Template talk:COVID-19 pandemic data

What sources should we use?

Citing references that DO NOT support the content

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Live numbers are not encyclopedic

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

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

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

The template size and placement isn't the issue. It might be better bigger to add columns to indicate the time of figures 'as of: 13 March 13:21-UTC' which would remove the requirement to remove a reference when it's slightly out-of-date. Also a separate article page might be an idea then it can be complete collapsed in the main article. Sun Creator^(talk) 11:23, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

switch from johns hopkins to worldofmeters

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Johns Hopkins and Worldometers disagree on the US

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

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

Should this have wrong information from aggregator websites?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

source for germany

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

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

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

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

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

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

1point vs worldOmeter

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

Johns Hopkins University (JHU) not updating

In some case over 24 hours out-of-date despite clear official numbers. For example, UK "As of 9am on 12 March 2020, 29,764 people have been tested in the UK, of which 29,174 were confirmed negative and 590 were confirmed as positive." That was now over 24 hours ago, but JHU still says UK cases is 451. Sun Creator^(talk) 09:54, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

JHU and Worldmeter are unreliable. We should use the official data of respective countries or WHO even if they are updated once a day. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It is a shame to use popular and easy sources for references.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 10:00, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately some people, including administrators, remove out-of-date sources, so official sources get removed when a reliable source gives an update. I have considered adding a column for the official source in addition to the existing reference column. Sun Creator^(talk) 10:23, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Don't add more columns though. The table is wide enough for a phone screen already. Comment out the reference and leave a comment note about its use. Many people want to keep it more updated than official sources allow. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:00, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Plenty of wider tables on Wikipedia. Could have it's own article like COVID-19 testing. Sun Creator^(talk) 13:40, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

agreed. if wikipedia doesn't keep its citations to either official or reputable reliable sources, then there is no reason why wikipedia should be relied on above other unreliable aggregate sources.

as the commonly-used aggregate sources (johns hopkins, worldometers, and bno) all seem to have issues with their reporting, i'd suggest using updates from both official government sources and local reputable reliable sources (e.g., mbl.is for iceland but not for brazil), using who as the only default aggregate source when the former sources do not suffice, and reverting any edits that ignore this convention. there may be instances where exceptions might be made (e.g., germany), but we can address exceptions made for each such country separately.

also, adding an additional column for the official source sounds like it could be a good idea. although the table may be wide enough for a phone screen already, the column would likely not be that wide itself, likely being populated by only one or two superscript numbers per row. however, i am admittedly not editing over a phone, so i don't have firsthand experience over whether adding even a narrow column would be too much. dying (talk) 16:34, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Reporting Denmark as 1,573. Seems that JHU has some problems. Sun Creator^(talk) 23:53, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

United Kingdom as 3, no deaths and 1 recovered. Sun Creator^(talk) 23:55, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 March 2020

Tunisia has one recovered case so far 145.253.232.146 (talk) 09:59, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Checked multiple sites, but no source found for that. Sun Creator^(talk) 10:08, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 March 2020

I am in charge of the statistics on the page for the Corona pandemic in Sweden. All I would like to do is to update the numbers for Sweden, as it's often behind schedule, sometimes by as much as 24 hours. CarlWalterMolina (talk) 11:10, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Well currently our table says 727 cases. Is that right? Is there a government statistics or some other page that updates more rapidly than the World of Meters for Sweden? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:58, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Update data

I want to update data on data of recovered cases in Indonesia, but i cannot edit this because the template is extended-protected. Please update the aforementioned. Citation: https://news.detik.com/berita/d-4938023/kasus-positif-corona-di-ri-jadi-69 Recoveries: 5 Akmaie Ajam (talk) 11:48, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 March 2020

Netherlands now has 803 total confirmed cases and 10 deaths (https://www.rivm.nl/nieuws/actuele-informatie-over-coronavirus)

Netherlands Dutchhelper12 (talk) 13:07, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

 Already done. thanks for providing an official government source. dying (talk) 18:18, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Guadeloupe

