This template is within the scope of WikiProject COVID-19, a project to coordinate efforts to improve all COVID-19-related articles. If you would like to help, you are invited to join and to participate in project discussions.COVID-19Wikipedia:WikiProject COVID-19Template:WikiProject COVID-19COVID-19 articles
This template is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management articles
This template is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
This template is within the scope of WikiProject Viruses, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of viruses on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.VirusesWikipedia:WikiProject VirusesTemplate:WikiProject Virusesvirus articles
I saw that User:Koavf recently removed the scrollbars [1] out of WP:ACCESSIBLE concerns. However, the WP:ACCESSIBLE page simply states that "Wikipedia articles should be accessible to readers using browsers and devices that have limited or no support for JavaScript or Cascading Style Sheets". Browsers that don't support CSS would simply display the full table. Additionally there is a toggle button where people can disable the scrollbars if they don't want them. The scrollbars were also tested to work on the mobile site and app. There is also an accessibility cost to showing a very large table all at once. Anyways, i don't think the rationale behind WP:ACCESSIBLE applies here, and I don't think that the scrollbars in practice introduce any accessibility issues for anyone. I'd like to suggest the scroll bars be added back in. Bawolff (talk) 22:24, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm having trouble finding the rationale behind that page or any sort of source for the accessibility claims, or what "devices" the concern is about. The closest i could find is Template:Scrollref TfD, where the concern was about printing, but that doesn't apply here as the full table is shown when printing due to a print stylesheet (You can test with print preview in browser). Bawolff (talk) 22:35, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I did, thanks. IAR is not an acceptable excuse for making inaccessible content. I'm frankly shocked that a medical professional would make that argument. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯22:37, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So it says "When such features are used, take care that the content will still be accessible on devices that do not support JavaScript or CSS[2], and to the 45% (and climbing) of Wikipedia readers who use the mobile version of the site,[o] which has a limited set of features. Mobile ability to access the content in question is easy to test with the "Mobile view" link at the bottom of each page.[p]" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:36, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Doc James, "Scrolling lists should not used in article space. This includes reference lists, tables and lists of article content, image galleries, and image captions." is very explicit. I don't know why you are trying to argue around it. If it's a bad rule, then let's get rid of the rule. Nothing is special about this article. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯22:38, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also removing scrolling is interfering with solving https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T247702 problem, by making an unstable target to work on. We have previously agreed on having scrolling, and have bypassed some of the negatives. So any bold changes here will need a consensus first. One point of the scrolloing is to make it more accessible. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:39, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Doc James, For whom is accessibility improved, James? Internal scrolling is difficult for users with particular needs when it comes to interfacing with the content: e.g. if they have difficult controlling a mouse and so may use voice commands or a specialized browser that is not going to be able to scroll internal in a page. How could internal scrolling increase accessibility to anyone, particularly these users? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯22:46, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Koavf so you are specifically looking at people who use screen readers and you want to make sure that this works for that group of individuals?
Doc James, That is my understanding, based on my limited understanding of accessibility. I am not an expert, so I defer to what I know are the best practices. Rather than try to find everyone to post screenshots on Phabricator and hope that we aren't missing anyone (the sort of person who can't actually read this article is probably not going to be the sort of person who takes all of the extra effort to post why/how and tell everyone else how to fix it), I'm asking you as a fellow Wikimedian who has provided a lot of value to this site for years, an admin who is trusted to have best judgement about how to enforce the norms of this community, and a medical professional whom I am sure wants nothing better than the best outcomes for everyone to please revert yourself for the benefit of those persons who will be impacted by your decision to ignore the best practices about internal scrolling. Additionally, I have asked you questions that you ignored and I would appreciate you answering them. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯22:58, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, I just realized that there is pre-collapsed content and a button to "show all". As MOS:SCROLL points out, this is the exact opposite of what should happen: the content should be rendered and then have the option to collapse it. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯23:00, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Koavf if you are not an expert who do you suggest we reach out to? User:RexxS does a lot of work around accessibility. Rexx you have thoughts? As User:Graeme Bartlett states not having scrolling is also an accessibility issue. We really want this to work for everyone. We currently have technical support helping to solve any issues with respect to this. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:01, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Your question was "how does scrolling improve accessibility for anyone"? Well with the table at nearly 200 rows it creates a great deal of white space on a narrow screen pushing content lower in the article and thus making it harder to get too. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:01, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Doc James, That may be a usability issue but I'm not seeing an accessibility dimension here to there being white space. It's an annoyance and not aesthetically pleasing but it doesn't prohibit access to anyone based on a different cognitive ability, etc. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯23:40, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Doc James, Thank you for asking and for seeking some feedback: I respect that you're putting in effort into this. I don't collaborate with anyone on accessibility here and in fact, I frequently have to fight solo over and over again to get basic accessibility into articles and templates (e.g. table captions). It seems like Wikipedia:WikiProject Accessibility is a good place to go shopping. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯23:39, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note, from googling, the internet seems to say, scrollable things are ok, as long as they have tabindex=0 (so they are focusable and scrollable with keyboard) and label-aria. Which User:Volker E. (WMF) (indirectly via editrequest) got added to the template. Edit: The tabindex doesn't work due to MW banning that attribute (phab:T247910). However firefox still considers it a focusable element, so its all ok in firefox at least. Bawolff (talk) 23:10, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Doc James, I don't know that there can be internal scrolling that is accessible. I do think that a broader best practice should be considered but that's not on the level of this one single template but the level of the MOS and help page mentioned above: that way, it's applicable to the whole encyclopedia. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯23:41, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, can I request that we don't go back-and-forth editing the CSS in and out while this is under discussion, please? It would be helpful if we can see the template with scroll bars just for the purposes of checking whether we are creating accessibility problems by adding them.
