Template talk:COVID-19 pandemic data

Separation of Autonomous Territories

I request that we separate the autonomous territories from their official country (similar to China's Hong Kong and Macao regions).

These include:

• organised territories of the United States of America (self-governing territories)
• overseas regions of France (some given greater autonomy, some autonomous)
• overseas and Crown dependencies of the United Kingdom (some independent, some with a degree of autonomy)
• autonomous regions of the Netherlands (mostly autonomous)
• autonomous territories of Denmark (fully autonomous)

JMonkey2006 (talk) 10:16, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

So basically we can either separate ALL autonomous territories from their 'mainland' country, or we can combine all data into their mother country. But, we should not be considering these on a case-by-case basis (ie. separating Hong Kong from China but not separating Greenland from Denmark). This is pretty much what is happening right now.

Personally, I think that we should separate ALL autonomous territories from their mainland country. From the replies underneath, it looks as if we agree with this.

JMonkey2006 (talk) 09:52, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

• Note this is also covering the same ground as #RfC: Explanation for Netherlands: added, removed, added, removed, etc. for Netherlands, which proposes splitting into 4. Also a previous discussion decided to split off Guernsey and Jersey from the rest of the UK (as they are not in the UK). However this last decision is being violated. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:23, 19 March 2020 (UTTC)

If Guernsey and Jersey is not in the UK, so does the rest of all british dependencies. You either split all of their data away from those of their sovereigns, or you incorporates all of them like how thr Chinese Wikipedia does, instead of using the current contradictory measure. As for my opinion, I'm in support of the former measure, as not just the chinese Wikipedia, the John Hopkins statistics site (a very scientific and authoritative source) also breaks off all dependencies and manage them in separate statistics.Pktlaurence (talk) 23:40, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Also, as for issues about SLRs (States with Limited Recognitions), if cases emerged in places like Somaliland, Abkhazia, nagorno-karabakh, transdnistria, etc, how do we count them? We shove them into their internationally recognised sovereigns or we split them off? Pktlaurence (talk) 23:44, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Very good point. We should also have criteria for those situations. Also, (and I may cause controversy) Taiwan would also be considered having 'limited recognition' since only fifteen nations officially recognise it. JMonkey2006 (talk) 01:01, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

We should either include all dependencies with their recognised states or include them as separate. We shouldn't mix and match. RandomIntrigue (talk) 23:56, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

It is quite common both in Wikipedia and reliable sources to split statistics for autonomous territories. John Hopkins University does it, and quite often Government sources do it too. For example, China government publishes its statistics for the mainland, and then it adds final addenda for Hong Kong, Macau and Taiwan. For UK, it looks like UK government publishes its statistics without including Guernsey and Jersey (correct me if I'm wrong). For the United States, I was really surprised to see Puerto Rico conflated with the United States. I think it makes sense to split these territories in the table. I'm not sure if there should be some exception (e.g. British Overseas Territories?) since I'm not fully familiar with how statistics are usually reported for those. --MarioGom (talk) 00:07, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Guernsey and Jersey publish their statistics and conduct their tests independently of the UK government count; the UK government do not include them in their statistics (them not being part of the UK). —Formulaonewiki 00:32, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Yup. Lets just split all Dependencies that at least have the slightest degree of autonomy. Besides, mixing dependency statistics with their sovereigns' is inaccurate in terms of geobiography. A french guianan is more likely to be infected by a brazilian than a frenchmen.Pktlaurence (talk) 00:18, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Not again. These three crown dependencies should NOT be seperated. How do we actually enforce it though? M nurhaikal (talk) 14:37, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

If any of you have any proposals to be listed in a proper RfC, I invite you to add them here: #Preparing a proper RfC for territories split/merge. --MarioGom (talk) 15:27, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

As again, im standing for neither sides, and i only stand in the side of unified standardisation. You either incorporate them all, or you split them all. That simple. For the current case, it seems it would be the easier option to go for the former.Pktlaurence (talk) 15:36, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm not against unifying them under the term British Islands, but UK is so blatantly incorrect it makes no sense to include the Crown Dependencies in that. —Formulaonewiki 15:48, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Another practical angle that nobody seems to have considered is that combining them makes it a nightmare to update. As no sources provide data for the UK as well as the BOTs and CDs combined, they must be collated by the editor by checking six or more different counts every time it needs updating. Then, as has happened most of the time they have been combined so far, someone will come in and update or 'correct' it according to only the UK source and report an inaccurate value far lower than the correct figure. Therefore it makes more sense for them to be separated not only from a technical point of view, but also a practical one. —Formulaonewiki 16:10, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

You do get a point, though I probably take up the role to correct those 'morons with good intentions', since I got forced into home office since the plague broke out, and I'm pretty much online 24/7. And, I'm definitely not against of using the more romantic (and inclusive, if you think so) term of Britain either. Honestly, bruh, I can't understand what da hell you're trying to argue for, since the Islands' sovereignty belongs to UK and Her Majesty like how His Holiness is Catholic. Pktlaurence (talk) 20:26, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Please see the following document from the UK government, where it explicitly states that 'the Crown Dependencies are not part of the UK but are self-governing dependencies of the Crown'. The Crown Dependencies belong to Her Majesty but not the UK. "Fact sheet on the UK's relationship with the Crown Dependencies" (PDF). Chbe113 (talk) 23:29, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Well. That's basically the same thing.Pktlaurence (talk) 09:29, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Aaand, oh hey, I just did a bit of studies about what exactly are crown dependencies, and I just discovered that, although I'm very appalled to find out that you're actually right on that CDs are not a part of UK techno-legally, but they absolutely and definitely are the responsibility of UK no matter viewing from any aspects. 'Internationally, the dependencies are considered "territories for which the United Kingdom is responsible of".' That's what the Wiki page says.

So that is it. We incorporate BOTs data into the UK section because UK is responsible for them, and we're gonna do the same thing to all CDs because they're UK are actually also having exactly the very same responsibility over them too, especially on the public health issues. And I finally discover the reason why you're such an annoying royal pain in the arse—this is a public health article instead of a political one, yet you're still severely overpoliticising it, like insisting queen and Britain is different while such difference is totally unimportant in the actual issue of concern. And you're damn persistent on your politicisation and keep throwing out long legal documents and jargons, which probably scared off quite some editors with sense but doesn't know the topic relatively well. Fortunately my college degree was in aspects related to history, politics issues, therefore I can at least have ideas about what you're trying to say, and immediately notice the flaws in it.

