Template talk:COVID-19 pandemic data

Half collapsing this template

So this is soon going to expand to 250 some items as every country in the world has cases. We need to figure out how to half collapse this table. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:47, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

I would not really like to see this collapsed. Previous collapsing was controversial, and editors sometimes trashed the table when changing it. Perhaps a scrollable box could be used where this is transcluded. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:55, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

User:Graeme Bartlett do you have an example of a scrollable box? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:15, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

I have made a sample box here: User:Graeme Bartlett/sandbox6. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:47, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Try this.<div style="float:right; width:33em; height:40em; overflow:auto; border:0px"> ... </div> This enables the table floatable.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 22:05, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

User:Phoenix7777 once again you are brilliant. And thanks User:Graeme Bartlett this is great. Will move live. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:09, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

User:TheseusHeLl can you please discussion? What is your issue? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:40, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Hey, Doc James

My bad I didn't see this discussion. I thought it was some technical mistake. -TheseusHeLl (talk) 23:49, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Love the new framed view on desktop but it shows up as a giant white area in the app (tested on Android). Once expanded, it's impossible to scroll left or right. - Wikmoz (talk) 22:36, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

I think that's just one of the limitations of using Wikipedia on mobile devices. I'm not sure what to do about that. Mgasparin (talk) 23:05, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

User:Wikmoz we have a section on this. Would be useful to keep conversations together. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:45, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Okay I see the issue is that it is too wide for mobile screens. Maybe we need to enforce the once ref per line. And move the refs to after the country name. User:Phoenix7777 you know how to fix the mobile issue? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:49, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

I tried a workaround (40em → 500px). Is it improved?―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 00:43, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, that seems good now. Sun Creator^(talk) 00:49, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

I have managed to fiddle with this enough to get things fitting better on mobile. User:Doc James/table Thoughts? We use shorter terms for the headings. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:44, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Rows are of various height based on the country length and therefore messy. Would be better if all rows are the same height. Sun Creator^(talk) 00:49, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

User:Sun Creator We can move to abbreviations for countries, like US, UAE, UK Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:57, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

User:TheseusHeLl setting it to 500 px[1] appear to make it format less well on mobile. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:04, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Doc James, Try 495px and see if it makes it better. -TheseusHeLl (talk) 01:10, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Well it appears it is nearly impossible to make this work perfectly on both mobile and desktop :-( Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:18, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

User:Koavf than how do you propose we deal with this table as it goes to 206 countries? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:57, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Doc James, You could have the biggies: China, Italy, South Korea, United States, etc. and then after you get down to the bottom 50% or so, go to "Other Asia" or "Other Southeast Asia", etc. Another options is to have the tabular data saved at c: and make an interactive graph with it a la List of countries by carbon dioxide emissions (permanent link--see the map). Thoughts? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:02, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

We need to get the map graphing tool working much better. I am not sure there is a good solution that works for everyone. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:06, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Doc James, you can take a look [[2]. Dates are organized by month, so I'm thinking we can organize cases by the continent the country is on. Thoughts? RayDeeUx (talk) 22:54, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Not readable with large font sizes

Hi, I use large font sizes to read the web. The current layout for this template chops off most of the "Territories" column, leaving "Cases" the first readable column. This seems to be the last revision readable with large font sizes: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:2019%E2%80%9320_coronavirus_pandemic_data&oldid=945131522 138.88.18.245 (talk) 01:24, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Reported a related issue a few hours ago but it looks like that was archived for some reason. The framed view shows up as a giant white area in the app making the article appear broken. Once expanded, it's impossible to scroll left or right. - Wikmoz (talk) 02:31, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Actually, looks like they removed the scrolling function, which resolved the app issue. Assuming it resolves the large font issue as well. - Wikmoz (talk)

Yes, it does. 138.88.18.245 (talk) 03:51, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Implementing a collapsible view option

Would somebody with the technical know-how please consider implementing an option to collapse the template to top 20 (or whatever number is agreed) countries? The template length has begun to distort the parent article layout significantly. Melmann 14:40, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

We did that, but then issues with that are 1) sorting is then incorrect 2) the columns in the bottom section are removed, numeric data gets stuffed in effectively one cell 3) it doesn't show correctly on mobile. Sun Creator^(talk) 14:43, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

sun creator is correct. you can also see the issues raised above in this section. dying (talk) 15:06, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

To add MOS:COLLAPSE says "templates should not conceal article content by default upon page loading.", so basically even if it worked correctly it would be against the MOS guideline. Sun Creator^(talk) 15:27, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

This is going to stretch to 205 cells. Not sure the solution. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:59, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

What sources should we use?

