Template talk:COVID-19 pandemic data

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)

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)

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)

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)

(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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

• 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)

• @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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

OK I have altered the proposal above to say "update" rather than provide. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:31, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

On the negative side, the volume of edits on this page and other coronavirus pages is, I think, beyond the ability of any small group of editors/admins to review and evaluate. On the plus side, there does seem to be a small group of very active editors on this page so it would be less work to evaluate their work and see if they are generally reliable in their editing. And I think an edit notice would help. But, the worse problem is that while this is a crucially important page, at this point there are at least a hundred related pages (articles and templates) to this pandemic which do not receive the scrutiny this one does.Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:41, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Derivative values

The data for each country/territory is Confirmed cases, Deaths, Recoveries.

From which can be derived a number of desirable other values, like:

• Running % recovered
• Running % died
• Running % currently ill
• Current fatality rate (deaths)/(deaths+recoveries)
• Cases per million (with population data)

Over time we can also have delta cases/deaths/recoveries/patients

I made a spreadsheet that illustrates this

These calculations can be generated automatically from data, and there could be a derivative page based on daily snapshots of this template.--jax (talk) 14:32, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

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)

I have updated it to 35, thank you. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:42, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks User:Graeme Bartlett Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:21, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

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)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 March 2020

Please update the case count for Australia, it's now 63. Here's the source. [1] 101.182.42.45 (talk) 10:34, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

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

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

User:Sun Creator put some data here COVID-19_testing but not seeing a lot of sources. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:33, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for finding some data. In regards to keeping it up to date, it seems that the use of template prohibits non advance users from updating with the result of it being out of date. On previous templates I've created I've always added an edit button and talk button). Sun Creator^(talk) 14:30, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 March 2020

Number of cases in Slovenia is now 7.

• Information to be added or removed: Update the number of confirmed cases in Slovenia to 7
• Explanation of issue: STA (Slovenian Press Agency) has reported another confirmed coronavirus case in Slovenia.
• References supporting change: https://english.sta.si/2735933/seventh-coronavirus-case-confirmed-in-slovenia

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

Y Done: updated already — RealFakeKimT 16:27, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 March 2020

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

 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)

We need a "SUM" tool for tables

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

Definitely. Is it possible though to make one? M nurhaikal (talk) 02:00, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't think it's possible to make a "spreadsheet" but it is possible to write a bot that checks this page every time it is edited, parses the tables, computes the sums, then makes the edit. It wouldn't be easy though, espcially since it would have to know how to handle a mal-formed table. Because of that risk I doubt it would be approved. Not worth the effort if you ask me. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 03:29, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

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)

@Jej1997: The repatriated cases are not included in International Conveyance, just the national totals. Jayab314 20:44, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

@Jayab314: Then why does the chart have the footnote: "Region where case was diagnosed. Nationality and location of original infection may vary"? My understanding is that we're not trying to keep track of the current location of all cases; just where they were diagnosed. jej1997 (talk) 06:12, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 March 2020

Change Argentina from 2 confirmed cases to 8, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_coronavirus_outbreak_in_Argentina for more info. 190.189.120.70 (talk) 22:57, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

 Done Wikipedia is NOT a reliable source. Please provide reliable sources from outside Wikipedia. I found one[2] so I am going to make the change. In the future, please provide a source that meets the requirements listed at Wikipedia:Reliable sources. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 23:09, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 March 2020

Change United States deaths to 18 Matthewberns (talk) 04:23, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Ref Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:30, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

1 Australian Case being doubled counted

Officially there are only 70 cases in Australia as the Northern Territory (NT) case is now counted as part of New South Wales (NSW) cases, as stated by the Australian Government Department of Health on March 6 . As a result, most other sources are double counting the NT case. Stevedog8750 (talk • contribs) 06:19, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

How can we tell if it is double counted in other sources? I expect that Australian Government Department of Health will have a correct figure, but it lags behind by many hours at least to over 24 hours, and is only updated once a day. I have updating the Australian maps to remove NT, and then put it back, but it looks as of this morning there was no case there. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:39, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

