Template talk:COVID-19 pandemic data

RfC: Explanation for Netherlands: added, removed, added, removed, etc.

I have understood that - de facto - the figures presented for Netherlands are an aggregate for the Kingdom of the Netherlands, consisting of the a) country of the Netherlands, b) Aruba, c) Curaçao, and d) Sint Maarten. Since, however, the sole name Netherlands is ambiguous, I plead for at least adding - and keeping added - as a note that Netherlands as mentioned in the table is to be understood the whole kingdom consisting of the four countries each with their own responsible authority. I think this is essential for a good understanding of the nature of the figures. This is a matter of both geography (one country lies in Europe, one in the southeastern Caribbean, two in the northeastern Caribbean) and politics (since it concerns the political division of one kingdom into four countries). Notes to this end have been added and removed several times. Why and by whom they have been removed, I cannot seem to retrace in the edit history, either because the rate of edits is rather high or because no comment was added from which I succeeded to understand that it concerned a change with respect to Netherlands. Those who like to have such a note removed, please provide arguments.Redav (talk) 14:24, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Redav: what is your exact proposal and options being discussed? --MarioGom (talk) 15:40, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

@MarioGom: If you mean you would like to see a more concrete proposal, I propose either of the following, at the risk of (partially) repeating what I wrote before, either above or in Talk pages or with my previous edits to the table:

• Treat the four independent countries in the Kingdom of the Netherlands separately, i.e. give each of them their own line in the table, to be filled with data from reports from the four respective public health authorities, being RIVM (country of the Netherlands), Directie Volksgezondheid (Aruba), Volksgezondheid Instituut Curaçao (VIC), and Department of Public Health (Sint Maarten). I would prefer this, particularly because the countries and authorities are (politically) independent, and because they are geographically separate.
• Treat the Kingdom of the Netherlands as a unit, and at the same time put and keep in place an explanation about of what the kingdom consists of, e.g. in the form of the note Redav (talk) 16:16, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

I would prefer to split overseas/autonomous territories. Political issues aside, the spread of the pandemic in these territories is usually completely different. Sources like the John Hopkins University keep them split too. However, we should consider if we have reliable sources to keep the numbers updated per territory. --MarioGom (talk) 10:27, 19 March 2020 (UT

• RandomIntrigue, Formulaonewiki: instead of edit warring, you may want to participate in this discussion. Graeme Bartlett may be interested too. --MarioGom (talk) 22:41, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

@MarioGom: The Channel Islands (Guernsey and Jersey) are internationally independent (as ratified by international agreements between the islands and the UK), not subject to British Administration (they legislate entirely independently; the UK cannot do so even in extreme circumstances without the island's consent) and have an entirely separate healthcare system (mostly privatised with no NHS nor any reciprocal agreement for visiting UK citizens). No government sources (or any that I can see referenced in the article) include the Channel Island statistics in their data for the UK, nor are they reported on with the UK number of cases. I’m far less familiar with BOTs, but it is my understanding that they have somewhat less independence, particularly on an international level, than the Channel Islands, and so I'm agreed that they could probably be included in the UK's total, but certainly not with Guernsey and Jersey. Previous discussions on the matter (which appear to be being entirely ignored by RandomIntrigue) can be found here, here and here—all of which clearly lean toward Guernsey (and by extension of the rationale, Jersey) not being included within the UK.

Semantics aside, it remains an indisputable fact that Guernsey and Jersey are not part of the UK, and therefore their inclusion is totally wrong in the most basic sense. "British Islands" would be more appropriate and technically correct, but it also suggests that the response to the virus is perhaps co-ordinated which is manifestly wrong. Guernsey and Jersey's respective governments are co-ordinating responses entirely independently of the UK government and furthermore point to why they should be separated. —Formulaonewiki 22:57, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

OK I will include Guernsey and Jersey in the edit notice. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:03, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

You can't change the fact they aren't independent. It's silly to try and argue so because no nation recognises the islands as such. They are dependencies of the UK. It is silly to try and dispute their status. RandomIntrigue (talk) 23:33, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

