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 119.74.163.85 (talk) at 18:24, 9 March 2020 (→Attn: Urgent Update required: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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]

I really think that it should be separated because if Taiwan Hong Kong and Macau have I think the same applies to this. Putian Ye (talk) 21:28, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

At least for Gibraltar, it is official a British overseas territory, which means it is NOT part of the UK (which only consists of the four constituent countries). The UK government doesn't include the case in Gibraltar anyway. However, in this form, Gibraltar is neither listed as a single territory nor included in the UK. Editors should at least choose one way to present Gibraltar.Chbe113 (talk) 11:30, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
That looks good. I note when sorting by country they all appear under "c" for cruise ship. how would you like them to be sorted? (could be Anuket (or River), Diamond, Grand). Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:36, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Revert The name Diamond Princess on the table should be to change back to international conveyances as WP:CON was never concluded in the first place. A editor just went ahead and secretly changed. Regice2020 (talk) 06:50, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Peru 6

https://ojo.pe/actualidad/se-confirma-cinco-nuevos-casos-de-coronavirus-en-el-peru-web-ojo-noticia/ Please add the source. I can't update now~~ Luke Kern Choi 5 (talk) 05:32, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Already done as your update worked here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:19, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Grand Princesss

On the confirmed cases,death, recovered table - Grand Princess is not Diamond Princess and should be renamed to proper name which is cruse ships. Regice2020 (talk) 05:46, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And now someone has merged Grand Princess with US. This does not look to be a good idea. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:55, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MS Anuket

On the Egypt article those figures are included. Is that really an "international conveyance" as declared by the WHO, or are we making that up because listing cruiseships is better clickbait? Agathoclea (talk) 07:15, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that that the rationale is somewhere in the following passages:

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)

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)

okay, now that another ship, the ms river anuket, has been reported to have 45 confirmed cases, splitting the counts is looking less like a good idea. currently, having the ships on three different rows is still manageable and not that cluttered, so i'll keep it for now. any other opinions appreciated. dying (talk) 19:23, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't think it's appropriate to split the figures between Egypt and the cruise line. Sources are combining the ship and land count for Egypt, which I suppose is why the Egypt article combines those figures. If we split the figures by ship and land, our table will appear to be lower than the total number in the "country or territory" (the heading in the table). For this reason, I have just joined the ship figures with the land figures as you can see here as this seems to be a more accurate measure.
That said, whether we should even refer to the ship name and link is something that warrants more comments before removal. I think it's sufficient to only refer to Egypt; what do others think? Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:11, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well MS River Anuket is not really an international conveyance, as it is only operating in Egypt. So this probably can be counted as "Egypt". But the other two princess line ships are international. Personally I don't like using the term "international conveyance" as it is harder to understand. We could just use "cruise ships" or just "ships" if we do want to group them. If we have less than about 5 of them, then our table can support a row per ship. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:24, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes the "international conveyance" description does not make things simple; I suppose it comes off of a WHO report. Meanwhile, Nguyen QuocTrung has reverted my change without discussing it here or checking whether his explanation, to "prevent double counting", was actually consistent with reality. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:47, 8 March 2020 (UTC) Struck prior comment as the edit in question appears to be consistent with the discussion here in any case. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:41, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is, how does WHO group them. That would tell us if we have a row for them. That said, I think mentioning the ships as included in a particular country helps against confusion and saves us from prolonged mathematical experiments. As long as the diamond is the only ic counted by the WHO then it makes sense to name it. But in principle ships have no place on a per country table. The Diamond is a special case though, as no country wanted its figures included. Agathoclea (talk) 09:57, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MS Anuket aand Grand Princess should be listed separately, just like how WHO and John Jopkin are doing. M nurhaikal (talk) 11:47, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can see you have moved the Diamond Princess numbers to a separate section in your edit here. That is consistent with the above. However, the territories section would warrant a separate discussion - which is occurring elsewhere on this page possibly. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:41, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Diamond Princess

Why we can't merge Diamond Princess with Japan as it was in this table long before? Mainland Japan has much more cases now, so it won't be overwhelming anymore. --GreenZeb (talk) 10:27, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Because for the case of Diamond Princess, WHO and John Hopkins report them separately. The ship happened to be near Japan so WHO requested for it to be quarantined in Japan. M nurhaikal (talk) 10:31, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 March 2020

