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 23:51, 30 March 2020 (→‎Update: Panama: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Highlighted open discussions

  1. #RfC: Default sort column

New RfC on countries/dependencies

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There is a strong consensus on splitting all autonomous territories and dependencies with some disagreements on the criteria to be followed. Some territories were explicitly agreed to be split: Availability of reliable sources (WP:RS) is a prerequisite for any split. Reliable sources are believed to exist for all territories that were explicitly agreed. --MarioGom (talk) 08:11, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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]
You don't seem to understand. Nobody cares whether the NHS is reponsible for the Channel Islands or not. They are crown dependencies, they aren't independent. That's why French Caledonia and Polynesia are not listed individually. This double standards has lasted long enough and there's no need for consensus when the decision has been taken for other countries' dependencies excepting those of the UK. The intricacies of British Constitutional law are meaningless here. There should be consistency across the board. Channel islands are not special entities that should be treated differently from other dependencies Manish2542 (talk) 18:17, 27 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]
I see that despite this RfC being ongoing, someone has decided to preempt the decision, and has deleted Guernsey, Jersey and Isle of Man, combining them with UK, and Northern Cyprus, combining it with Cyprus. I see no mention of this in Talk. I should have thought that this would have awaited consensus. Ptilinopus (talk) 16:11, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My thoughts too. I just reverted the CDs back to being listed separately but the user combined them again. Don't understand why -- the consensus here almost unanimously counts them separately, and this RfC isn't concluded; its other territories that just need deciding upon now (whether we do all or combine some). —Formulaonewiki 16:18, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ptilinopus: I think the merge should be reverted (split them again). It's not only that the RfC is open, but also consensus is leaning exactly in the opposite direction. --MarioGom (talk) 16:21, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I've said -- user has combined them again! Sigh. —Formulaonewiki 16:22, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have added rows for the Johns Hopkins CSSE (merges most territories), WHO (splits most, but makes a clear distinction between recognized states and other territories) and ECDC (splits dependencies but not overseas provinces). I have also added my vote to split them all. It looks like reliable sources make it possible and we can add a footnotes to all these territories clarifying the split. If you think it could be helpful, we could also format all dependencies and unrecognized states with italics. I'm not sure about Akrotiri and Dhekelia and Åland Islands, since I'm not so sure we can sustain reliable sources for them, but if we can, I would split them too. --MarioGom (talk) 16:21, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I found an obstacle to split the territories. Several sources provide the number of cases, but only JHU and Worldometers seem to provide the number of recoveries. JHU combines all territories with the respective countries, and Worldometers is inconsistent, for example showing the number for France including all overseas regions and also listing them separately, and sometimes doing that for the US too. It takes way too much time to figure out the number of cases, deaths and recoveries in all territories and subtract them from the country. And since the numbers are constantly changing, the effort becomes a boulder of Sisyphus. It would be nice to use the WHO situation reports, which list almost all territories separately and get updated just once a day at the same time with all countries. They worked very well during the Ebola epidemics. But they don't show the number of recoveries, and I suppose that people want to see that information here.

I'd also like to mention that I find this template a horrible mess. There are way too many sources, conflicting with each other, people are making edits almost every minute, the sums are not getting updated, and the wiki code is almost unintelligible with lengthy comments and nested templates. I tried to test splitting some territories (just in a preview) and couldn't get anywhere, wasting too much time with calculations to harmonize multiple sources and getting interrupted by the avalanche of edits from other users.

If possible, I'd like to extend the scope of this RfC to radically simplify this template. First, use only one source for everything and just copy the numbers from there exactly into the table. Individual sources from each country may be more up to date but everything is going to get changed after a few hours anyway. So use either JHU, which shows recoveries but combines the territories, or WHO, which splits territories but doesn't show recoveries. It would be great if someone found a better source but for now there doesn't seem to be one. We'd have to make a choice.

Second, remove all the junk code. Can we just make each row like this? {{flag|country}} || 123 || 4 || 56.