I found that there's 1 case in Guadeloupe per Worldometer Please check this. Thanks, Luke Kern Choi 5 (talk) 13:34, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

thanks for pointing that out. worldometers cited radio caraïbes international, which, according to french wikipedia, is one of the major radio stations of guadeloupe, but is a privately-owned station. i dug a little deeper and found that guadeloupe la première is a local television station fully-owned by the french government. i've added a citation to a relevant article on their site, and added the number to the one currently being shown for france. dying (talk) 17:53, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Needs to update table

Kazakhstan 3 cases, Palestine 35, Bosnia 13. https://www.usnews.com/news/world/articles/2020-03-13/kazakhstan-confirms-first-coronavirus-cases , https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/#countries --138.75.187.123 (talk) 14:57, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

can you provide either an official government source or a local reputable reliable source? alternatively, can you explain why neither would be sufficient and provide a replacement source? thanks in advance. dying (talk) 18:15, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Brazil Update

There are 147 confirmed cases in Brazil as of March 13 LGCR (talk) 15:18, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

can you provide either an official government source or a local reputable reliable source? alternatively, can you explain why neither would be sufficient and provide a replacement source? thanks in advance. dying (talk) 17:15, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Please add serial number in table so that change in position of countries by number of cases could be monitored Waqasmwi (talk) 07:56, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 March 2020

4 new confirmed cases in Poland (total of 68) [1] - Polish MOH official twitter Natanieluz (talk) 16:04, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

 Done. thanks for providing a source. dying (talk) 17:09, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 March 2020

Confirmed cases in Iceland are now up to 134. The Directorate of Health and The Department of Civil Protection and Emergency Management are responsible for this website. An indevidual (talk) 17:32, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

 Done. thanks for providing an official government source. dying (talk) 17:38, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 March 2020

The Philippines now has 64 confirmed cases according to the latest news I heard. Jumark27 (talk) 17:40, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

can you provide either an official government source or a local reputable reliable source? alternatively, can you explain why neither would be sufficient and provide a replacement source? thanks in advance. dying (talk) 17:54, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

The number has been updated, but if you have a source for the update, please provide it, else no one will update without a reference. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:38, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Sr No. Column must be added so that change in country's position could be monitored Waqasmwi (talk) 08:00, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

edit request 13 march 2020

the italian recoveries are 1439, as is reported in the source in the template — Preceding unsigned comment added by Francomemoria (talk • contribs) 17:56, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

 Done. thanks for referring to the cited source. dying (talk) 18:06, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 March 2020

Please update confirmed cases count for Czech Republic to 141. According to official web of Ministry of Health of the Czech Republic: https://onemocneni-aktualne.mzcr.cz/covid-19 Garyczek (talk) 18:16, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

 Done. thanks for providing an official government source. dying (talk) 18:23, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Attn : France

France confirmed case figure needs updating. BlackSun2104 (talk) 18:32, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Attn : table

The confirmed case figures of several countries do not tally. BlackSun2104 (talk) 19:15, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 March 2020

Change data for Canada (number of confirmed cases at least). GOV source is https://www.canada.ca/en/public-health/services/diseases/2019-novel-coronavirus-infection.html and is found in a table just a little bit down from the top of the webpade (updated daily). Right now you have CP24, a news outlet as the source and it conflicts with government confirmed cases. 2001:1970:5AA7:C900:6506:6E2D:C3C5:8763 (talk) 19:19, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

The number appears to be superseded. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:59, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Attn : required updates

Figures need updating by now. BlackSun2104 (talk) 20:06, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Per Capita data

Is there any way a "per capita" column could be added?

This information seems extremely hard to find anywhere online, and would be useful for many.

Thanks, Anon :). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:BB6:1BC4:C258:344D:A7E8:8DDF:BFDD (talk) 20:13, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

You can see this column in https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/ . However as it is too difficult for us to maintain, it has not been happening here. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:09, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 March 2020

second confirmed dead in Poland (total of 2) [2] - Polish MOH Natanieluz (talk) 21:00, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

 Done thanks for providing an official government source. dying (talk) 21:18, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Attn : discrepancies.

