Jump to content

Template talk:COVID-19 pandemic data

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jej1997 (talk | contribs) at 20:17, 6 March 2020 (→Repatriated US cases are being double-counted?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Update cases in Slovenia

The total number of cases in Slovenia is 6 not 2. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.142.133.3 (talk) 04:44, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Protection

Editors are adding data to this template without citing any reliable sources. If this continues and Admin-level of protection might be indicated.Graham Beards (talk) 20:14, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Full protection? Recently it seems like admins are getting really liberal in how they use FP. Ultimograph5 (talk) 20:26, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, really. Graham Beards (talk) 20:35, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And I see you are ignoring requests for sources on your Talk Page.Graham Beards (talk) 20:38, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Those requests were for edits where I stated the source (which, earlier today, before the admins came along, was BNO for all). Regardless this template is descending into an outdated source-heavy mess quickly, and I don't want to fight about it, so bye! Ultimograph5 (talk) 21:09, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
BNO is not a reliable source.Graham Beards (talk) 21:12, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm uninterested in arguing, but would you mind sharing why BNO is unreliable? Ultimograph5 (talk) 21:17, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This source more or less says the same https://gisanddata.maps.arcgis.com/apps/opsdashboard/index.html#/bda7594740fd40299423467b48e9ecf6
The main thing we need is the ability for our readers and fellow editors to rapidly verify the content in question. We know have that more.
Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:02, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sources do need to be provided, some editors are just adding it in the edit summary, which is no good for our readers. We could have a comment at the start to tell editors what is required for a change. Or we could have an edit notice to display. Edits have been good faith, so I do not believe that admin protection is required. If it is is, then all edits have to be discussed first, even if admins want to do them. That will cause more work. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:30, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
An edit notice would help. A lot of users simply didn't care to source their edits. Some editors included the url in their edit summary, usually I'll add it to the reference list for them. Some editors simply stated where they got their numbers from ("per Ministry of Health" or "per Bloomberg"), but they didn't specify where exactly did they obtain those numbers. I think this is definitely not ideal because others can't verify whether their numbers are correct. This was way more of an issue when the page was unprotected a few days ago and there was a lot of back-and-fourth reverting because people were like "my numbers are correct so I don't need a source". Hayman30 (talk) 16:16, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It also leads to inconsistent edits and the question here is really whether we here at Wikipedia should aim to duplicate the effort of the WHO, BNO and John Hopkins and try to compile case numbers or whether we should stick to one of these sources *that is internally consistent* and report that. For example, right now our total reads 94,355 cases while John Hopkins reports 94,250 total cases and BNO 94,301 cases -- while actually adding up all cases reported here gives a total of 94,380. Just as food for thought how messy this gets if we dont clearly agree on where our sources should come from and what we should actually report (confirmed or unconfirmed cases, Twitter or WHO). --hroest 16:21, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Data Source: WHO vs John Hopkins

I wonder what source for the data should be used, for example as of March 3rd, there is a strong discrepancy from the official WHO numbers in their daily report and the John Hopkins CSSE data here. I understand that we want to be as updated as possible, but I wonder what the rationale is to use the non-official data versus the WHO data. For example, Spain has 114 cases according to the most recent WHO report and Switzerland has 30 cases according to WHO and 37 according to the official Swiss government source see here, however the John Hopkins source reports 165 cases for Spain and 56 cases for Switzerland. I feel we should stick to WHO and official government communications to ensure the data here is accurate and it is unclear where the John Hopkins source takes its information from (in claims that it uses WHO data but then differs quite a bit from it). Best --hroest 03:42, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think Johns Hopkins is reliable enough. WHO just comes out once a day correct?
The big issue is I am not sure we would get once a day updates to stick. People keep changing to the popular press from Johns Hopkins even. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:42, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, WHO is once a day - however many official government numbers are also only updated once a day. Some countries only include tests by the official reference lab in the official number (see Switzerland below) even though local labs have additional positive results not yet confirmed by the reference lab. It seems newspapers will always report the higher number, while the numbers reported to WHO are the ones confirmed by the national reference labs. There is also questionable utility for speedier updates (how much would that really help anybody?) and it may just contribute to panic. The downside of including unconfirmed cases and relying on newspaper reports is that there will be multiple sources with different counting methods, depending on the country different methods will be used to report on unconfirmed cases. I think the only sane solution is to stick to WHO numbers or official government numbers of confirmed cases since these are the only numbers that are comparable at all between countries. The compromise would be to allow John Hopkins, but not individual newspaper reports. --hroest 15:28, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ireland