Citing references that DO NOT support the content

Has happened again. Do others consider this an issue. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:51, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Okay as we appear to have decided that Johns Hopkins is too slow and were simple changes the numbers to other sources which Johns Hopkins did not support we may aswell remove the reference we were not using anyway. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:03, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

The Johns Hopkins site has been slow, but has illogical things going on. Like the death numbers go down, and that causing a lot of edit conflicted here on this page. Perhaps that is a technical issue due to caching and site traffic. Yesterday they has 117 regions total and you can see now that it's 115, so again that is a bit crazy. So yea, it's not reassuring because they don't directly link to the sources for revisions, nor do they revise based on daily WHO figures etc. The WMO have sources at the bottom of there table(https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/#news) (much like Wikipedia), so you can check them if you have the time. Sun Creator^(talk) 23:14, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

I've not encountered a problem. Can you give an example. Am I concerned? No, it's currently monitored by so many eyes, that even minor errors are corrected quickly. Sun Creator^(talk) 23:07, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

I have trimmed all the Johns Hopkins references as we were using them for data that they did not support. If people insist on worldometers than we can go with that I guess. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:17, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

I see now references have been removed, mostly JHU. I don't agree with that change. The WOMC are quicker then JHU for local news sources most of the time, but not all country have a local news that care to report and JHU would have the WHO/ECDC data quicker. What I have been doing is adding JHU and WOMC together and between them they cover the 24 hour cycle quick fast. Sun Creator^(talk) 23:23, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

User:Sun Creator I oppose that. Why list a source that does not support the content in question? If JH is higher than WM than delete WM and add JH. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:08, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

i don't know about the other editors, but when i make an update that does not use either the johns hopkins or the worldometers source, i add the third source but do not delete either of the first two, since there seemed to be a preference to reverting back to either or both of those first two sources once the newer information has been integrated into them, and i didn't want to make it difficult for other editors to add that source back in. also, sometimes, the third source only provides one updated number, so using the new source as the sole source would leave some information uncited. please let me know if my practice violates any wikipedia policy i may be unfamiliar with.

personally, if i had to choose between the johns hopkins source and the worldometers source, i would choose the johns hopkins source, as it seems more reputable, albeit slower, while worldometers tries to get information out as quickly as possible and seems less trustworthy as a result. however, i've seen mistakes in both.

that being said, i'm not sure why we often seem to revert to using those first two sources, since i don't see why any newer source should be removed simply because an older source has finally updated. i would personally prefer using primary sources. dying (talk) 23:35, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

I used to add reliable third party sources but they are soon incorrect. The reason is say a government published 50 cases and 10 deaths at 9am. During the day local media will report an addition person that is ill or has died. So the figures are not then 50 cases and 10 death, but now 51 cases and 11 deaths. At that point the government source is both dated and incorrect, so others will remove it. Sun Creator^(talk) 23:46, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

When older sources no longer support the data we need to remove them. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:11, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

I think that is counterproductive. You would remove official sources because they out of date after 30 minutes? It's that kind of thinking that means sources are removed and replace constantly. Including johns hopkins source and the worldometers, which do get out of date at some point over a 24 hour period. Sun Creator^(talk) 03:08, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

If the source does not support the existing content yes it should definitely be removed or the content changed so that it does support the content in question.

We need to make a decision to either 1) have the official source and out of date numbers or 2) have less official sources and be more up to date. We do not list the most uptodate numbers and pretend they are supported by the official sources. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:42, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

I am for "official" sources, less up to date (WP:NOTNEWS: "While including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information."), less changes in the article. WikiHannibal (talk) 13:49, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Okay so if we want to use "official" sources only we will need to fully protect this page so only admins can edit it. User:WikiHannibal feel free to start such a RfC. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:17, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Live numbers are not encyclopedic

Does anyone else feel Live numbers are not encyclopedic? I feel a lot of effort is applied to update numbers in a table cell that is mostly less then an hour out of date. Effort would be better applied to have less focus on the numbers and more on what them mean in the context of the subject matter IMO. Sun Creator^(talk) 23:31, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

A few steps in this direction would be to collapse 75% of this table which is going to expand to 250 items soon.