The only one who believes that is a 'fact' appears to be yourself. I've already pointed out (which you've already decided to ignore entirely because it rebuts your 'fact') that in 2008, Guernsey and Jersey signed an agreement with the UK including a number of clarifications regarding the international identity of the islands which expressly stated that each Crown Dependency has an international identity that is different from that of the UK.<ref name="FramewJersey">"Framework for developing the international identity of Jersey" (PDF). States of Jersey. 1 May 2007. Retrieved 31 July 2017."Framework for developing the international identity of Guernsey". States of Guernsey. 18 December 2008. Retrieved 31 July 2017."Framework for developing the international identity of the Isle of Man" (PDF). Isle of Man Government. 1 May 2007. Retrieved 31 July 2017.

You can protest all you like, but you are choosing to disregard justified and built consensus. Also, your insistence on defining 'independence' in as subjective way as you can entirely misses the fact that they are simply not part of the UK by any definition. —Formulaonewiki 23:54, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

If you separate Guernsey and Jersey from the UK, then all territories should be separated from their 'ruling' country. It is silly to just have Jersey and Guernsey on their own! RandomIntrigue (talk) 23:41, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

RandomIntrigue: Actually we currently have Hong Kong and Macau separated from China. There is also ongoing discussions to do the same for Netherlands, Denmark, USA and France (this thread and #Separation of Autonomous Territories). --MarioGom (talk) 23:45, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

RandomIntrigue: That is a huge oversimplification of the discussion. Each territory has vastly difference geographical, constitutional and political arrangements which require their own respective assessments. This discussion concerns Guernsey and Jersey; to start trying to expand any conclusions from this to apply to all arrangements between territories and Sovereign States is absurd and unhelpful. —Formulaonewiki 23:52, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Formulaonewiki It's equally as absurd as your silly nationalistic proposition! Internationally, Jersey and Guernsey are recognised as dependencies. If you include them separately then where do we stop? Stop making silly propositions based on your own views! RandomIntrigue (talk) 00:00, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

RandomIntrigue: It's not a nationalistic proposition; its a constitutional fact. Your argument of 'where does it end!' doesn't make sense; those other countries and territories require separate discussions. I am not making propositions based on my own view, but on facts backed by reliable sources.

NB, Pktlaurence is repeatedly removing Guernsey and Jersey without any explanation. Have recently reverted but stopped short of 3RR and left message on their talk page. —Formulaonewiki 00:10, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Edit: this is ridiculous! They have now reverted it again put added the edit summary "the channel islands are still 'not independent/separate entities' from the United Kingdom" which is complete rubbish. They are most certainly separate from the UK by all definitions. They are 'Dependencies' of the Crown but certainly not of the UK. They've also now changed it to say Guernsey and Jersey are BOTs too. Clueless. —Formulaonewiki 00:16, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Their sovereignty belongs to UK and your argument is completely rubbish. Pktlaurence (talk) 00:20, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

And your source is unreliable either. So much for a nationalist.Pktlaurence (talk) 00:21, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Talk to me when theyre having armies and diplomats.Pktlaurence (talk) 00:22, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

"Your argument is completely rubbish" yet you fail to even begin to explain how or provide any sort of counter. Is ad hominem all you have? And does each country or territory on this list require an army or state sovereignty? No, look at Hong Kong and Macau. Also, how can a literal government publication be an unreliable source? Where is your source? At least try and engage in discussion here. —Formulaonewiki 00:26, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Also, Guernsey has a diplomat: its Chief Minister, who also clarified recently that the Channel Islands are not dependencies of the UK in an open letter to the UK government. —Formulaonewiki 00:37, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Btw, im not trying to say the Channel Islands are BOT. Thats exactly why i use the term 'Dependency' to include everything. Pktlaurence (talk) 00:24, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Your last edit says "Includes all cases in the British Overseas Territories of Akrotiri and Dhekelia, Bermuda, the Cayman Islands, Gibraltar ,Montserrat, (sic) Guernsey and Jersey." BOTs are not dependencies, they are BOTs. —Formulaonewiki 00:28, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Well, i already made a further edit to it right after the first, so please make sure you aleays check thr latest version of edit. From now on, i will incorporate channel islands and isle of man, using the accurate term 'Dependencies'.Pktlaurence (talk) 15:13, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

I would really so much prefer and I would expect it to be so much more helpful for the exchange of arguments if judgments about persons and about contributions, as well as orders, would be left out. As the exchange now runs, I feel sad and demotivated to try and find any understandable arguments that are between the judgments. please consider using wordings like e.g.:

1. "I do not understand your argument." instead of "Your argument is rubbish."
2. "I would like to see your source but cannot seem to find it. Could you help me?" instead of "Those are silly propositions based on your own views."
3. "Please lay out for me the arguments and sources you consider relevant, so I may be able to review and consider them." rather than "Stop making silly propositions."