BTW, since you're using my beloved hometown as an example, my argument of responsibility exactly defeats yours. The Commies are entirely not responsible for any of our businesses (at least supposedly), except for military and diplomacy. Like how the last plague went 17 years ago, we're entirely left on our own which the plague left a wake of death toll of 1,800 infections and 300 deatgs, including one beloved heroine doctor. And, for damn sure, we're also gonna duke it out on our own this time. Things works in similar mechanisms in that little Portuguese town the other side of the pearl river, but British dependencies definitely doesn't work on similar mechanisms as the British government has much more responsibilities other than military and diplomacy. Pktlaurence (talk) 09:47, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Really struggling to make sense of what your point is here? Where did I use your 'beloved hometown' (which is what?) as an example? The British government has no responsibilities over the Crown Dependencies other than the defence and international relations of the Islands. In every other regard, and importantly for this article, with regard to coordinating, legislating, enforcing and financing the response to the pandemic they are acting entirely independently and the British government bears them no responsibilities to help out (see 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Guernsey for the response there). —Formulaonewiki 12:01, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

There was a RfC on the issue, but it was archived. I am re-proposing the RfC below. --Checco (talk) 10:02, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

@Pktlaurence: That is a severe misunderstanding of the arrangement. Also how is using such uncivil language ("And I finally discover the reason why you're such an annoying royal pain in the arse") and pomposity ("Fortunately my college degree was in aspects related to history, politics issues, therefore I can at least have ideas about what you're trying to say, and immediately notice the flaws in it") helpful to this discussion? You're twisting one line you've misunderstood to align Crown Dependencies to BOTs in a way that doesn't work. This isn't 'political'; its a technical, constitutional question of whether or not the Crown Dependencies are in the UK — they are not. Also, there is currently consensus based on previous discussions and a talk page notice for the separation of the Crown Dependencies, so stop persistently deleting them (without transferring the citations or editing the note) until you contribute to a discussion in a civil manner and any change in consensus is achieved. —Formulaonewiki 10:30, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

First of all, please respond to my suggested arguments, especially those about responsibility, as I failed to notice any of your response to any of them.

Next, well, I'm definitely not trying to be uncivil, I'm just getting slightly irritated by your actions, and just stating that as a matter-of-fact. I've restraint myself from using swearing and personal attacks, etc, and already attempting a civil manner of the utmost; Trust me, my dear friend, you definitely have never seen me going full rage and wrath. And then I'm definitely not twisting things, 'Technical, constitutional question of whether or not the Crown Dependencies are in the UK'— that sounds pretty much like politicising things—is this topic actually relevant to a public health issue like this one? No matter the CDs belongs to UK or HM, it doesn't make much actual difference towards this very issue, which is about public health instead of politics. OK, if you wanna say that 'they are not (in the UK)' (sic), fine, I will also agree with you, as it is what the Wikipedia says, but they are still responsibility of UK (or Her Majesty if you're so insistent on such irrelevant political point), and because of that we're still gonna incorporate CDs into the UK numbers like all dependencies.

Best regards, Pktlaurence (talk) 10:52, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

@Formulaonewiki: You can deny trying to politicise the article, but you don't need to be a professor to figure your motive is nationalistic. An article such as this need no politicisation. That means, keep your views to yourself. The UK is responsible for for all its Crown dependencies. Stop disputing! RandomIntrigue (talk) 18:26, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Agree All legal territories should be listed separately and in italics. For reference the list of List of countries and territories by population provides perfect guidelines for how this should be done. Territories like French Guiana, Greenland, and the Falkland Islands for example, have dramatically different demographics and geographies that separate them distinctly from their governing nations. Krazytea(talk) 00:30, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Request for Wikipedia page to extend this template

As also mentioned here there is an ongoing need for data that can not be in the template (the "columns" debate). Why not do both,

1. have a more terse template, used as a box in multiple Wikipedia pages (this), and
2. a Wikipedia page extending the template with the extra columns

Proposal: Extending the template

While I see the need to keep this template compact, as it is used in multiple pages, I also see the need for a Wikipedia page WITH these extra columns.

The question then is: Is it possible to EXTEND, as opposed to merely EMBED, a template? Basically this is what I have been doing manually in a spreadsheet for a dozen days now, but it would be better in a Wikipedia page, maintained and quality checked by Wikipedia editors. (I copy/paste from this template daily, but the work is expa nding with the reach of the virus.) jax (talk) 07:24, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Example spreadsheet

For two weeks I have maintained a spreadsheet with data from this template, data I think would be useful for Wikipedia users:

1. Countries and territories (as in template)
2. Population
3. [Confirmed] Cases / Deaths / Recoveries (as in template)
4. Active (formula: cases-deaths-recoveries)
5. % recovered (formula: recovered/cases)
6. % died (formula: dead / cases)
7. % active (formula: active / cases
8. running fatality rate (formula dead/(dead+recovered). Note: this is based on confirmed cases, real fatality rate will be much lower as unconfirmed cases are not included
9. Cases per million (formula: cases * 1,000,000 / population)
10. Active per million (formula: active * 1,000,000 / population)
11. Δ Cases (formula: today's cases - yesterday's cases)
12. Δ Death (formula: today's deaths - yesterday's deaths)
13. Δ Recovered (formula: today's recovered - yesterday's recovered)
14. Δ Active (formula: today's active - yesterday's active)
15. Δ Cases % / Δ Deaths % / Δ Recovered % (as above, but as percentage, making sure not to divide with 0).

