Jump to content

Template talk:COVID-19 pandemic data

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 190.219.162.190 (talk) at 02:57, 26 March 2020 (→‎Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 March 2020: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

New RfC on countries/dependencies

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. —Formulaonewiki 10:55, 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.
Best regards, Pktlaurence (talk) 11:11, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Best regards, Pktlaurence (talk) 11:23, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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. doktorb wordsdeeds 11:35, 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. —Formulaonewiki 16:44, 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. —Formulaonewiki 16:59, 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. —Formulaonewiki 17:19, 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. —Formulaonewiki 10:45, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Edit: in this revision I have added citations and better clarified the additional BOT figures in the note. —Formulaonewiki 11:21, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Edit 2: as if to prove my point, a good faith editor has already 'corrected' the UK total to show only the UK count in this edit. —Formulaonewiki 13:05, 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. doktorb wordsdeeds 11:00, 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. —Formulaonewiki 16:44, 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]
Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject COVID-19. MarioGom (talk) 13:10, 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. —Formulaonewiki 14:35, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I just realized that when I checked.—Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 14:36, 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.

Best regards, Pktlaurence (talk) 19:06, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • 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.
Alright. Pktlaurence (talk) 18:53, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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]
  • I am quite concerned that we are focusing on specific cases and we might loose the general picture. Let's adopt the parameters behind List of countries and dependencies by population. Wikipedia geographers have already sorted out the things we are discussing on. --Checco (talk) 17:54, 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]
  • 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.
All the best: Rich Farmbrough (the apparently calm and reasonable) 21:55, 21 March 2020 (UTC).[reply]
  • I propose listing territories in the same manner as reported by the sources from which we get the numbers, to avoid having to do calculations every time that we update them. The List of countries and dependencies by population is not the only standard, it doesn't include Akrotiri and Dhekelia and Svalbard, which are included in Dependent territory, or Somaliland, which is in the List of states with limited recognition. Based on how the sources report the numbers, I propose the following:
    • List all countries with limited recognition separately. The governments of the recognized countries only report the cases from the areas that they control.
    • List all British Crown dependencies, British overseas territories, SARs of China, constituent countries of Denmark and Netherlands separately.
    • Include Åland in Finland.[1]
    • Include all overseas regions of France, Saint Barthélemy and Saint Martin in the total for France. That is how the French government is reporting the total.[2] Worldometers shows this same total for France and lists the overseas regions again separately, which seems to be incorrect. List only the remaining overseas collectivities separately, if they have cases (Saint Pierre and Miquelon, New Caledonia, Wallis and Futuna, French Polynesia).
    • Include all US territories in the US, as that is how the US government is reporting the total.[3] Again, Worldometers seems to include US territories in the US total ("others" in the list of US states) and again separately.
    • It seems that so far here have been no cases in Svalbard, external territories of Australia, or associated states/territory of New Zealand. If there are cases there in the future, they should be combined or listed separately depending on how the governments of these countries report the totals. I suppose that Norway and Australia will combine them, but New Zealand will not. Heitordp (talk) 04:42, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Heitordp:My suggestion is we don't split by the standard of this article, but we simply split all dependencies, including that Brit base on Cyprus and svalbard too, but Somaliland is definitely another issue—its a country with limited recognition. We will open another thread to discuss about CLRs. Pktlaurence (talk) 11:39, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Pktlaurence: Support, split all dependencies. We should be careful when copying numbers from sources that include dependencies, but they are becoming so large so fast that any mistakes will be insignificant. Heitordp (talk) 16:13, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support all territories from all countries should be included separately. Many territories are far from their owner countries and it simply make more sense to list them separately in the context of an epidemic. -- Akira😼CA 10:52, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support all territories from all countries should be included separately. The issue of the spread of the epidemic is geographical, not political. Including remote territories with another part of the world simply obscures the extent of the pandemic. Who owns what, controls what, or funds what services is really irrelevant to the epidemiology of the virus. Geography is the real issue. Ptilinopus (talk) 12:41, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