And moving it out of the lead of the outbreak article. I have tried but people keep reverting. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:12, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

switch from johns hopkins to worldofmeters

why? is it to promote it or something? i had never before heard of worldofmeters. if i had the time i would replace all sources with johns hopkins. i consider johns hopkins to be more reliable.Pancho507 (talk) 00:26, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

agreed. actually, if i had to choose between bno and worldometers, i'd prefer using bno. i couldn't figure out why bno stopped being considered reliable, and a search of the talk archive seemed to mention that one issue is that they use facebook and twitter as a source, which i personally don't consider to be a problem if they are using official government facebook and twitter accounts. (apologies if i missed any other reasons why bno was considered unreliable.) worldometers also seems to have the same problem (using facebook and twitter as sources). however, in addition, worldometers will often not even have any sources listed to explain a recently updated number, while bno seems to be pretty careful about what updates it publishes, and even questions some primary sources, sometimes going so far as to explain that it believes a government is accidentally misreporting in an update.

in any case, i can understand the switch from using bno to johns hopkins (as johns hopkins is more reputable, though bno has apparently gained a lot of reputation due to this crisis), but the switch from johns hopkins to worldometers makes no sense to me. dying (talk) 00:56, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

So what should we use? I do not care at this point. We just need to use the source that ACTUALLY supports the numbers we list. And not list half a dozen sources one of which may support the number listed.

We have too many editors who consider Johns Hopkins to slow. I am happy to use the source but we could need to limit the editing of this article to admins only. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:06, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

my vote would be for using johns hopkins as our main aggregate source (including being the source for the totals row) with up to an additional two reliable sources that have updated information, or using up to three reliable sources and not necessarily using johns hopkins.

for example, if johns hopkins states a country has 50 cases, with 0 deaths and 2 recoveries, while the country's ministry of health's official twitter account announces that 3 patients have recovered and the major national newspaper covers the first coronavirus death in the country, i can see listing all 3 sources (including twitter) being valid. then, if the president of the country holds a press conference on youtube announcing 20 additional cases, that can be listed too, with johns hopkins removed if desired. of course, once johns hopkins incorporates those updates into its data, it will list 70 cases, with 1 death and 5 recoveries, and the additional sources may be removed if desired, even though there was nothing wrong with using them in the first place.

does this make sense? please let me know if i'm not explaining this well enough.

from what i understand, this was what we were doing until today, when worldometers was added as a reference to almost every entry, for a reason i seem to have missed.

i would be happy to hear anyone else's opinion on this. dying (talk) 01:51, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

JH while not as updated as World of Metres, seems to be more reliable. Do we know how World of Metres source their data from? M nurhaikal (talk) 01:43, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

World of Metres has their list of sources below their table. They keep adding new ones at the top, and link to where they got their info, so it is easy to see what has changed. It is mainly news web sites. So one option is to use the source that World of Metres uses, if we think it is reliable enough. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:37, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

At this juncture, I feel like we should stick to one source and just update the data using only that particular source. It might lead to the data being not be up to date, but really, its just a matter of minutes (if using worldometers), or hours (of using Johns Hopkins). The source citation has often become too messy. Some territories have up to 4 sources cited sometimes. M nurhaikal (talk) 01:56, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

If we are not going to use the most uptodate numbers than we need to get consensus to fully lock this page. Otherwise the numbers we keep getting changed to WM regardless of what JH says. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:59, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

i'm not sure that ignoring all primary sources and using only one aggregate source is the best solution, as that would mean there wouldn't be much reason for anyone to reference this chart for up-to-date information, as they could just go to the aggregate source instead. however, if that is what the consensus is, i'd prefer using the johns hopkins source because i believe it's the most reputable aggregate source. dying (talk) 04:45, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

It was User:Sun Creator that added the World of Metres to each entry. I did not agree with that, especially that two references are not needed, and a reference that does not support the number should not be there. You can see a fragment of our previous discussion here: #Two sources happily cover it all or one source and edit conflict all day long., but that has no clear conclusion, but I hope we can get a consensus here. Making editor life easy, so that sources do not need to be added or removed is not a good reason to have multiple references on each line. I think we should use Johns Hopkins as much as possible, but that we do need to have a reference that supports the figures. I think WOM is acceptable as it is more up-to-date, but JH is better if we can use it. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:00, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