References

Grand Princess

There are now 21 cases of COVID-19 on the Grand Princess, so how will we reflect this? we could (1) make it international conveyances and add them on, and change the foot note to list the vessels involved; (2) put in a separate row, and name the ships in the table. (3) Add into USA, although that would be inconsistent. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:45, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

i decided to put them in separate rows. i agree that adding them to united states would be inconsistent, and from what i can tell, adding the counts together would currently make it confusing as most users may be unsure as to whether the count was just of the diamond princess (and a higher-than-expected number was due to an update) or of all international conveyance. splitting the count makes it unambiguous at a glance. please feel free to undo this decision if my reasoning is incorrect, outdated (such as when the numbers stabilize), or (unfortunately) more ships appear on this list. dying (talk) 16:07, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 March 2020

Change the number of cases in India from 31 to 33. Divsome (talk) 07:00, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Our source says 31, do you have a source that says 33? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:16, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Florida

I believe there are fatalities in Florida per http://www.floridahealth.gov/diseases-and-conditions/COVID-19/ Anyone can add these to total, cause I'm not so sure who other 15(fatalities in U.S.) are? Thanks.!!! Luke Kern Choi 5 (talk) 07:35, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 March 2020

6th confirmed case in Philippines. David Isaac C. M. (talk) 08:38, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Do you have a source for that? Agathoclea (talk) 08:45, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

https://www.rappler.com/nation/253696-doh-confirms-6th-case-coronavirus-philippines David Isaac C. M. (talk) 09:44, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Someone put it in already Agathoclea (talk) 15:18, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 March 2020

Death count United States == 17 via washington post https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2020/03/07/coronavirus-live-updates/ 137.83.119.38 (talk) 09:36, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

 Done by somebody Agathoclea (talk) 15:27, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 March 2020

Recoveries in Spain is now 5, according to ref, 3 in Canary Islands, 1 in Castellón, 1 in Balearic Islands. 30 is a clear mistake, please change it. Mcsmp (talk) 13:55, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

I believe that the source says that recoveries are 30(translated)Luke Kern Choi 5 (talk) 15:16, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

 Not done Agathoclea (talk) 15:25, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

New columns tough to mantain

Can we remove the new 3 columns as is hard to mantain ,leading to inaccurate data M nurhaikal (talk) 14:23, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

These columns should be removed immediately. The number of cases changes rapidly and it is hard to calculate those numbers for every change. M4DU7 (talk) 14:36, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree. M nurhaikal (talk) 14:41, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it is unnecessary and very difficult to update. Should be removed. Mayankj429 (talk) 14:48, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

• Remove, this is not right place for these data. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 14:50, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

agreed. it's difficult enough for us to maintain just the totals, as it is. removed. please let me know if i've made a mistake. dying (talk) 14:59, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Population numbers

Someone needs to change the population of Iceland. Ought to be around 360,000 instead of roughly 10 million which is the current number in the template. 130.208.157.163 (talk) 14:25, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

The whole column ought to be deleted as population is dynamic and changes every day. M nurhaikal (talk) 14:40, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Also, the current number (340 thousand) is wrong. Look at the page Iceland and see that the 2019 estimated population is around 364 thousand. 130.208.157.163 (talk) 14:49, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Nothing to worry about anymore, these columns are now removed, as it is hard to maintain. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 16:34, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

International conveyance

Why does the link point only to the section of the Diamond Princess? And how did the cases went from 706 down to 696? —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 14:56, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

regarding your first question, i don't know why it does, but i've attempted to resolve the issue.

regarding your second question, it looks like some cases were counted twice. dying (talk) 16:17, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

@Dying: Thanks for the info. Naming the ships instead of referring them to as "international conveyance", are quite odd though. What does the sources say anyways? Like the WHO? —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 16:29, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

who's situation reports appear to use "International conveyance (Diamond Princess)" for the diamond princess, with no mention of the grand princess in the latest report dated 2020.03.07. there are arguments against using such terminology, though.

the johns hopkins source we often cite uses "Others", while the bno news one we used to often cite uses the individual ship names (although the grand princess inexplicably seems to appear only under the "USA" tab, while the diamond princess appears in both "USA" and "World").