When are we gonna bloody implement those changes then? Since we're already having an overwhelming support here. Pktlaurence (talk) 11:39, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if we should wait for the RfC period. Maybe someone experienced can help. Ping Rich Farmbrough, Doc James (just to name a few watching this page): do you think we can implement this change without waiting for RfC closure period? --MarioGom (talk) 15:58, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
RfC duration: "An RfC should last until enough comment has been received that consensus is reached, [...] There is no required minimum or maximum duration; [...] To end an RfC manually, remove the {{rfc}} template from the talk page." Heitordp (talk) 16:13, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Heitordp: Thank you. I'm not sure what the exact conclusion should be. While there is a clear consensus on splitting dependencies, the details are not clear. There are two positions that could be summarized as 1) split all dependencies and 2) split dependencies to the extent that official sources report separately. Even the implementation details of both positions are not clear to me. --MarioGom (talk) 17:17, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
MarioGom I think the consensus is fairly clear, to split all dependencies. RandomIntrigue (talk) 17:52, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
RandomIntrigue: That's not what I'm reading. Some people said split all dependencies/territories/entities (multiple variations), others suggested following a scheme like List of countries and dependencies by population which does not split Guadaloupe or Martinique, Heitordp made a fairly detailed proposal with some specifics... --MarioGom (talk) 18:11, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
MarioGom: Out of those two choices, I'd be more in favour of splitting to the extent that official sources report separately. Seems a logical solution and the most practical with regard to updating figures. —Formulaonewiki 22:58, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Some people said that we should use a "universal consistency" regarding which territories to list separately, but Wikipedia doesn't have one. The List of countries and dependencies by population, List of countries and dependencies by area, Dependent territory and ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 are all slightly different. They all agree that dependencies should be listed separately from their sovereign countries, but what exactly counts as a dependency varies. For example: the French overseas regions are listed separately in ISO but not in the lists by area or population (which claim to be based on ISO); Akrotiri and Dhekelia is not in ISO or the list by population but is in the list by area; Bonaire, Saba and Sint Eustatius compose one entry in ISO, three entries in the list by area, and are only included in the Netherlands in the list by population.

I think that we are free to define which dependencies to split depending on the purpose or the article. For example, the List of circulating currencies implicitly includes the French overseas regions (and its collectivities in the Americas) in France because they all use the euro, but splits Bonaire, Saba and Sint Eustatius from the Netherlands because they use the US dollar, and it even splits Alderney from Guernsey. Even this coronavirus table has an unusual deviation from normal lists of countries by listing a ship.

Here the purpose is to show the geographic distribution of the disease, so I think that the criteria should be what the name of the country is commonly understood to include, its distance to the dependency, and how the sources for the number of cases list them. Below is a table of all dependencies that had cases so far. Please add a row to mark your suggestion on how to list each one, and we can change it multiple times until we reach a consensus. A dash means listed separately. Don't take my suggestion as a fixed opinion, I'm totally open to change it so we can reach a consensus. In the meantime, we could at least split the dependencies that we already agree with.

Justification for my suggestion: Worldometers seems to have corrected its US total, now including only states and DC, and keeping US territories separate. The French health page shows a number for metropolitan France and for each overseas region, Saint Barthélemy and Saint Martin. The numbers reported by Cyprus include Akrotiri and Dhekelia.[4] The Danish health page shows cases for each territory separately. The Finnish health page only shows a total for the whole country. All other dependencies are reported by separate sources. Heitordp (talk) 23:38, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Considering we allow Northern Cyprus, an unrecognised territory, it would make more sense to allow Ak/Dh because it is legally and internationally recognised as a territory of the UK. I think that the Åland Islands should also be separated for consistency. I've added my suggested edits below. RandomIntrigue (talk) 00:53, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
dependency HK MO PR VI GU GF GP MQ RE YT BL MF NC PF Ak/Dh BM KY GI MS TC GG JE IM AW CW SX FO GL AX
currently - - US US US FR FR FR FR FR FR FR FR FR GB CY GB GB GB GB GB - - - NL NL NL DK DK FI
Heitordp - - - - - - - - - - - - - - CY - - - - - - - - - - - - - FI
RandomIntrigue - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