The confirmed case figures of several affected nations do not tally. BlackSun2104 (talk) 21:18, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

You are going to have to be specific to say what the nations are and what you are tallying with. Otherwise we cannot do anything. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:58, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 March 2020

In Pakistan total cases are now 28 https://www.geo.tv/latest/277182-pakistan-has-28-confirmed-cases-of-coronavirus-dr-zafar-mirza NomanPK44 (talk) 22:12, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

 Already done. Thank you for the source though! RayDeeUx (talk) 23:54, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 March 2020

Panama has 36 confirmed cases. Source: https://www.tvn-2.com/nacionales/coronaviruus-lleva_0_5532196812.html 190.219.162.190 (talk) 00:26, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

It was updated. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:31, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

MOS:SMALLFONT

@Checco and Admanny:, you've both referenced some "consensus" about putting "Mainland" in small font. I see none here. Not to mention, whatever consensus you come to doesn't override MOS:SMALLFONT: Avoid using smaller font sizes within elements that already use a smaller font size, such as infoboxes, navboxes, and reference sections. This means that ... tags, and templates such as {{small}} and {{smaller}}, should not be applied to already-reduced text within those elements. Under no circumstances should the resulting font size of any text drop below 85% of the page's default font size (i.e. 11.9 px in Vector skin or 10.8 px in Monobook) – Muboshgu (talk) 01:07, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_185#Template:2019–20_Wuhan_coronavirus_data Feel free to open another RfC now that the table size has decreased, but specific-case consensus should always take precedent first. Admanny (talk) 04:38, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree with User:Admanny. However, I am going to open a RCF in order to have the list consistent with List of countries and dependencies by population, that is no "mainland" for China, all territories and dependencies separate from respective countries and so on. --Checco (talk) 09:48, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 March 2020

The case numbers in Northern Cyprus (Turkish Republic of) are not included in the announcements by Republic of Cyprus. TRNC must be included as a separate territory. There are currently 5 detected cases. Canerguclu (talk) 03:41, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Added. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:57, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

The order of the columns

The columns should actually be in the logical order of progression, i.e. "Cases → Recoveries → Deaths" rather than "Cases → Deaths → Recoveries"; you get the disease, you start the recovering process and so on. That's the order on Infobox pandemic as well. Zarex (talk) 04:50, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Dependencies and unrecognised states issues

I think even the channel islands are not overseas territories, they're still crown dependencies who subject to British administration, especially on their health services? The point why there's no controversy in separating Taiwanese, macanese and hong-kongan data from the Chinese one is because they all have their own government and health departments.

Also, we probably should not add unrecognised states to the chart and their data should be incorporated to the countries who have internationally recognised legitimate governance over those area of concern. Pktlaurence (talk) 05:06, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

We should have them listed and not have politics interfering. If some area has an independent health jurisdiction and reporting, and our sources report that way, then we should also report them as such. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:23, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

First, dear Graeme, it would be appreciated if you would kindly move your NC discussions into this thread.

Next, I will judge with points of these accordances: I) Does the Cypriot government and/or health department include NC cases in their own data? This would be the most important point of concern; if they don't, NC cases should probably be separated. II) Does NC have their own health department? I honestly don't know much about that place other than the greeks and Turks having cutthroat fights over this little island.

Northern Cyprus has its own independent health system, their numbers are not included in Turkey's or Rep of Cyprus's data. De facto it is a sovereign and a full state organization. I understand the worry of de jure status sparking discussions, however this is a data collection by "territory" in practice .Canerguclu (talk) 18:20, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Regardless, all Dependencies cases goes into their sovereign nation's data, including Cayman and Channel Islands and isles of man etc, there's probably a consensus and definitely no debate in that. Pktlaurence (talk) 06:58, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 March 2020

"Change the number of infected people in the Mexico Column, as of today the Mexican Government has confirmed there are now 26 cases. The cases have doubled since last Wednesday. 26 cases confirmed. 105 under observation. Milenio.com (In Spanish) The number of confirmed cases in Mexico increases to 26. Elfinanciero.com (In Spanish) Fantom261092 (talk) 04:57, 14 March 2020 (UTC) Fantom261092 (talk) 04:57, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

References

Updated, thanks Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:30, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Update Vietnam