The way I would usually tackle accessibility concerns is to try to simulate the experience of a possible disadvantaged user:
I can confirm that none of the screen readers I use to check have any problems with the table, which is expected, as they generally take no notice of CSS and the table is properly marked up with column and row headers and scopes. We could be more certain if we asked Graham87 to have a look at Template:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data and make sure that he can read the entire table and the accompanying notes.
I can confirm that on Chrome and Firefox, I am able to focus the links in the table using just the keyboard, and so am able to read the entire table and notes without the use of a mouse.
I can confirm that on my mobile phone (a fairly generic Android device), I see the entire table without scroll bars, so there is no issue for me there.
That leads me to suggest that there probably isn't any class of disadvantaged user that those scroll bars cause problems for. I'm coming round to the view that our guidance at MOS:SCROLL is being taken rather too mechanically at Help:Scrolling list. MOS:SCROLL requires us to "take care that the content will still be accessible on devices that do not support JavaScript or CSS, and to the 45% (and climbing) of Wikipedia readers who use the mobile version of the site". It looks to me like the template developers have done their due diligence in this case, and I believe that we don't need to invoke IAR to show that this template is a reasonable exception to the general injunction not to use scrolling lists in article space. Of course, that's just my opinion, and someone may yet find a group of users that I hadn't considered, who are disadvantaged by the scroll bars, so perhaps we should keep the issue under review for a while, and await any reports of readers finding problems with the template before coming to a final decision. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 23:54, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I use NVDA.....as for scrolling in mobile view both horizontal and vertical are there. This template is not abnormal in this type of function. Don't see a solution....just pointing out a fact that very few of us deal with.--Moxy🍁00:48, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Screen reader cant begin in the right place because vertical and horizontal side-scrolling is in effect thus the template is mostly hidden from the reader. File:Screen shot of pandemic template.jpg. But again this is a normal problem and why we recommend prose text.--Moxy🍁02:09, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. For me, chrome version 80 on my android phone - area is scrollable. Scrollbars only show up during dragging (Seems to be generally how the ui works on my phone. Bawolff (talk) 01:04, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, there's no screen reader problem with scrolling. The mobile view doesn't work at all well with desktop screen readers. Graham8703:46, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
User:Graham87 thank you. So would you say this is sufficiently accessible than? With respect to mobile does it work when there is no scrolling? Or does it not work regardless of whether there is scrolling or not? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:24, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Doc James: Yes, it's accessible enough. Re mobile, I'm not very familiar with that environment at all, but I'd say it wouldn't make any difference re scrolling. Graham8706:14, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Avoiding the need to scroll in the direction of reading in order to reveal lines that are cut off by the viewport is important, because such scrolling significantly increases the effort required to read. It is also important that content is not hidden off-screen. For example, zooming into a vertically scrolling page should not cause content to be hidden to one side.
When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.
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)[reply]
@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 [a]Redav (talk) 16:16, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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
@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. —Formulaonewiki22:57, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. —Formulaonewiki23:54, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. —Formulaonewiki23:52, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.
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. —Formulaonewiki00:16, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"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. —Formulaonewiki00:26, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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. —Formulaonewiki00:37, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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. —Formulaonewiki00:28, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.:
"I do not understand your argument." instead of "Your argument is rubbish."
"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."
"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 and 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)[reply]
Voting
At the moment this is a very confused discussion containing personal attacks. I would like to redirect it into a vote/consensus between three options for French and Dutch territory inclusion.
A: Include all territories of whatever type within the totals for France and the Netherlands
B: Separate territories that are formally ruled separately. This will include for France: French Polynesia, Saint Pierre and Miquelon, Wallis and Futuna, Saint Martin, Saint Bartolemy, and New Caledonia; and for The Netherlands: Aruba, Curaçao, and Sint Maarten.
C: Separate all overseas territories, whether or not they are directly part of the main country. This includes all of the above territories, as well as for France: Guadeloupe, French Guiana, Martinique, Réunion, Mayotte; and for The Netherlands: Bonaire, Sint Eustatius, and Saba.