New Australian Cases

According to the ABC, 1 354 cases in total (as of 6:35pm AEST on Saturday, March 21, I suspect that this time is wrong. First of all daylight saving, and date vs publication date). https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-03-22/coronavirus-australia-live-updates-covid-19-latest-news-lockdown/12078506

JMonkey2006 (talk) 11:37, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Superseded now. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:41, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
2 050 cases, 8 deaths as of 7:30 AEDT 24 March 2020 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-03-24/coronavirus-australia-live-news-covid-19-latest/12083914 JMonkey2006 (talk) 08:44, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
According to the ABC quoting the Deputy Chief Medical Officer, there are 2 252 cases in Australia. However Worldometers and Wikipedia reports a higher number; can we clarify this? https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-03-25/coronavirus-australia-live-updates-covid-19-latest-news/12086520 JMonkey2006 (talk) 03:15, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
2020 coronavirus pandemic in Australia which has a state by state break down currently says 2431, whereas ABC says 2430. But ABC seems to have a wrong number for Tasmania. WOMC has 2423, so they are behind. Don't expect any more updated for 12 hours. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:19, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for updating it Graeme. On another note, I see quite a few sections in this Talk about updating cases for various countries. Is there a way to collate these so non-extended confirmed users can highlight mistakes? I'm new to Wikipedia so I might be unaware of a feature that does this. JMonkey2006 (talk) 10:57, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Add note for "Northern Cyprus" or combine with Cyprus

"Northern Cyprus" is only recognized by Turkey, the international community does not give it validation. I understand the purpose of listing the region though, as the sources/reports of COVID-19 are not being reported by Cyrpus for the northern region.

"Northern Cyprus" should be clearly identified as a defacto state, or by stating "only recognized by Turkey". The other suggestion is that Northern Cyprus be joined with Cyprus, although I am in favor of the first option.

It is necessary for clarification, that Northern Cyrpus not be given any legitimacy as a seemingly existant territory. Akbhaza and other defacto states with only one country recognizing them are not listed. It is important that readers are presented with academic honesty. ChaoticTexan (talk) 00:43, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not to get into the hot and dicey waters of politics, but one could use these similar issues with Taiwan. There is already a note/efn annotation for Cyprus that indicates that the cases for Northern Cyprus and Cyprus are separate.
This table is only meant for covering case counts for locations where cases of COVID-19 were diagnosed. It would be best if political issues such as this one play as small of a role in listing those case counts.
I'll go by the benefit of the doubt and assume that you've already viewed the past discussions about the policy of listing territories on this table/template, and realized that the issue of Northern Cyprus and Cyprus was never touched upon. However, should you discover that what I've assumed is not the case, please view those discussions in the archives whenever you have time.
Hope that addresses your concerns. RayDeeUx (talk) 01:59, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the political debate regarding it, although of all territories listed for COVID-19, Northern Cyprus is unique. As I previously stated, I am okay with it being listed but it is academically dishonest to present it as a country/territory that has a similar status to the rest. Yes Taiwan is controversial, although it isn't only supported by one state. It also has a history with the United Nations whereas Northern Cyrprus does not. Northern Cyprus is as subjective as one person calling the sky red. If it had more validity I would be okay with excluding the note. Although the reason listed for removing the note, had to do with it being called subjective (not according to the rest of the world minus Turkey). I kindly encourage people to research the legitimacy of the self-proclaimed country, you'll find it is just as valid as Akbhazia, South Ossetia (which has more recognition than Northern Cyprus), and other territories. Information needs to be as precise as possible, it is disingenuous to imply the legitimacy of Northern Cyprus. ChaoticTexan (talk) 03:03, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
NC is definitely in a completely different situation with Taiwan. Taiwan is internationally recognised by quite a few states across the globe, and definitely not a puppet state (although commies accuses Taiwan of being an American puppet state all the time, USA doesn't even recognise Taiwan officially lol). But, in the case of NC, it is only recognised by one state, which is turkey. And this this lead to that the former is widely considered a sock puppet and the latter its suzerainty. Pktlaurence (talk) 11:45, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Whether to list a country here should not be about political recognition, but about how the sources are reporting cases. We are even listing a ship here. I prefer to list any unrecognized country that has reported cases and is not included in the number reported by the respective recognized country. Taiwan, Palestine, Northern Cyprus and Kosovo are listed because they have reported cases and are not included in the numbers reported by China, Israel, Cyprus and Serbia. Transnistria has also reported cases, but it's not listed separately because they are already included in the number reported by Moldova. Other unrecognized countries like Abkhazia and South Ossetia aren't listed simply because they haven't reported any cases so far, but if they do and Georgia doesn't include them, they should be listed as well. I support listing Northern Cyprus in italics like the ship or adding a note to clarify its limited recognition, but not combining the number with Cyprus. The numbers are changing frequently and I'd rather avoid calculations in every update. Heitordp (talk) 19:52, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Table Totals

