Template talk:Infobox outbreak

"Strain" parameters

There's discussion at Talk:MV_Hondius_hantavirus_outbreak#Species,_not_strain about the label "virus strain"; it isn't appropriate in that article (at least not yet, no strain has been identified), and looking at other articles that use the infobox, the "strain" parameters are often filled with species, or even genera (e.g. 1906 malaria outbreak in Ceylon), not strains.

I suggest dropping "strain" from the label shown in the infobox, and allowing the parameter to be called without strain (i.e. enable |virus= as an alias for |virus_strain=).

I'm also not sure why four separate parameters (bacteria_strain, parasite_strain, pathogen_strain, virus_strain) are really needed. Maybe it would be best for those parameters to be replaced with etiologic_agent, cause, or whatever other term is most appropriate? Plantdrew (talk) 20:36, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Strong support for dropping 'strain'. The simplest solution would seem to be a single parameter |pathogen= or |cause= or whatever and allow virus, bacteria, etc. as aliases. There might be a case for having a separate |strain= parameter but in most cases even where 'strain' is correct I would think it could be included with the cause/pathogen/agent parameter. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 14:16, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

@Plantdrew, how can we move this forward? I started to fill out {{Edit template-protected}} but I wasn't sure what would be the best, most concise request to make and I'm out of my depth here on the technical aspects of parameters. I support enabling virus, bacteria, parasite, and pathogen as aliases for the corresponding _strain parameters, if my understanding is correct that this would allow for |virus= (or bacteria, etc.) without altering articles that already use |virus_strain=, and would still allow for using strain in the future, where appropriate. That would be a straightforward fix that would not mess up all the articles that use the existing articles that use the current parameters. This would seem uncontroversial. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 19:38, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for opening a discussion here. Much-needed work. Artoria2e5 🌉 14:32, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Outbreak: human only, or also plants

The first comment below (@23:04) was originally a reply to the OP in the main section, and appeared following the 19:38 10 May comment.

Comment I support consolidating the four params into one, and calling the single param either |infectious_agent= or |causative_agent=, depending whether this template is designed solely for infectious outbreaks. Is it? Mathglot (talk) 23:04, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

*Bump* although the more active part of the discussion is below (as it ought), I think we still need to answer this question about the purpose of this Infobox, as it may affect the choice of param name if there is a consensus for some change. Mathglot (talk) 19:58, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

Are there really any non-metaphorical "outbreaks" that don't involve infectious diseases? I mean, when you reach a certain age, you might wish for an outbreak of common sense, but you also know that it's not going to happen. Steep rises in non-communicable diseases are generally referred to as epidemics rather than outbreaks, but that's a metaphorical use, and this would not be a suitable infobox for an article on (e.g.,) Obesity in India. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:25, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

Those are all good points in the human sphere (we could sure use an outbreak of common sense) but I was thinking more about the plant kingdom. I think you could have an outbreak of phylloxera that wipes out the Napa wine industry, but I don't have the med chops to know if we use the term 'infectious' for that; kinda thought that term was limited to people, or maybe also animals. Plant disease epidemiology#Elements of an epidemic is informative (but not decisive). Mathglot (talk) 20:45, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

I don't think of plants as really having outbreaks. What usually happens is a pathogen gets transported between continents, lots of plants die, the pathogen remains endemic in the new continent, and perhaps genetically resistant plants are introduced to replace the dead ones.

2006 H5N1 outbreak in India seems to be an outbreak that had more of an impact on chickens than it did on humans, but it isn't using this infobox. 1992–1993 Jack in the Box E. coli outbreak, 1996 Odwalla E. coli outbreak and 2011 Germany E. coli O104:H4 outbreak are some articles using this infobox where there wasn't really human-to-human transmission. Plantdrew (talk) 21:08, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

Template:Infobox outbreak#Usage does say This template is used for disease outbreaks. That would seem to exclude "infestations". Cancer clusters are sometimes referred to as "cancer outbreaks". The American Cancer Society discourages such usage and my sense is that it's often sensational but it does find its way into the literature. It could be clarified as infectious disease outbreaks, assuming we confirm that is indeed the scope. Alternatively, these fields can just be left blank for non-infectious disease, as is done at 2019–2020 vaping lung illness outbreak. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 21:16, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

I just checked, and disease applies to plants also, and so does disease outbreak. There are many examples in specialist sources; e.g., I found 'outbreak of wheat rust', 'outbreak of citrus canker', and so on. I'm perfectly willing to believe that most non-specialist readers including most users of this template consider a 'disease outbreak' to be limited to humans (maybe humans and some animals) and not plants. But this all started out being about using proper biomed terms, and if we are going to be consistent throughout, then we really ought to include plant outbreaks, too. Or if not, then the doc should be carefully updated to say what it is really for. Also, an infestation happens externally to your body and is not a disease (although it could vector one via microorganisms). Mathglot (talk) 22:06, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

