designs the virus group, and should be avoided for this epidemic, as it is misleading. The name of the disease caused by the virus is COVID-19. It is also the name of the top category, and the name used by WHO.-- Darwin ^Ahoy! 21:17, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

The disease of the (then called) novel coronavirus was already active in 2019 in the People's Republic of China (Mainland China), so while it should be moved for most countries and territories, it shouldn't be moved for Mainland China, I'm not sure if moving the top category is wise. Maybe a discussion should be opened in the village pump to get a wider audience for this. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 12:25, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

@ŠJů, Morris Schaffer, DarwIn, and Donald Trung: I've closed the move request, as removing 2019 would be misleading given the earlier cases. I've also moved it to specify that it's COVID-19 rather than a generic coronavirus. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:51, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi Mike Peel, I'm missing the discussion and consensus to move the name of this Category and the move is being made now?--Bonnielou2013 (talk) 22:41, 15 March 2020 (UTC) Also pinging Darwin with the same question?--Bonnielou2013 (talk) 22:47, 15 March 2020 (UTC) If this was the Discussion....there was again, no Consensus: Category talk:2019–20 COVID-19 pandemic by country and territory.--Bonnielou2013 (talk) 22:56, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

@Bonnielou2013: The discussion was here and at Category talk:2019–20 COVID-19 pandemic by country and territory. If you disagree, present a good argument, and it will be listened to. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 23:19, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

@Mike Peel: Do we need to move all the subcategories? I suggest moving Category:2019–20 COVID-19 pandemic to simply Category:COVID-19 pandemic. It's unnecessary to add years to the category name because COVID-19 is a very specific disease and there is no other pandemic for this disease. And by removing "2019–20" from the title, we can aviod (very likely) renaming the categories to "2019–21" or "2019–22" in the future. --Neo-Jay (talk) 23:14, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

@Neo-Jay: Ideally the subcategories would be moved accordingly. Personally I wouldn't oppose dropping the year prefix as things stand. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 23:19, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Oppose the name change to "2019–20 COVID-19 pandemic by country and territory" until a consensus is reached. Basically, I think the name of categories here should conform with active Wikipedia articles. The matching article there is called "2019–20 coronavirus pandemic". Yes, they are debating changing the name again....but I think any changes here further confuses things. I really don't have a strong opinion what it is called....but as this is a very active Category right now each change is causing additional work....how about we take a breath and wait a little till the dust settles. (adding same comment to Category talk:2019–20 COVID-19 pandemic by country and territory)...Thanks all.--Bonnielou2013 (talk) 23:41, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

@Bonnielou2013: On enwp they specify COVID-19 in the first sentence, rather than the article name. I don't quite understand why they do that, but it's not something that Commons can easily match, as the category content should be multilingual. It's better to make it clear in the category name instead. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 23:49, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Mike. Yes, I work on South Korean content mainly and they are calling it COVID-19, also.--Bonnielou2013 (talk) 23:55, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

(Further discussion on this topic is taking place at Category talk:2019–20 COVID-19 pandemic by country and territory.) To combine this discussion, please add comments there.--Bonnielou2013 (talk) 00:05, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Duplicate subcategory navigation

@ŠJů: Explain, please. [1] seems completely redundant to the category tree structure to me. Mike Peel (talk) 18:24, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

@Mike Peel: As everybody can see and understand, short navigations are used for short navigation. The default list of subcategories is sorted by the alphabet, not by item logic, and important sub-subcategories are not visible at the first sight. Also the full category names are not optimalized for immediate orientation. --ŠJů (talk) 18:30, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

@ŠJů: Nope, the standard navigation seems fine to me, you're just adding clutter. Please remove it. Mike Peel (talk) 18:34, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

@Mike Peel: Maybe, some "standard" navigations are useful an some are not, but this navigation was created to help with orientation in the item, is based on practical needs and experiences and fulfills this need very well. And the need and the functionality is a real standard. It can greatly help to users who really work on the item or who search for something - and if someone is unable to use this help, that navigation is not so extensive nor meaningless that it needs to be removed. Please don't disrupt our work on the project. Abandon unnecessary conflicts and try to do something useful (and constructive). --ŠJů (talk) 18:45, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

@Mike Peel: I do not understand your stubbornness in your destructive efforts. I have given three proven reasons for the sense of this navigation - you have not commented on either. And in constructive work on categorizing this topic, I haven't met you in recent weeks. --ŠJů (talk) 19:02, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

@ŠJů: You've stated your personal opinions, but not backed them up, and I don't agree with them. If you were adding multilingual support, or some other benefit, then I could understand it - but here I think you're just adding clutter to the category that isn't needed. You're using the word 'our' without backing it up - if this is the work of a project, then ask them to comment here. As for my edits, they're in the category histories, and are mostly on Wikidata. Mike Peel (talk) 19:09, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

@Mike Peel: I stated and explained three reasons. All three are objective and proven. "Multilingual support" can be an other benefit, but this short navigation make orientation easier for English as well as non-English users even though it is in English (btw., the standard category tree is also only in English). Once again, please do not waste your time and my time in this completely useless and merely destructive dispute. And don't make work needlessly complicated for those who really and continuously work on content sorting. --ŠJů (talk) 19:17, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

I'll wait and see if anyone else comments on this, but I still think you're just cluttering up the page for no good reason, and wasting our time by arguing about its removal. Mike Peel (talk) 19:26, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

I stated many good reasons: three reasons how such a navigation help with orientation, and the fact that this navigation is based on real needs and experiences and well proven. You couldn't reasonably comment on either. The navigation is very simple but very effective. On the contrary: the category and related categories tend to be cluttered and chaotic if easy orientation is not possible. Try rather to improve or facilitate something, not just for destruction and pointless and bothering disputes. --ŠJů (talk) 19:39, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

I can't reasonably comment on reasons that aren't there. Why, exactly, is the standard category structure not up to the job, and why can't you spend the time improving that structure rather than trying to hard-code a duplicate of it that will instantly break if a category gets renamed or deleted? Mike Peel (talk) 19:45, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Both ways are useful, to improve the categorization, as well as to use suitable and intelligent links, navigations and other improvements. The ways are synergistic, as well as text description, coordinates and categorization are synergistic for location of photos. If you are not able even to understand the three (above listed) assets of the short navigation (which helps to use the categorization structure more effectively), don't try to understand more complex things and don't damage anything. This very simple aid makes sorting of tens and hundreds new files several times easier and faster, as well as it makes easier to find the right category in the list or in the categorization structure (which has its inherent functional limits). This helps me a lot in my daily work, and there is no reason why others cannot use this tool. Btw., every category can by moved, merged etc., but Commons masively support redirects which guarantees maximal permanency of links from other projects, pages etc. Besides, correcting an outdated link is the easiest thing to do. But to be honest, I didn't count on how much time I wasted in this absolutely pointless discussion, and trying to explain what is obvious to an intelligent person at first sight. If you completely ignore the arguments, then we can't reasonably discuss it. --ŠJů (talk) 23:40, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Request for comments on colors for maps and charts.

At the English Wikipedia: en:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject COVID-19#Best universal colors for maps and graphs? -- Jeandré, 2020-05-14t09:45z