World row: Sum of above columns

Whatever is decided, please, do not duplicate the source code. Updating data both in this template, in corresponding per-country articles and answering to edit requests is already a lot of work. --MarioGom (talk) 10:20, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Absolutely, that's why such a page should extend the template, not just copy/paste it (as I have to do, since there is no such page). jax (talk) 10:56, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

I would actually reduce the template by removing the "recov." column on recoveries. Not all countries keep that record. "Cases" and "deaths" is quite enough. I would also order the template by deaths not cases, as those are safer figures: countries adopt different policies on tests. --Checco (talk) 10:48, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

That would be a bad idea, increasingly so as this epidemic progresses. E.g. China, and increasingly South Korea, is in a different state than Italy, as most of their cases have recovered. The recovery numbers are not directly comparable between countries, but arguably more comparable than the Cases and Deaths columns. jax (talk) 10:56, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

I support the idea of keeping the recov and the fatality rate. It is an important information that should not be missing. Also, many countries report the number of patients in intensive care. This information is important as well.Mnatiello (talk) (talk) 15:28, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Intensive care numbers are better real-time data (earlier data and less sensitive to age structure) than death rates, problem is to find those numbers. Something similar goes for tests, but that at least has got a Wikipedia page . 17:25, 22 March 2020 (UTC)jax (talk)

Worldometers/WOMC: we have a problem

Worldometers seems to be catching the highest number they can find in any source, regardless of its reliability. This is leading to multiple updates per day that are completely wrong. One thing is lagging behind official sources, I think we can cope with that. But adding higher numbers that are repeatedly proven wrong? This is way off Wikipedia's policy for WP:RS and WP:V. I've been thinking about this a lot these days, but the final trigger was their update on Angola, which is based on a viral WhatsApp audio ([1]) about a case which authorities later denied ([2]). We cannot risk being a hoax amplifier. --MarioGom (talk) 10:04, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

M nurhaikal: I have removed Angola again. Please, see this thread and 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Angola. There is no officially confirmed cases (yet). --MarioGom (talk) 14:25, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

On the one hand I agree, I am not convinced that WOMC is a reliable source according to WP:RS - on the other hand mistakes happen and even reliable outlets sometimes make mistakes. These are hectic times and the question is whether there is another source that we can use instead that is as reliable but makes fewer mistakes. Should we use CSSE instead? --hroest 16:45, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm using WOMC myself to prioritize countries to update. I'm also using it to find good sources when they cite them (in the Latest Updates section) but quite often they don't cite any at all. I think that, at the very least we should: 1) stop using it for countries that already have some reliable source with frequent updates, 2) for new countries that make it into the list, look for a reliable source to verify the inclusion. --MarioGom (talk) 09:02, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

By the way, in other talk page I've seen concerns about some of us denigrating WOMC. I think what they are doing is great. There is a trade-off between fresh and reliable data. WOMC chose to be on the edge of fresh data, sometimes at the cost of reliability. That is completely legitimate and even useful for us. But I think Wikipedia is supposed to give a bit more weight to reliability. --MarioGom (talk) 09:32, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

I totally agree, they are doing a great job and a service and each person has to decide how to balance reliability and up-to-date-ness of the information. At Wikipedia we should be on the side of caution and use reliable data wherever possible. It was never the intention of Wikipedia to be at the cutting edge, instead we have a reputation for being reliable and factually accurate and we should live up to that reputation. This means citing sources, choosing reliable sources and being transparent where the data comes from and not go for the "highest number possible" approach. Nobody is helped by that, neither Wikipedia nor our readers. --hroest 18:23, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

The worldometers.info site for COVID-19 case statistics for the United States does not correlate well with news claiming that hospitals are running out of supplies such as ICU beds. The Society of Critical Care Medicine, for instance claims the U.S. has "534,964 staffed (operational) acute care beds" (https://sccm.org/Blog/March-2020/United-States-Resource-Availability-for-COVID-19) which is over 700 times the number of COVID-19 critical cases of 708. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martypaulcombs (talk • contribs) 17:55, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

The Worldometer number for USA is currently ~7,000 cases higher than any other source I can find. Anyone know what it's based on? If there's no clear source, this would be another good indicator that it's not a reliable source. Eitan1989 (talk) 18:17, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Australia

Why is the total still that of March 19 (official numbers less the 10 from Diamond Princess)? The figure on cases from March 20 is 875 - less the 10 from the ship this should be 865, not 699. Check the "2020 coronavirus pandemic in Australia" page, section "Total Cases" for daily cumulative figures and sources. And shortly there will be an update for the 21st. Please can this table be kept current? Ptilinopus (talk) 21:04, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Ptilinopus: Did you find a source for the current total? Thank you. --MarioGom (talk) 23:18, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Check https://www.thecourier.com.au/story/6687088/coronavirus-how-many-confirmed-covid-19-cases-and-deaths-in-australia/ Ptilinopus (talk) 00:41, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

The problem with the official government department of health figures is that they are always a day behind. This is because they have to wait for each state department to forward their figures, and given office hours, this means the data released each local morning are from the previous day. Media are much faster! Ptilinopus (talk) 01:34, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

I updated to the a more recent figure. WOMC appears to have correct figures, but someone did not trust it and used an old reference from more than a day earlier. The 10 from Diamond Princess are counted as Australian, as they were not diagnosed on the ship. By the way, another 45 Victorian cases should be added on, once we find a source with an updated total. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:39, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Australia’s case load went up to 1347 as of now. See 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Australia, section 4, Total Cases, for latest update with sources. Ptilinopus (talk) 06:13, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

New RfC on countries/dependencies

This is an ongoing issue, thus I am re-proposing this RfC. We need to settle the countries/territories/dependencies issue settled once for all.
Are territories and dependencies (full list from List of countries and dependencies by population: Hong Kong, Puerto Rico, Macau, New Caledonia, French Polynesia, Guam, Curaçao, Aruba, Jersey, U.S. Virgin Islands, Isle of Man, Cayman Islands, Bermuda, Guernsey, American Samoa, Greenland, Northern Mariana Islands, Faroe Islands, Turks and Caicos Islands, Sint Maarten, Saint Martin, Gibraltar, British Virgin Islands, Åland Islands, Cook Islands, Anguilla, Wallis and Futuna, Saint Barthélemy, Saint Pierre and Miquelon, Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha, Montserrat, Falkland Islands, Christmas Island, Norfolk Island, Niue, Tokelau, Cocos (Keeling) Islands, Pitcairn Islands) as well as scarcely or not universally recognised countries (Taiwan, Kosovo, Western Sahara, Transnistria, Northern Cyprus, Abkhazia, Artsakh, South Ossetia) to be included in their respective countries' counts or not?
As of now, two dependent territories (namely Hong Kong and Macau, so that China is referred to as "China (mainland)"), along with scarcely or not universally recognised countries are listes separately from their respective countries, others are not. The count is made more complicate by the fact that most sources (notably including Coronavirus COVID-19 Global Cases by Johns Hopkins CSSE and Coronavirus Update - Worldometer) list all dependencies separately.
Please, have your say! --Checco (talk) 09:58, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