I'd be interesting in what Wikipedia policy supports constant removal of sources. Normally, we are asking users to supply sources to content. But here somehow removal of sources is preferable. It's an odd situation. Sun Creator^(talk) 03:13, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

If you change the number in Wikipedia and the old source does not support the new number, you do not leave the old source. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:23, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

admittedly, i did not previously realize that it is preferred to remove an aggregate source if it no longer supports the data, and i apologize for that. i had previously left them because editors generally removed all non-aggregate sources once an aggregate source had updated its numbers.

going forward, i'll remove an aggregate source if none of its numbers are reflected in the table. however, whenever i add a primary source, it's often to update only one of the numbers, so i've left the aggregate source as a citation for the other numbers. please let me know if i should only use the most updated source instead. dying (talk) 04:45, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

ah, thanks for pointing out that previous discussion for me. i'm not sure how i missed it.

the argument that everything will be covered by citing both johns hopkins and worldometers doesn't seem to make much sense, as no aggregate source can ever be as up to date as all primary sources. i believe i've seen plenty of primary sources that had not been incorporated into any aggregate source at the time. also, i personally see no problem with having to add and remove references constantly, as that is the nature of documenting a rapidly-changing situation.

i agree with your point that we don't need two aggregate sources. dying (talk) 04:45, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

″===Official versus most up to date numbers=== The only way we are going to get official numbers to stick is if we fully protect this page. So if people are serious about wanting to use official numbers than we need a RfC to fully protect this template. I do not have a strong feel what we do as the official numbers equal the most up to date numbers within a day.

Also if we go with official numbers we will get 100s of edit requests to change to non official numbers. So our readers want the non official numbers which makes me lean towards us simple providing them. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:22, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

There is no merit to protecting the page; this is not one of those cases where it is necessary. The majority of the issues come from inexperienced editors or editors who are misbehaving (I've dealt with a couple already - one of whom was blocked). Any such editors who are misbehaving or not getting it get sanctioned through the usual processes and their edits are reverted as we do through the usual consensus building process.

The sole issue comes down to people acting too quickly without thinking about the sources they are using. If a source does not verify the content, it cannot be used or the content needs to be changed to reflect what is verifiable. If the source cited is unreliable, the content does not meet the criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia. Some of the primary websites cited even on WOM do not inspire the greatest deal of confidence. It is up to editors to research and find a sufficiently reliable source, just as we do with any other article. That is why I do not complete some requests on this page immediately - because no such sources exist yet and the source provided in the request does not meet the criteria.

The numbers need not be limited official government-published numbers to meet the criteria, but the table need not be updated to reflect the most current numbers if insufficient(ly) reliable sources are reporting those numbers yet. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:26, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

User:Ncmvocalist I am fine with that. This means by default we will go with the most uptodate numbers rather than the official numbers. If this is what we are choosing it would be useful for people to stop asking that we go with official numbers. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:02, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

I think we have to balance up-to-dateness and reliability here since we dont have a source where both are excellent. WHO is highly reliable but 1-2 days behind while all aggregators are of course very up to date but more or less reliable. I feel that John Hopkins is a good balance, its a team of experts / academics and the methodology is published in a peer reviewed journal. To me JH would probably be the best balance, we should also discuss worldofmeters here Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard since I know very little about it and its methodoloigies. --hroest 17:44, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Johns Hopkins and Worldometers disagree on the US

Johns Hopkins says 1050 cases, 29 deaths and 8 recoveries, while Worldometers says 1016 cases, 31 deaths and 15 recoveries. Which is the better, more accurate number? With a number that much lower, is Worldometers not counting the Grand Princess cases? TheNavigatrr (talk) 16:40, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

All of the sources appear to be inconsistent even outside of these 2. I think the only consistency is that confirmed cases are above 1000. Hopefully this issue is settled soon. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:53, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Should this have wrong information from aggregator websites?