We shall read Republic of Ireland, not Ireland alone in fact. When you sort the table alphabetically, Ireland is not between Iraq and Israel, but between Qatar and Romania...

FMichaud76 (talk) 16:08, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, FMichaud76. It seems like this template is abiding by WP:COMMONNAME instead of WP:OFFICIALNAME, as evidenced by the template using "China (mainland)" instead of "People's Republic of China", and "United States" as opposed to "United States of America". For names of countries, WP:COMMONNAME is of a higher priority.
EDIT: I have viewed the source and it seems that the article "Ireland" in the table leads to references to COVID-19 cases in Republic of Ireland, as per the title of the said article being linked. I now see the issue you're pointing out. I'm not quite sure how the editors managed to work around that with "China (mainland)" even though the title of the linked article of that text includes "Mainland China". Perhaps you can create a new topic in this talk page and add an edit request that way?
Anyways, hope I helped. RayDeeUx (talk) 00:27, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I believe it is because the link goes to an article entitled [[2019–20 coronavirus outbreak in Mainland China|China <small>(mainland)</small><!--Discuss on talk page before changing this-->]] while Ireland goes to [[2020 coronavirus outbreak in the Republic of Ireland|Ireland]], so we would have to move the article [[2020 coronavirus outbreak in the Republic of Ireland to 2020 coronavirus outbreak in the Ireland -- or do some other trickery I am not aware of. --hroest 02:01, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, @Hannes Röst:! These were the same ideas I had, but I wouldn't want to confuse the regular editors of the 2020 coronavirus outbreak in the Republic of Ireland article, so as a temporary solution [until we get a consensus from other editors in a new topic I'll make shortly] I'll be renaming "Ireland" in the table to "Republic of Ireland". RayDeeUx (talk) 02:25, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
+1 seems fine with me, at least until we have a better solution. --hroest 16:40, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Updating cases in algeria

Total is: 12 confirmed cases untill now Gonfrosko (talk) 16:17, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ref Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:20, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Full protection versus selectively removing peoples ability to edit

So we are still having extensive issues with people changing the numbers in this table to numbers not supported by the source provided and not providing a source that supports the numbers they have changed it too.

So should we:

1) fully protect so that only admins can edit (which will require consensus before changes)

2) selectively remove peoples ability to edit this page if they continue to add data without references after one warning