This was brought up before (and has been archived), and the consensus seemed to be that totals should sum the figures in the table, not be imported from another source. Plainly this hasn’t happened. The sum of Cases, Deaths and Recoveries does not correspond to the totals given. Ptilinopus (talk) 09:08, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ptilinopus: Indeed, consensus seemed to lean towards doing our own sum (discussion). Rich Farmbrough had a work in progress template to automate the sum, but it does not seem to be ready yet. I would say let's go for it. It is worth noting that Doc James suggested going by the higher figure for totals: ours or WOMC's. --MarioGom (talk) 09:58, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should add up our own columns. However I only update the totals every so often to avoid edit conflicts due to long edits. I try to keep the edit window open for as short as possible. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:42, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a case of "ready yet" so much as the template being a moving target. Numbers and references are constantly being changed, and of course countries added. All the best: Rich Farmbrough (the apparently calm and reasonable) 11:06, 23 March 2020 (UTC).[reply]
The problem is that we are struggling to stay up to date. Numbers for all 200 countries will increase on a daily basis soon.
Thus if our sum is higher sure we should use it. If the sum from another source is higher than I do not see an issue with using it. Otherwise we will rapidly become out of date.
Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:14, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm ok with both approaches. While I'm not so fond of WOMC for individual countries, I don't think it hurts that much in totals. On the other hand, if we can automate the sum of our figures, I think that outweighs a slight staleness of data. I think we are updating fast enough for the lag to be negligible. --MarioGom (talk) 16:06, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note that Worldometer may be double-counting some territories in their totals. For example, they list Martinique, Guadeloupe et al. but their figures for France already include these territories. --MarioGom (talk) 14:57, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

New column in "2019–20 coronavirus pandemic by country and territory" table?

Moved from Talk:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic § New column in "2019–20 coronavirus pandemic by country and territory" table?
 – MarioGom (talk) 10:21, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible to update the table "2019–20 coronavirus pandemic by country and territory" with a new column like "confirmed deaths per million people". This will give a more comparable view of how effected the different contries are.

I know the map is showing this, but i would like to se the actual numbers and the possibility to sort. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.186.121.223 (talk) 10:16, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is twofold, first it makes the table wider, and not display properly on phones, and secondly it is too hard for editors to calculate the values. They could just copy the worldometer figures, but the definition of the country, numbers and population would have to match. So overall I am not in support of the column. It was added once before, but did not survive long. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:46, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The sandbox template would be able to support this, by automating the calculation. All the best: Rich Farmbrough (the apparently calm and reasonable) 11:07, 23 March 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Will that extend the template? In which case I propose a Wikipedia page doing exactly that. jax (talk) 06:51, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Where could we test the sandbox template? Will it use kind of {{formatnum:+{{#expr: (175 / 160 - 1 ) * 100 round 0 }}%}} and Template:Vert_header?--😷 garyCZEk 📢 ✍ ｛🧒👧👦🚲💻🚗🍣｝ 11:58, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And could this template make it only be sent/viewed on a wide screen that can handle it? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:36, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We could have a narrow base version. And than we could have a button people could click to see a wide version with more details. Is this possible to make? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:42, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ireland cases

Update the number of cases to 1125 on coronavirus 2020europe page also AnsuAnn (talk) 07:59, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Someone already did it. Thank you! --MarioGom (talk) 09:51, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please Updated Laos

Laos has recorded first two cases of Covid-19 in this link below https://m.jpost.com/Breaking-News/Laos-records-first-two-coronavirus-cases-Thai-Media-622110 James17 (talk) 09:01, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

James17:  Done. Thank you! --MarioGom (talk) 09:50, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats to everyone!