D: Other.
I vote C. I think all of these territories have little enough human traffic between them, and different enough locations, that they should be listed separately.—Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 18:50, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
While I appreciate the effort to drive discussion to a more focused end to achieve consensus, surely this discussion is dependent on the RfC below for the inclusion/separation of all autonomous territories? —Formulaonewiki18:58, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh absolutely! I support taking a decision here as you've suggested but only once the RfC has ended, as one potential outcome might render the need for another vote her invalid. Let's just give the RfC time for any other responses. I'll leave it up to the starting user to coordinate the conclusion of that discussion. —Formulaonewiki19:07, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
C for bloody sure. And that's not just for France and Netherlands, but should also be applied to every country who has at least one dependency. Universal Consistency übers alles. Pktlaurence (talk) 19:13, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Very good point. We should also have criteria for those situations. Also, (and I may cause controversy) Taiwan would also be considered having 'limited recognition' since only fifteen nations officially recognise it. JMonkey2006 (talk) 01:01, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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). —Formulaonewiki00:32, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. —Formulaonewiki15:48, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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. —Formulaonewiki16:10, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You do get a point, though I probably take up the role to correct those 'morons with good intentions', since I got forced into home office since the plague broke out, and I'm pretty much online 24/7. And, I'm definitely not against of using the more romantic (and inclusive, if you think so) term of Britain either. Honestly, bruh, I can't understand what da hell you're trying to argue for, since the Islands' sovereignty belongs to UK and Her Majesty like how His Holiness is Catholic. Pktlaurence (talk) 20:26, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Aaand, oh hey, I just did a bit of studies about what exactly are crown dependencies, and I just discovered that, although I'm very appalled to find out that you're actually right on that CDs are not a part of UK techno-legally, but they absolutely and definitely are the responsibility of UK no matter viewing from any aspects. 'Internationally, the dependencies are considered "territories for which the United Kingdom is responsible of".' That's what the Wiki page says.
So that is it. We incorporate BOTs data into the UK section because UK is responsible for them, and we're gonna do the same thing to all CDs because they're UK are actually also having exactly the very same responsibility over them too, especially on the public health issues. And I finally discover the reason why you're such an annoying royal pain in the arse—this is a public health article instead of a political one, yet you're still severely overpoliticising it, like insisting queen and Britain is different while such difference is totally unimportant in the actual issue of concern. And you're damn persistent on your politicisation and keep throwing out long legal documents and jargons, which probably scared off quite some editors with sense but doesn't know the topic relatively well. Fortunately my college degree was in aspects related to history, politics issues, therefore I can at least have ideas about what you're trying to say, and immediately notice the flaws in it.
BTW, since you're using my beloved hometown as an example, my argument of responsibility exactly defeats yours. The Commies are entirely not responsible for any of our businesses (at least supposedly), except for military and diplomacy. Like how the last plague went 17 years ago, we're entirely left on our own which the plague left a wake of death toll of 1,800 infections and 300 deatgs, including one beloved heroine doctor. And, for damn sure, we're also gonna duke it out on our own this time. Things works in similar mechanisms in that little Portuguese town the other side of the pearl river, but British dependencies definitely doesn't work on similar mechanisms as the British government has much more responsibilities other than military and diplomacy.
Pktlaurence (talk) 09:47, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Really struggling to make sense of what your point is here? Where did I use your 'beloved hometown' (which is what?) as an example? The British government has no responsibilities over the Crown Dependencies other than the defence and international relations of the Islands. In every other regard, and importantly for this article, with regard to coordinating, legislating, enforcing and financing the response to the pandemic they are acting entirely independently and the British government bears them no responsibilities to help out (see 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Guernsey for the response there). —Formulaonewiki12:01, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Pktlaurence: That is a severe misunderstanding of the arrangement. Also how is using such uncivil language ("And I finally discover the reason why you're such an annoying royal pain in the arse") and pomposity ("Fortunately my college degree was in aspects related to history, politics issues, therefore I can at least have ideas about what you're trying to say, and immediately notice the flaws in it") helpful to this discussion? You're twisting one line you've misunderstood to align Crown Dependencies to BOTs in a way that doesn't work. This isn't 'political'; its a technical, constitutional question of whether or not the Crown Dependencies are in the UK — they are not. Also, there is currently consensus based on previous discussions and a talk page notice for the separation of the Crown Dependencies, so stop persistently deleting them (without transferring the citations or editing the note) until you contribute to a discussion in a civil manner and any change in consensus is achieved. —Formulaonewiki10:30, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, please respond to my suggested arguments, especially those about responsibility, as I failed to notice any of your response to any of them.