Could it be the case that some of you are using definitions that differ and are distinct from those that another may be applying? And for the goal of the description of the progress of the pandemic over / around the earth, would it perhaps be helpful and practical to consider using:

• divisions (e.g. countries, territories, provinces) that consider themselves, or are de facto, independent with respect to measuring ad reporting the progress of the epidemic, even if there is no consensus about that outside of the region? [I admit, if (with respect to the) inside a region there would be no consensus about the, or more than one, de facto measurer and reporter, the practicality gets reduced for that particular division.]Redav (talk) 18:13, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Another column

Another another column is a really big deal as it makes this way wider. Were is the discussion and consensus? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:09, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Link to previous column discussions.[1] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:48, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

I will have to put up the edit notice to say no new columns Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:36, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

I have put up an edit notice here: Template:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data. Please discuss any changes to the rules included, and then administrators or template editors can update based on any consensus. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:55, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Does anyone have any serious disagreements with it? If there is no serious disagreement, that is consensus. "It makes it too wide" would rarely if ever be considered valid on any other 4-6 column chart on Wikipedia. Mr G (talk) 09:43, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

In case anyone needs me to explain the reason that this column is useful: per 10 million capita deaths gives people an idea of both the risk of mortality and the prevalence of the problem in each country, and allows a comparison between different countries. It is also a better measure of the prevalence of the disease than the number of confirmed cases, because the testing of non-serious cases varies widely between countries depending on their testing regimes, while the number of deaths is closer to proportionality with the actual number of both diagnosed and undiagnosed cases. A per 10 million capita confirmed cases might also be helpful, but if we are only going to allow one per capita column, per 10 million capita deaths is the best for comparison of both mortality and prevalence of infection across countries with very different populations, testing regimes and health systems. Mr G (talk) 10:01, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

I would like to add that although proposals for different columns were rejected, a deaths per capita column has not been discussed, and the best arguments against those other columns do not apply to the column that I added. Thanks. Mr G (talk) 10:11, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

The consensus at the moment is no new columns, even if information is useful. Also rejected is the currently active cases column. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:18, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

So grateful for this chart, thank you. But not sure where the "Consensus" on an extra column is coming from and I agree that a per capita mortality rate column would be an important and useful addition. Otherwise, how can we know, for example, how the UK is 'doing' compared with The Netherlands, the US compared with Canada, etc. Infections and deaths must be running at a much higher rate per capita in The Netherlands than in the UK, for example, but that isn't clear. Yet nobody is saying the Brits are doing a better job - perhaps they should be feeling better about what they have or haven't done! To add another column, the first column could be reduced in size (especially by calling one country St Vincent and the Gs). Jamaistroptard 10:41, 19 March 2020 (UTC) Wikischpedia

We are having a lot of trouble fitting the width of the table onto telephone small screens. Even the WMF have been assisting to get this table working with screen readers and assisting accessibility. I was looking at a javascript solutioin for those that want to add extra columns with calculated values, but don't hold your breath. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:59, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Another column makes it less accessible. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:29, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

We could use these maps.