I think we are catching up quickly. With an incredible amount of daily edits, our data is no longer significantly lagging. For the first time this week, on 23 March, I noticed that we updated several countries way before than any other aggregate tracker. This happened, at least, with Germany, Japan, Norway or Spain. It is worth noting that whenever we were ahead of other aggregate trackers, we were forced to use reliable sources properly. Keep up the good work! --MarioGom (talk) 09:16, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Iran' s CCF update

Iran latest CCF is 24,811 and death toll is 1,934, can anyone kindly amend (-: https://en.irna.ir/news/83726121/Iran-s-coronavirus-death-toll-hits-1-934 BlackSun2104 (talk) 12:38, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Iran's CCF should have increased by now, it still remain unchanged, what is the reason for that ??🤔 BlackSun2104 (talk) 13:24, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BlackSun2104: You may want to read Wikipedia:Wikipedia is a volunteer service and Wikipedia:There is no deadline. Thank you for your patience. --MarioGom (talk) 15:42, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
BlackSun2104 In short, please keep in mind that none of us are robots; we are humans like you and therefore have our own lives to manage. As such, we are not necessarily on this page editing the case counts 24/7.
Your option is to simply wait for your edit requests to be handled.
Hope that addresses your concerns. RayDeeUx (talk) 17:31, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 March 2020

Ukraine - confirmed cases rose from 84 to 97, according to https://www.pravda.com.ua/news/2020/03/24/7244906/ (Already changed in the "2020 coronavirus pandemic in Ukraine" wiki-page) RomanKlasnyy (talk) 15:02, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@RomanKlasnyy:  Done. James F. (talk) 17:26, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 March 2020

Update Israel to 1656 cases, 1 death, 49 recovered (see Johns Hopkins dashboard, Israel page, https://t.me/MOHreport, etc.) Eitan1989 (talk) 15:32, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Eitan1989:  Done independently. Numbers in Haaretz updated to 3 deaths, 50 recovered and reflected here. James F. (talk) 17:23, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Turkey numbers announced on 24 March 2020

Turkey: Coronavirus death toll climbs to 44 Health minister announces 343 new cases, bringing tally to 1,872 State agency citation: Kara Aydin, Havva (2020-03-24). "Turkey: Coronavirus death toll climbs to 44". Anadolu Agency. Retrieved 2020-03-24. Canerguclu (talk) 19:59, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Interstellarity (talk) 20:18, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Death number still not updated to 44, I have corrected the title of the ref. Canerguclu (talk) 21:13, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To editor Canerguclu:  done. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 22:28, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Abkhazia and South Ossetia

I notice in footnotes that these two entities are excluded from the figures for Georgia. Do they in fact have any cases? If so, where are they? Either they should be added to Georgia, or they should be listed separately. But currently any such are falling between the cracks of RfC! Ptilinopus (talk) 20:04, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To MarioGom: RfC related issue. No rush/pressure intended. Apologies for abrupt notice.
To Ptilinopus: As far as I see, the current RfC discussion states that there haven't been cases in both Abkhazia and South Ossetia reported yet.
Hope that helps. RayDeeUx (talk) 20:17, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the related RfC: #New RfC on countries/dependencies. It is more focused on dependencies and not so much on limited recognition countries. My guess is that the conclusion of the RfC might help to decide on this too. But Ptilinopus question is important to answer in any case: whether there are confirmed cases in these regions and reliable sources for it. --MarioGom (talk) 20:36, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As of 24 March 2020, Abkhazia and South Ossetia have not reported any case.[5] As such I find it unnecessary to mention that they are excluded from Georgia. Heitordp (talk) 21:49, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Heitordp: I think we could mention the exclusion now if official Georgia statistics explicitly state that these territories are excluded, and skip the mention otherwise until there are reported cases in these regions. --MarioGom (talk) 10:02, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Making the numbers easier to import to another wiki