• My guess is that we should be completely consistent with List of countries and dependencies by population and almost literally all lists and templates featuring countries. In en.Wikipedia, it is customary to list and/or consider territories and/or dependencies separately from respective countries for statistical purposes. Dependent territories are never included in their respective countries' counts. Why should this template be the exception? --Checco (talk) 10:00, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
  Ps: In no list and template in which Hong Kong and Macau are listed separately China is referred to as "mainland China".
• I support listing autonomous territories and dependencies separately as you propose. At least to the extent that is possible according to reliable sources. Note that Taiwan is widely recognized and Kosovo is often listed separately for statistical purposes even by countries and entities that do not recognize it. --MarioGom (talk) 10:05, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
• I support any decision as long as the final outcome is universal and consistent, instead like how some cutrent editor are insisting which split a few dependencies but incorporating the rest of them. I will only take a stance when there is a required vote to decide things. Pktlaurence (talk) 10:39, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Agree. In this respect, please do not replace "China (mainland)" with "Mainland China". That is our current consensus, so please stick to it. I would also change that (simply "China", consistently with most lists and templates in en.Wikipedia), but I have to seek consensus first, too. --Checco (talk) 10:43, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

If you "will only take a stance where there is a required to do decide things (sic)", then refrain from removing the Crown Dependencies until this RfC has reached a consensus. Currently, discussions regarding the CDs have concluded separation as noted in the editing notice. —Formulaonewiki 10:55, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

If asking for stances I would be slightly in favour for splitting, as it's more geo-biographically accurate. A French guianan is more likely to be infected by a Brazilian than a Frenchman. I have to state, though, incorporating CDs doesn't mean ' wrongly describing Crown Dependencies as part of the UK', it simply means all those CD archipelagos are fully in UK responsibility.

I agree with Pktlaurence. Any option is fine, but it must be consistent with every case. There should be no picking and choosing. If we do decide to separate the territories, we should also standardise the naming of the 'mainland'. Are we going to write China (mainland) & Denmark (mainland), or Mainland China & Mainland Denmark, or simply China and Denmark (preferably with notes)? JMonkey2006 (talk) 22:14, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

For the china issue, I'm supportive towards both options of mainland China and china, but adding brackets are just obnoxious. P.s. the term 'mainland china' is actually the norm in Chinese Wikipedia, which I am one out of the many main contributors.

There is a third issue though, for some nations with limited recognition, we may not treat them as separate entities. And as for 'some' I specifically means those SLRs who're only recognised by one single nation, which those cases are generally deemed as cases of puppet states. Notable examples include nagorno-karabakh, Abkhazia, south Ossetia, transnistria, Lugansk, Donetsk, and north Cyprus, etc.

Best regards, Pktlaurence (talk) 11:11, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

I just made a typo so you may check out for the latest update. Besides, i thought i already stated black and white that my stance is universal consistency, and I'm doing the incorporation in accordance to this very principle, since currently most dependencies are incorporated. As for the case, 'these are *not* part of the UK' indeeed, but adding them to the UK total is definitely not misleading, it just simply means they're UK responsibilities. Black and white, that simple, ain't no rocket science. Hope you're not using Abkhazia-esque sock puppets.

Best regards, Pktlaurence (talk) 11:23, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Pktlaurence, adding GG, JE and IM to the UK is misleading. The UK is not treating sick people on those islands, the health care systems on each island are. doktorb _words^deeds 11:35, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

@Doktorbuk: Yes, UK isn't treating islander patients in Britannia mainland, but UK is ultimately and technically responsible for the islands' healthcare systems, which in turn treats islander patients on the islands themselves. All those CD islandic healthcare systems are still in the responsibility of the UK' government technically and ultimately, therefore it's definitely not misleading to put patients under UK responsibility into the UK Numbers. Best regards, Pktlaurence (talk) 15:30, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

That is completely untrue. The UK is in no way responsible for the islands' healthcare systems. User:Doktorbuk is correct in saying it's misleading. Putting bold all over the place doesn't strengthen your argument, it just makes this RfC less coherent to read. You've taken the 'responsible for' and stretched it to lengths it simply does not go to by any constitutional or practical means. The only thing the UK government is 'responsible' for with regard to the Crown Dependencies is their defence, international relations (such as with the UN, where Guernsey does not have a seat) and the Privy Council has a general duty to ensure 'good governance' which it has never needed to exercise; legislation and precedent have effectively removed any of the Privy Council's emergency powers to intervene even in the most extreme circumstances, with the islands having the final say over any legislation they try to implement. The UK government most certainly do not have any responsibility for healthcare in the islands. —Formulaonewiki 16:44, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Comment may I suggest for the sake of keeping this RfC on topic that we don't bludgeon the process by getting into semantics about the responsibilities of the UK. We've covered this in above discussions and clearly aren't coming to any sort of compromise over the issue. We've both said our bit so let's just leave it and wait for other comments. —Formulaonewiki 16:59, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Why making false claims when those island folks are using NHS? Who funded all those health services, huh? What does the British privy council do on the islands then? Sunbathing on the Jersey beaches 24/7? If according to such logics, the bots also run on themselves mostly in daily lives other than Mil&Dips. Of course, that's currently the mainstream opinion in this talk section, and it's probably gonna get changed. But my point is, currently it is not the case, and most dependencies are still being incorporated right now. And in accordance towards the prime principle of universal consistency, the remaining CDs should also be incorporated into the UK numbers, even before consensual decision is being make here. Else it would be breaking the aforementioned prime principle. Also, duh, I'm giving up, the reference section of UK is just too much for me, whenever I try to insert CD data into it and thought the format is perfectly fine, I always ended fucking the formats up. I still think my point of universal consistency deserves urgent concern and helps in editing nevertheless, but I'll just stress my arguments here from now on.
Best regards, Pktlaurence (talk) 17:11, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Eh? What on earth are you on about? Islanders cannot make use of the NHS — I should bloody well know, I live there! The health services in Guernsey are funded by the States of Guernsey and taken out of local residents taxes and social security. The Privy Council, realistically, does very little in regard to the islands — they mostly just get on with things on their own. You are completely and utterly wrong. —Formulaonewiki 17:19, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

