This article is within the scope of WikiProject COVID-19, a project to coordinate efforts to improve all
COVID-19-related articles. If you would like to help, you are invited to
join and to participate in
project discussions.COVID-19Wikipedia:WikiProject COVID-19Template:WikiProject COVID-19COVID-19 articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Disaster management on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York (state), a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the
U.S. state of
New York on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York (state)Wikipedia:WikiProject New York (state)Template:WikiProject New York (state)New York (state) articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
New York City-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Viruses, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
viruses on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.VirusesWikipedia:WikiProject VirusesTemplate:WikiProject Virusesvirus articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Policy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Science policy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Science PolicyWikipedia:WikiProject Science PolicyTemplate:WikiProject Science PolicyScience Policy articles
This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the
project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to
COVID-19, broadly construed, which has been
designated as a contentious topic.
Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 6 September 2020 and 7 December 2020. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
ShawnBoom.
You're welcome to put in the correct data. I will try to fix the table from the referenced site. I don't volunteer for the graphs, though.
Warren Dew (
talk)
14:14, 4 April 2020 (UTC)reply
The city's website says, "Information about cases over the last week will be incomplete..." How about we simply exclude the most recent week from the graphs? --
Amcbride (
talk)
15:12, 4 April 2020 (UTC)reply
I vote for excluding whatever time period you suggest - that gets rid of the clearly incorrect drop on the graph. If that's a week, great. I don't care about the time period. I do care, and we should all care, about the misleading suggestion that we are going with at the moment that shows a steep decline - when there is none.
2604:2000:E010:1100:982D:6E52:9840:4385 (
talk)
19:35, 4 April 2020 (UTC)reply
I came here to say the same thing. Data from the current day should not be included until a final number is available. Including partial day results is a false data point.
Natureium (
talk)
21:26, 4 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Sounds like we have consensus. Anyone who knows how to make the change, please go ahead. I tried deleting the most recent week of data in the Wikimedia Commons table, but somehow that didn't seem to change anything here. I tried to add an xMax option to the graph template, but that didn't work for me either. --
Amcbride (
talk)
22:13, 4 April 2020 (UTC)reply
User:141.155.150.107 has deleted the graphs, which is probably the best solution for now. @
141.155.150.107:, the problem is not in averaging; it's that the graphs are using the official data from NYC, which for some reason has decided to publish incomplete data for the most recent week. They're now counting new cases from the date of the test, not the date of the positive result, which means that as results come in they get added to various days' tallies over the past week. --
Amcbride (
talk)
15:36, 5 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Amcbride is correct. NYC Health's new data format is a bit confusing, but it's the official tally and I think this is what we should use. I am using a
script to pull the data and generate the markup (it uses
Node.js so you need to be familiar with the
terminal to use it). I agree there's no sense in including the current day, so I'm not copying that over anymore. I also
clarified what the charts represent.
The bigger problem with the charts is that they are cached behind
Varnish, which means it can take a while for changes in the data to take effect (bug report at
phab:T131885). It's quite frustrating, but it seems they update around once a day, which is all we need. Right now it's still showing outdated data, hence why you still see the misleading drop. If you want to see what it's supposed to look like, view the page in preview while editing. You'll also notice the charts look very crisp in preview, but are blurry post-save. I hate it. I almost just want to use a normal image, and update that every day. Thoughts?
You can't set a range, unfortunately, so I just
removed the row for April 4. Of course, we're still waiting for the stupid cache to expire, so who knows when the fix will go live. Note we could easily change the chart to show overall confirmed cases/deaths instead. To me, total cases/deaths seems weird because the chart can only go in one direction (the number of people who are already dead can't go down), while per-day numbers will better illustrate when we're nearing the end. However, per-day stats are misleading people, so maybe we should go back to the overall totals? — MusikAnimaltalk00:27, 6 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Are there no new figures for the last days? Or are these figures to low to present, so anybody can see the china virus is finished and the lockdown had no effect.
I am also curious - I noticed the other day that the data in the table had indicated a total of 2 new cases one day, which didn't make sense. After looking in to it, it appeared that the person editing the data table made a mistake when fixing some percentage problems. And there was some discussion of the fact that the NYC.gov data source is a bit flakey (in that the most recent day's data may be considered 'interim' data). That all being said, the fact that today is the 20th, and the the table only has data up to the 17th (and even that day's data looks suspicious) makes me wonder whether the data should even be there at all. It should certainly include some disclaimers about what data can be relied upon, and why this data seems so much worse (and delayed) than the data on similar templates at the state/country levels.
Douglaswyatt (
talk)
15:47, 20 April 2020 (UTC)reply
That is just indicative of the problems with the nyc city data. If I go to the NY State data and look at just the stats for the Bronx, for instance, it says there were 549 new positive tests "today" (not sure what "today" is - maybe it's April 19th, since it says the testing data is as of midnight on the 19th). Given how many cases are in NYC and what we know about Covid in general, it seems implausible that there really were just 2 cases between the 18th and 19th. It looks like nyc.gov is just a bad place to look for reliable data.