Hello, I know it doesn't concern English Wikipedia, but I'm currently importing the numbers automatically with my bot. It used to match the numbers after | style="padding:0px 2px;"| and put it in the formatnum so it will automatically show the Bangla numerals in Bangla Wikipedia (bn). However, recent format was changed to just a | sign, which would be difficult to match as it's just one sign. Is it possible to put the numbers in English Wikipedia within {{formatnum:12345|en}} so the numbers can be easily displayed on other wikis with own numerals as well? Thanks. — T. 22:14, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jc86035: I'm tagging you as you made the changes. Maybe you have other ideas to make things easier? — T. 22:18, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Wikitanvir: You could do a regular expression search for ^\| ?([0-9,]*) and use the replacement text |{{formatnum:$1}}. This would actually be possible using the normal wikitext editor, but a bot could do it as well (though I don't know what software you're using).
The reason I've gone to the trouble of removing the formatting is that the main article is still exceeding the template size limit. Jc86035 (talk) 22:22, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply @Jc86035:, Your regex ^\| ?([0-9,]*) matches |9,037 but not |100. — T. 22:28, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
However, you could enter the number in formatnum right? It wouldn't increase the size that much I hope. The reason I'm saying this, because then none of us need to change the numbers at all, it would automatically display in their own numerals if the have. — T. 22:30, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Wikitanvir: Are you sure it doesn't match? I'm testing it and it appears to work for both of those test cases. (Do note that the text needs to be at the very start of the line for the regex to work.) Yes, we could add FORMATNUM here, but, you know, I would still prefer if we didn't have to, since it's not necessary for this Wikipedia nor for many others. Jc86035 (talk) 22:41, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Jc86035:, I understand your concern for not using FORMATNUM. I use Pywikipedia's user-fixes.py for this. I checked your regex here. Could you please confirm? — T. 23:03, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Wikitanvir: Try using \n\| ?([0-9,]*) instead and then reinserting the line break. Jc86035 (talk) 23:06, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Wikitanvir: Alternately, use the "multiline" flag. Jc86035 (talk) 23:32, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Update Colombia

Colombia: 378 cases Source: https://twitter.com/MinSaludCol/status/1242572459259371522 National Ministry of HealthJuan C. S. H. (talk) 23:33, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Updated, thank you. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:57, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 March 2020

Panama has 443 confirmed cases and 8 deaths. Source: https://www.tvn-2.com/nacionales/defunciones-contagiados-pandemia-COVID-19-Panama_0_5540445980.html 190.219.162.190 (talk) 23:54, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Updated, thank you. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:00, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mortality Rate

Hi! Can we add a column of mortality rate (deaths / cases)? DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 00:12, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This has been discussed many times before, see the archives to see why it is not happening. We will let viewers draw their own conclusion. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:01, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 March 2020

Jamaica now has twenty five confirmed cases.[1]

72.252.112.184 (talk) 01:07, 25 March 2020 (UTC) 72.252.112.184 (talk) 01:07, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The twitter appears to come from a journalist. But this is not a reliable source, as the person is not verified. But have they published the information on a web site? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:55, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://twitter.com/AbkaFitzHenley/status/1242613963101216768
Any way it has been updated. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:51, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have clarified the links so people don't think they're clicking on the country's regular article by putting (more info), per WP:EASTEREGG. I made the text small to minimise space, so it and still leaves plenty of room. But feel free to revert if I am missing something. Keiiri (talk) 02:09, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect the vast majority of readers are not looking to learn about the history, geography, etc. of the country in question. They're just looking for information about COVID-19. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 02:16, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
But it still looks misleading though. What exactly is your objection to it? Clarifying the links makes them more likely to click on it if they're looking for information. People wouldn't click if they think it just leads to the normal article. Keiiri (talk) 02:25, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Misleading" is changing the format mid-course. The revert was essential, and rapid. I also was reverting when Suffusion of Yellow beat me to it. Fanx (talk) 02:28, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, but I have to wonder what the objection to this is. Keiiri (talk) 02:30, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's common practice to link [[Subject X in Country Y|Country Y]] from "Subject X". See e.g. the countries listed at 2016 Summer Olympics or Eurovision_Song_Contest_2019. It's where I expect to taken, at least, though YMMV. Aside, see WP:VPT#Template include size limit. Until that problem is solved, it's best not add any more bloat to any templates transcluded by 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 02:39, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My objection (as per my attempted edit summary) is essentially exactly the same as Suffusion of Yellow's (as I understand it) "This is about COVID19 in these countries, not about the countries themselves". Within each nation/territory's local pandemic page there are more than enough links to the countries, and their agencies without cluttering the main template with spurious information or links. Fanx (talk) 02:41, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorting columns causes overlay of notes in Firefox