Third, after this pandemic is all over (hopefully soon) and the numbers stop changing, we can calmly calculate the numbers once and finally split all territories. Heitordp (talk) 17:34, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Heitordp: I don't think changing the scope of this RfC is really an option. On the template complexity, there is a possible solution at Template:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data/layout that merits a separate discussion. On the problem with references and update frequency, that could be a separate RfC to decide if we prefer daily updates from CSSE (or WHO or whatever fixed source) or the current model. --MarioGom (talk) 22:24, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I just realized how to see the number of cases, deaths and recoveries by territory for each country in JHU (click on "Admin 2", I suppose it means second administrative level), and that it's easy to avoid the cluttered code in the template with the visual editor. So the calculations and updates are not that bad. In the end, even if someone copies the numbers for a country including the territories, it's an insignificant error since the territories are relatively small and the numbers change all the time anyway.
I'm surprised that this template doesn't cite JHU but cites various news articles that get outdated quickly, and well as Worldometers while warning not to use it for several countries. JHU is already doing all the work of gathering the sources so we don't have to repeat it. I think that we can indeed split all territories and use JHU as the source. We'll also have to change or remove all the notes, comments and references accordingly.
Note that JHU only shows a number of recoveries for the US including all territories, not for each one. It also doesn't split Ak/Dh and Åland. But these territories have so few cases that I think that we can split them and just allocate all deaths and recoveries to the main country only. Maybe leave those columns blank for the territories instead of putting zeros, or add a note.
MarioGom: I believe that the consensus has been reached. The people who suggested following the list of territories by population agree with splitting all territories in the table below. There are reliable and consistent sources for all of them. I can try to make the changes when I have more time, if someone doesn't do it earlier. Heitordp (talk) 01:39, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Heitordp: I think I understand your point, but my understanding is that there is a current informal consensus that JHU is "too outdated". I think changing that would require a separate RfC. --MarioGom (talk) 08:46, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, we can keep using other sources, but I think that JHU needs to be added to some countries to cite the number of recoveries. I see that you already did that for France. Heitordp (talk) 12:38, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose the British privilege of having three miniscule personal properties of her holy imperial magnificent royal highness listed individually and quite lost as to why the Diamond Princess is still being listed here as all the persons on board have disembarked and are being double counted in the national tallies of the countries that have recuperated them Manish2542 (talk) 17:47, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Japanese government has released new numbers of the Diamond Princess, subtracting those who were evacuated to other countries and increasing the recoveries.[5] We should update them in the table. The updated numbers represent people who remained in Japan until they recovered and are not included in the numbers for Japan itself or other countries. Heitordp (talk) 01:23, 29 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
Johns Hopkins CN CN US US US FR FR FR FR FR FR FR FR FR ? GB GB GB GB ? GB GB GB NL NL NL DK DK ?
WHO CN CN - - - - - - - - - - - - ? - - - - - - - - - - - - - ?
ECDC ([6], [7]) CN CN US? - - FR FR FR FR FR FR FR - - ? - - - - - - - - - - - - - ?
Heitordp - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
RandomIntrigue - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
MarioGom - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ? - - - - - - - - - - - - - ?
ptilinopus - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Formulaonewiki ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? - - - ? ? ? ? ? ?
Checco - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The WHO already provides data on most territories. Today's situation report linked here. Krazytea(talk) 20:56, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I support separating all autonomous and semi-autonomous territories from their 'mainland'. Thank you to Beshogur: who italicised the countries with limited recognition. I think that we should also italicise autonomous and semi-autonomous territories such as Catalonia, Hong Kong and Jersey. JMonkey2006 (talk) 00:14, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
JMonkey2006: Just a note on Catalonia: it is not an autonomous territory or dependency. It has exactly the same status (de facto and de iure) as any other Spanish region. It is not an overseas territory either. --MarioGom (talk) 08:20, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Generally support, as spread of the virus is mostly geographical and not political. Recombining some remote dependency into the home country could be misleading in some instances.--Eostrix (talk) 10:37, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd like to propose a closure for the RfC. However, it is still not clear if we would be able to reliably source cases in Akrotiri and Dhekelia independently, since they seem to be reported together with Cyprus. Also, the World Health Organization, which splits most British Overseas Territories does not split Akrotiri and Dhekelia and probably includes it in Cyprus. --MarioGom (talk) 21:30, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Cyprus Mail routinely mentions how many cases of the Cyprus total are from Akrotiri and Dhekelia.[8] It also reports cases from Northern Cyprus separately.[9] Likewise, this page maintained by the Finnish government shows the number of cases in each region (click on "Tapausmäärät" below the map) so we can split Åland. We can use these sources instead of WHO for these places. Let's close the RfC. Heitordp (talk) 01:23, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unless there is any objection soon, I will close this RfC with this conclusion:

There is a strong consensus on splitting all autonomous territories and dependencies with some disagreements on the criteria to be followed. Some territories were explicitly agreed to be split:

Availability of reliable sources (WP:RS) is a prerequisite for any split. Reliable sources are believed to exist for all territories that were explicitly agreed.

--MarioGom (talk) 09:29, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Until a consensus is reached on all dependencies why are the Channel Islands being given special privilege? Remove them till consensus is achieved for ALL dependencies

Everything in the title Manish2542 (talk) 18:20, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Manish2542, I'm afraid you haven't done your homework yet with the issue. Try searching for discussions on the Channel Islands in the archives of the talk page and see if those discussions are of any help.
I may not be familiar with the status of the Channel Islands, so that is all I can suggest for the moment.
Here is the search link for "Channel Islands" from the archives of this talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=Channel&prefix=Template+talk%3A2019%E2%80%9320+coronavirus+pandemic+data%2F&fulltext=Search+archives&fulltext=Search&ns0=1
For the future, please put your concerns in the body of your new topic and not in the title section.
Cheers. RayDeeUx (talk) 18:50, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Northern Cyprus