Douglaswyatt (
talk)
18:28, 20 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Oxiris Barbot
The community consensus is not to follow NY Post or bklyner for any type of MEDRS content like the protection of homemade masks. The community wide consensus is to follow the WHO and other MEDRS sources. It would be irresponsible for a public health official to lie and say a homemade mask would protect you from becoming sick.
Gammapearls (
talk)
21:15, 21 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Why are you
deleting the statements of the top health official in NYC on this page - on the pandemic in NYC? That's absurd. This isn't being posted to give medical advice - but to have an encyclopedic article on the health matter in NYC. In fact, the statement is followed by a contrary view on following the top health official's advice. That's a lame reason for your deletion, and valueless.
What are you going to do next? Heavy-handedly delete the mention in the US Covid article that "Trump promoted the drugs chloroquine (also known as chloroquine phosphate)[404] and hydroxychloroquine as potential treatments"?
I don't understand what you mean by "In fact, the statement is followed by a contrary view on following the top health official's advice." She said "It gives people who are asymptomatic a false sense of security that if they wear this mask, they don’t have to wash their hands, they don’t have to cover their mouths and their noses when they cough or they sneeze." This can be included somewhere relevant, but it can't be inserted into an attack paragraph and followed up with some politicians calling for her resignation because that is not neutral editing. Sources can't be cherry picked to attack living persons. If you try to restore this again, I'm going to remove it until there is consensus to include it. I'm sorry you feel I am being heavy handed, but I tried to keep as much of your content as possible.
Gammapearls (
talk)
11:50, 23 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Your edit makes no sense. It is the same as if you deleted the reference in the US pandemic article that "Trump promoted the drugs chloroquine (also known as chloroquine phosphate)[404] and hydroxychloroquine as potential treatments". In no world would that be viewed as acceptable on Wikipedia. The reference is indeed balanced. It presents her view. And it presents a contrary view. That's balance - not cherry picking.
Can other editors please comment? I'm unable to explain myself to Gamma, who insists on deleting this language for a reason I cannot understand.
And the deletion by Gamma as to the fact that it was asked that the top NYC health official's removal was requested by city council member specifically because of her advice on the pandemic -
now restored - was especially absurd. And there is no good faith defense for it that I can imagine.
On April 18, under the heading "Data", above the table of cases by day,
User:108.15.31.114added the line "The percentages of new cases is not calculated correctly above 100,000 cases," a claim which has remained in the article ever since. Is that true? If it is true, then how are they being calculated incorrectly, and could someone who knows what is wrong fix the calculations? —
Lowellian (
reply)
09:18, 5 May 2020 (UTC)reply
The article cannot claim that this is the deadliest ever. Many municipalities had death tolls in the 1918 pandemic exceeding this one. The provided source did not say that the present pandemic is deadlier than the 1918 pandemic. That earlier pandemic killed 500,000 to 800,000 people in the United States. The New York City death toll at that time may have exceeded the death toll in the current pandemic.
Dogru144 (
talk)
20:08, 21 August 2020 (UTC)reply
New York City's population has more than quadrupled since 1918 so the number itself is meaningless and looks more like another meaningless record attempt more suited for the headlines gasping mainstream media than an encyclopedia from a scientific point of view. Just saying.
--TMCk (
talk)
18:43, 25 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Scientific studies are not the only use of numbers, but yes, numerical comparisons ought to identify the divisor or divisors. If none is given, then presumably it's some sort of gross number rather than a rate. Such reports are not as useful as those that are more specific, or rather the purposes to which they are very useful do not include epidemiology.
Jim.henderson (
talk)
15:33, 28 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Self-Published Source as source of information about itself
In a 01:52, 11 August 2021 edit, regarding the
New York Young Republican Club's reaction to the vaccine mandate, I cited the organization's own webpage and its Eventbrite page, which seem to be in accordance with Wikipedia's verifiability guidelines that "
Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves". Since the material I cited from NYYRC was regarding their own event, I feel that it may pass this test, in this case. Considering that WP:SOCIALMEDIA also redirects to the above guidelines, I also applied the same logic to the Eventbrite source. Does this analysis make sense, or am I missing something about Wikipedia editorial policy and we need to wait for journalists to write about their planned event?
Kches16414 (
talk)
03:21, 11 August 2021 (UTC)reply
I just updated the sources since there was traditional media coverage of the event today, but it would nonetheless be interesting how my August 11 edit would relate to the aforementioned Wikipedia policies.
Kches16414 (
talk)
00:51, 16 August 2021 (UTC)reply
With more art and literature emerging about New York on Pause/the NYC pandemic experience, should we add an "influences on art" or "in popular culture" sort of section? I'm thinking of the pandemic photographs exhibited in Manhattan or published in art books, literature set in NYC during the pandemic, etc — not cursory mentions, thanks.
Kentuckian in NY (
talk)
17:09, 8 April 2023 (UTC)reply