In Firefox at least, sorting the table by any of the columns seems to overlay the notes (from below the table) over the top of the table. Confirmed this does not happen in Google Chrome. I will probably not have time to look into why, so I'm leaving this here in case someone has time to look/fix. Cheers — Jon (talk) 04:57, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jonathanischoice: I can't reproduce this in Firefox (I tested using Vector, Monobook and Timeless). Jc86035 (talk) 06:34, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

San Marino on 24 March 2020

Please update San Marino death count to 21, according to official source: http://www.iss.sm/on-line/home/artCataggiornamenti-coronavirus.49004093.1.20.1.html 😷 garyCZEk 📢 ✍ ｛🧒👧👦🚲💻🚗🍣｝ 08:51, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done thanks, I used http://www.iss.sm/on-line/home/aggiornamenti-coronavirus/articolo49014166.html. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:49, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What about adding 2 columns, % of new cases and death compared to the previous day ?

This would help us understand what is the current status of the pandemic in every country and tell us which country have right/wrong measures. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bkrqpzef (talk • contribs) 09:40, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Bkrqpzef:, two points: 1) this template gets updated frequently. While the numbers are easy to update, but percentages are not (and wouldn't be logical to update frequently as well). Percentages for most countries don't change much, so comparison won't help for the most. 2) this table is wide enough (if you see it in article), adding two extra columns will make it much wider. — T. 10:18, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Percent new cases (ie. Today's cases / Yesterday's total cases) is available from respective COVID page for each country, and would not be very difficult to include. This information would very helpful to show which countries are struggling to contain the epidemic. If you are concerned about table width, you could add a line wrap or abbreviation for "St Vincent and the Grenadines". scottt (talk) 20:14, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No more new columns in this template. We could make a larger table for other uses I guess but that is not this one. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:39, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mali first cases

Mali first cases 90.209.134.27 (talk) 11:21, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Someone has added it thanks. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:42, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Update Lebanon

Can you update the your references for Lebanon. Lebanon has only 3 references, you missed the reference to the first website "Lebanon Info Center". View technology section on 2020_coronavirus_pandemic_in_Lebanon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikicontrib20 (talk • contribs) 12:39, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We won't add more than 3 references as it makes the reference column too wide. But we can store a reference in a comment if it is going to be used again. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:43, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 March 2020

Please update Iran to 2,077 deaths, as per the already-cited article (2,206 is the number of new cases, and appears to have been inserted here in error). Eitan1989 (talk) 12:48, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary information for Switzerland

I think we should remove the remark for Switzerland, that "there are more positive than confirmed cases", because this is true for all countries. It gives the impression that Switzerland does not test enough but Switzerland has one of the highest testing rates, while other countries like Ukraine or Hungary have a very low testing rate. Every country has unreported cases, some cases have no symptoms, some cases have them but get not tested. Tensorproduct (talk) 12:59, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 March 2020

Poland total cases 957[6], 13 death in total[7][8] -in that tweet Polish MON stated that we have 957/13 (total coronavirus positiv labconfirmed/total deaths)Natanieluz (talk) 13:54, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Updated United States Man (talk) 18:07, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fatality rate per country

I think we need an additional column showing the fatality rate per country, at least for countries with 1000 cases or more. The differences in FRs are stark (some countries around 10%, others are 0%). This would be very informative.--27.104.208.183 (talk) 16:53, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

While that would be useful, I believe the commonly held consensus here is that the template would become too wide (especially for mobile devices) should we add any more columns. United States Man (talk) 18:10, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 March 2020