CDC Vietnam confirmed case 48 with 3 severes. Please update now. https://tuoitre.vn/tp-hcm-co-ca-benh-48-lien-quan-ca-covid-19-thu-34-o-binh-thuan-20200314103918362.htm 2601:204:E37F:FFF1:4901:15B7:B916:1781 (talk) 05:14, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Updated, thanks. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:30, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

https://www.cnn.ph/news/2020/3/14/coronavirus-death-philippines.html Jumark27 (talk) 09:29, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

North Cyprus

Some areas of limited recognition are cropping up. North Cyprus is a territory with cases that are not counted in Cyprus. They are verifiable by other references, but not by WOMC. I have inserted this entry. But what is the consensus. Should it be included or not? What kind of extra note is required? I note also that Kosovo is included in the table, a territory not widely recognised as a country. I support having all these areas of limited recognition listed separately rather than causing confusion by lumping them together and then needing an explanation about why sources do not support the figures given. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:17, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Please comment at #RfC on countries/dependencies. No need to talk more in this section. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:40, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 March 2020

Another column with Currently infected people should be added. Right now the numbers include Dead and reovered cases, which skyrockets the number. Actual infected number is not 1,40,000. Agniv742101 (talk) 06:31, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree. 99.168.78.139 (talk) 08:07, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. To add another column to this template would most likely require a throughout discussion. Use of the edit request templates is for non-controversial edit requests that can be implemented without a consensus. Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 08:41, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

The (country of the) Netherlands vs the Kingdom of the Netherlands

The country of the Netherlands consists of:

• the European (part of the) Netherlands
• the Caribbean (part of the) Netherlands, which consists of the (overseas) public bodies:
  • Bonaire
  • Sint Eustatius
  • Saba

The RIVM (National Institute for Public Health and the Environment) is responsible for (the country of) the Netherlands. Among other things, it takes responsibility for counting and publishing verified positive cases for COVID-19 in this country (but not recoveries; they are not registered).

The Kingdom of the Netherlands consists of:

• (the country of) the Netherlands (as described above)
• Aruba
• Curaçao
• Sint Maarten

Aruba has its Directie Volksgezondheid . Curaçao has its Volksgezondheid Instituut Curaçao . Sint Maarten has its Department of Public Health .

Contrary to the remark in the reference behind the name of the Netherlands in the table on https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:2019%E2%80%9320_coronavirus_pandemic_data&action=edit, I have not been able to find any indication, let alone proof, that the case count for the Netherlands would include Aruba and Curaçao.

Would the author of that remark please elaborate on this?Redav (talk) 08:47, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 March 2020

Update confirmed cases in Hungary (scroll down a bit and it will show) Synxify (talk) 09:03, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

 Done --Drabdullayev17 (talk) 10:00, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

References

Puerto Rico

Puerto Rico should be a separate record, the same way it is listed separately (apart from the US) on the John Hopkins site. There are confirmed cases as of today.--The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 09:17, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 March 2020

16 more confirmed cases in Poland (total of 84) [3] Natanieluz (talk) 09:23, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

 Done Natanieluz thank you for info. --Drabdullayev17 (talk) 09:54, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Philippines

Philippines now has 8 deaths in COVID-19...

Source: https://www.cnn.ph/news/2020/3/14/coronavirus-death-philippines.html

Jumark27 (talk) 09:27, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

The number is included. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:08, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 March 2020

Remove Puerto Rico as its own row, since it is already included in the count for the United States. Alexander V. B. (talk) 10:11, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

We need to discuss this in the following section. Please join in a discussion. There was just a request to add it in and it has been added and removed a few times without a clear consensus yet. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:46, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