• Support listing autonomous territories separately (where possible according to reliable sources). It avoids technical inaccuracies (such as wrongly describing Crown Dependencies as part of the UK), respects the differences between the development and response to the pandemic in each respective territory, and avoids practical issues when updating the figures (having to collate multiple sources for one entry because no reliable sources include all the various territories together; NB, to this end currently there are no sources provided for any of the BOT figures, yet they have been totalled through OR nonetheless). Also worth pointing out the support for separation in previous discussions here, here and here. —Formulaonewiki 10:45, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Edit: in this revision I have added citations and better clarified the additional BOT figures in the note. —Formulaonewiki 11:21, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Edit 2: as if to prove my point, a good faith editor has already 'corrected' the UK total to show only the UK count in this edit. —Formulaonewiki 13:05, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

• Support listing as separate entities where figures exist, explicitly showing them to be the valid counts for dependent territories. In the case of Guernsey, Jersey, and the Isle of Man, these are *not* part of the UK, and adding them to the UK total would be misleading. There is no neat solution because the status of these places differ from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. We should do what we can to fit the reality to our policy, and in the case of most dependencies, separate listing is appropriate. doktorb _words^deeds 11:00, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

• Support listing autonomous territories and dependencies separately. The current figure for the UK is a mess. Some people insist on incorporating the BOTs and CDs into the UK and yet always copy the figure from the UK government, which only counts the four constituent countries, let alone the fact that the CDs are not part of the UK. It would save much energy for the practical reason as well as clarify any confusion for the technical reason at least for the UK were the BOTs and CDs to be listed separately. Chbe113 (talk) 11:17, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you've seen such irresponsible editors, but I always add the numbers of CDs into UK toll whenever I incorporate. BTW, does the UK governmental figures count bot tolls? Pktlaurence (talk) 15:37, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

No, they do not, which is why I have added separate citations and a breakdown of the cases in the notes. I imagine they will also be separated should support for separation in this RfC be overwhelming. —Formulaonewiki 16:44, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Sadly they don't. The figures from the UK government come from NHS, which is only in charge of the four constituent countries. Chbe113 (talk) 18:22, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Oh so all British dependencies have their own independent healthcare systems? Good, another strong reason to split all dependencies. I think the most important factor of split/incorporate is the independency of healthcare systems, since numbers are recorded by the healthcare agencies, different agencies produce separate numbers, and we better keep them separated as in their original data. And again, never forget to adhere to the principle of universal consistency. Pktlaurence (talk) 18:40, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject COVID-19. MarioGom (talk) 13:10, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

• Support all these territories. I would also like to include French Guiana, Guadeloupe, Martinique, Mayotte, Reunion (French overseas departments, which are politically part of France); along with Bonaire, Sint Eustatius, and Saba (Caribbean Netherlands). As Pktlaurence said, there is a vast difference between the main part of the country and a region halfway across the world. The French territories are included on worldometer, but the Dutch territories are not, so I understand why they would not be included. Does anyone know if they only add countries/regions when they develop at least one case, or if today just happens to be the day when all countries have had a case?—Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 14:32, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

I couldn't direct you to any discussion confirming this, but from what I can gather from how this table has developed, I believe countries/territories are only added once a case is confirmed there. —Formulaonewiki 14:35, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, I just realized that when I checked.—Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 14:36, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

@Naddruf:Perhaps I can offer some help with some references from the Chinese Wikipedia. I've successfully endeavoured for a full dependency split in the Chinese page since long ago, even before Korea gets its mega-surge from cultists. As far as my last check, the Dutch dependencies including Aruba, Curaçao and Sint Maarten are on the list. You're welcome to take a look at the Page's source, although you might not be able to read Chinese, all the file names of the flags inside the source are written in English. Best regards, Pktlaurence (talk) 15:46, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

There is a difference between (Aruba Curacao and Sint Maarten) and (Bonaire Sint Eustatius and Saba). The former are separate "countries" from the Netherlands but are included, along with the Netherlands, in the Kingdom of the Netherlands, and are already included in the proposed additions. The latter "Caribbean Netherlands" are within the "country" of the Netherlands, but nevertheless are located on a different continent, and I think they should be separated.—Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 16:30, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

What-bloody-ever...dependencies are just dependencies, let's not focus on categorisation, and just every single dependencies on the surface of mother Earth and split them in separate rows, alright? Just remember that I support to split as much as you do, and we definitely have zero necessity to bring 'different types' into debate or trying to use it as any forms of reasons. Now we're having overwhelming majority and truckloads of reasons and arguments stronger than diamonds, so I think a final decision will soon be made.

Best regards, Pktlaurence (talk) 19:06, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

• split the bailiwicks and IOM, not Guadaloupe etc - Jersey, Guernsey, IOM etc are separate entities so should be split. Guadaloupe, Martinique etc are part of Metropolitan France and should be treat as such. We don't define, we reflect.--Mtaylor848 (talk) 16:42, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

That is blatantly against the prime principle of universal consistency. All Dependencies are dependent polities which their sovereignties are responsible for them. You either incorporate them all, or you split them all. Pktlaurence (talk) 17:11, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Metropolitan France is the part located in Europe so overseas departments are not include. However, Pktlaurence's argument is not necessarily accurate because French Guiana and Guadeloupe are to France as Hawaii is to the United States; they are included in parliament. But unlike Hawaii and the United States, the populations of Metropolitan France and the Departements d'Outre mer are pretty separated and have distinct cultures.—Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 17:49, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

• De nada, Hawaii is officially the 50th state of USA, a directly governed American soil, while French dependencies aren't. No matter what, that doesn't matter at all since nothing you spoke are actually relevant to the argument of consistency (PLEASE ALSO NOTE THAT CULTURAL ISSUES HAS DEFINITELY NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS PAGE AND DONT GO OFF TOPIC). Universal Consistency matters, so we're definitely not gonna include some and leave out the rest.Pktlaurence (talk) 18:23, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

@Pktlaurence: Please be civil. French overseas departments are directly governed by the same system. The reason I mentioned cultural issues is they make a difference in whether something is understood to be <France, Netherlands, USA> or not. People don't think of French Guiana or Aruba as part of France or the Netherlands, unlike Hawaii.