• Confirmed cases per million[2]

• Confirmed deaths per million[3] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:45, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

We have an interactive tool but it is not nearly as nice as Our World in Data's.[4] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:46, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Okay added. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:13, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

The main culprits in adding width are the headers. Maybe use icons with a tooltip, acronyms or vertical text. Per capita numbers (for both cases and death) is a better indicator of the situation on the ground. These two additional columns are really worth it. Also values for the world row should be filled. Doub (talk) 15:48, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Iran

I have added a couple notes to Iran. WHO believes that Iran's death toll is severely underreported due to lack of testing and may be as much as five times higher. Titanium Dragon (talk) 07:08, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Please people, don't add notes to the numbers, add them to the country name column. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:24, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

I also think that the Chinese numbers are a complete fabrication, but this is a table of reported numbers, so whatever the numbers are officially reported, we put them in. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:26, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Most countries are severely underreported once their healthcare system is collapsed. Spain tested only severe patients during last weeks and it is now trying to deploy rapid tests, but most cases go untested even after contacting health services. --MarioGom (talk) 00:24, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Column width for recoveries

Can anyone assist to adjust the column width of recovery to match that of cases and deaths thanks. M nurhaikal (talk) 09:16, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Separation of Autonomous Territories

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

These include:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

US row too wide compared to the other countries

Can someone please amend this. I'm not sure how to. Thanks. M nurhaikal (talk) 15:36, 19 March 2020 (UT

Not sure what you mean? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:47, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Request for Wikipedia page to extend this template

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

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

Proposal: Extending the template

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

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

Example spreadsheet

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

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

World row: Sum of above columns

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

The Haiti article

Currently, the Chinese coronavirus epidemic in Haiti lacks an article, alone among all countries. Should it be added? Or a link to the NA article, at least?--Adûnâi (talk) 02:58, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Adûnâi: Yes. It can be added. If you need help, you can ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject COVID-19. --MarioGom (talk) 09:44, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Isle of Man

Would we add the Isle of Man (source: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/world-europe-isle-of-man-51964205 ) separately or as part of the UK? doktorb _words^deeds 08:30, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Doktorbuk: Please, see #Preparing a proper RfC for territories split/merge and related discussions. --MarioGom (talk) 15:49, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Worldometers/WOMC: we have a problem

Worldometers seems to be catching the highest number they can find in any source, regardless of its reliability. This is leading to multiple updates per day that are completely wrong. One thing is lagging behind official sources, I think we can cope with that. But adding higher numbers that are repeatedly proven wrong? This is way off Wikipedia's policy for WP:RS and WP:V. I've been thinking about this a lot these days, but the final trigger was their update on Angola, which is based on a viral WhatsApp audio ([5]) about a case which authorities later denied ([6]). We cannot risk being a hoax amplifier. --MarioGom (talk) 10:04, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

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

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

Greenland should be seperated

As per the cited govt source, it doesn't even include Greenland. Only mainland Denmark and Faroe Islands. M nurhaikal (talk) 10:13, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Please, see #Separation of Autonomous Territories. --MarioGom (talk) 10:16, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Including TRNC

An user removed TRNC. But if there are British dependencies listed, TRNC should be listed as well. I added a note that TRNC is only recognized by Turkey. Beshogur (talk) 13:55, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Please, see #Separation of Autonomous Territories. --MarioGom (talk) 14:08, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Template "Cases by country and territory": Spain

Moved from Talk:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic § Template "Cases by country and territory": Spain

 – Moved to the relevant talk page.

I can't and I don't dare to edit this, but there's an official Ministry of Health website for covid-19 cases (https://covid19.isciii.es/). The current link is for RTVE, the Spanish National Public Radio and Television. El tiu Cancho (talk) 10:56, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

El tiu Cancho: Thank you for noting this. ISCIII is updated about once a day with the daily report from the Ministry of Health. RTVE does almost real-time updates consolidating new data from different regions. So, except for a short time lapse every day at noon, RTVE is more up-to-date than ISCII. --MarioGom (talk) 14:04, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Template "Cases by country and territory": European Union

Moved from Talk:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic § Template "Cases by country and territory": European Union

I think in the list of countries with cases should be also flag of EU with number of cases in the European Union, will be pretty informative. Is it possible to add it there? Peter1170 (talk) 11:25, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