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:58, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Graeme Bartlett your thoughts? I think the second will work. And more importantly who will hand out editing restrictions? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:10, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would support both options, but lets go with (2) first. The question with option 1) is whether there is an admin willing to take on that workload and it seems to me that the process of reaching consensus is too slow for this relatively fast evolving situation. --hroest 18:30, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If we go with option two user:Hannes Röst we will need a transparent process for handing out edit restrictions. For example will myself and User:Graeme Bartlett be able to apply these? Or will we need an outside admin?
We should likely have a discussion here for each infraction. And than keep a list of people who have restrictions placed. Should we have a time limit on the restriction like three days for the first infarction, two weeks for the second? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:33, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I suggest option 2. If Graeme is willing to take this on, he has my full confidence and support. If this is (understandably) not the case we Admins will have to share the work. Either way something needs to be done.Graham Beards (talk) 18:36, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
User:Graham Beards would be good for you to hand these out aswell. Maybe we just need to have a process were the person reporting the second breach and warning here is not the same as the one applying the edit restriction? We should also have an edit notice to this effect. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:46, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree with that process: 1 warning and subsequent restriction. I think most people will act in good faith and a restriction will not be necessary that often (and hopefully keeps the workload of admins to a minimum since people can still edit). Also, the process needs to be explained very clearly and transparently to avoid problems in the first place. --hroest 19:13, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am in agreement with this process for (2). After first infraction after the commencement date, a formal warning is issued to the user's talk page. On a second infraction they are told they are banned from editing the page for two days. A third infraction will result in a partial block that will prevent editing the page. An edit notice will explain that a reliable source must be provided as a reference and not just in the edit summary, that BNO is out of favour, that counties are sorted by number of cases, then inverse number of recoveries and then alphabetically, and that totals have to be updated. Perhaps we need a list of suitable sources on another page. I am willing to issue the partial blocks and page editing ban notice. But I am not here 24 hours a day. Non-admins can also issue the first warning. If we agree on text for the edit notice I can put it up. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:48, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Having too many sort keys is confusing, so I am not supporting sorting by number of recoveries, but we can work out what to put on an edit notice. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:14, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
An edit notice would go at Template:Editnotices/Page/Template:2019–20 coronavirus outbreak data. Sample follows:
We can warn about editing restrictions when users are warned for violations, rather than put it in the editnotice. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:17, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I support the second option more than the first one–it's better to let everyone (with the exception of some) edit the article rather than let a small handful of [presumably, I might add] busy admins edit the numbers to match those of the core source. It may be simple to restrict editing to admins only with the click of a button, but it's more efficient to weed out the bad actors in the long run.
[Side note: extended auto-confirmed is already the strictest editing restriction that is solely based on edit counts, and as a hobbyist editor who is quite concerned about the COVID-19 situation I had originally planned to bring myself to extended-autoconfirmed so that I can lighten the workload of edit requests for others who are also active in this talk page, including Hayman30 and Doc James. Tightening restrictions further would hurt more than help.] RayDeeUx (talk) 00:14, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I oppose option 1 but (weakly) support option 2. As long as the majority of non-admin contributions to the page are constructive and sourced, full protection should not occur. In fact, I even think extended-confirmed protection is too much. That's saying something coming from a recent changes patroller who (I think) leans more towards protection that most. And I think let's cool it on only having one warning; perhaps people are just not familiar with the template or simply forgot. Mistakes happen. Maybe you find tracking down and reverting offending edits annoying to deal with, but that's what recent changes patrollers have to do all the time. And while this is not a content dispute in the traditional sense, I still believe @Doc James: and @Graeme Bartlett: are WP:INVOLVED and should not be imposing editing restrictions themselves. I also believe that discussions about editing restrictions should happen on WP:ANI and not here to reflect global consensus and not just local consensus. Lastly, full protection should also be implemented by an uninvolved admin, if we ever come to that point. Thanks, Darylgolden(talk) Ping when replying 00:58, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree with most of this, but I take particular exception to your saying that James and Graeme are "WP:INVOLVED and should not be imposing editing restrictions themselves". That's just daft. This is not an issue that editors have an opinion on and it is certainly not a content dispute that requires WP:ANI. (There are at least three admins here already trying to uphold our policies and guidelines as it is). It's about the accuracy and verifiability of data. Furthermore, we have all patrolled recent pages and we don't need educating.Graham Beards (talk) 07:43, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Graham Beards: I agree that WP:INVOLVED was the wrong term to use. However, I maintain that editing restrictions (page bans) need to be properly discussed and only imposed with proper community consensus. A page ban is a type of ban. According to the banning policy, bans can be imposed by community consensus, by the Arbitration Committee, or by administrators (in certain topic areas). Those "certain topic areas" only refer to arbitration committee discretionary sanctions. Hence, page banning by admins without community consensus is not something that is supported by policy. Wikipedia:Banning_policy#Authority_to_ban also explicitly states that admins may not directly impose bans. Furthermore, I expect such bans to be controversial (I disagree with the severity of them) and urge the admins here to start a proper discussion to form a consensus to stay on the safe side (and the right side of policy). I also maintain that full protection is a step too far. While not explicitly written in WP:PROTECTION, it is my experience that most admins at WP:RPP only protect pages that have edits by a large number of users contributing to a significant net negative to the page. I believe that the contributions by non-admins here have been overwhelmingly net positive. Furthermore, even users who are not adding references are still editing in good faith, and will likely remember to do so if they are reminded. Individual disruptive users who do not cite sources even after repeated warning should be individually dealt with. Full protection should not be imposed just because recent changes patrollers and admins can't be bothered to deal with the minority (and I suspect, large minority) of edits that are unsourced. This is fundamentally opposed to our 'anyone can edit' philosophy. Darylgolden(talk) Ping when replying 09:56, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Instead of using a BAN (which may not be available under policy since this is not under discretionary sanctions), how about a second warning will be issued. If problems continue the the page block can be done. But how many warnings over what period is appropriate? I would like to leave the page open to editing by as many as possible as most edits are constructive. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:30, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Two to three warnings seem reasonable to me. I think one warning is too little. I don't think there is such a thing as a "page block", only a page ban. If page restrictions are to be implemented, I think that a formal RfC should be held beforehand to properly access consensus and reduce controversy. Darylgolden(talk) Ping when replying 11:13, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is now a new partial block feature available for admins to use. Access to editing one page or several pages (or a whole name space) can be prevented. This is better than just blocking all edits a user can do, if there is an issue with only one page the editor is not addressing. I am proposing this sort of partial block for those that stubbornly ignore warnings. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:20, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Then I stand corrected and think 2 to 3 warnings would be an appropriate amount. Thanks, Darylgolden(talk) Ping when replying 23:36, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Having the references inline (by the country name) and keeping it to one ref per row has helped IMO. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:42, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any suggestions for changes to the proposed edit notice? It could go in, without an agreement on what to do if not followed. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:49, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think we need to stress that the reference needs to be updated. Editors might think that because a source is given there is no need to add one. Graham Beards (talk) 12:56, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 March 2020