Alright. Pktlaurence (talk) 18:53, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Furthermore, if you look closely, you should see I'm agreeing with you, but just pointing out a detail that makes these issues different. Both France and the Netherlands have two categories of overseas land; that which is technically part of the country and governed like anything else of the country, and that which is a territory and not subject to the main national government. In the first category, that would involve Bonaire, Sint Eustatius, Saba, French Guiana and Guadeloupe, etc. In the second category, that would include Aruba, Curacao, Sint Maarten, French Polynesia, Wallis and Futuna, Saint Pierre and Miquelon, etc. These are different issues. We have to decide if we include none and package them all into the sovereign powers, only the second category, or both the first and second category. It is somewhat annoying that a new discussion was made while this was still in progress.—Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 18:41, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

• Well, it's just that I couldn't understand the reasons of bringing cultural arguments to a public health issue. And all the different types of dependencies are just confusing. Dependencies are just... dependencies, so let's just forget about all those rigmaroles and simply split everyone of them who has an independent healthcare system of themselves. Pktlaurence (talk) 18:53, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

• I am quite concerned that we are focusing on specific cases and we might loose the general picture. Let's adopt the parameters behind List of countries and dependencies by population. Wikipedia geographers have already sorted out the things we are discussing on. --Checco (talk) 17:54, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
  • That would mean to include French Guiana which is in South America, as part of France (along with the other territories). These are separated on worldometers, at kff.org, and at the Johns Hopkins map. I think there is a good reason to separate constituent territories in other continents that are culturally very different from the mainland.—Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 18:26, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
    • Let's just stop talking about cultural factors as they're completely irrelevant. I've made a point about healthcare systems, perhaps you guys can check it out.Pktlaurence (talk) 18:34, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support listing statistics according to List of countries and dependencies by population, without making special exceptions for cultural differences, or anything else. Any exceptions can be noted in the body of the article as appropriate. If there is some reason why that would be onerous, then my second choice would be to follow the scheme used by worldometers.info. - MrX 🖋 18:57, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
• Comments
  • I'm wondering what the use or uses of this template is.
  • One number for China, for example, tells us very little, whereas a map with breakdown by first level administrative division tells a useful story.
  • I am not keen on the "league table" aspect. I think it might work rather better if there were divisions were by continent, then territory, or perhaps just in alphabetical order.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough (the apparently calm and reasonable) 21:55, 21 March 2020 (UTC).

• I propose listing territories in the same manner as reported by the sources from which we get the numbers, to avoid having to do calculations every time that we update them. The List of countries and dependencies by population is not the only standard, it doesn't include Akrotiri and Dhekelia and Svalbard, which are included in Dependent territory, or Somaliland, which is in the List of states with limited recognition. Based on how the sources report the numbers, I propose the following:
  • List all countries with limited recognition separately. The governments of the recognized countries only report the cases from the areas that they control.
  • List all British Crown dependencies, British overseas territories, SARs of China, constituent countries of Denmark and Netherlands separately.
  • Include Åland in Finland.[3]
  • Include all overseas regions of France, Saint Barthélemy and Saint Martin in the total for France. That is how the French government is reporting the total.[4] Worldometers shows this same total for France and lists the overseas regions again separately, which seems to be incorrect. List only the remaining overseas collectivities separately, if they have cases (Saint Pierre and Miquelon, New Caledonia, Wallis and Futuna, French Polynesia).
  • Include all US territories in the US, as that is how the US government is reporting the total.[5] Again, Worldometers seems to include US territories in the US total ("others" in the list of US states) and again separately.
  • It seems that so far here have been no cases in Svalbard, external territories of Australia, or associated states/territory of New Zealand. If there are cases there in the future, they should be combined or listed separately depending on how the governments of these countries report the totals. I suppose that Norway and Australia will combine them, but New Zealand will not. Heitordp (talk) 04:42, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

@Heitordp:My suggestion is we don't split by the standard of this article, but we simply split all dependencies, including that Brit base on Cyprus and svalbard too, but Somaliland is definitely another issue—its a country with limited recognition. We will open another thread to discuss about CLRs. Pktlaurence (talk) 11:39, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

• Support all territories from all countries should be included separately. RandomIntrigue (talk) 05:13, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

• Support all territories from all countries should be included separately. Many territories are far from their owner countries and it simply make more sense to list them separately in the context of an epidemic. -- Akira😼CA 10:52, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

• Support all territories from all countries should be included separately. The issue of the spread of the epidemic is geographical, not political. Including remote territories with another part of the world simply obscures the extent of the pandemic. Who owns what, controls what, or funds what services is really irrelevant to the epidemiology of the virus. Geography is the real issue. Ptilinopus (talk) 12:41, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

• Support All territories from all countries should be included separately and should be in italics. Many of these territories have dramatic differences in geography, demography, and location that would suggest they be included separately. Similar to the guidelines provided from such pages as List of countries and dependencies by population. Krazytea(talk) 00:51, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

When are we gonna bloody implement those changes then? Since we're already having an overwhelming support here. Pktlaurence (talk) 11:39, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Iran note removed