I see there is an ongoing debate on what sources should be used for these statistics. There are aggregator websites like the John Hopkins map and Worldometers that are convenient to use and there is an argument to be made that those are better than chasing official reporting and media reports from each individual country, even if this means a lag in reporting most recent numbers. However, there can be instances where these data aggregators simply have it wrong. One such instance is the figure given for the number of recoveries in Iceland. The aggregator sites say that there has been 1 recovery. This is wrong and not based in any official information from Icelandic authorities that have not released any such information. This was even specifically addressed at a press conference today where the chief physician for contagious disease in Iceland denied that this was true and that this information could not come from authorities in Iceland. I have attempted to track down where the aggregators have this number from but none of the sources they cite actually support the number given. I have attempted to contact these sites personally to correct them but I guess they are very much overwhelmed by emails right now. I have attempted to correct this in this template and put in a special note about this in the table that this number should still be 0 (zero) until a primary source says otherwise but my edits have been reverted with no commentary at all. Should we just have the wrong information on here for the sake of convenience? --Bjarki (talk) 18:44, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

This is interesting, thank you. Do you have a sources to support this, say to the press conference? Graham Beards (talk) 19:17, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

The press conference is here: https://www.visir.is/g/202017593d/svona-var-ellefti-upp-lysinga-fundurinn-vegna-koronu-veirunnar The discussion starts at 31:00 when a journalist asks if it is correct that one person has recovered as is reported on various websites. The answer is that this is not right and that this information does not come from icelandic health authorities. He goes on to say that most infected people had only mild symptoms and some have no symptoms any more but that the health authorities don't yet have a standard for what constitutes a recovery from the disease so there have been no official figures for that yet. --Bjarki (talk) 19:40, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

interesting. i know virtually no icelandic, so can't confirm myself, but what you say matches the body language of the person speaking in the video. of note, the bno aggregate source lists no recoveries for iceland.

do the icelandic authorities have any site where we can obtain official statistics? i could not find any that were regularly updated, and would like to cite one if i were to correct that value to a 0. i suppose this press conference would likely be acceptable as a source, though a source more accessible to english speakers would be preferred. thanks in advance. dying (talk) 20:18, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

There is no regularly updated official site which displays the current statistics. There are supposed to be daily status reports here but this has not been very reliable (today's report is not on there yet for example). These have also often been released so early in the day that there have usually been several confirmed cases that day after the publication. Some days there has been an English version of the report but usually not. There is a little widget here (see on the right side of the page) on the news site Mbl.is which gives the current state of infections (red) recovery (green) and current number people in qurantine (yellow). --Bjarki (talk) 20:40, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

ah, thanks for the information and those links. i don't think i would have ever been able to find them myself. i don't mind that they're not in english; i should have clarified that by "accessible to english speakers", i meant that an easily translatable source (e.g., icelandic text; c.f. icelandic speech) would also be fine. also, thanks for correcting that value to 0 on the template.

going forward, i'll probably try to update iceland's numbers using the landlaeknir.is link you mentioned supplemented by either the widget or articles on mbl.is. here's to hoping that they won't need to use a fourth color for that widget. dying (talk) 21:39, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

source for germany

Suhgestion for Germany updazes: Use the official source, Robert-Koch-Institut. Because getting data from a newspaper like Berliner Morgenpost (which by the way has different numbers from all other sources like Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung or Robert Koch Institut) will not help regarding accuracy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.204.238.156 (talk) 17:00, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

i was torn over this one. normally, i would also prefer using the robert koch-institut, as the bundesministerium für gesundheit (federal ministry of health) points to the robert koch-institut as the official source for its numbers on the coronavirus pandemic. however, i often wondered why it kept on lagging behind all the other sources until i read on deutsche welle that they were using an independent tally (from deutsche presse-agentur) because even the robert koch-institut itself "admitted that it only counts cases that are communicated to it via official channels".

so, realistically, if we were to use the robert koch-institut, we not only would have our figures repeatedly overwritten by editors who are more interested in getting a bigger number on the board than getting an accurate number even though it may be delayed, we may also be sacrificing accuracy simply because the institute itself is calculating its numbers in a way that is almost certainly going to lead to undercounting. as a result, numbers put out by the robert koch-institut appear to be widely accepted as far below the actual count, and perhaps the only benefit to using them is to be able to claim that we are using the official numbers, or at least be able to until they are overwritten by an overzealous editor with a larger number of unknown source.