Costa Rica Costa Rica Edacunav (talk) 10:29, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I updated this recently. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:50, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Attn : required update

South Korea and Iran confirmed case figures should be updated by now BlackSun2104 (talk) 11:09, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I updated these recently when comparing the JHMap. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:51, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gilbratar


Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 March 2020

i would like to edit please. 193.119.112.97 (talk) 11:18, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Editing of this template is currently restricted to established users. Sun Creator(talk) 11:29, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So please say what you would like to change here, and others will consider and make the change for you—if they like your suggestion. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:53, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Iraqi official in the Karkh health directorate in Baghdad has announced that 6 patients of corona virus have been recovered, this link is reliable news agency in Iraq. it is in Arabic: https://www.alsumaria.tv/news/%D9%85%D8%AD%D9%84%D9%8A%D8%A7%D8%AA/336672/alsumarianews?fbclid=IwAR3KuVYOiX4BYgcJ1m8ZpT-JYPhzZ6dQEH9PXyJMrD392hPQye-CYsbfDiY

Someone should edit the template to reflect this update. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Love iraq (talk • contribs) 11:58, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. source

I found this source, which concludes that U.S.'s the number of confirmed cases is 461 https://coronavirus.1point3acres.com/en Does this include Grand Princess???Luke Kern Choi 5 (talk) 12:37, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 March 2020

Sweden has 189 now. Source: https://www.svt.se/nyheter/utrikes/senaste-nytt-om-coronaviruset Fabben (talk) 12:43, 8 March 2020 (UTC) Fabben (talk) 12:43, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done as higher figure was added here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:21, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

French overseas regions

French Guiana, Martinique, Saint Martin and Saint Barthélémy being French regions, which are integral part of the country, their confirmed cases are already counted in France's count. See official report from the French national public health agency: COVID-19 : Point épidémiologique – Situation au 7 mars 2020 (santepubliquefrance.fr) Hence I'm deleting the autonomous entry as that makes a double count. Metropolitan (talk) 13:03, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Update for the Netherlands

Update table for the Netherlands: 265 cases. 3 deaths in total. Reference: https://www.rivm.nl/nieuws/actuele-informatie-over-coronavirus Jan Vlug (talk) 13:31, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Already done here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:21, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Public Note for Territories

I suggest making a public note for territories because some people might be confused comparing Wikipedia with WHO reports. Can anyone do that? Thanks, Luke Kern Choi 5 (talk) 13:56, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes please. Its confusing really these territories. Gibraltar and Faroe Island is not included in their countries' count under WHO and John Hopkins Map yet I've been told that it is included. M nurhaikal (talk) 14:01, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 March 2020

2 more confirmed cases in Poland. [1], [2] --Natanieluz (talk) 15:34, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:40, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 March 2020

Currently, the case of Gibraltar is still not included in the cases of UK. The number on the website of the UK government is 273 cases, which decomposes as 244 in England, 4 in Wales, 18 in Scotland, and 7 in Northern Ireland, and which DOESN'T include Gibraltar. Please change the number 273 to 274 and make a note saying that the number by the UK government DOESN'T include Gibraltar if the editors would like to include Gibraltar in UK. Chbe113 (talk) 17:48, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Seems fixed with note 'e'. Sun Creator(talk) 20:12, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The note 'e' simply says that Gibraltar is included but it is NOT. The number of current cases in the UK including Gibraltar is 274. What I am saying is that people always copy the number from the UK government which DOESN'T include Gibraltar, so a note should be made in the edition part warning that 'the number from the UK government DOESN'T include Gibraltar'. Chbe113 (talk) 23:00, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is already is a note to that effect. Sun Creator(talk) 11:33, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The note should have mentioned that figures from Johns Hopkins as well as the UK government don't include Gibraltar so editors should always add one to that. And btw, the number of cases in the UK has increased to 319, or 320 with Gibraltar included.Chbe113 (talk) 14:26, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Now there is an extra one from Guernsey (see https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-guernsey-51801804), so the number of cases should be 321 if included Gibraltar and Guernsey.Chbe113 (talk) 14:28, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 March 2020