Next, well, I'm definitely not trying to be uncivil, I'm just getting slightly irritated by your actions, and just stating that as a matter-of-fact. I've restraint myself from using swearing and personal attacks, etc, and already attempting a civil manner of the utmost; Trust me, my dear friend, you definitely have never seen me going full rage and wrath. And then I'm definitely not twisting things, 'Technical, constitutional question of whether or not the Crown Dependencies are in the UK'— that sounds pretty much like politicising things—is this topic actually relevant to a public health issue like this one? No matter the CDs belongs to UK or HM, it doesn't make much actual difference towards this very issue, which is about public health instead of politics. OK, if you wanna say that 'they are not (in the UK)' (sic), fine, I will also agree with you, as it is what the Wikipedia says, but they are still responsibility of UK (or Her Majesty if you're so insistent on such irrelevant political point), and because of that we're still gonna incorporate CDs into the UK numbers like all dependencies.
@Formulaonewiki: You can deny trying to politicise the article, but you don't need to be a professor to figure your motive is nationalistic. An article such as this need no politicisation. That means, keep your views to yourself. The UK is responsible for for all its Crown dependencies. Stop disputing! RandomIntrigue (talk) 18:26, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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,
have a more terse template, used as a box in multiple Wikipedia pages (this), and
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)[reply]
[Confirmed] Cases / Deaths / Recoveries (as in template)
Active (formula: cases-deaths-recoveries)
% recovered (formula: recovered/cases)
% died (formula: dead / cases)
% active (formula: active / cases
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
Cases per million (formula: cases * 1,000,000 / population)
Active per million (formula: active * 1,000,000 / population)
Δ Active (formula: today's active - yesterday's active)
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)[reply]
Absolutely, that's why such a page should extend the template, not just copy/paste it (as I have to do, since there is no such page). jax (talk) 10:56, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would actually reduce the template by removing the "recov." column on recoveries. Not all countries keep that record. "Cases" and "deaths" is quite enough. I would also order the template by deaths not cases, as those are safer figures: countries adopt different policies on tests. --Checco (talk) 10:48, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That would be a bad idea, increasingly so as this epidemic progresses. E.g. China, and increasingly South Korea, is in a different state than Italy, as most of their cases have recovered. The recovery numbers are not directly comparable between countries, but arguably more comparable than the Cases and Deaths columns. jax (talk) 10:56, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 ([9]) about a case which authorities later denied ([10]). We cannot risk being a hoax amplifier. --MarioGom (talk) 10:04, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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? --hroest16:45, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm using WOMC myself to prioritize countries to update. I'm also using it to find good sources when they cite them (in the Latest Updates section) but quite often they don't cite any at all. I think that, at the very least we should: 1) stop using it for countries that already have some reliable source with frequent updates, 2) for new countries that make it into the list, look for a reliable source to verify the inclusion. --MarioGom (talk) 09:02, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, in other talk page I've seen concerns about some of us denigrating WOMC. I think what they are doing is great. There is a trade-off between fresh and reliable data. WOMC chose to be on the edge of fresh data, sometimes at the cost of reliability. That is completely legitimate and even useful for us. But I think Wikipedia is supposed to give a bit more weight to reliability. --MarioGom (talk) 09:32, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I totally agree, they are doing a great job and a service and each person has to decide how to balance reliability and up-to-date-ness of the information. At Wikipedia we should be on the side of caution and use reliable data wherever possible. It was never the intention of Wikipedia to be at the cutting edge, instead we have a reputation for being reliable and factually accurate and we should live up to that reputation. This means citing sources, choosing reliable sources and being transparent where the data comes from and not go for the "highest number possible" approach. Nobody is helped by that, neither Wikipedia nor our readers. --hroest18:23, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. doktorbwordsdeeds12:24, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 [11]. 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
"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.)
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
As you said, the options would provide criteria for all territories. We can either combine all autonomous territories into their official country or separate all of them from their 'mainland'. I recall, early on in this wiki (about two months ago), that a consensus was reached about separating Hong Kong data from China. If we decide to combine all data into the one country, we should revert that decision. My only opinion is that we should have a uniform standard for all countries, not just separating Chinese autonomous territories. JMonkey2006 (talk) 00:54, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 (ch 2020 (UTC)
Why is the total still that of March 19 (official numbers less the 10 from Diamond Princess)? The figure on cases from March 20 is 875 - less the 10 from the ship this should be 865, not 699. Check the "2020 coronavirus pandemic in Australia" page, section "Total Cases" for daily cumulative figures and sources. And shortly there will be an update for the 21st. Please can this table be kept current? Ptilinopus (talk) 21:04, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with the official government department of health figures is that they are always a day behind. This is because they have to wait for each state department to forward their figures, and given office hours, this means the data released each local morning are from the previous day. Media are much faster! Ptilinopus (talk) 01:34, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I updated to the a more recent figure. WOMC appears to have correct figures, but someone did not trust it and used an old reference from more than a day earlier. The 10 from Diamond Princess are counted as Australian, as they were not diagnosed on the ship. By the way, another 45 Victorian cases should be added on, once we find a source with an updated total. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:39, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Netherlands and other countries which have no recoveries data
How are the totals at the top of the table arrived at? Because they do not correspond to the actual sum of figures. I have transcribed the countries, cases and deaths figures into a spreadsheet, and keep it updated, and use sum and count formulae to arrive at totals. Country count at this time is 167, not 163. Cases sum is 275,694, not 276,007. Deaths sum is 11,382, not 11,401.