RfC on countries/dependencies

I think we need to have the countries/territories/dependencies issue settled once for all.
Are territories and dependencies (full list from List of countries and dependencies by population: Hong Kong, Puerto Rico, Macau, New Caledonia, French Polynesia, Guam, Curaçao, Aruba, Jersey, U.S. Virgin Islands, Isle of Man, Cayman Islands, Bermuda, Guernsey, American Samoa, Greenland, Northern Mariana Islands, Faroe Islands, Turks and Caicos Islands, Sint Maarten, Saint Martin, Gibraltar, British Virgin Islands, Åland Islands, Cook Islands, Anguilla, Wallis and Futuna, Saint Barthélemy, Saint Pierre and Miquelon, Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha, Montserrat, Falkland Islands, Christmas Island, Norfolk Island, Niue, Tokelau, Cocos (Keeling) Islands, Pitcairn Islands) as well as scarcely or not universally recognised countries (Taiwan, Kosovo, Western Sahara, Transnistria, Northern Cyprus, Abkhazia, Artsakh, South Ossetia) to be included in their respective countries' counts or not?
As of now, two dependent territories (namely Hong Kong and Macau, so that China is referred to as "China (mainland)"), along with scarcely or not universally recognised countries are listes separately from their respective countries, others are not. The count is made more complicate by the fact that most sources (notably including Coronavirus COVID-19 Global Cases by Johns Hopkins CSSE and Coronavirus Update - Worldometer) list all dependencies separately.
Please, have your say! --Checco (talk) 10:24, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

• My guess is that we should be completely consistent with List of countries and dependencies by population and several other articles. In fact, in Wikipedia it is customary to list and/or consider territories and/or dependencies separately from respective countries for statistical purposes. Dependent territories are never included in their respective countries' counts. As a consequence, in our template mainland China should be referred simply as China. --Checco (talk) 10:26, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
• I think that the territories and remote parts of countries should be considered separately. Unfortunately that means more lines in the table. But at least we can follow sources that we use. China has to have the "(mainland)" on it to prevent confusion, and this was heavily discussed in earlier weeks. Though I do not support use of "small" for it. We certainly need a consensus on it as there are many reversals on these entries, and confusion. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:39, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Note that earlier discussion Template talk:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data/Archive 3#Guernsey clearly supported Guernsey (and possibly Jersey) as having its own entry. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:53, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
    • I disagree on China, on both respects. Why should we add "mainland" here? In no other list, in which Hong Kong and Macau are listed separately, there is such thing as "mainland China". If "mainland" has to stay, let's have it smaller, at least. --Checco (talk) 10:58, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
      • The reason is that we avoid excessively small text as it is too hard to read for some. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:01, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
        • Indeed. I would remove "mainland" or, at least, make it less evident. --Checco (talk) 11:18, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
          • Removing "mainland" while listing it as such and parallel to HK and Macau would violate WP:NPOV.Rethliopuks (talk) 13:51, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
            • Not at all. Hong Kong and Macau have a different status and, by the way, are on the mainland! It is "mainland" which is hardly NPOV and, indeed, it virtually never mentioned in lists in Wikipedia. --Checco (talk) 14:16, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
              • You're mistaken, my friend. "Mainland", perhaps confusingly, refers to the area claimed by PRC that excludes Hong Kong, Macau, and Taiwan. So, Macau is geographically part of the continent but it's not part of "Mainland", and Hainan which is a real island is. The reason? It's because "Mainland China" is a term propelled into existence by political needs rather than geographic. Rethliopuks (talk) 14:22, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
                • Again, this template is a strange exception in Wikipedia. Differently from here: 1) dependent territories are usually listed separately. 2) China is usually listed as "China" also in tables and lists where Hong Kong and Macau are listed separately. Big inconsistency! Again, just take a look to List of countries and dependencies by population --Checco (talk) 17:14, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
• We need to discuss few criteria, independantly otherwise democracy is a MESS.
  Populations: Every political area with population >1~5 million should be included. Micro states (Andorra, Vatican, etc) shouldn't.
  Status / Dependencies: territories should be attached to the de facto highest authority, judged by tax flow, police, army. Thereby: most dependencies will be attached to their upper authority as a 'province/region/...'.
  Scarcely or not universally recognized countries if population is notable >1~5 millions, fiscally, militarily independent : Taiwan, Kosovo, Western Sahara, Transnistria, Northern Cyprus, Abkhazia, Artsakh, South Ossetia.
  Core idea => We don't do politics, a reporting authority is included ; We reduce to highest reporting autority (Island of Man => UK, etc) ; we push away micro-micro-state. Yug (talk) 10:53, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Probably a bad idea to exclude any state for its population, because this is supposed to be a global count. Rethliopuks (talk) 13:57, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