I don't think we should be too precious about whether an infestation is a disease, or if citrus canker is a True™ Outbreak and thus deserving of this infobox. Use the infobox that makes the most sense. If there's a better one for some related circumstances, we should point that out in the documentation. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:46, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

I agree. Being overly stringent with the template parameters, like we are now with "strain", induces editors to make weird choices to try and manipulate the template to fit the situation. Someone using the outbreak template for plant diseases or non-infectious human diseases is far less problematic than using "strain" incorrectly in hundreds of articles. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 04:32, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

I agree. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:07, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Corollary: "strain" explanatory note

Very closely related to the main topic, is the no-parameter (i.e., hard-coded) explanatory note, which currently reads (italics in the original):

‡Suspected cases have not been confirmed by laboratory tests as being due to this strain, although some other strains may have been ruled out.

The same essential issue applies in this case. It may need rewording, or parametrization to allow for cases where some words (like strain) are replaced by others. Another option, is to just remove the note entirely; currently it appears on every page containing the Infobox pages where param |suspected_cases= is filled in, with no option to suppress it. One could very easily add, for example, param |explnote=no which would suppress the note (or, |suppress-note=yes, etc.) and allow each article to add disclaimers or notes about lab confirmation—or not—as applies individually in each case.

Regarding word choice, we might have |note-variant=, with default value strain, replaceable by whatever value you give for the parameter. I recognize that there is a good argument for setting the default to species and not strain, however that would be a breaking change affecting 727 articles so would require strong consensus. On the other hand, adding |explnote=no is not a breaking change as it would only affect transclusions one by one as editors used the new parameter; this could be simply added as a bold edit by a template editor. (Insert 'Waves-hi' emoji.) Mathglot (talk) 22:33, 10 May 2026 (UTC) redacted, per correction at @16:37 below. Mathglot (talk) 20:07, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

I'll be honest, I'm not clear on all the technical aspects and implications of a change. Am I correct that an "alias" would allow us to start using 'virus' now without impacting the 700+ articles that use the 'strain' parameter? We currently have a breaking news article about an outbreak where the information on the ground is changing rapidly and, predictably, mainstream news outlets are using sloppy terminology. We are trying to get it right but the infobox is effectively forcing incorrect terminology that is at odds with scientific authorities and with the article body. Certainly, a wider discussion is needed about what the defaults should be and what optional parameters, aliases, modifications, etc. are supported. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 23:02, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Re "alias" : you are correct (it is a non-breaking change). The question is, whether we would get pushback (a revert) after the fact. Is it possible that any reasonable editor might *not* see them as equivalent? If so, we should not do it as a bold edit. In the worst case, one could try a bold edit here, and then use the new alias at the cruise ship article, with the understanding that if the alias change here was undone, you would have to back it out at the article. Mathglot (talk) 23:13, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Any thoughts on where/how to escalate this? I agree that it shouldn't necessarily be up to three editors to decide. It would seem uncontroversial to implement some version of this. I'm surprised no one has raised this before, thought that makes me think there's something I haven't thought of. There are many knowledgeable editors in the outbreak space who are sticklers for proper terminology. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 04:53, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

The explanatory note shows up if |suspected_cases= is filled in, even if no strain parameter is specified. That doesn't make any sense; at a minimum, the note referring to "this strain" should not be displayed if no strain is specified.

I'll drop a note about this discussion to WikiProject Medicine. Plantdrew (talk) 16:37, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

I saw Plantdrew's note at WT:MED. I think the identified problem is real, and I think that we should:

• Have a more general label (e.g., "cause" or "pathogen" or whatever you all prefer)
• Remove the hard-coded statement.
• If an explanation is needed, then it should not be in the infobox, because explanation is against MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE. (Ergo, the infobox needs to not require that parameter).

WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:47, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

That seems reason enough to ditch the hard coded explanation. I would add to this, I'm not sure "suspected cases" has a universal definition that applies to all outbreaks. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 19:53, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing:, the more general label was something I where I was hoping to get input from WP:MED. My first instinct was to call it "causal agent", but searching for that term on Wikipedia shows it to be primarily plant pathology jargon (with some use for diseases in non-human animals). What is the best term to use for human diseases?

Do you support a single parameter for viruses/bacteria/parasites/pathogens?