I noticed someone removed the note on Iran noting that WHO estimates a much higher toll due to lack of testing. I think this is important to note, because reports are that the official toll there is greatly lagging the actual toll, which makes the number especially unreliable relative to other countries. The numbers there are going up by the same absolute amount each day because that's how many tests they can run, not because they're reflective of the actual numbers. Titanium Dragon (talk) 20:32, 21 Ma20, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Titanium Dragon, The note is back when I saw it just 2 seconds before I typed this–albeit to some extent, as it now lacks a citation. Thanks for bringing it to my attention though! RayDeeUx (talk) 02:11, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Paraguay 1st death

Paraguay confirmed 1st death due COVID-19. https://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2020/03/20/world/americas/20reuters-health-coronavirus-paraguay.html

On March 21st at 21:00 (Local time of Paraguay): 22 cases confirmed and 1 death official. --Eltetelar12 (talk) 02:22, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Hello Eltetelar12, I'm just here to let you know that the death and the source are now included in the table. Thanks for bringing it to our attention! RayDeeUx (talk) 02:12, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

New Australian Cases

According to the ABC, 1 354 cases in total (as of 6:35pm AEST on Saturday, March 21, I suspect that this time is wrong. First of all daylight saving, and date vs publication date). https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-03-22/coronavirus-australia-live-updates-covid-19-latest-news-lockdown/12078506

JMonkey2006 (talk) 11:37, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Missing data

Please modify the template in order to show the following:

• Deaths dayly and total
• Detected cases dayly and total
• Recovered cases dayly and total
• Cases in intensive care (dayly)

Sorry if I don't follow the protocol. I'm just trying to convey a suggestion to the page-manager Mnatiello (talk) (talk) 12:21, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Mnatiello: There is an ongoing discussion about this here: #Request for Wikipedia page to extend this template. --MarioGom (talk) 15:06, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Case Count Task Force

Editors contributing to this article may be interested in the following discussion: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject COVID-19 § Case Count Task Force. Best, --MarioGom (talk) 15:48, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 March 2020

+71 new confirmed cases in Poland (total of 634) [6][7] Natanieluz (talk) 17:28, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Already done. Thank you. --MarioGom (talk) 00:10, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 March 2020

760 cases are now confirmed in Pakistan and 4 deaths http://covid.gov.pk/ NomanPK44 (talk) 17:31, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

This seems to have been accounted for, so I marked this as answered. Eliyili00 (talk) 19:36, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

5 deaths in Pakistan http://covid.gov.pk/. NomanPK44 (talk) 17:31, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Already done. --MarioGom (talk) 00:11, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 March 2020

Change USA cases to 31,057 and cite Johns Hopkins. I have been searching the internet and have been unable to find a single source supporting 38,000+ outside of Worldometers. Eitan1989 (talk) 18:50, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

 Partly done. The case count is actually hovering at 35k, and the US is using a more reliable and up-to-date source–1Point3Acres. RayDeeUx (talk) 02:09, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 March 2020

1 death iceland 50.48.174.162 (talk) 20:58, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Already done. Thank you. --MarioGom (talk) 00:12, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Poland

In Poland, 627 cases of coronavirus. Ysku (talk) 21:11, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

in total we have 634, need to be updated (+71) [8][9] Natanieluz (talk) 21:21, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

@Ysku: On the Poland SARS-CoV-2 pages we have a careful method of sourcing. Please follow that pattern and check the existing references. If you disagree with the method, then explain why on the talk pages and propose an alternative method. Boud (talk) 11:44, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Another topic; apparently Cyprus/North Cyprus

The individual who removed it stated subjectiveness as the reason, although there are many defacto states only recognized by one country. By listing it, this presents it as either a generally accepted and/or recognized country and/or territory, which defacto states with only limited recognition are typically excluded due to a lack of recognition.

"Recognized only by Turkey" would clarify the note from Cyprus excluding Northern Cyprus. While allowing the disputed territory to main legitimacy on the list without sacrificing academic integrity ChaoticTexan (talk) 01:10, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 March 2020

Finland needs a footnote saying " Testing is limited to the severely ill, at-risk, social and health care workers." Sources: https://yle.fi/uutiset/3-11259147 and https://www.mtvuutiset.fi/artikkeli/thl-n-paajohtaja-markku-tervahauta-ylella-suomessa-voi-olla-todellisuudessa-20-30-kertaa-enemman-koronaviruksen-saaneita/7762944 JMKaisar (talk) 22:09, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks for the source! RayDeeUx (talk) 02:05, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Extending automatic archiving period

Do we really need to automatically archive discussions after only 36 hours of inactivity? The bulk of the discussions are edit requests that are fulfilled within hours and some of us are archiving them after roughly 24 hours if they were accepted. That should leave enough room for other topics requiring further discussion. --MarioGom (talk) 00:09, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

I have restored archiving time to 2 days. --MarioGom (talk) 08:33, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 March 2020

Panama has 313 confirmed cases. Source: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-panama-tally/panama-reports-nearly-30-jump-in-new-coronavirus-cases-idUSKBN21918V?il=0 190.219.162.190 (talk) 00:20, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

 Done --MarioGom (talk) 00:24, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Add note for "Northern Cyprus" or combine with Cyprus

"Northern Cyprus" is only recognized by Turkey, the international community does not give it validation. I understand the purpose of listing the region though, as the sources/reports of COVID-19 are not being reported by Cyrpus for the northern region.

"Northern Cyprus" should be clearly identified as a defacto state, or by stating "only recognized by Turkey". The other suggestion is that Northern Cyprus be joined with Cyprus, although I am in favor of the first option.

It is necessary for clarification, that Northern Cyrpus not be given any legitimacy as a seemingly existant territory. Akbhaza and other defacto states with only one country recognizing them are not listed. It is important that readers are presented with academic honesty. ChaoticTexan (talk) 00:43, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Not to get into the hot and dicey waters of politics, but one could use these similar issues with Taiwan. There is already a note/efn annotation for Cyprus that indicates that the cases for Northern Cyprus and Cyprus are separate.

This table is only meant for covering case counts for locations where cases of COVID-19 were diagnosed. It would be best if political issues such as this one play as small of a role in listing those case counts.

I'll go by the benefit of the doubt and assume that you've already viewed the past discussions about the policy of listing territories on this table/template, and realized that the issue of Northern Cyprus and Cyprus was never touched upon. However, should you discover that what I've assumed is not the case, please view those discussions in the archives whenever you have time.