Update US cases from 490 to 497, per source currently cited NathanHollister (talk) 18:52, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

USA figures have gone past that already, and do we know if Grand Princess is in or not? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:44, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 March 2020

Another 3 cases in Poland confirmed few minutes ago, total of 11 as of 8 March 19:35 UTC. So, change 8 to 11 cases in Poland.[3] [4] Natanieluz (talk) 19:34, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Already updated from JHMap, thank you. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:52, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 March 2020

Latvia has its 3rd case Change the case in Latvia from 2 to 3 80.70.23.57 (talk) 19:49, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What is the source for this change? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:42, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Attn: incorrect figure

The total worldwide confirmed case figure is incorrect, please correct it ASAP. BlackSun2104 (talk) 20:04, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Done, here. Note totals are in constant catchup with ever changing data. Sun Creator(talk) 20:11, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect again. Total cases is shown at 110041, sum of the column is 110067. Deathcount is shown at 3825, sum of column is 3828. Recoveries is shown at 61982, sum of column is 62253. Why not doing at automatic computation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:CB00:B44:1F00:A820:47D0:500E:668E (talk) 09:03, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Automatic doesn't seem possible without making template so complex many won't be able to edit it. Sun Creator(talk) 09:11, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Israel new cases

Israel had 14 new cases in 8.3.2020 Including the 25 cases from previous days, the number of cases currently is 39 cases. מלך הצבים (talk) 20:57, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I've updated the figures. M nurhaikal (talk) 23:07, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 March 2020

I would like to add a reference to the Italian cases: [1]. It is the Italian Protezione Civile's map regarding the COVID-19 cases in Italy, in a national, regional and provincial level. Lorenzo Diana (talk) 20:59, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "COVID-19 ITALIA". opendatadpc.maps.arcgis.com. Retrieved 2020-03-08.
I have added it in. See if others think it is worth while for this table. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:49, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 March 2020

Iceland 50 to 58.

Source: Þrír farþegar úr Veróna fluginu smitaðir af COVID-19, https://www.ruv.is/frett/thrir-farthegar-ur-verona-fluginu-smitadir-af-covid-19, The Icelandic National Broadcasting Service (RÚV) 08.03.2020 - 20:21 Sylgja (talk) 21:12, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated Iceland for you. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:09, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 March 2020

Slovakia has 5 confirmed cases and not 3. (2020_coronavirus_outbreak_in_Slovakia is already updated.) Rudolf Adamkovic (talk) 21:24, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Done To reply, copy and paste this: {{replyto|Can I Log In}}(Talk) 22:14, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also @Adamkovic:, I would ask you for future request to cite your sources with secondary sources and not wikipedia articles because they are not fact checked. I did find sources to confirm your reqeust, but please put theme in your future reuqest. To reply, copy and paste this: {{replyto|Can I Log In}}(Talk) 22:17, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 March 2020

Poland Poland[1] 11 0 0
  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference JHMap was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Poland already updated to 11. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:54, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

John Hopkins Ireland vs Republic of Ireland

I've noticed that John Hopkins list both of them down. According to their figures, Ireland has 19 cases while Rep of Ireland has 21. Aren't they the same country? M nurhaikal (talk) 23:09, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Many times, yes. Ireland could also mean Rep of Ireland plus Northern Ireland. Either way John Hopkins have this incorrect, and appears they duplicate reporting under two different names. All the aggregator sites I've checked appear to show countries/territories slightly differently when it comes to the detail. Sun Creator(talk) 00:38, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WHO, CDC and ECDC all only use 'Ireland'. So it's unclear how 'Republic of Ireland' got into the John Hopkins data. Sun Creator(talk) 00:55, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We will have to subtract one "country" off the total they have. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:42, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is fixed now. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:16, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Came to say the same. Republic of Ireland is no longer found on John Hopkins. Sun Creator(talk) 11:37, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Johns Hopkins CSSE vs this template.