• The problem I see is when a territory whose de facto sovereignty is widely disputed and when the territory has yet been added. Thus Taiwan is not an issue because the scheme is mainland China, Hong Kong, Macau, Taiwan -- listing four regions thus circumventing the sovereignty issue. One present problem is Northern Cyprus: the territory has now seen confirmed cases, so as a global count the cases should be included. Do we have a WP:NPOV solution that allows listing the cases in the territory one way or another? Rethliopuks (talk) 13:55, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Northern Cyprus should be included as a separate line… Cyprus is not including the Northern Cyprus cases in its reports, and it makes no sense to completely exclude Northern Cyprus from the table (the cases still exist). The issue with dependencies is unrelated as they are not independent (recognised or unrecognised) and (most?) are not claiming to be so their totals are generally included in the main country’s reports. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.77.220.109 (talk) 15:41, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree that Northern Cyprus should be listed separately, it can be put in italics or something, but we can't just exclude its cases Extended Cut (talk) 17:10, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Since the numbers are patients under health authority's control, what should be showed is which health authority is actually overall responsible for that patients. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.193.47.172 (talk) 14:27, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

• List of countries by population (United Nations) is another list.Selfstudier (talk) 15:20, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Not all countries are recognised by the UN and/or are members of it. And, by the way, also in that list dependent territories are listed separately from their respective countries and China is listed as just "China" (even though Hong Kong and Macau are listed separately). Thanks, User:Selfstudier for your point! --Checco (talk) 17:14, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

193 UN member states (+2 non member observer states) and 233 in that list (you can reconcile it with the other one, some are in, some are not).Selfstudier (talk) 17:58, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Are numbers from Puerto Rico counted twice? It says that US cases include Puerto Rico's, yet it's still listed separately.Extended Cut (talk) 17:16, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 March 2020

In Indonesia, change deaths to 5 and recovered to 8 Source: A: https://www.cnnindonesia.com/nasional/20200314160309-20-483417/update-corona-14-maret-96-positif-5-meninggal-8-sembuh B: https://nasional.kompas.com/read/2020/03/14/16452961/update-tambah-3-total-8-orang-sembuh-dari-corona-di-indonesia C: https://www.liputan6.com/news/read/4201933/update-corona-di-indonesia-96-positif-8-sembuh-5-orang-meninggal-dunia Goodboy121 (talk) 11:28, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

 Already done–someone else has updated the values before I had a chance to do so. Thanks for the sources though! RayDeeUx (talk) 13:22, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

while I'm fine with adding that column, it should be sorted by number of cases, not number of active cases. This would cause confusion and sooner or later, it will not be in order. M nurhaikal (talk) 15:03, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

I too, am against the active column because its difficult to maintain an accurate and up-to-date as it is. While useful, its not practical and is secondary data. I vote to remove them. M nurhaikal (talk) 15:09, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 March 2020 regarding Sweden's semi-suspension of infection testing

Append "Sweden" in the data table with an annotation;
Testing of suspected infections has been semi-suspended in certain regions as of 12th March, in order to focus efforts on people with increased risk of serious illness and complications.
(Update SVT statement) "According to the recommendations of the Public Health Authority at this time, only persons in need of care or who are already admitted to hospitals with coronavirus symptoms should be tested. This has a significant impact on the figures for the number of cases in Sweden. The following figures are thus an under-reporting of the actual number of cases and show only those that have been tested - not all that have the corona virus." (Existing source https://www.svt.se/datajournalistik/the-spread-of-the-coronavirus/)
Source: https://www.expressen.se/nyheter/beslutet-personer-med-symtom-ska-inte-provtas/
Source: https://sverigesradio.se/sida/artikel.aspx?programid=103&artikel=7427169
Source: https://www.svt.se/nyheter/inrikes/ny-nationell-strategi-farre-coronatester
(Update additional source): https://www.svt.se/nyheter/lokalt/stockholm/farre-kommer-provtas-for-corona-i-stockholm
Vitdom (talk) 12:01, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