because of this, selecting an unofficial aggregate source is almost a necessity. the berliner morgenpost, which we are currently using here, seems to be a reasonable selection. the details lower on the berliner morgenpost's page mention that it uses both the robert koch-institut numbers as well as those of district and state health authorities, and that it acknowledged that, due to various issues, the numbers they publish are "fortlaufend korrigiert" (continuously corrected), so i am currently assuming that their numbers are fairly reasonable, and almost certainly more accurate than those of the robert koch-institut. in addition, the berliner morgenpost's reputation as a solid newspaper in berlin gives added weight to its reliability as a secondary source.

i hope my reasoning makes sense. i must admit, however, that i am neither german nor currently living in germany, so my opinion may not be as sound as someone else with more firsthand experience. please let me know if there are other benefits to using the robert koch-institut's numbers that i may have missed, or if you are aware of another secondary source that you think may provide us with more accurate numbers. in particular, i actually haven't gone looking for the deutsche presse-agentur tally, since the berliner morgenpost seemed accepted here and i had no reason to want to substitute one already-accepted secondary source for another.

by the way, if there is a consensus to use the robert koch-institut numbers instead, i'm happy to conform. thanks in advance! dying (talk) 19:46, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

1point vs worldOmeter

Just want to grumble. 1point list their sources better than worldOmeter. WorldOMeter currently lists 40 deaths, but doesn't justify it, 1point says 39. 1point3acres lists the states where deaths occur, a better breakdown. https://coronavirus.1point3acres.com/en Just wondering why worldOmeters is preferred. The issue is tiny. Agree that worldOmeters is better than john hopkins. Thanks for the change. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 20:32, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 March 2020 - per capita coronavirus case statistics

Add column for with this source https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/#countries Moneyball99 (talk) 09:38, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

No we are not going to do this, as it is too hard to maintain. Previously it was tried, and failed. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:59, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Algeria

https://www.ennaharonline.com/%d8%aa%d8%b3%d8%ac%d9%8a%d9%84-%d8%a3%d9%88%d9%84-%d8%ad%d8%a7%d9%84%d8%a9-%d9%88%d9%81%d8%a7%d8%a9-%d8%a8%d9%81%d9%8a%d8%b1%d9%88%d8%b3-%d9%83%d9%88%d8%b1%d9%88%d9%86%d8%a7-%d8%a8%d9%85%d8%b3%d8%aa/ In this source,(from BNO) confirmed cases are 24, death 1, but does it conclude that 8 recovered? Anyone who can translate it, please edit the template... Thanks!!! Luke Kern Choi 5 (talk) 09:57, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 March 2020

first deceased person in Poland. [3][4] Natanieluz (talk) 11:32, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

 Done. thanks for providing a source. dying (talk) 12:32, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

New column

Should we have an "Active Cases" column on the template? There's plenty of sources for it, most notably Worldometers.info It wouldn't be too hard to put on - just want to know what people think! :) Sir Magnus (talk) 12:14, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

i agree that this information could be useful. however, this will likely not happen as, from a practical standpoint, it is too difficult to maintain. please search for "column" in the archives to see previous related discussions. regardless, thanks for the suggestion! dying (talk) 12:34, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 March 2020

Levifan (talk) 13:28, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Belgium has not 433 cases at 12 march, but 399 as reference 9 assures. Reference 10 is not trustable, it's a live reference, with rumours and with quick news that often seems to be wrong, f.e. the 34 cases in the retirement house could not be confirmed.

 Done. agreed. thanks for the information. dying (talk) 13:50, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 March 2020

Levifan (talk) 13:51, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

belgium has 399 cases, reference 10 is not reliable (a live reference with information that always changes), only reference 9 is reliable

 Already done. looks like this was written while i was carrying out your request. no worries! dying (talk) 14:29, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 March 2020

Please update San Marino death count to 5 according to official source: http://www.iss.sm/on-line/home/artCataggiornamenti-coronavirus.49004093.1.20.1.html . Confirmed cases is stated 67, but I don't have access to Twitter, so can not check. Garyczek (talk) 14:23, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

 Done. the sammarinese government source appears to first mention 67 "casi positivi" and enumerate where they are recuperating (with all 67 accounted for in the enumeration) and then mention 5 "decessi", so i have always interpreted this as meaning that there are 72 cases, with 67 recovering and 5 deceased. i do not speak italian (aside from maybe "grazie mille"), so if you do (or anyone else does), could you confirm? i currently have the table at 72 cases. grazie mille! dying (talk) 15:04, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Ah, you are right. Good eye ;) Non-italian Garyczek —Preceding undated comment added 16:51, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Updated. Thanks M nurhaikal (talk) 17:35, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 March 2020