The above are differences in regions/territories. Sun Creator(talk) 01:13, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Same thing for Faroe Islands. I would just replicate the list from the JHU's CSSE website. My two cents. --Checco (talk) 05:49, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
UK, according to Wikipedia's article, is made up Great Britain, northern eastern part of an island of Ireland and a number of smaller islands which include Gibraltor and Guernsey - noting that the latter two are among thes List of islands of the United Kingdom. However, these are in figures here but that is a website specifically for England. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:11, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 March 2020

Hungary has now 9 confirmed cases instead of 7 as of today. Do we consider local sources as well or only global ones as WHO? Florofill (talk) 09:10, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Already done. Please keep us informed of local sources too. While it may take a while to update, the local sources will give a further form of verification. Thank you, Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:09, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 March 2020

Nigeria now has a second case: https://twitter.com/BNODesk/status/1236963066551681025 Conker The King (talk) 11:43, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Done feminist (talk) 12:28, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 March 2020 - Fatalities in Germany

No data to this Scisne (talk) 12:19, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No sources are stating any fatalities in Germany so far, and the "no data" entry is pure speculation, in fact it is believable since both the outbreak in Germany and the infected people are comparably young. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.21.254.152 (talk) 12:21, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The source is given on the left. Johns Hopkins CSSE says "No data" if you click the country. Sun Creator(talk) 12:27, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for giving the explanation, but i think you might be getting it wrong here. No data pops up if you click on the country on the left panel it says no data on panel below 0 deaths. I am not sure if that means there is no data on death counts. I think it just means there is no data on the locations of the deaths.
--Scisne (talk) 12:32, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think there is "No data", because what kind of data should they provide about 0 cases? It's showing "no data" in all countries with 0 fatalities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.21.254.152 (talk) 12:36, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The number of cases is given as 0 for all of those countries but there is no further data in the space below the number of deaths - check China where the deaths are subdivided in that space! "No data" and "0" are fundamentally different informations (we have no data vs. we have data and no deaths have been reported), so using "no data" here is simply wrong and also representing the source incorrectly. This is what feeds conspiracy theories about meida hiding data... Please change this back! -- Cymothoa exigua (talk) 12:41, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It should be changed back to 0 anyways, i believe this might be poor ui design that is a bit confusing. But the source clearly states 0 deaths, that is what we should list too.
--Scisne (talk) 12:38, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I take your point. It's ambiguous. In some territories 0 is because nothing has been reported. Perhaps leave cell blank? Sun Creator(talk) 12:45, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would just change it all back to 0, now there is *empty* and 0 mixed in the table. I understand that the 0 might jsut be a lack of reporting. But the same could be true for any data, the number of cases and deaths are never 100% reliable as proven by the wide range of case fatality rates. nevertheless I think we should list the exact number from hopkins --Scisne (talk) 13:03, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Total Deaths 0 (https://gisanddata.maps.arcgis.com/apps/opsdashboard/index.html#/bda7594740fd40299423467b48e9ecf6) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2788:103A:DFE:CCAE:85D6:F9A3:F1C0 (talk) 12:58, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Active cases

Just to get consensus - should 'Active cases' be added to the table? It would be fairly informative - one would be able to see how many are actually in the countries. It's on here for sources. Sir Magnus (talk)

First case in Guernsey

The first case in Guernsey (Channel Islands) was reported: https://www.itv.com/news/channel/2020-03-09/first-case-of-coronavirus-confirmed-in-the-channel-islands/ Please include that in the list. 193.27.220.254 (talk) 12:49, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done as this is already included in the UK count as stated in the table; see table footnote (e). Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:34, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I do not regard this as formally correct, since Guernsey is not a part of the UK. Any better ideas to be formally and intuitively correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gyokuro-du-Rhin (talk • contribs) 15:46, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You can raise your query at Talk:United Kingdom and Talk:List of islands of the United Kingdom to see if there is a consensus that supports your view of 'correct' to make the necessary changes at Wikipedia's main article which is the cause of this issue. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:54, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Canada edit request on 9 March 2020

Canada's total cases as reported by Health Canada is 62 as of 8 March. Please change reference to: Health Canada COVID-19 Update

John Hopkins CSSE seems to have an error in the Canadian number. Rishiyur1 (talk) 13:15, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:33, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 March 2020

Iceland 58 to 60. Thanks!