@Pktlaurence: Northern Cyprus is not unrecognised. It is partially unrecognised such as Taiwan, Kosovo, Palestine so on... It is not comparable with Transnistria. Either we only include UN-states, or stop removing Northern Cyprus, which already has more cases then several countries. Beshogur (talk) 16:35, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Beshogur: It IS comparable with Transnistria indeed. Both are puppet states planted by a regional power, and both ONLY recognised by their overlord. Pktlaurence (talk) 16:39, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is not Reddit. Push your personal bias somewhere. Beshogur (talk) 16:41, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ha? It seems like you just run out of words and arguments, and just simply accuse me of personal bias, instead of giving proper evidences and EVEN responding to my points which you failed to do so. What i am stating are all facts, if youre actually willing to debate please at least give proper responses. I suspected you supported NC only because youre Turkish and you have personal bias. Pktlaurence (talk) 16:47, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed with Beshogur. You are making a controversial edit which undoubtedly would require discussion and consensus to implement. You are free to begin a discussion here and construct an argument as to why you believe they are comparable but currently, you have no real justification. Please stop resorting to ad hominem attacks (assuming intention), and don't demand other users reply to specific points or arguments; they do not owe you anything. PS, using bold really doesn't make your points any clearer, if anything it does the exact opposite. —Formulaonewiki 16:51, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Being more objective, does not make sense to join both "countries" since we have two articles: 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Northern Cyprus and 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Cyprus. Albertoleoncio (talk) 16:54, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I'm appalled that you cant see the fact that its actually he who made an empty ad hominem attack without any meaningful contents against me first. And I'm even more appalled that you expect talk page discussions to be empty without meaningful contents. So much for a 'good editor' like you, no wonder you keep reverting my edits. Pktlaurence (talk) 16:56, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"So much for a 'good editor' like you, no wonder you keep reverting my edits." This is not civil talk page conduct. Please stop. —Formulaonewiki 17:02, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • So much for your 'civility'. Don't forget someone made an uncivil ad hominem attack on me first, but you're turning a blind eye on it and accused me of ad hominem instead. I might use bolds, and you might not like the habit (but i will keep using it), but at least I'm making meaningful arguments instead of empty ad hominem attacks with zero meaningful contents like him. Pktlaurence (talk) 17:14, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. This behavior is not acceptable here. I think you’ve reverted different editors at least 6 times over the same content. United States Man (talk) 17:05, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I did not revert their edits. I typed all edits manually. Besides I don't think those have a consensus (the NC one at least).Pktlaurence (talk) 17:14, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Same difference. —Formulaonewiki 17:25, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Albertoleoncio: my point is, Transnistria gets incorporated. NC is in a similar situation of Transnistria and it should be getting the same treatment like it...the people in this wiki are just strange enough that they always breaks the principle of universal consistency so blatantly. Amd, well, NC is not a country, it is an unrecognised puppet state like Transnistria. Maybe you think i have biases, but i think take off the word 'puppet' everybody will agree to this statement. Pktlaurence (talk) 16:59, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Are you accusing the above editor of being a sockpuppet? —Formulaonewiki 17:07, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
De nada, I'm saying NC is a puppet state, and my accusations towards him is that he made ad hominem attacks with zero meaningful argument against me, and whilst you defended him blindly because you have a Vendetta with me.Pktlaurence (talk) 17:16, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have any vendetta against you, why are you making baseless accusations? I couldn't care less about you personally. —Formulaonewiki 17:27, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

People, lets focus a little bit. What the core sources says? They are joined or separeted? Albertoleoncio (talk) 17:13, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Indeed, they are reported on separately and sourced separately. Seems only logical to list them so too. —Formulaonewiki 17:27, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Albertoleoncio: My point is Transnistria. Basically everyone knows it is the same thing as NC as in how the Pope is Catholic. Transnistria is currently incorporated with moldovan data. Pktlaurence (talk)
Read the first answer again. Also make a visit to Foreign relations of Northern Cyprus. It isn't comparable with Transdniester. Also List_of_states_with_limited_recognition#States_that_are_neither_UN_members_nor_UN_observers. Either remove ROC, Palestine and Kosovo, or add Northern Cyprus. Your choice sir. Beshogur (talk) 17:35, 26 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) 17:41, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well thanks for your reply. Days ago I added a footnote for partially recognised states but they were removed. It's a good solution. Beshogur (talk) 17:43, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like a good solution to me too. —Formulaonewiki 19:18, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Someone keeps removing the italics and/or notes that resolve this issue. I'm also in agreement with what is being discussed here (in regards to italics/adding notes). Although it doesn't help that others are ignoring the talks and editing in what they personally want. @Formulaonewiki: @Beshogur: ChaoticTexan (talk) 03:14, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think all unrecognized states, dependencies, etc, should use italics. The World Health Organization does report on these territories separately, as discussed above, but it does so making a clear distinction. --MarioGom (talk) 23:23, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Common note for partially recognised states

Can someone add it if possible. I tried it but it doesn't work. Thanks in advance. Beshogur (talk) 11:00, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have added "Partially recognised states are included." in the edit notice to stop edit warring. Is that OK? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:43, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Or do you mean a foot note? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:47, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Beshogur (talk) 13:00, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Someone undid the italicisation of partially recognised states. I think that we should italicise all partially recognised states, and autonomous and semi-autonomous territories. A common footnote would also be good. However with the issue of naming the 'mainland' (eg. China (mainland), Denmark (mainland)), is it better to just write the country's name or add a (mainland) like what is done to China? JMonkey2006 (talk) 00:20, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Implementation of RfC's outcome

Thanks to User:MarioGom for closing the RfC.
Two questions:

  • Who is going to implement changes?
  • Would we need specific RfCs for the cases which were not explicitly cited?