Is there any source to back that Pakistan 2 recoveries. Actually the total case is 21 and recoveries are 1. https://www.thenews.com.pk/latest/628096-coronavirus-cases-in-pakistan-rise-to-21-after-gb-reports-third-case and https://www.geo.tv/latest/276129-pakistans-first-coronavirus-patient-discharged-from-hospital-after-full-recovery NomanPK44 (talk) 15:31, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

 Done Mgasparin (talk) 18:24, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 March 2020

Sri Lanka coronavirus cases should be increased to 3 (currently at 2) Blitzlasher1 (talk) 15:37, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

can you provide an official source? thanks in advance. dying (talk) 16:37, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

changed parameter of edit request to "answered=yes" as both core source and template now have the updated values. RayDeeUx (talk) 22:46, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 March 2020

more cases in Poland (total of 51) [5] Natanieluz (talk) 15:54, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

 Done. thanks for providing a source. dying (talk) 16:39, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 March 2020

Change confirmed cases in Iceland from 103 to 109. An indevidual (talk) 15:56, 12 March 2020 (UTC)indevidual An indevidual (talk) 15:56, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

 Done. thanks for providing a source. dying (talk) 16:34, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

References

Sources that are not in English

Is it frowned up on to link to a source that is not in English. The reports about the latest number of cases in Iceland are usually based on briefings by Icelandic officials and the briefings are in Icelandic. An indevidual (talk) 16:20, 12 March 2020 (UTC)Indevidual

not at all. i believe, in general, the more reliable the source is, the better. however, if two sources are equally reliable (such as a government releasing the same information in multiple languages simultaneously), my personal preference is to use the english one here if available (as this is english wikipedia). if there's a government press release not in english and a secondary source reporting on that release but in english, my personal preference is to use the original government source (unless it's a video and therefore difficult to translate by machine). i don't know if i speak for everyone about that last point, though. dying (talk) 16:29, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 March 2020

Please update confirmed cases count of Czech Republic to 104 as stated in https://www.seznamzpravy.cz/clanek/praha-v-karantene-nebude-popira-famy-babis-92389 . Czech PM announced on Twitter @AndrejBabis. Garyczek (talk) 16:45, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

 Done. thanks for providing a source. dying (talk) 17:39, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

New case in French Polynesia

Should it also be under France or listed separately? M nurhaikal (talk) 17:35, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

It is under France as French Polynesia is not a country itself. Here's an invisible comment from the main template to explain further:

The French territories' cases should be included in the total of France as they are not independent/separate entities as is done with Denmark (Faroe Islands) and the United Kingdom (Gibraltar, etc.).

Hope that helps. RayDeeUx (talk) 22:44, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 March 2020

It seems that default sorting should be fixed: the current version shows Chile (33) below Bulgaria (23), should be a few positions higher Cato censor (talk) 18:03, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

 Done. thanks for pointing that out. dying (talk) 18:15, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks to you for the edit! Cato censor (talk) 18:29, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Attn: total confirmed case figures

The total global comfimed case figure needs alteration. BlackSun2104 (talk) 19:39, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

I changed it to add up, but numbers have already increased without updating the total! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:20, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 March 2020

The total amount of cases in the United States is now 1,715, with 41 deaths. Please update the current information. Ybinstok (talk) 00:19, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

 Done as per values in core source. Thanks for the reminder! RayDeeUx (talk) 00:38, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 March 2020

Panama has 27 confirmed cases. Source: https://www.diaadia.com.pa/el-pais/panama-suma-27-casos-de-coronavirus-insisten-en-las-medidas-de-prevencion-364001 190.34.243.177 (talk) 01:43, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Update 13 March: Vietnam has 44 cases

Anyone update? 2601:204:E37F:FFF1:D450:2B2F:1C79:785B (talk) 02:44, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 March 2020

Panama has 27 confirmed cases. Source: https://elcapitalfinanciero.com/minsa-confirma-27-casos-de-coronavirus-en-panama/ 190.219.162.190 (talk) 03:35, 13 March 2020 (UTC)