Source: Tveir til viðbótar úr Verónaflugi smitaðir (09.03.2020 - 13:10), The Icelandic National Broadcasting Service (RÚV), https://www.ruv.is/frett/tveir-til-vidbotar-ur-veronaflugi-smitadir Sylgja (talk) 13:18, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:16, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

109 countries and territories

The table says 108, worldometers.info says 109 - which is right, and what is the 'missing' territory? Sir Magnus (talk) 13:57, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 March 2020

Change deaths in United Kingdom from 3 to 4 84.9.179.12 (talk) 15:38, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:13, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Quality of sources

We need to be mindful of the quality of the sourcing that is used. ' Daniel.Cardenas removed existing sourcing for US numbers and replaced it here with "coronavirus.1point3acres.com/en". A review of the source suggests the numbers are maintained by "...a group of first generation Chinese immigrants in the United States...[who] built this real time coronavirus/covid-19 tracker for US and Canada to bring more transparency to the public and increase awareness about the global epidemic." How can it be said that this amounts to a reliable source by any stretch of the imagination? Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:42, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The website list sources for the information. Seems well maintained to me. Information is more reliable than previous source.   Thanks for asking, Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 15:51, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Right, but it is a self-published source with no actual reputation for fact-checking. I will not attempt to figure out the basis upon which you say the information in this source is acceptable, let alone "more reliable" than the previous source, as the onus is on you as the editor who inserted the source. Re-inserting the source, as you did here, without building consensus to do so is plainly disruptive. If you want to continue using it, you can discuss it at the reliable sources noticeboard in the first instance or here. Thanks, Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:28, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would second Ncmvocalist. It's a Self Published source and by default should be considered as not suitable. At a later date it may end up being conferred some reliability but right now it's utterly dependent upon their ability to "fact check". Koncorde (talk) 17:27, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I also oppose this source, this is clearly not a well-established source and should not be used by Wikipedia as a source. Clearly not WP:RS as its self published. We can use CSSE instead, which has been published in a peer reviewed scientific journal (Lancet) and is pretty up to date. --hroest 17:31, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed; hroest, could you please update the citation? Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:55, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 March 2020

Change Netherlands cases to 321, deaths 3 and recoveries 2 sources: https://www.rivm.nl/nieuws/actuele-informatie-over-coronavirus ; https://nos.nl/liveblog/2326256-kinderen-uit-coevorden-besmet-met-coronavirus-portugese-president-in-quarantaine.html thank you Henkeeyy (talk) 15:59, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Partly done - cases and deaths updated, but unable to verify recoveries elsewhere. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:09, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 March 2020

GOOD DAY!

Please change (20) twenty to (24) twenty-four on the row of the Philippines. Thanks!

https://www.rappler.com/nation/253913-new-confirmed-novel-coronavirus-cases-march-9-2020 John Arnold Francisco (talk) 16:22, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:28, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 March 2020

I request a change to the explanatory footnote (efn) [a] in Denmark, from 'Includes Faroe Islands, an autonomous territory of Denmark.' to 'Includes cases in the Faroe Islands, an autonomous territory of Denmark.'. Lorenzo Diana (talk) 17:55, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:03, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Add a column

I think there should be added a column "active cases" which will calculate: (cases) - (deaths) - (recovers). Johnperdikas (talk) 18:06, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 March 2020

Data in Spain is 1,102 | 28 (not 30 yet!) | 32 Mcsmp (talk) 18:14, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Done, thank you. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:21, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 March 2020

Change confirmed cases in Poland to 17. [5]- Twitter of the Polish Minister of Health, [6] - information from the Polish media (TVN24) and worldometers.info [7] Natanieluz (talk) 18:17, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 March 2020

Bahrain Bahrain[1] NemoCatalog (talk) 18:22, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Attn: Urgent Update required

Confirmed case figures need updating. The worldwide confirmed case figure is incorrect.


Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha> tags or {{efn}} templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}} template or {{notelist}} template (see the help page).

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference JHMap was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:COVID-19_pandemic_data&oldid=944751227"