 Done. However, the language of the annotation may change to fit the needs of the article. Thanks for the sources! RayDeeUx (talk) 13:40, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 March 2020

Ireland has 91 confirmed cases. Fungebob (talk) 12:15, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

 Not done–please provide a source. The source that the Republic of Ireland cites states 90 cases as of 13 March 2020. RayDeeUx (talk) 13:13, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 March 2020

Malta: 18 total, including 1 recovered. https://timesofmalta.com/articles/view/five-new-coronavirus-cases-taking-maltas-total-to-18.778007 46.11.80.248 (talk) 12:23, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

 Done as per values in core source which also shows the same numbers. Thanks for providing a source though! RayDeeUx (talk) 13:18, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 March 2020

9 new cases in Poland (total of 93) [4] Natanieluz (talk) 12:37, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

 Done as per values in core source. Thanks for including a source though! RayDeeUx (talk) 13:19, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 March 2020

Change Estonia cases from 79 to 109. Source: https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/#countries Plienas26 (talk) 12:41, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

 Already done. Someone else has updated the values before I had a chance to do so. Thanks for the reminder anyways! RayDeeUx (talk) 13:20, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Adding population columns to the table.

Would it be possible to add a column that would display the number of infections per 1000 residents or another denominator that would allow for comparing data in relation to the total population of the country? Haider254 (talk) 12:52, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

This can be disregarded, I noticed this was already discussed earlier. I will try to delete this post if possible. If not, I apologise for my hasty question. Haider254 (talk) 12:54, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

"Active" column

I am strongly against the "active" colum, which was added with no clear consensus. It is a at best misplaced on the right and it is quite redundant. I am asking User:Rethliopuks to remove it and seek consensus first. A RfC can be started too. --Checco (talk) 13:58, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree with that. This column is unnecessary, and makes the table slightly less readable. Doster123 (talk) 14:19, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

I actually thought an "active" column would make the table more readable for the readers that want to know the current situation of the pandemic as opposed to a historical aggregate (this is useful for many purposes e.g. answering "how 'dangerous' re: COVID-19 is region X now?"). A few examples of the functions this column serves: it makes clear how many cases remain open in mainland China, which is by no means otherwise clear at a glance (are there more cases than Italy? Fewer than Iran? etc.); it puts Macau to the bottom of the list as it has currently no active cases; it puts Japan below Belgium and Singapore below Estonia because both has fewer active cases than the other.

This column may not be globally distinctly useful for the moment, but in at most a few weeks it will be. Currently for most countries, "active" ≈ "confirmed", but that is only because the pandemic is at its nascent stage for the majority of number of countries. Already the table is being confusing/unuseful for a few countries in E/SE Asia as it doesn't reflect the progression of the pandemic well.

While this column is arithmetically redundant, it is not time-wise redundant. Calculation takes time and resources which the reader may not be able to realistically afford. It's like why nearly all COVID-19 data templates list both "new on the day" and "total as of the day", even though one of these columns is totally arithmetically redundant. (I'm actually not aware of any template that does not have the two separate columns) Rethliopuks (talk) 14:43, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Clearly, there has never been and there is no consensus for the "active" column. --Checco (talk) 17:15, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

agreed. it is so often requested by people who haven't searched through the talk page archives for previous discussions about this that i think we should try to keep an explanation on the bottom of this talk page. (realistically, no one looks at the top of the page, where, for example, it says who situation reports are one of our core sources.)

also, although rethliopuks has had extensive experience dealing with editing data from this pandemic as evinced from his list of contributions (which i highly commend rethliopuks for), the experience is largely on mostly static tables of data. while i agree that data of this nature is useful (and indeed should be added to less dynamic tables), i believe the idea of such columns for this specific table have been generally rejected by editors regularly updating this specific table. if i am counting correctly, rethliopuks appears to only have about 15 edits to this table, with only 6 of them in the past few days (and likely centered around adding the column), so i don't blame rethliopuks on believing that adding the column was a good idea. i should also note that i have no issues with adding this column once the pandemic is over.

as the column may be getting quickly out of date and is being an active nuisance for editors right now, i will boldly remove the column if someone else comments their approval of doing so below, as i am assuming consensus has been achieved. dying (talk) 18:33, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 March 2020

Confirmed cases in the United Kingdom: 802 -> 1,140 .

