This template 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 template 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 template is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
This template is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the
United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This template 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
At this point, having a notable Wikipedia page is a good measure, however, there is the question of how to organize/order them. Should it be in alphabetical order or ordered by death date? Should they be sorted by location of death or by general categories (i.e. artists, scientists, government). I’m leaning towards the former on both questions, but I’m interested in what others think.
Mcrsftdog (
talk)
16:35, 8 April 2020 (UTC)reply
There is no criteria, and no justification. ALL biographies should be removed from this and EVERY nation's coronavirus pandemic template, and the templates should not be placed on anyone who died from the disease. The scope and purpose of the template should be clearly defined and deployed in only a handful of closely related articles. Navboxes are not buckets to shoehorn tangentially related detritus, they work best when there is a well-defined set in which all elements in the navigation box logically connect to each other. They should not be entrances into trivial endless rabbit holes. We don't list every notable person who has died from AIDS at {{HIV and AIDS}}, nor do we plaster the template on every biography who has contracted or died from the disease. Formal guidance is at
WP:NAVBOX and
Wikipedia:Navigation template.
--Animalparty! (
talk)
06:35, 9 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Animalparty (
talk·contribs) If that is what you think you can start a discussion, but notable deaths from coronavirus are relevant to the template. This appears to pass
WP:NAVBOX based on consensus through editing. Most believe this information to be relevant. Please use discussion to achieve consensus not reverting.
Valoemtalkcontrib15:09, 9 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Consensus means little because people have lost sense of perspective due to the pandemic,
recentism, and a rush to create and categorize as many sub articles as possible.
WP:NAVBOX states:
Navigation templates are particularly useful for a small, well-defined group of articles; templates with a large number of links are not forbidden, but can appear overly busy and be hard to read and use. Good navboxes generally follow most or all of these guidelines:
All articles within a template relate to a single, coherent subject
The subject of the template should be mentioned in every article.
The articles should refer to each other, to a reasonable extent.
There should be a Wikipedia article on the subject of the template.
If not for the navigation template, an editor would be inclined to link many of these articles in the See also sections of the articles.
While the articles directly about the pandemic make sense to include, as they tightly and logically relate to each other, I think it is bad taste,
undue weight, and misguided to slap this template on assorted biographies that have absolutely nothing in common besides how they spent the last days of their life. Besides manner of death, what logical, well-defined set includes
Helène Aylon,
Terrence McNally,
Kevin Duffy, etc., and why, should a supposed encyclopedia draw readers from these biographies into dozens of articles that are otherwise exclusively abut pandemics? See my similar
similar concerns about including biographies in {{Alt-right_footer}}.
--Animalparty! (
talk)
16:35, 9 April 2020 (UTC)reply
I support
User:Animalparty in that this template should not become a laundry list of deaths of people who otherwise have no relation to each other than geography; that's not what navboxes are for. The list is already overly long and will only grow longer.
Opencooper (
talk)
20:25, 12 April 2020 (UTC)reply
J4lambert, I don't think criticizing Trump's handling of the pandemic response qualifies for inclusion in this nav temp. I can't image how many inclusions that would precipitate.
—valereee (
talk)
18:06, 5 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Notable people
The "Notable people" section appears to be focused on officials directly responsible for federal and (in some cases) state responses to the pandemic. Should any local officials like
Sara Cody also be listed?
Delete or purge heavily. Navboxes should contain closely associated articles, not be arbitrary waste bins of people who happened to be in office when the pandemic struck. Similarly, notable deaths should be purged again, see the discussion above.
--Animalparty! (
talk)
17:56, 23 May 2020 (UTC)reply
This template clearly needs some cleanup. We're not going to list every film released during the pandemic just since it was released during the pandemic. {{u|Sdkb}}talk04:15, 16 July 2020 (UTC)reply