Hope that addresses your concerns. RayDeeUx (talk) 01:59, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

NC is definitely in a completely different situation with Taiwan. Taiwan is internationally recognised by quite a few states across the globe, and definitely not a puppet state (although commies accuses Taiwan of being an American puppet state all the time, USA doesn't even recognise Taiwan officially lol). But, in the case of NC, it is only recognised by one state, which is turkey. And this this lead to that the former is widely considered a sock puppet and the latter its suzerainty. Pktlaurence (talk) 11:45, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 March 2020

http://www.nhc.gov.cn/xcs/yqtb/202003/fbd8871d80574991a4913cd180f83402.shtml Update China data with 81093 cases, 3270 deaths, and 72703 recovered. 17jiangz1 (talk) 05:00, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

I did it. Thanks for the note. Luke Kern Choi 5 (talk) 05:53, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Guyana 19?

https://gisanddata.maps.arcgis.com/apps/opsdashboard/index.html#/bda7594740fd40299423467b48e9ecf6 says Guyana has 19 cases. I believe this website could still be considered reliable. Luke Kern Choi 5 (talk) 05:50, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Czech Republic on 23 March 2020

Please update Czech Republic counts of confirmed to 1165, according to official source: https://onemocneni-aktualne.mzcr.cz/covid-19 😷 garyCZEk 📢 ✍ ｛🧒👧👦🚲💻🚗🍣｝ 08:03, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

 Done - Thank you - MrX 🖋 11:48, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 March 2020

The numerous uses of the tertiary sources such as [10] should ideally be replaced with respective secondary sources such as respective government websites and news articles, especially since many of which are linked on the tertiary source itself as per WP:TERTIARY. 17jiangz1 (talk) 08:04, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. Worldometer is not tertiary, it often relies on the same primary sources that we rely on. Given that all sources rely mostly on Government data, we're using the most reliable sources we can find even if they are primary. --MarioGom (talk) 10:01, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 March 2020

Although both https://gisanddata.maps.arcgis.com/apps/opsdashboard/index.html#/bda7594740fd40299423467b48e9ecf6 and https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/#countries (which is referenced in this template both claim Guyana has 19 cases, this seems to be an error from machine translation likely from Google Translate on their parts, as referring to their primary source (in French): https://www.santepubliquefrance.fr/maladies-et-traumatismes/maladies-et-infections-respiratoires/infection-a-coronavirus/articles/infection-au-nouveau-coronavirus-sars-cov-2-covid-19-france-et-monde it is "Guyane" (French for French Guiana) which as 19 cases, not the South American country of Guyana. Guyana has 5 cases and 1 death from https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/685d0ace521648f8a5beeeee1b9125cd and https://newsroom.gy/2020/03/18/guyana-confirms-fifth-coronavirus-case/. I think we should rely less on tertiary sources, and if we do, cross-check with the WHO dashboard if possible.

Furthermore, the footnote count for French Guiana should also accordingly be updated from 18->19. 17jiangz1 (talk) 08:19, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

 Done - (Someone else took care of it.) Thank you - MrX 🖋 11:51, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, but the case number for French Guiana in the footnotes still has to be updated from 18 to 19. 17jiangz1 (talk) 14:20, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Table Totals

This was brought up before (and has been archived), and the consensus seemed to be that totals should sum the figures in the table, not be imported from another source. Plainly this hasn’t happened. The sum of Cases, Deaths and Recoveries does not correspond to the totals given. Ptilinopus (talk) 09:08, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Ptilinopus: Indeed, consensus seemed to lean towards doing our own sum (discussion). Rich Farmbrough had a work in progress template to automate the sum, but it does not seem to be ready yet. I would say let's go for it. It is worth noting that Doc James suggested going by the higher figure for totals: ours or WOMC's. --MarioGom (talk) 09:58, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

I think we should add up our own columns. However I only update the totals every so often to avoid edit conflicts due to long edits. I try to keep the edit window open for as short as possible. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:42, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

It's not a case of "ready yet" so much as the template being a moving target. Numbers and references are constantly being changed, and of course countries added. All the best: Rich Farmbrough (the apparently calm and reasonable) 11:06, 23 March 2020 (UTC).

New column in "2019–20 coronavirus pandemic by country and territory" table?

Moved from Talk:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic § New column in "2019–20 coronavirus pandemic by country and territory" table?

 – MarioGom (talk) 10:21, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Is it possible to update the table "2019–20 coronavirus pandemic by country and territory" with a new column like "confirmed deaths per million people". This will give a more comparable view of how effected the different contries are.

I know the map is showing this, but i would like to se the actual numbers and the possibility to sort. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.186.121.223 (talk) 10:16, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

The problem is twofold, first it makes the table wider, and not display properly on phones, and secondly it is too hard for editors to calculate the values. They could just copy the worldometer figures, but the definition of the country, numbers and population would have to match. So overall I am not in support of the column. It was added once before, but did not survive long. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:46, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

The sandbox template would be able to support this, by automating the calculation. All the best: Rich Farmbrough (the apparently calm and reasonable) 11:07, 23 March 2020 (UTC).

Where could we test the sandbox template? Will it use kind of {{formatnum:+{{#expr: (175 / 160 - 1 ) * 100 round 0 }}%}} and Template:Vert_header?--😷 garyCZEk 📢 ✍ ｛🧒👧👦🚲💻🚗🍣｝ 11:58, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 March 2020

+51 confirmed cases in Poland (total of 684), +1 death (total of 8) [11] Natanieluz (talk) 12:30, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Iran figure remain the same

Iran current CCF should be 23,049 not 21,638, can anyone please explain this. BlackSun2104 (talk) 13:00, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 March 2020

+2 cases for Bosnia and Herzegovina (total: 130) N1/CNN Avaz Klix.ba --5.43.82.5 (talk) 14:46, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

San Marino on 23 March 2020

Please update San Marino confirmed cases count to 187, according to [12] 😷 garyCZEk 📢 ✍ ｛🧒👧👦🚲💻🚗🍣｝ 14:54, 23 March 2020 (UTC)