Update Austria from 27 to 29. The source I provided yesterday was not reliable enough though it is in German. My edit request was rejected. Interestingly, today this exact same link is attached to Austria. Since it is accepted today I omit it here. Rendal (talk) 18:05, 4 March 2020 (UTC) Rendal (talk) 18:05, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

27 is listed here https://gisanddata.maps.arcgis.com/apps/opsdashboard/index.html#/bda7594740fd40299423467b48e9ecf6 Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:19, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Data source for Italy

The source of the data for Italy is the "Coronavirus COVID-19 Global Cases by Johns Hopkins CSSE" (https://gisanddata.maps.arcgis.com/apps/opsdashboard/index.html#/bda7594740fd40299423467b48e9ecf6).

I would suggest to use the data from the health ministry of Italy (http://www.salute.gov.it/portale/nuovocoronavirus/dettaglioContenutiNuovoCoronavirus.jsp?lingua=italiano&id=5351&area=nuovoCoronavirus&menu=vuoto).

At the point of writing this comment, the value of confirmed cases in Italy of the first source is 2502 whereas the second source mentions 3089 cases.

What do you think?Smalde (talk) 18:33, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that source is good. When making a change people MUST also change the source to one that supports the change. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:35, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

norway wrong position

shouldn't it be by iraq? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alfredo Valente (talk • contribs) 18:38, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sure moved. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:48, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 March 2020

First case in Slovenia reported. Four more cases confirmed in Ireland, bring the total to six cases. References: Slovenia: https://english.sta.si/2735036/first-case-of-coronavirus-infection-confirmed-in-slovenia Ireland: https://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/four-new-coronavirus-cases-confirmed-in-west-of-ireland-985841.html Eestlane321 (talk) 20:40, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looks to be all included. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:56, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
sorry but Slovenia case doubled. --MiskoGe (talk) 23:16, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a reference for the number 2? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:56, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is now included. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:21, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alphabetical order