Cheers, --Checco (talk) 09:24, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Checco: I'm going to start implementing change for the easier ones (Finland, Denmark, Netherlands) and then move to others unless someone else does it before. Regarding other cases, I think it might be better to start a regular discussion first rather than a formal RfC. If there is no consensus, at least we can identify the options for a well-formed RfC. --MarioGom (talk) 09:37, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK. However, if no-one disagrees, we can add ALL territories, also the non-cited ones. --Checco (talk) 09:50, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Checco: I'm assuming that, based on the RfC result, we are going to split all autonomous territories that are clearly comparable to those we listed explicitly if there are reliable sources for it. Specially those that are split by the World Health Organization too. Regarding partially recognized states, I think we should split those that are split by the World Health Organization, and discuss the others. --MarioGom (talk) 10:03, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The outcome is almost fully implemented. The only exception is Akrotiri and Dhekelia, which is included in Cyprus' figures. I have found no up-to-date source that reliably reports Akrotiri and Dhekelia cases in a way that it can be consistently subtracted from Cyprus totals. However, at least it is not double counted both in the United Kingdom and Cyprus anymore. If anyone finds a source that reports both Cyprus total and Akrotiri and Dhekelia figures at the same point in time, feel free to split it. I'm reluctant to subtract amounts when the total (Cyprus including Ak/Dh) and Ak/Dh figures correspond to different days. --MarioGom (talk) 16:08, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MarioGom: Thank you for making the changes. Cyprus Mail, the source currently used in the table, always reports the total and how many of those are in Ak/Dh (British bases). Here's the latest report: [10].
The French government daily reports a total for France,[11] which includes GF GP MQ RE YT MF BL (but not NC PF). It used to list the number for each territory but now it just displays the total. However, it's possible to confirm that this total still includes these territories by comparing with the WHO report on the next day, which splits them.[12] The numbers match exactly. JHU apparently is not aware of this and double counts them, adding every territory again to the total reported by the French government. Therefore, in the sum template, we should use the French government number for the total (not the JHU total) and subtract GF GP MQ RE YT MF BL (but not NC PF). Heitordp (talk) 17:50, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Heitordp: Thank you. I have split Ak/Dh. I'll will fix France later unless someone else does it before. --MarioGom (talk) 18:11, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Implementing a split of French overseas regions is impossible considering that data is collected on national scale. This will necessarily lead to double count or WP:OR. Their status cannot be compared with British crown dependencies at all as they are considered by the French government as integral regions of the country. Metropolitan (talk) 19:47, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Metropolitan: It's totally possible, the regions collect that data locally and France adds the numbers. Until last week the French health agency was clearly showing in its website the total for metropolitan France and each overseas region separately, and it still reports it that way for the WHO every day: [13] It also shows the number of deaths and recoveries by region: [14] In the worst case we can use the WHO data and it will just be one day old. This is not original research, we are merely copying the numbers from the source. JHU is the one double counting.
We already closed this discussion. Even though the overseas regions are considered integral parts of France unlike British territories, the purpose of this table is to show the geographic spread of the disease so it makes more sense to follow location than political status. Heitordp (talk) 20:42, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Heitordp: Then let's list Hawaii independently to track the epidemic in the Pacific? Joke aside, no matter what, I expect Wikipedia editors to upload official counts for France, you can't do anything against that. If that was only about me, I would say, stick to official sources as they are. Metropolitan (talk) 20:48, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Metropolitan: We already had this discussion, see above. Initially I also supported keeping territories combined if the numbers are reported that way by the country, but other users preferred to split them if there are reliable sources to cite the separate numbers. The consensus was to split the French overseas regions because, in addition to their geographic distance, they have separate ISO codes, are listed separately by WHO, and are usually not thought to be included when referring to the name of the country. They are also specifically named "overseas" (d'outre-mer) by France and they do have a few legal differences from the metropolitan regions such as visas and VAT. Hawaii doesn't meet any of these conditions, and it's also less far from the US than the overseas regions are from France. I understand that these criteria can be subjective, but as I said, we already discussed this before and decided to split the French regions but not Hawaii. If you wish to change the consensus you may open a new RfC. Heitordp (talk) 22:01, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Default sort column

The table is currently sorted by confirmed cases (by default). There are recurrent discussions about changing it to deaths (e.g. 1, 2, 3). The table is sortable by any column, but this is about the default sort column. So the question is simple:

Options

  • A. Alphabetical
  • B. Confirmed cases (status quo)
  • C. Deaths

Survey

Add your !vote here.

Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject COVID-19. MarioGom (talk) 11:20, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

I support Option C. The current stage of the crisis is of a different nature than what it was in january, requiring us to change our perception on this. Some countries such as South Korea or Germany have tested their population at a very large scale, even people with very mild symptoms or no at all [15]. However, in many other countries such as Italy, Spain, France or the UK, the testing capacity reached saturation. Therefore, testing is limited only to the most serious cases and healthcare workers [16]. As a result, the number of confirmed cases reported daily remains steady, not because we're nearing the peak but simply because there's no testing capacity to report more. Using this metric as the main one can easily lead to very fallacious conclusions about the maturity and intensity of the epidemics from a country to another.

Obviously reported deaths count has its own bias as well [17], yet, sadly, the number of deaths will never reach any saturation point like testing does. As such, it remains despite its flaws a more accurate metric to value the intensity of the epidemic in each country. Therefore, it would seem wiser to use it as the ranking by default on the table. Metropolitan (talk) 12:06, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree, except this: the number of deaths will never reach any saturation point like testing does. Counting deaths as caused by COVID-19 also relies on testing. Unfortunately, we have reports in Spain about hundreds of deaths suspected but unconfirmed. --MarioGom (talk) 12:09, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It should be "C" but the table will remain inconsistent in any case because, for example, Italy is taking into account all the deaths "with" coronavirus, Germany only the deaths "due to" coronavirus. If I'm infected and I have an heart attack, I will be counted if I die in Italy and I won't if I die in Germany. Paolotacchi (talk) 13:35, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Paolotacchi: There is no metric that is universally comparable. --MarioGom (talk) 16:23, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Editors here may be interested in the related proposal about which map to use first. Sdkb (talk) 02:57, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

More columns

Number of test

I think the number of test performed should be included in the table. This will give us a better understanding of the scenario. A country that has tested very few and got lower number infected persons can't be equally measured with a country that has tested in wide number and got lower number. --Rossi101 (talk) 09:24, 27 March 2020 (UTC)Rossi101[reply]

Rossi101: Reliable sources for number of tests is not available for most countries. You can find it on per-country articles in some cases. There is also an informal consensus of not adding more columns to this table. --MarioGom (talk) 09:49, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Rossi101. Without that, the table doesn't make any sense. Paolotacchi (talk) 13:30, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No. We have a different table for that. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:06, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Add remaining cases

In light of providing more information to readers as well as a form of encouragement, might I suggest for an extra column to be added for the remaining cases? I had added it already but it was abruptly deleted by a user. Thanks Hari147 (talk) 15:15, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Hari147, please see your talk page for more information. Thanks. RayDeeUx (talk) 15:19, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hari147: See #New columns. Adding new columns here requires reaching consensus first. Please, do not add it again unless there is a consensus for it. Given the high volume of daily edits, this kind of change is highly disruptive. Thank you. --MarioGom (talk) 15:23, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No more columns. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:08, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

New columns

Hari147: Please, do not add new columns ([18]) without discussion. Current informal consensus is not adding any new column. --MarioGom (talk) 15:10, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:04, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Serial numbers or ranking of the infected countries

Please add serial numbers or ranking to the table depicting the number of Covid-19 cases country wise SAI SUMANTH 20:36, 27 March 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saisumanth (talk • contribs)

The data is already sortable by country name, number of cases, number of deaths, number of recoveries. Adding a pointless number that would entail serious editing of the template every time a country's data was updated, and exceeded some previously higher 'rated' country would be a serious inconvenience. Fanx (talk) 01:49, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No new columns Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:11, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please break it down according to each cases' respective territory (ie mainland UK, any of the BOTs, etc.) Cheers. RayDeeUx (talk) 23:40, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

information about recovered people

Good job.

I would like to suggest to show information about the number of recovered people. Alternatively, to provide information on total cases (sickness + recovery + death)

Chris 77.114.138.70 (talk) 16:14, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The fourth column (Recov.) is the number of recovered people. The second column (Cases) is the total number of cases, including recovered and dead. --MarioGom (talk) 16:33, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Beijing's specious numbers

See also: fr:Wikipédia:Le Bistro/30 mars 2020 § Appel à un peu de prudence vis-à-vis des sources