That would be original research and against Wikipedia rules. doktorb _words^deeds 12:12, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Dont need to be original research. Just someone can add to tamplate some script, which will count cases from every country in the EU. In template are offcial numbers, so it will count automatically official numbers.Peter1170 (talk) 12:19, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Ah but then we're getting into WP:SYNTH I think. Creating statistics from existing ones is not really what this template is for (would we no then fall foul of WP:SOURCE come to think of it?) I'm sure there might be a way in prose to refer to EU figures but adding an entry for the EU seems fairly "window dressing" to me. doktorb _words^deeds 12:24, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Ok, just an idea, but it can be nice, if we have some info also about numbers in the EU.Peter1170 (talk) 12:34, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Messing with Australian data in table

Moved from Talk:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic § Messing with Australian data in table

Someone, on the grounds that the Australian figures should not include the 10 cases on the Diamond Princess, keeps reverting to figures that are from March 19. As of the 20th March (See the data on the Australian COVID19 page, Section 4, Total Cases, for tables and sources), Australia’s cases reached 875. This is stated to include the 10 on the ship. So how does 875 - 10 = 709?!! And if the death on the ship were included, Australia’s death toll would be 8. So the correct Australian totals excluding the ship victims should be 865 cases and 7 deaths. Can someone please straighten this out? Ptilinopus (talk) 13:40, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

More messing with the table

Moved from Talk:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic § More messing with the table

Cyprus - the footnote states includes Northern Cyprus. But Northern Cyprus has also been added. So double counting. Jersey and Guernsey - separated out yet again - though the UK footnote says they are included. I’ve commented repeatedly about the need for consistency. If we separate out some dependent units, we need to for all - British, French, Dutch, Danish, US... And finally, Isle of Man on the maps is coloured as having cases - but is not included in the UK figures nor mentioned in the footnote. Can we get it straight please? Ptilinopus (talk) 13:49, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Main table all wrong

Moved from Talk:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic § Main table all wrong

 – MarioGom (talk) 15:04, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

The table is presenting a false (and bleak) picture of the virus. You can't even correct it! For example, in New Zealand, there are 5 (five) cases, and most have recovered. The table shows no recoveries. The first person recovered on 1st Mar [7]. I mean, that's almost two weeks ago!! There are references for the others too, but I can't be bothered supplying them. I know they reported on the others, for example case 2 of the 5, a woman, is definitely recovered also. I'm sure that most if not all the other countries are wrong too. Please someone supplying this table - correct it, or remove it! It is wrong wrong wrong. Thank you. Wallie (talk) 09:31, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

The WHO reported yesterday no recoveries for New Zealand. Sun Creator^(talk) 10:35, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

The source you gave said "on the mend" which does not mean fully recovered. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:47, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Been added anyway, without source so far. Sun Creator^(talk) 12:00, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

What part of "New Zealand coronavirus patient recovers but concern about pandemic spreads" is unclear? The second case has been released and that is documented also. It is plain silly to give references to every single case. As stated, that is over 200,000 references. Wallie (talk) 12:06, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Another aspect of the table I find odd is the discrepancy between the number of countries listed at the top and the actual number by count. At the present moment the summary at the top says 132 countries/territories. An actual count comes to 125. Where are the other 7 countries or territories? If they are included in a mother country (e.g. French Guiana in France), then they should not be counted separately as a country. Or if they are counted then they should be listed separately. Lack of accuracy/clarity on this verifiable point leads to doubt about the other less readily verifiable figures. In addition, there is a disconnect between the table and the map. The map shows at least 3 countries affected which are not in the table: Guinea, Sudan, and Cayman Islands. Ptilinopus (talk) 14:56, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

The table discrepancy continues. At this time the total countries at the top of table totals says 145 countries. An actual count of countries in the table is 136 plus 1 ship. Where are the missing 8? Ptilinopus (talk) 02:14, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Again. Actual count of countries on the table is 137. The total at the top summary has jumped to 150! The source seems to be the dubious Worldometer. How about some consistency?! Incidentally there are 3 countries on the list that were not there 4 hours ago (Rwanda, Namibia, Antigua & Barbuda) - and 3 that have disappeared (since the count remains 137). I notice that Aruba and Curaçao have been deleted - though they are separate countries, equal to the Netherlands. Even so, their details have not been included with the Netherlands. I see Puerto Rico is listed though it much more part of the US than Aruba etc are of the Netherlands! I note the disappearance of Jersey and Guernsey too - even though they are not part of the United Kingdom. Nor have their data been added to that of the UK. Can we have consistency please? Ptilinopus (talk) 12:23, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Before you go and denigrate Worldometer, maybe you should compare the countries and find out why there are more in Worldometer than in the main table. Cayman Islands, for example is reported in Worldometer, but not in the main table. It is an autonomous British Overseas Territory, which definitely makes it a "country or territory." And yes, Caymen Islands has a case, as reported in the Miami Heraldhttps://www.miamiherald.com/news/business/tourism-cruises/article241196966.html.DrHenley (talk) 02:18, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