+74 new confirmed cases in Poland (total of 1031) [9] +1 death (14 tot) Natanieluz (talk) 16:55, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Poland has been updated. United States Man (talk) 18:06, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please make an update on Colombia

Hi. Colombia now reports 470 cases according to the Ministry of Health. Thanks. Source: https://twitter.com/MinSaludCol/status/1242883888344633345 Juan C. S. H. (talk) 18:49, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Done United States Man (talk) 19:36, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 March 2020

Turkey 26 recovered cases. [1] Ozkanyorukoglu (talk) 19:31, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://twitter.com/HaberturkTV/status/1242851698357534721?s=19

Germany's CCF slow to update

Germany 's CCF is now 37,323, please update accordingly. [1] BlackSun2104 (talk) 19:40, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Done United States Man (talk) 19:43, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://interaktiv.morgenpost.de/corona-virus-karte-infektionen-deutschland-weltweit/

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 March 2020

Turkey numbers announced on 25 March 2020

Cases 2.433 New cases 561 Deaths 59 New deaths 15

Source: Minister of Health of the Republic of Turkey https://twitter.com/drfahrettinkoca/status/1242914433325817859 Ozkanyorukoglu (talk) 20:57, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 March 2020

Turkey's pandemic figures are updated every 11:00 pm. Correct figures are: 2433 infected, 55 dead Source: 

https://twitter.com/drfahrettinkoca/status/1242914433325817859

Additionally, Isreal figures are up to date in its own article, yet requires update in this table 82.222.191.74 (talk) 20:57, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have update Israel, and someone else did Turkey. Which timezone is 11:00 pm in? Using UTC is good for out editors scattered over the world. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:39, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 March 2020

Latvia: change 197 to 221 87.110.170.242 (talk) 21:34, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

UK : urgent update neeeded

UK's CCF is now 9529, please update accordingly. [1] BlackSun2104 (talk) 21:51, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please indicate the scope - does this include the remote territories? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:29, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I missed your source, and I can figure out the answer. So I have updated. However death count does not match other sources. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:50, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.arcgis.com/apps/opsdashboard/index.html#/f94c3c90da5b4e9f9a0b19484dd4bb14

Proposal to further simplify table on mobile portrait

AHollender_(WMF) has provided a further proposal to simplify table presentation on mobile in portrait mode: Template talk:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data/styles.css#Cleaning_up_the_table_for_mobile_web

Please consider to update the template styles accordingly Volker E. (WMF) (talk) 21:53, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If it formats better, certainly. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:38, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Spain : urgent update

Spain 's CCF is now 49,515, please update accordingly. https://www.rtve.es/noticias/20200325/mapa-del-coronavirus-espana/2004681.shtml BlackSun2104 (talk) 22:37, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. --MarioGom (talk) 23:16, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why does the V.T.E. on the left top corner links to Navbar Collapsible when it should link to this article? Are there any reasons for it? Luke Kern Choi 5 (talk) 00:52, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you are referring too? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:36, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sort by deaths by default

The number of confirmed cases is a misleading metric for comparison among nations, due to the hugely varying scale of testing taking place. For example, South Korea does broad testing and has probably identified most cases, while Italy says the true number of cases is likely to be 10x what has been identified. Countries are increasingly limiting testing to severe cases or high-risk individuals when they become overwhelmed by the speed of the spread. I suggest that it would make more sense to switch the default sort to deaths, since that is the more reliable number for comparing the severity of the outbreak among nations. 92.51.253.124 (talk) 01:11, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorting by number of cases is perfectly fine. You can sort by deaths for yourself if you want already. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:35, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 March 2020

There is no Republic of Northern Cyprus. This is not a country or an entity recognized by the UN. It should be noted as such on the list. 89.210.97.144 (talk) 02:20, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 March 2020

Panama has 558 confirmed cases, 8 deaths and 2 recovered. Source: https://www.tvn-2.com/nacionales/personas-recuperadas-casos-COVID-Panama_0_5541195909.html 190.219.162.190 (talk) 02:57, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:COVID-19_pandemic_data&oldid=947406455"