When sorting by alphabetical order, does one take into account the number of deaths and recoveries too? For example if Country X has 2 cases with 0 deaths and 1 recovery does it rank higher than Country Y that has 2 cases, 0 deaths and 0 recoveries? M nurhaikal (talk) 22:51, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is causing confusion. My preference is not to consider recoveries and deaths, and just to sort by cases, and then alphabetically. I think the idea was that places where all had recovered were at the bottom of their section. But that order is often violated. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:00, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a bit confused, too. For now, I would order countries by this order cases-->deaths-->recoveries-->alphabetical for now, because everyone seems to sort it that way, but I guess we should discuss about this; as more countries are added, it would be harder. I would do what everyone agrees to. Luke Kern Choi 5 (talk) 00:29, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am happy with just order by number of cases. And than alphabetically. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:35, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think the best way, to avoid confusion is to arrange them by number of cases>alphabetical and do not take into account the number of recoveries and deaths. M nurhaikal (talk) 01:00, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It would be better if we can also keep track of number of tests performed

Some governments publish the number of tests performed everyday. It would be better if we can also keep track of these numbers in the tables. UK and Italy tables have already been updated with those numbers. Llull juny (talk) 01:43, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree that this would be nice, not all governments report the number of tests and we already struggle to maintain the list and keep it up to date. Unless you have a solution on how to add this number consistently for all countries I see a lot of practical problems. --hroest 02:03, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's extremely difficult to keep up with the statistic as not many govt publish the data. M nurhaikal (talk) 02:43, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This information could go in COVID-19 testing. Perhaps a table of countries with the number of tests performed could be included. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:23, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ireland vs Republic of Ireland

Recently, FMichaud76 has pointed out an inconsistency when sorting the wikitable alphabetically (in any direction). For some reason, Ireland's cases fall not near Iraq, Iran, or any other country that starts with an "I" of the table, but rather with Qutar and Romania. That is a result of the name of the article that is wikilinked with "Ireland" which refers to the country as "Republic of Ireland" in the title of said linked article {here: 2020 coronavirus outbreak in the Republic of Ireland}.

Hannes_Röst also pointed this out and suggested an article move to fix the issue. However, that would be quite a drastic decision and would probably confuse the regular editors of 2020 coronavirus outbreak in the Republic of Ireland.

I feel that if we can pull something off with "China (mainland)" despite its linked article referring to the country as "Mainland China", we can probably use the same principle with Ireland.

However, I've been staring at the source of the article for 15 minutes without progress. This is where I need some help/input/opinions/etc.

Thoughts? [Good day/night.]

RayDeeUx (talk) 02:33, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that the sorting is happening on a link in the flag icon with "a href=wiki/Republic of Ireland" being what determines the sort position. I have added data-sort-value="Ireland" to get it to right spot. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:25, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! --hroest 16:45, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Territories

I have a question. Since I'm not that good in geography, can you tell me what is the guideline for territories? For example, the Faroe Islands(FO) was previously included as individual territory, but now it is included in another country. Thank you. Luke Kern Choi 5 (talk) 14:56, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Faroe Islands is certainly in the category of a territory, being a piece of land. We should discuss this on this talk page. Should it be listed separately or not? A similar issue applies to Gibraltar, and French overseas regions. It is our decision as editors. If we split them up, then we have to be very careful about what sources are saying the case numbers are in the ruling countries, as most add these remote places in. But for mapping purposes it becomes misleading. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:41, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I found out that WHO reports started to split the countries/territories/areas. Why don't we follow WHO's guildlines since it's official?Luke Kern Choi 5 (talk) 00:10, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WHO and John Hopkins report thede territories separately. Im for the opinion that we should follow them. It would be easier to track. M nurhaikal (talk) 17:04, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Calculations

The number: total is not always correct, so what can we do? I think there should be a note about that(to always fix totals when updating)... Or, are there any templates that calculate the sum? I hope this problem to be improved. Sincerely, Luke Kern Choi 5 (talk) 15:24, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is tough. Should it be a reliably reported total or our own total? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:29, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we should be using a reliably reported total because we are collating numbers from different sources, which is often more updated than the sources which collate totals. Darylgolden(talk) Ping when replying 05:34, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We are soon going to have new numbers every day from 250 countries.
The other solution is we need a SUM feature.
Or we simple live with us doing the best we can. I may be getting exceedingly busy soon... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:13, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Recoveries in Romania

Now three of the total of six confirmed cases in Romania have recovered from COVID-19.