Can we finally stop treating China's numbers (especially deaths) as anything other than unvarnished propaganda?[1]--2601:444:380:8C00:459B:B2B0:DC04:92DF (talk) 03:02, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We just put in the numbers reported. The same applies to other countries that may have limited testing, or no reporting, we put in the numbers reported. If you have a better source of info for China, please let us know. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:02, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The addition of a superscript note indicating that Beijing's data is considered unreliable will do. Skeptical RS is bountiful, runs the gamut of the political spectrum, and dare I say even constitutes a consensus view among those who broach the subject. [2][3][4][5][6][7]
--2601:444:380:8C00:459B:B2B0:DC04:92DF (talk) 04:42, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately we can only use what reliable sources tell us. Though I wouldn't call anything from the Mainland reliable... --Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 04:26, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Boy, aren't we in luck! There's a big, fat list of 'em right down here. Swipe all you want.--2601:444:380:8C00:9415:9BA6:C82A:F63F (talk) 05:41, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Same concerns apply equally to a lot of countries. No thanks. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:13, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Other countries lynching negros too is not an excuse for Wikipedia to shirk its duty to promote reliable data. If multiple countries are malfeasing, then multiple superscript notes may be required, perhaps leading to entire new articles.--Froglich (talk) 19:53, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We go with what reliable sources says. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:40, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Which of the source below do you consider to be unreliable, and what is your criteria?--2601:444:380:8C00:1DDA:35CC:396A:A484 (talk) 04:46, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I stopped checking your source list after a few of them. None of them presents any claim against Government figures. Al Jazeera actually seems to give full credibility to them. They collect different criticism to China's crisis management, not their statistics. If you really want to make the case for a footnote on China, please, provide proper sources and, if possible, concise quotes. Thank you. --MarioGom (talk) 15:03, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://web.archive.org/web/20200328022919/http://shanghaiist.com/2020/03/27/urns-in-wuhan-far-exceed-death-toll-raising-more-questions-about-chinas-tally/
  2. ^ https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2020-03-09/china-boasts-abroad-of-victory-over-coronavirus-as-quarantine-hotel-collapses-and-domestic-anger-simmers
  3. ^ https://www.propublica.org/article/how-china-built-a-twitter-propaganda-machine-then-let-it-loose-on-coronavirus
  4. ^ https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/03/china-coronavirus-propaganda-push-ties-worsen-200325085419818.html
  5. ^ https://www.nationalreview.com/the-morning-jolt/chinas-devastating-lies/
  6. ^ https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/23/life-after-lockdown-has-china-really-beaten-coronavirus
  7. ^ https://time.com/5804136/china-coronavirus-quarantine-new-normal/

Well, we need to include "unreliable" statement to US numbers as well because US only tests the most severe cases and those hospitalized. I've been personally denied a test myself due to the widespread shortages of tests. Also, there are reports that US is underestimating the death numbers by misreporting them to other causes. https://www.gq.com/story/american-coronavirus-deaths-undercounted https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/nidhiprakash/coronavirus-update-dead-covid19-doctors-hospitals Rwat128 (talk) 22:35, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Test scarcity is a known issue for every country. That's why we do not include a note for every country. There is a general note that says Cumulative confirmed cases reported to date. The actual number of infections and cases are likely to be higher than reported. --MarioGom (talk) 23:05, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus

We may need something like THIS here. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:16, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Doc James: Yes, please! Even before the two ongoing RfCs are closed, I would include two items: 1) no new columns and 2) cases are "confirmed cases" (not suspected, presumptive or whatever other definition). --MarioGom (talk) 22:50, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Okay will start it in a bit. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:10, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Have the clinically diagnosed cases already been removed from the figure on the table? (for KTC) RayDeeUx (talk) 23:42, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No idea. They are accepted as confirmed by some. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:52, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's been over a month since situation report 31. Unless someone objects here, I'm going to remove that footnote tomorrow. -- KTC (talk) 19:46, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cruise Ships

The addition of the Zaandam raises an issue. We started with the Diamond Princess, even though its passengers have mostly? been repatriated and in many cases subsumed into their country totals. But there are many cruise ships out there that have cases, and which are not included in any country’s total. Some are looking for a port to accept them. How should we deal with them? Have a category Cruise Ships, total them, and footnote the names? Omit them? There are two ships turned away from Western Australia in the past 2 days. I know of another off Peru. There must be dozens more. I don’t see that they should each be added to the country list. Ideas? Ptilinopus (talk) 20:52, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see what reliable sources report. The Diamond Princess case is still reported separately by the World Health Organization even today. It seems the MS Braemar is still counted in Cuba since they were evacuated (as opposed to the Diamond Princess). --MarioGom (talk) 22:47, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The people from Diamond Princess who are Australians, and have repatriated are counted in Australia, so need to be subtracted all the time. I wonder if this is true for any other countries? But I was referring to ships like Zaandam which are not in port but still at sea, and not being counted anywhere. Ptilinopus (talk) 01:27, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that the numbers on the Diamond Princess have changed. There are 40 less cases, 1 less death and 2 less recovered. I can find no reference where these numbers have been transferred to, or that the original figures were an error. Ptilinopus (talk) 12:47, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The correct death toll from the Diamond Princess is 12. One evacuee died in Australia on 1 Mar[1] and 11 passengers died in Japan:

References

  1. ^ https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/01/dutton-says-extending-travel-ban-not-possible-and-defends-coronavirus-response
  2. ^ "横浜港で検疫中のクルーズ船に関連した患者の死亡について". Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare (Press release) (in Japanese).
  3. ^ "横浜港で検疫中のクルーズ船に関連した患者の死亡について". Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare (Press release) (in Japanese).
  4. ^ "横浜港で検疫中のクルーズ船に関連した患者の死亡について". Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare (Press release) (in Japanese).
  5. ^ "横浜港で検疫中のクルーズ船に関連した患者の死亡について". Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare (Press release) (in Japanese).
  6. ^ "横浜港で検疫中のクルーズ船に関連した患者の死亡について". Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare (Press release) (in Japanese).
  7. ^ "横浜港で検疫中のクルーズ船に関連した患者の死亡について". Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare (Press release) (in Japanese).
  8. ^ "横浜港で検疫中のクルーズ船に関連した患者の死亡について". Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare (Press release) (in Japanese).
  9. ^ "横浜港で検疫中のクルーズ船に関連した患者の死亡について". Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare (Press release) (in Japanese).
  10. ^ "横浜港で検疫を行ったクルーズ船に関連した患者の死亡について". Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare (Press release) (in Japanese).