While I would personally agree that it would be better to report geographically rather than politically, my biggest issue is consistency. At least now the table has adopted a consistent approach: dependencies are included in the main country. So as the footnotes to the table say, Gibraltar, Jersey, Guernsey and Cayman Islands are included under U.K., the French dependencies etc are under France, Aruba, Curaçao etc under Netherlands, Faeroe Is and Greenland under Denmark, Guam, Puerto Rico, US Virgin Is under USA etc. Previously, it was some one way, some the other. Arguing over definitions of countries is unprofitable. What has not changed is the totals versus the list. Overnight 4 more countries were added - Benin, Tanzania, Somalia and Liberia, but the total remains at 143. Actual count says 147. Ptilinopus (talk) 19:31, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

I had gone and separated Puerto Rico because I thought I had seen it separated on this site but as of March 15, 2020 Puerto Rico has been deleted and re-included with the US count on Wikipedia. I'm not sure why a Wikipedian has done that. Check out the table... There must be a method to the wikipedians madness. Maybe it's okay for Puerto Rico to be included with the US count.Check this out... https://gisanddata.maps.arcgis.com/apps/opsdashboard/index.html?fbclid=IwAR0jYwvytu-1e4jh6ujShnxAjxytKn8kgypxeW9s5eE5Ar88AjJlDGiJBmc#/bda7594740fd40299423467b48e9ecf6 --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 17:03, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

See my comment just above. Puerto Rico is not independent. I would like the table and map to reflect geographical spread - dependencies remote from the main country listed and shown separately. But for consistency, they are included in the main country. Regardless of preferences, consistency is better. Ptilinopus (talk) 19:31, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Despite the protocol which had begun to be consistent, someone has again split out Jersey and Guernsey. Even though I would prefer to see such entities separated out to give a better view of the geographical spread, the adopted protocol has been that dependent territories/countries be included under the main country. Either Jersey and Guernsey should remain under the UK, or we should also separate out the French, Dutch, Danish, US and the rest of the British territories. Jersey and Guernsey are no more independent than are Faeroe Is, Greenland, Curaçao, Aruba, Cayman Is, Puerto Rico etc. Consistency please!!! Ptilinopus (talk) 00:12, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Someone keeps putting incorrect country totals at the top of the table. As of now, by actual count, there are 149 countries and one ship - an increase of 2 (Gambia and Barbados) from yesterday. But the number given is 165. How does +2 become +18? Ptilinopus (talk) 02:25, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

You are right, I have changed to 149. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:50, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Graeme Bartlett! I noted just now it had jumped again to 171, but someone has again just corrected it back to the current 153! However, I have transcribed the table into a spreadsheet so I could check the data, I find the total cases and total deaths are also incorrect and inflated. Can’t the table contain a formula to generate correct SUM of columns? Total Cases is given as 206,845; it is actually 204,698. And total Deaths is given as 8,272; the actual sum is 8,251. Ptilinopus (talk) 14:55, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

"Misconceptions are circulating about how to prevent infection, for example: rinsing the nose, gargling with mouthwash and eating garlic are not effective." The source does not say that garlic is ineffective. The source says that there are no studies regarding efficacy of garlic on COVID-19. (Garlic is rather broad antimicrobial and one of the likelier candidates. A future study *may* demonstrate some beneficial activity.)

R.I.P errbody😎🔥 Sy3thaba (talk) 12:46, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

The table should be sorted by number of deaths, not cases. The number of deaths is a better guide to the severity of the situation, and probably a better guide to the total number of hidden cases as well. Fig (talk) 17:31, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Reproducibility of the data and comparing it

Moved from Talk:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic § Reproducibility of the data and comparing it

 – MarioGom (talk) 15:11, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Right now the table displayed leads to some questions. One that is important is how objective and correct the dataset is.