My knowledge of template syntax is limited. I'm quite confident I can get "strain" to stop displaying in the infobx, pretty confident I can get rid of the explanation without screwing anything up, and not very confident about introducing a new parameter to replace the existing 4 strain parameters (and also am not very interested in doing the work needed to replace 568 instances of |virus_strain=, although I am willing to tackle the 37 instances of the other three). Plantdrew (talk) 19:59, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

Quite confident about all of the template code changes above and happy to do it (excluding changes to 700+ transclusions), once we have a complete description of what we want, and consensus for it, if it be needed. I can sandbox something so as soon as there is rough agreement; no need for consensus for that. Mathglot (talk) 20:13, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

"Causal agent" would likely be understood by most medicine, public health, and microbiology editors. "Pathogen" is more universal but would exclude likely "infestations", as mentioned above, or things like shellfish poisoning or algal blooms that might sometimes be described as "outbreaks". Though I'm not sure those non-infectious etiologies are in-scope, anyway. "Cause" is the most universal and flexible. Maybe too flexible—some editors might think the vector or some inciting event is the "cause", but the template documentation could clarify that. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 20:58, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

1. The best terms for human outbreaks are things like pathogen, cause, or microbe (probably in that order of preference).
2. Yes, single parameter.
3. Changing from one parameter to another in ~600 articles is the kind of thing we should ask for help with at WP:AWBREQ.

WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:43, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

I am thinking about a relatively simple change (taking the pathogen wording of WhatamIdoing, trivial to substitute to anything else):

| label2   = {{#if:{{{pathogen|{{{virus_strain|{{{bacteria_strain|{{{parasite_strain|}}}}}}}}}}}}|Pathogen}}
| data2    = {{{pathogen|{{{virus_strain|{{{bacteria_strain|{{{parasite_strain|}}}}}}}}}}}}

Here if {{{pathogen}}} is empty, it tries in the order of "virus_strain", "bacteria_strain", "parasite_strain", and then the empty text. If the resultant text is not empty, it puts "Pathogen" on the row label; otherwise it puts empty and the row does not show. In other words existing things would still work.

In fact I can do the edit right now. I have the editing permissions. --Artoria2e5 🌉 14:38, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

I'm happy with pathogen as a parameter name/row label. Plantdrew (talk) 19:52, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

I'm good with "pathogen" and if it works as described this sounds like a good solution to address the problem without breaking things. Thanks! —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 14:47, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply! Change  Done with documentation change and deprecation warnings. Artoria2e5 🌉 03:32, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you!!! I've implemented the change at MV Hondius hantavirus outbreak. At some point someone may want to go back and look at all these other articles list a "strain" and see if they can't be reworked... —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 17:01, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

@Artoria2e5 @Mathglot @Plantdrew @WhatamIdoing Are we all in agreement that the hard coded statement about suspected cases should be removed: ‡Suspected cases have not been confirmed by laboratory tests as being due to this pathogen, although some other pathogens may have been ruled out‍? I don't see that there was any objection to removing it but this got lost in the discussion. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 16:56, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

I agree that it should be removed. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:00, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Agreed. Mathglot (talk) 17:49, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Agreed. Plantdrew (talk) 23:00, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Agreed. Artoria2e5 🌉 03:57, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

@Artoria2e5 are you able to implement this? —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 03:58, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

@Myceteae:  Done Artoria2e5 🌉 04:24, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

@Artoria2e5 One last little detail. The dagger still appears next to "Suspected cases‡" on the infobox in articles. Can that be removed? —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 17:06, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Covid parameters

|active_cases= and |ventilator_cases= are eminently WP:NOTNEWS COVID trivia that would need daily updates. I will look into blanking these parameters, but they should probably be disabled altogether. I'm also contemplating moving this template to {{Infobox disease outbreak}}; {{Infobox outbreak}} isn't actually the most commonly transcluded name for this template, {{Infobox pandemic}} is the most common transclusion, but it is almost all in COVID-19 regional articles such as COVID-19 pandemic in Puerto Rico. COVID-19 was a pandemic, but the impacts in a focused non-global context are not pandemics themselves. Plantdrew (talk) 04:44, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

WHO_status parameter

The parameter added today kinda broke a few boxes, like on Ebola virus epidemic in Sierra Leone, causing {{{WHO_status}}} to appear. I think I managed to fix the issues.

Going by the /testcases, I think I managed not to break the template, but given that this was my first major attempt at working with templates, I'd appreciate someone checking if I managed to break the template in other fascinating ways. LightlySeared (talk) 20:17, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

It looks like you fixed the problem. Rich Farmbrough, you are experienced enough to know that you should test template code in the sandbox and on the testcases page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:10, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the fix, good fix. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 14:23, 26 May 2026 (UTC).

Rich Farmbrough, I was a little harsh in my comment above. I should have accompanied it with a small Trout. I have made the same mistake many times. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:00, 26 May 2026 (UTC)