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 March 2020

Recover] rate % column ! 178.148.158.198 (talk) 07:49, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. Please, see #More columns. --MarioGom (talk) 09:35, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kurdistan

In the same category of limited recognition or unlimited unrecognition there is Kurdistan. It has 128 cases.[19] Does anyone know if its cases are included in other countries' tallies? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:52, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Graeme Bartlett: Note that the source is the Kurdistan Regional Government and apparently it refers to the Kurdistan Region in Iraq. We should find out if these cases are accounted for in our Iraq figures. --MarioGom (talk) 13:34, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Official Iraq figures include the Kurdistan Region ([20]). I think we should keep it this way. The same as Iraq official sources, the Johns Hopkins University and the World Health Organization. --MarioGom (talk) 13:40, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Northern Marianas

I notice that in the 2020 Coronavirus Pandemic in the United States, Section Statistics, Table "Current Number of Non-Repatriated Cases by State", that there are now 2 cases in the Northern Mariana Islands, with sources. They are already included in the US total, and should be noted in the US territories note below the table (at least until the RfC is finalised). Ptilinopus (talk) 13:06, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ptilinopus, I have added that footnote now. I'm just waiting for the wikilink to be established. Thanks for the reminder! Cheers. RayDeeUx (talk) 17:13, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 March 2020

Please update San Marino counts according to official source at http://www.iss.sm/on-line/home/aggiornamenti-coronavirus/articolo49014189.html as follows: 229 confirmed, 24 deaths, 12 recovered. 😷 garyCZEk 📢 ✍ ｛🧒👧👦🚲💻🚗🍣｝ 14:32, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Thanks for the source and breakdown! RayDeeUx (talk) 16:03, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 March 2020

Please update the row for Syria to reflect the recent death case. Reference: https://sana.sy/en/?p=189095 tGDA (talk) 15:07, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Already done when I checked. Thanks for the reminder though! RayDeeUx (talk) 16:01, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Locations that may require an update (29 March)

The following locations have lower cases than Worldometer and may require an update. Please, do not update directly. Look for a reliable source to use and verify that all figures are correct:

Outdated report
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • Cyprus 162 -> 214
  • Dominican Republic 719 -> 859
  • Finland 1218 -> 1240
  • Georgia (country) 90 -> 91
  • Greece 1061 -> 1156
  • Haiti 8 -> 15
  • Iceland 963 -> 1020
  • Jamaica 30 -> 32
  • Moldova 231 -> 263
  • State of Palestine 106 -> 108

Best, --MarioGom (talk) 16:09, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Turkey numbers on 29 March 2020

Confirmed cases: 9217[1], Death: 131[1], Recovered: 105[2] ---Caner Guclu talk 16:31, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Canerguclu:  Already done when I checked. Thanks! --17jiangz1 (talk) 19:11, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ a b "Turkey reports 1,815 additional coronavirus cases, 23 new deaths". Hurriyet Daily News. Retrieved 29 March 2020.
  2. ^ "Türkiye'de Koronavirüs nedeniyle hayatını kaybedenlerin sayısı 131'e; vaka sayısı 9 bin 217'ye yükseldi!". T24. Retrieved 29 March 2020.

Gambia --> The Gambia

Gambia should have been named The Gambia — Preceding unsigned comment added by JecoGS (talk • contribs) 17:48, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@JecoGS:  Not done as countries are referred by common/short recognizable and sortable names (e.g. The Bahamas is also referred to as "Bahamas").--17jiangz1 (talk) 19:16, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 March 2020

Colombia's National Ministry of Health just reported 702 total cases and 10 deaths. Please update. Source: https://twitter.com/MinSaludCol/status/1244342063791050760 Juan C. S. H. (talk) 19:29, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Juan C. S. H.:  Done. Thanks! --17jiangz1 (talk) 19:45, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

China footnote

"Includes clinically diagnosed cases and deaths from 12 February 2020 and onwards in the province of Hubei."

The WHO reported in Situation Report 24[1] Chinese reporting "clinically diagnosed cases in addition to laboratory-confirmed cases" in relation to Hubei, as per the quoted footnote. However in Situation Report 31,[2] WHO cited China's revised guidance[3] on case classification that it was going back to only laboratory confirmed cases. As such, given the table only shows the latest cumulative figures the footnote should be removed. -- KTC (talk) 21:43, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/situation-reports/20200213-sitrep-24-covid-19.pdf
  2. ^ https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/situation-reports/20200220-sitrep-31-covid-19.pdf
  3. ^ http://www.chinacdc.cn/jkzt/crb/zl/szkb_11803/jszl_11815/202002/W020200219516971614358.pdf

BiH live updates...