I understand that wikipedia can not act as a substitute for all countries, and these countries may use different set of standards and criteria to determine who died because of which cause; but I also think that wikipedia should make a much stronger effort to link in as MUCH useful and OBJECTIVE information as possible. Right now the dataset that I see is a bit strange. Countries that have a comparable wealth, and a comparable health system, have such a huge difference displayed in what they report. You can see this best within europe, with such huge differences. While some of this can be explained with e. g. better health care systems, there is a discrepancy in e. g. germany compared to the netherlands, and this is very confusing right now. So, IMO, we need to first make sure that the data is really correct. Yesterday I pointed out that some of the other data is a bit weird, e. g. recovery rate in south korea being slower than in china, which makes not a lot of sene, and is more indicative of the possibility that wikipedia has not yet added the information of more recoveries FROM south korea. IMO it is very important to make the dataset as correct as possible, because it will be used in discussions too. Wikipedia needs to be a great role model here, in particular because many private media report a lot of CRAP right now ... with factually incorrect data. 2A02:8388:1641:8380:3AD5:47FF:FE18:CC7F (talk) 15:05, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

We just report data available from reliable sources. No such thing as fully "correct" and comparable data exists yet. Each country reports in different ways and different intervals. --MarioGom (talk) 15:14, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Preparing a proper RfC for territories split/merge

This is a topic that is recurrent on the talk page and in edit wars (see #Separation of Autonomous Territories, #RfC: Explanation for Netherlands: added, removed, added, removed, etc.). I think we need to prepare a proper RfC to sort this out. For those of you who are familiar with the topic: what options should be initially available? Ideally, options would provide criteria for all terrotories, not just the UK. --MarioGom (talk) 15:25, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Do we include probable cases

Health Canada is reporting 846 confirmed cases and 27 probable cases. Do we include these probable cases Thank you for helping Wikipedia. Benica11 (talk). 15:28, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Benica11: We are including confirmed cases only. Different countries might have slightly different criteria for reporting, or sometimes it might not be clear in the press. But if both figures are known, we're using confirmed cases. --MarioGom (talk) 15:32, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 March 2020

+33 new confirmed cases in Poland, total of 411[8], and we need to change the total death to 5[9] (according to Polish MOH, the patients die because of another disease, she had covid-19 but, she died because of another disease) Natanieluz (talk) 15:31, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

 Done. Thank you. --MarioGom (talk) 15:35, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Update for Germany

Germany confirmed case figure is now 18,328, please update accordingly. BlackSun2104 (talk) 15:35, 20 March 2020 (UTC)https://interaktiv.morgenpost.de/corona-virus-karte-infektionen-deutschland-weltweit/

 Done. Please, do not include the in every message unless a new source is required. Thank you! --MarioGom (talk) 15:38, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 March 2020

Please update Czech Republic confirmed cases count to 833, according to official source: https://onemocneni-aktualne.mzcr.cz/covid-19 😷 garyCZEk 📢 ✍ ｛🧒👧👦🚲💻🚗🍣｝ 17:16, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

 Done by some else. Thanks for the source! RayDeeUx (talk) 18:08, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Required Amendment for Germany

Germany's confirmed case figure is now 19,711, hope that helps :-)119.74.163.85 (talk) 17:43, 20 March 2020 (UTC)https://interaktiv.morgenpost.de/corona-virus-karte-infektionen-deutschland-weltweit/

Slight correction

Germany's confirmed case figure is slightly reduced to 19,705, hope that helps.119.74.163.85 (talk) 17:51, 20 March 2020 (UTC)https://interaktiv.morgenpost.de/corona-virus-karte-infektionen-deutschland-weltweit/

Seems like it went back to 19,711, and there are also new deaths. Not the news I expected to see, but thanks for the reminder and source anyways. RayDeeUx (talk) 18:11, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 March 2020

Turkey 670 9 minister of health source 194.29.137.6 (talk) 20:24, 20 March 2020 (UTC)