looking at wikipedias of other languages, it looks like the practice there varies too, with france using the ship name and prefacing it with the word "Ship", ukraine using the ship name and prefacing it with a sailboat emoji and the phrase "Cruise liner", and japan using the phrase "International Transport" and prefacing it with a picture of a silhouette of a cruise ship (although obviously all those words in quotes are not to be taken literally, as they're written in their own respective languages).

personally, i think we should currently use what would be most clear to most users when they glance at the list, as i believe it is currently being used most by users simply wanting a quick update of the situation, and not academicians doing historical research or web surfers going down a wiki rabbit hole like for most other articles. that's why i think we should use the ship names for now.

actually, i think the silhouette used by japanese wikipedia is a good idea, so i might add that too. feel free to remove the silhouette if you disagree. i was debating using the british ensign earlier, but it didn't seem appropriate since it would add to the confusion of whether the cases were considered british. dying (talk) 17:20, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Urgent Update required

Most of the confirmed case figures are a day old, urgent and prompt update is required. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BlackSun2104 (talk • contribs) 15:08, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Another navbar?

@Sun Creator: Is there a need for another navigation bar? I removed it earlier because I thought it was redundant, but tell me what you think. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 15:30, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

@HueMan1:. Now you mention, for the first time I see that there is two. In my opinion it's far better at the top. I've not seen templates with navbar at the bottom before. Will remove the duplicate. Sun Creator^(talk) 15:33, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

@Sun Creator: I think it's better to keep it below since these links "History: China, others" are also part of the navigation. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 16:38, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

For visibility I consider the navbar better at the top. China and others seems to be part of the data information rather then about the template itself. Sun Creator^(talk) 16:51, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Attn: Germany , France and Switzerland

Germany, France and Switzerland confirmed case figures should be higher than what is already displayed in the table, urgent update required. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.74.163.85 (talk) 15:45, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

I presume that there are more countries and territories, not just Germany , France, and Switzerland are outdated. I wish I could do something about it, but I'm afraid I'd come across an edit conflict if I took just a minute or two editing. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 16:05, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Attn: addition error

The total worldwide confirmed case figure is incorrect, please correct asap. BlackSun2104 (talk) 15:50, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

@BlackSun2104: I guess we could automate this somehow? Like adding some templates to do the math automatically. Does that sound good? —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 15:56, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Is that technically possible? If so how. In a pure Wikipedia sense the totals are not sourced, and as such is a form of WP:SYNTH. So perhaps they could be removed? Sun Creator^(talk) 16:00, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Removing them would be a drastic change and a huge loss for this template's main purpose. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 16:08, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

From a maintenance point of view, use of the Johns Hopkins CSSE source might be easiest. It won't necessarily match the sum of the rows but it will be sourced totals that is quite easy to check. Sun Creator^(talk) 16:13, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

@Doc James: I saw this discussion above and do you think we could do something about this? —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 16:16, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Have edited to use source. Sun Creator^(talk) 16:27, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Great! That kinda works, but the outdated rows are still here. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 16:31, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 March 2020

Saudi Arabia KH561 (talk) 16:03, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

 Done with this edit. Sun Creator^(talk) 17:01, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

References

Edit discussion: Make table "less tall" for better display on articles that use it

I've consolodated the "1 case, 0 deaths, 0 recoveries" into a single line at the bottom of the table in this sandbox revision (diff).

Benefits: Table takes less vertical real estate.

Costs: When a country reports a 2nd case, a death, or recovery it will need to be removed from that row and a new row created.

Another version that keeps the 4-column format is in this sandbox revision (diff).

Straw poll - which looks better?

• The first "Wide" version
• The second "keep existing columns" version
• Status quo, every country on its own row

davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:20, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 March 2020

Italian cases are 5883 not 5061, 5061 is actual positive 5883 is (actual positive+deaths+healing). --Yacine Boussoufa (talk) 17:32, 7 March 2020 (UTC) Yacine Boussoufa (talk) 17:32, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Consistency required

Most of the confirmed case figures has serious inconsistencies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.74.163.85 (talk) 17:38, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Recommended Source

This is a much better and updated source : https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/