So I ask, are there no formulae in this table to automatically sum the columns, and count the countries? Are editors just adding on their revised figures? If so errors will be inevitable with different editors at perhaps the same time making changes. Ptilinopus (talk) 04:06, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think that is a good move. In a Wiki table, I've always thought it was better to have a total based on the figures in the table instead of an outside source. Especially here since not all countries are using the WOMC data. United States Man (talk) 04:46, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It looks as if consensus was reached above. However, it seems not all editors are implementing. The figures still don’t add up, and by similar margins. And with East Timor added, the country tally is 168. Ptilinopus (talk) 09:09, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
With so many countries and number increasing so quickly, if our addition is less than that by WoM than we should use WoM. And than work on updating the rest of the table. If our addition is greater than WoM than we should go with our addition. But it looks like we are falling behind. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:45, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I created a template to keep track of totals, but making the transition was difficult, because things were constantly changing and I was working. I am now looking at the current state of the template to see if I can actually implement it.
It will still need new territories adding to the layout part of the template, but this should be infrequent compared to the changes in numbers.
Add a column on the leftmost side to make it numbered list.
E.g.
1 China 81,008 ...
2 Italy 47,021 ...
....
This number help daily viewers to see how quickly a country progresses compared to other countries (more quickly or more slowly) Tungpham20 (talk) 05:04, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We won't add any columns to the table unless there is a consensus here to do so. The problem is that the table becomes wider, and then has trouble displaying on phones. Anyway if others have opinions on this please comment in this section. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:03, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Someone recently added notes to the Crown dependencies of Jersey and Guernsey stating "Not recognised as independent. (NAME) is a Crown dependency of the United Kingdom.". This is unnecessary as readers can simply read about those locations on their respective pages. If we do agree to keep those notes, we should add similar notes to Hong Kong and Macao: "Not recognised as independent. (NAME) is a special administrative region of China.". JMonkey2006 (talk) 08:10, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Czech Republic Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 March 2020
When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.
This is an ongoing issue, thus I am re-proposing this RfC. We need to settle 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) 09:58, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My guess is that we should be completely consistent with List of countries and dependencies by population and almost literally all lists and templates featuring countries. In en.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. Why should this template be the exception? --Checco (talk) 10:00, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply] Ps: In no list and template in which Hong Kong and Macau are listed separately China is referred to as "mainland China".
I support listing autonomous territories and dependencies separately as you propose. At least to the extent that is possible according to reliable sources. Note that Taiwan is widely recognized and Kosovo is often listed separately for statistical purposes even by countries and entities that do not recognize it. --MarioGom (talk) 10:05, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I support any decision as long as the final outcome is universal and consistent, instead like how some cutrent editor are insisting which split a few dependencies but incorporating the rest of them. I will only take a stance when there is a required vote to decide things. Pktlaurence (talk) 10:39, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. In this respect, please do not replace "China (mainland)" with "Mainland China". That is our current consensus, so please stick to it. I would also change that (simply "China", consistently with most lists and templates in en.Wikipedia), but I have to seek consensus first, too. --Checco (talk) 10:43, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you "will only take a stance where there is a required to do decide things (sic)", then refrain from removing the Crown Dependencies until this RfC has reached a consensus. Currently, discussions regarding the CDs have concluded separation as noted in the editing notice. —Formulaonewiki10:55, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If asking for stances I would be slightly in favour for splitting, as it's more geo-biographically accurate. A French guianan is more likely to be infected by a Brazilian than a Frenchman. I have to state, though, incorporating CDs doesn't mean ' wrongly describing Crown Dependencies as part of the UK', it simply means all those CD archipelagos are fully in UK responsibility.
I agree with Pktlaurence. Any option is fine, but it must be consistent with every case. There should be no picking and choosing. If we do decide to separate the territories, we should also standardise the naming of the 'mainland'. Are we going to write China (mainland) & Denmark (mainland), or Mainland China & Mainland Denmark, or simply China and Denmark (preferably with notes)? JMonkey2006 (talk) 22:14, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For the china issue, I'm supportive towards both options of mainland China and china, but adding brackets are just obnoxious. P.s. the term 'mainland china' is actually the norm in Chinese Wikipedia, which I am one out of the many main contributors.