"Coronavirus România, INFORMAȚII OFICIALE: 3 din cele 6 persoane infectate cu COVID-19 au fost declarate vindecate" [Coronavirus Romania, OFFICIAL INFORMATION: 3 of 6 people infected with COVID-19 have been declared recovered]. Catalinandrei7 (talk) 16:53, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Often we wait for it to be confirmed by a better source. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:45, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Two new cases of COVID-19 in Estonia

Please change confirmed cases in Estonia section from 3 to 5. Reference (in Estonian): https://www.terviseamet.ee/et/uudised/kahel-bergamost-naasnud-tallinlasel-tuvastati-koroonaviirus — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eestlane321 (talk • contribs) 20:16, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It has been included, thank you. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:29, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 March 2020

Is the Johns Hopkins source really credible? Because all german news sites and the RKI website say the number of cases is 400, also they have at least 16 recoveries. 178.18.69.35 (talk) 21:22, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is credible.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:22, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Doc James: I stopped using the Johns Hopkins website because more often than not it was inaccurate. I rely on BNO personally because it gets updated constantly and immediately. Jayab314 23:55, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you use BNO for a number in the table, make sure it is referenced as such. Otherwise others will revert a number change that is not supported by a JH reference. Note that BNO has made mistakes too, so it is not entirely reliable. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:27, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Most of these are not inaccuracies, just different point in time. The main think is to have a source that actually supports the content in question. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:31, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Princess cruise

Number dropped from 706 to 696.[1] Strange Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:11, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The answer is here: https://www.sankei.com/smp/life/news/200305/lif2003050076-s1.html — Some cases had been counted twice. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:32, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 March 2020

Iceland confirmed 34 to 35

Source: The National Commissioner Of The Icelandic Police, Department of Civil Protection and Emergency Management, as reported on the Icelandic National Broadcasting Service (RÚV), https://www.ruv.is/frett/covid-19-smitin-ordin-35-talsins Sylgja (talk) 06:19, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated it to 35, thank you. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:42, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks User:Graeme Bartlett Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:21, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Addition of foreign territories of countries

Such as Gibraltar, Saint Barthalamey and Faroe Islands. It's not included in the list? M nurhaikal (talk) 09:11, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 March 2020

Please update the case count for Australia, it's now 63. Here's the source. [2] 101.182.42.45 (talk) 10:34, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Actually that source says 64. Updated, thank you for the link. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:28, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 March 2020

https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/coronavirus-cases-in-india-live-news-latest-updates-march6/liveblog/74503220.cms - 28 new cases in Malaysia, rising to total 83 cases. Ricky250 (talk) 11:10, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the alert, I have updated but with a different reference with more info. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:36, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 March 2020

17 Israeli citizens positive of Corona https://www.ynetnews.com/article/94GFBFW6K Doom777 (talk) 11:41, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I have updated Israel. They may not all be citizens, but if in the country of Israel they count. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:46, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Number of tests

Adding a column for number of tests would be useful on this table. Sun Creator(talk) 13:36, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To hard to keep it up to date as it is. Data missing for most places. What source would you use? Maybe a different table? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:20, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 March 2020

Number of cases in Slovenia is now 7.

--RStular (talk) 15:08, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

checkY Done: updated already — RealFakeKimT 16:27, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 March 2020

5 cases in Poland 31.42.14.235 (talk) 17:59, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done, citation needed, the 05 March 2020 report from the World Health Organization still listed only 1 in Poland. If you have a newer reliable source, re-make your request.

Daily WHO reports are here. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:52, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We need a "SUM" tool for tables

That would be the solution. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:10, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Repatriated US cases are being double-counted?

My understanding is that the current number for the U.S. includes cases that have been "repatriated" from the Diamond Princess. If so, then those should be subtracted from the "International Conveyance" item. But actually if you're going to keep that as a separate item, then the repatriated cases should be left there, and not added to the national totals. jej1997 (talk) 20:16, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:COVID-19_pandemic_data&oldid=944275754"