Here's the source (a citation from the country's wikipedia page about the pandemic): [5]

Alphazelf (talk) 14:47, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

 Already done QueerFilmNerd^talk 15:25, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Change source and number for Georgia

• the Gov's official website is a better sources. 30 cases for now.--Melberg (talk) 14:58, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 March 2020

United Kingdom cases is now 1140 80.3.233.121 (talk) 14:59, 14 March 2020 (UTC) 80.3.233.121 (talk) 14:59, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. QueerFilmNerd^talk 15:24, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Recoveries and active cases in Spain

Recoveries in Spain are now 517, thus being the current active cases 5,315. 5.34.154.217 (talk) 15:14, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Edit: according to the same source the template has. 5.34.154.217 (talk) 15:15, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 March 2020

Change active cases, recoveries and active cases in Spain: from 6,023 to 6,043, from 193 to 517 and from 5,639 to 5,335, respectively, according to the source on the template: RTVE 5.34.154.217 (talk) 15:37, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

 Not done as what you want changed is unclear. No reason to fret, though–the template already has higher values. RayDeeUx (talk) 18:28, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 March 2020: French Polynesia

Currently requesting to add French Polynesia to infobox data. Three current cases recently reported, no deaths or recoveries. Sources: RNZ [1] RNZ [2] 41.248.134.230 (talk) 15:40, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

 Not done–French Polynesia is already included in France's case count. Below is an explanation:

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

As well as this:

[France's current cases already i]ncludes all cases overseas in French Guiana, Guadeloupe, Martinique, Mayotte and Réunion, and in dependencies French Polynesia, Saint Barthélemy and Saint Martin.

Both of these excerpts can be found in the main template, either as an invisible comment or as an annotation/efn template.

RayDeeUx (talk) 18:33, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 March 2020

Update the number of recoveries in Spain, published in the official page of the national TV channel. 6,046 cases, 193 deaths and most significantly 517 recoveries. JulenBengoitia (talk) 16:20, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: Could you please provide the link to a reliable source that may confirm this (preferably government-supported data). Thank you —ALittleQuenhi (talk to me) 17:52, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 March 2020

Please update confirmed cases count for Czech Republic to 177, as stated on official Covid-19 site of Ministry of Health of the Czech Republic: https://onemocneni-aktualne.mzcr.cz/covid-19 Garyczek (talk) 17:21, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Y It seems that someone has already updated the statistic for Czech Republic, prior to my response. —ALittleQuenhi (talk to me) 17:54, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Attn : required amendment

The total confirmed case figure does not tally. BlackSun2104 (talk) 17:22, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 March 2020

Please update San Marino confirmed cases counts to 97 (92 positive + 5 dead) according to official source: http://www.iss.sm/on-line/home/artCataggiornamenti-coronavirus.49004093.1.20.1.html Garyczek (talk) 17:31, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Y It seems that someone has already updated the statistic for Czech Republic, prior to my response. —ALittleQuenhi (talk to me) 17:56, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

 Done. looks like they have four recoveries as well! that's good news. thanks for mentioning the source referenced. dying (talk) 18:02, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 March 2020

Is it possible to sort the countries descending by Confirmed cases count by default? The sorting after cases changes should not be manual process. So is it possible in Mediawiki at all?

If not, Could you please move Iceland under Israel? Garyczek (talk) 18:13, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

 Already done. Although I don't know if Mediawiki supports automatically sorting countries by cases after an edit. Don't take my word for it though–I'm still new to Wikipedia. RayDeeUx (talk) 18:38, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

new Greece cases

Greece has 228 cases now. I am RedoStone (talk) 18:13, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

 Already done. Template has the values you requested. Nevertheless, please mention a source next time. RayDeeUx (talk) 18:36, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 March 2020

10 more cases in Poland (total of 103)[6], 1 new confirmed dead (total of 3)[7], 13 recovered [8] in total. Natanieluz (talk) 18:37, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Attn : Germany

Germany total confirmed case figure should be 4525 by now, please amend accordingly.