There is a third issue though, for some nations with limited recognition, we may not treat them as separate entities. And as for 'some' I specifically means those SLRs who're only recognised by one single nation, which those cases are generally deemed as cases of puppet states. Notable examples include nagorno-karabakh, Abkhazia, south Ossetia, transnistria, Lugansk, Donetsk, and north Cyprus, etc.
I just made a typo so you may check out for the latest update. Besides, i thought i already stated black and white that my stance is universal consistency, and I'm doing the incorporation in accordance to this very principle, since currently most dependencies are incorporated. As for the case, 'these are *not* part of the UK' indeeed, but adding them to the UK total is definitely not misleading, it just simply means they're UK responsibilities. Black and white, that simple, ain't no rocket science. Hope you're not using Abkhazia-esque sock puppets.
Pktlaurence, adding GG, JE and IM to the UK is misleading. The UK is not treating sick people on those islands, the health care systems on each island are. doktorbwords<supdeeds11:35, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Doktorbuk: Yes, UK isn't treating islander patients in Britannia mainland, but UK is ultimately and technically responsible for the islands' healthcare systems, which in turn treats islander patients on the islands themselves. All those CD islandic healthcare systems are still in the responsibility of the UK' government technically and ultimately, therefore it's definitely not misleading to put patients under UK responsibility into the UK Numbers. Best regards, Pktlaurence (talk) 15:30, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That is completely untrue. The UK is in no way responsible for the islands' healthcare systems. User:Doktorbuk is correct in saying it's misleading. Putting bold all over the place doesn't strengthen your argument, it just makes this RfC less coherent to read. You've taken the 'responsible for' and stretched it to lengths it simply does not go to by any constitutional or practical means. The only thing the UK government is 'responsible' for with regard to the Crown Dependencies is their defence, international relations (such as with the UN, where Guernsey does not have a seat) and the Privy Council has a general duty to ensure 'good governance' which it has never needed to exercise; legislation and precedent have effectively removed any of the Privy Council's emergency powers to intervene even in the most extreme circumstances, with the islands having the final say over any legislation they try to implement. The UK government most certainly do not have any responsibility for healthcare in the islands. —Formulaonewiki16:44, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment may I suggest for the sake of keeping this RfC on topic that we don't bludgeon the process by getting into semantics about the responsibilities of the UK. We've covered this in above discussions and clearly aren't coming to any sort of compromise over the issue. We've both said our bit so let's just leave it and wait for other comments. —Formulaonewiki16:59, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Why making false claims when those island folks are using NHS? Who funded all those health services, huh? What does the British privy council do on the islands then? Sunbathing on the Jersey beaches 24/7? If according to such logics, the bots also run on themselves mostly in daily lives other than Mil&Dips. Of course, that's currently the mainstream opinion in this talk section, and it's probably gonna get changed. But my point is, currently it is not the case, and most dependencies are still being incorporated right now. And in accordance towards the prime principle of universal consistency, the remaining CDs should also be incorporated into the UK numbers, even before consensual decision is being make here.Else it would be breaking the aforementioned prime principle. Also, duh, I'm giving up, the reference section of UK is just too much for me, whenever I try to insert CD data into it and thought the format is perfectly fine, I always ended fucking the formats up. I still think my point of universal consistency deserves urgent concern and helps in editing nevertheless, but I'll just stress my arguments here from now on. Best regards, Pktlaurence (talk) 17:11, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Eh? What on earth are you on about? Islanders cannot make use of the NHS — I should bloody well know, I live there! The health services in Guernsey are funded by the States of Guernsey and taken out of local residents taxes and social security. The Privy Council, realistically, does very little in regard to the islands — they mostly just get on with things on their own. You are completely and utterly wrong. —Formulaonewiki17:19, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support listing autonomous territories separately (where possible according to reliable sources). It avoids technical inaccuracies (such as wrongly describing Crown Dependencies as part of the UK), respects the differences between the development and response to the pandemic in each respective territory, and avoids practical issues when updating the figures (having to collate multiple sources for one entry because no reliable sources include all the various territories together; NB, to this end currently there are no sources provided for any of the BOT figures, yet they have been totalled through OR nonetheless). Also worth pointing out the support for separation in previous discussions here, here and here. —Formulaonewiki10:45, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support listing as separate entities where figures exist, explicitly showing them to be the valid counts for dependent territories. In the case of Guernsey, Jersey, and the Isle of Man, these are *not* part of the UK, and adding them to the UK total would be misleading. There is no neat solution because the status of these places differ from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. We should do what we can to fit the reality to our policy, and in the case of most dependencies, separate listing is appropriate. doktorbwordsdeeds11:00, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support listing autonomous territories and dependencies separately. The current figure for the UK is a mess. Some people insist on incorporating the BOTs and CDs into the UK and yet always copy the figure from the UK government, which only counts the four constituent countries, let alone the fact that the CDs are not part of the UK. It would save much energy for the practical reason as well as clarify any confusion for the technical reason at least for the UK were the BOTs and CDs to be listed separately. Chbe113 (talk) 11:17, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry that you've seen such irresponsible editors, but I always add the numbers of CDs into UK toll whenever I incorporate. BTW, does the UK governmental figures count bot tolls? Pktlaurence (talk) 15:37, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, they do not, which is why I have added separate citations and a breakdown of the cases in the notes. I imagine they will also be separated should support for separation in this RfC be overwhelming. —Formulaonewiki16:44, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly they don't. The figures from the UK government come from NHS, which is only in charge of the four constituent countries. Chbe113 (talk) 18:22, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh so all British dependencies have their own independent healthcare systems? Good, another strong reason to split all dependencies. I think the most important factor of split/incorporate is the independency of healthcare systems, since numbers are recorded by the healthcare agencies, different agencies produce separate numbers, and we better keep them separated as in their original data. And again, never forget to adhere to the principle of universal consistency. Pktlaurence (talk) 18:40, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support all these territories. I would also like to include French Guiana, Guadeloupe, Martinique, Mayotte, Reunion (French overseas departments, which are politically part of France); along with Bonaire, Sint Eustatius, and Saba (Caribbean Netherlands). As Pktlaurence said, there is a vast difference between the main part of the country and a region halfway across the world. The French territories are included on worldometer, but the Dutch territories are not, so I understand why they would not be included. Does anyone know if they only add countries/regions when they develop at least one case, or if today just happens to be the day when all countries have had a case?—Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 14:32, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't direct you to any discussion confirming this, but from what I can gather from how this table has developed, I believe countries/territories are only added once a case is confirmed there. —Formulaonewiki14:35, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Naddruf:Perhaps I can offer some help with some references from the Chinese Wikipedia. I've successfully endeavoured for a full dependency split in the Chinese page since long ago, even before Korea gets its mega-surge from cultists. As far as my last check, the Dutch dependencies including Aruba, Curaçao and Sint Maarten are on the list. You're welcome to take a look at the Page's source, although you might not be able to read Chinese, all the file names of the flags inside the source are written in English. Best regards, Pktlaurence (talk) 15:46, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is a difference between (Aruba Curacao and Sint Maarten) and (Bonaire Sint Eustatius and Saba). The former are separate "countries" from the Netherlands but are included, along with the Netherlands, in the Kingdom of the Netherlands, and are already included in the proposed additions. The latter "Caribbean Netherlands" are within the "country" of the Netherlands, but nevertheless are located on a different continent, and I think they should be separated.—Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 16:30, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What-bloody-ever...dependencies are just dependencies, let's not focus on categorisation, and just every single dependencies on the surface of mother Earth and split them in separate rows, alright? Just remember that I support to split as much as you do, and we definitely have zero necessity to bring 'different types' into debate or trying to use it as any forms of reasons. Now we're having overwhelming majority and truckloads of reasons and arguments stronger than diamonds, so I think a final decision will soon be made.
split the bailiwicks and IOM, not Guadaloupe etc - Jersey, Guernsey, IOM etc are separate entities so should be split. Guadaloupe, Martinique etc are part of Metropolitan France and should be treat as such. We don't define, we reflect.--Mtaylor848 (talk) 16:42, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That is blatantly against the prime principle of universal consistency. All Dependencies are dependent polities which their sovereignties are responsible for them. You either incorporate them all, or you split them all. Pktlaurence (talk) 17:11, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Metropolitan France is the part located in Europe so overseas departments are not include. However, Pktlaurence's argument is not necessarily accurate because French Guiana and Guadeloupe are to France as Hawaii is to the United States; they are included in parliament. But unlike Hawaii and the United States, the populations of Metropolitan France and the Departements d'Outre mer are pretty separated and have distinct cultures.—Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 17:49, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
De nada, Hawaii is officially the 50th state of USA, a directly governed American soil, while French dependencies aren't. No matter what, that doesn't matter at all since nothing you spoke are actually relevant to the argument of consistency (PLEASE ALSO NOTE THAT CULTURAL ISSUES HAS DEFINITELY NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS PAGE AND DONT GO OFF TOPIC). Universal Consistency matters, so we're definitely not gonna include some and leave out the rest.Pktlaurence (talk) 18:23, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Pktlaurence: Please be civil. French overseas departments are directly governed by the same system. The reason I mentioned cultural issues is they make a difference in whether something is understood to be <France, Netherlands, USA> or not. People don't think of French Guiana or Aruba as part of France or the Netherlands, unlike Hawaii.
Furthermore, if you look closely, you should see I'm agreeing with you, but just pointing out a detail that makes these issues different. Both France and the Netherlands have two categories of overseas land; that which is technically part of the country and governed like anything else of the country, and that which is a territory and not subject to the main national government. In the first category, that would involve Bonaire, Sint Eustatius, Saba, French Guiana and Guadeloupe, etc. In the second category, that would include Aruba, Curacao, Sint Maarten, French Polynesia, Wallis and Futuna, Saint Pierre and Miquelon, etc. These are different issues. We have to decide if we include none and package them all into the sovereign powers, only the second category, or both the first and second category. It is somewhat annoying that a new discussion was made while this was still in progress.—Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 18:41, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's just that I couldn't understand the reasons of bringing cultural arguments to a public health issue. And all the different types of dependencies are just confusing. Dependencies are just... dependencies, so let's just forget about all those rigmaroles and simply split everyone of them who has an independent healthcare system of themselves. Pktlaurence (talk) 18:53, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That would mean to include French Guiana which is in South America, as part of France (along with the other territories). These are separated on worldometers, at kff.org, and at the Johns Hopkins map. I think there is a good reason to separate constituent territories in other continents that are culturally very different from the mainland.—Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 18:26, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Let's just stop talking about cultural factors as they're completely irrelevant. I've made a point about healthcare systems, perhaps you guys can check it out.Pktlaurence (talk) 18:34, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support listing statistics according to List of countries and dependencies by population, without making special exceptions for cultural differences, or anything else. Any exceptions can be noted in the body of the article as appropriate. If there is some reason why that would be onerous, then my second choice would be to follow the scheme used by worldometers.info. - MrX 🖋18:57, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
I'm wondering what the use or uses of this template is.
One number for China, for example, tells us very little, whereas a map with breakdown by first level administrative division tells a useful story.
I am not keen on the "league table" aspect. I think it might work rather better if there were divisions were by continent, then territory, or perhaps just in alphabetical order.
Suggest you include a column stating number of days since index-case was identified; it would greatly help
interprete the strength of the daily situation and infere what part of the curb a given country might be in.
csa. MD. MPH.201.214.235.3 (talk) 15:09, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have set this up in the sandbox. If we are to use it it needs to be updated with any changes in numbers and references since I created it. I have done my best for now.
If no-one does this before I have more free time, I'll try again.
We list 1,587 recoveries in France. As far as I can tell, this figure does not come from official reports ([16]) and I couldn't find it in the press. Worldometers has this number, but I'm not sure where it comes from. Could someone help finding a source for this? Thank you. --MarioGom (talk) 20:06, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y".
The edit may be made by any autoconfirmed user. Remember to change the |answered=no parameter to "yes" when the request has been accepted, rejected or on hold awaiting user input. This is so that inactive or completed requests don't needlessly fill up the edit requests category. You may also wish to use the {{ESp}} template in the response. Consider making changes first to the redirect's sandbox and test them thoroughly here before submitting an edit request. To request that a page be protected or unprotected, make a protection request.
I noticed someone removed the note on Iran noting that WHO estimates a much higher toll due to lack of testing. I think this is important to note, because reports are that the official toll there is greatly lagging the actual toll, which makes the number especially unreliable relative to other countries. The numbers there are going up by the same absolute amount each day because that's how many tests they can run, not because they're reflective of the actual numbers. Titanium Dragon (talk) 20:32, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y".
The edit may be made by any autoconfirmed user. Remember to change the |answered=no parameter to "yes" when the request has been accepted, rejected or on hold awaiting user input. This is so that inactive or completed requests don't needlessly fill up the edit requests category. You may also wish to use the {{ESp}} template in the response. Consider making changes first to the redirect's sandbox and test them thoroughly here before submitting an edit request. To request that a page be protected or unprotected, make a protection request.
This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y".
The edit may be made by any autoconfirmed user. Remember to change the |answered=no parameter to "yes" when the request has been accepted, rejected or on hold awaiting user input. This is so that inactive or completed requests don't needlessly fill up the edit requests category. You may also wish to use the {{ESp}} template in the response. Consider making changes first to the redirect's sandbox and test them thoroughly here before submitting an edit request. To request that a page be protected or unprotected, make a protection request.
There are 94 cases for Bosnia and Herzegovina, Travnik suspicion confirmed few minutes ago. Dnevni avazKlix.baRTV BN
--5.43.82.5 (talk) 22:34, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply] Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha> tags or {{efn}} templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}} template or {{notelist}} template (see the help page).
.svg){kind=small}
Done. Thanks JMKaisar for the clarification and sorry for the wait! RayDeeUx (talk) 17:37, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
Czech Republic confirmed cases counts to 904, according to official source: https://onemocneni-aktualne.mzcr.cz/covid-19 😷 garyCZEk 📢 ✍ ｛🧒👧👦🚲💻🚗🍣｝ 08:13, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
San Marino counts as follows: confirmed: 160, deaths: 20 official source: http://www.iss.sm/on-line/home/aggiornamenti-coronavirus/articolo49014147.html 😷 garyCZEk 📢 ✍ ｛🧒👧👦🚲💻🚗🍣｝ 21:31, 21 March 2020 (UTC)