... are available here. --5.43.82.5 (talk) 22:36, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 March 2020

Panama has 989 confirmed cases and 24 deaths. Source: https://www.laestrella.com.pa/nacional/200329/panama-suma-24-muertos-989-contagiados-covid-19 190.219.162.190 (talk) 23:14, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Updated, thank you. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:00, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

U.K. inaccuracy

The UK entry in the table specifies in the notes below, that it includes the numbers for the territories listed in the notes. It does not. The current figure of 19,522 cases is specified in 2020 coronavirus pandemic in the United Kingdom in section Timeline, Graph "COVID-19 cases in the United Kingdom" as "Figures do not include the cases from British Overseas Territories and Crown Dependencies.". Thus all the data for territories listed in the notes must either be added to this figure, or listed separately in the table. Ptilinopus (talk) 00:57, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated the number in the sum template, hopefully it is good. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:10, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Totals

Centralizing the totals

We have this template {{Cases in 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic}} that does a nice job so may aswell use it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:35, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think at this point it might be worth to automate our own totals for the table. Whenever I checked during the last 48 hours at different times, there were 10-15 territories where we had more recent data than Worldometer and 20-30 were we had older data. Right now it is quite difficult to claim that either Wikipedia, CSSE or Worldometer are more up-to-date than the others overall. --MarioGom (talk) 08:23, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It gives us consistency within our articles however. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:27, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Doc James: Fair enough. --MarioGom (talk) 17:51, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, does anyone have link for the Cases in 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic, which is used to bring total confirmed cases, deaths, etc.? Thanks, Luke Kern Choi 5 (talk) 08:09, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you're asking. Can you please be more clear? Mgasparin (talk) 08:58, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Luke Kern Choi 5: Maybe this is what you are looking for? Template:Cases in 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic --MarioGom (talk) 09:22, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
MarioGom Yes! Thank you~! Luke Kern Choi 5 (talk) 10:50, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is not keeping up to date with the numbers in the table, so I have temporarily replaced it with new totals. How fast does it add up our columns of numbers? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:21, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The totals here Template:Cases_in_2019–20_coronavirus_pandemic are from JH. Our totals often fall behind. So have restored. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:11, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template (world) sums are broken

I am making a daily spreadsheet based on this template, and there are always some inconsistencies. It is better now than when it was summed manually, but still there are problems that the sums don't match the total of the rows.

The scale of these inconsistencies are far smaller than the uncertainty of the published data, so it may not be a major issue, but I have grown accustomed to that the total of a column is actually that total.

So, to take this snapshot

Value Locations Cases Deaths Recoveries
Stated 183 732,153 34,686 152,314
Actual 186 725,021 34,129 147,922

jax (talk) 16:21, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Totals are coming from here[21] Or else we do not have consistency within the article itself. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:23, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 March 2020

Honduras has confirmed the third death, and has confirm 29 new cases for a total of 139. https://www.laprensa.hn/honduras/1368232-410/honduras-noticias-coronavirus-salud-contagios-muertos Allancalderini12 (talk) 03:03, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Updated, thank you. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:58, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 March 2020

Jamaica now has 36 cases. https://twitter.com/christufton/status/1244431775553720321> https://twitter.com/christufton/status/1244477325712019456 72.252.112.184 (talk) 07:45, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Twitter is not considered a reliable source. Nguyen QuocTrung (talk) 07:54, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nguyen QuocTrung: Note that tweets from official accounts (e.g. Ministry of Health) are perfectly valid. --MarioGom (talk) 08:41, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Linked tweet is not by verified account—updated to 34 cases as per https://www.moh.gov.jm/covid-19-update-jamaica-now-has-34-cases/.--17jiangz1 (talk) 09:20, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

United States source

Given the decision to split autonomous territories (see #Current consensus) it is going to be quite hard to maintain consistency if we keep updating the United States figures from multiple aggregate trackers. I would propose to stick to 1point3acres, which can be used to get United States overall figures, Puerto Rico, Guam, etc. This ensures that we can subtract the right amounts from the United States total. What do you think? --MarioGom (talk) 11:17, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Or... maybe we have to stick to one that includes split recoveries figures, like Worldometer or Johns Hopkins University. --MarioGom (talk) 11:19, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot find split recoveries in any of these sources. We might need to just report the overall United States recoveries and add a note. --MarioGom (talk) 11:24, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
MarioGom: it seems like me and United States Man are the main people who edit the USA values. I stick with 1Point3Acres, so I can't split the recoveries between the the 50 states of USA and its overseas territories. If I remember correctly, United States Man uses WorldOMeters, which until recently reported cases/deaths/recoveries for overseas territories separately from the mainland. In either case, neither me nor United States Man can split those numbers solely from the sources USA's numbers rely on. The USA figure on JHU also merges the 50 states of the USA with its overseas territories, and unless if someone is on JHU 24/7 to look at the sidebars for deaths and recoveries by USA territory there's no practical way to split the numbers of the overseas territories from the 50 states of the USA. A footnote indicating this issue might be the only option. RayDeeUx (talk) 13:19, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
RayDeeUx As far as I see, JHU has no split numbers for recoveries in the US. Note that for confirmed cases and deaths, you don't need to sum all 50 states, you can just put the overall total and then subtract overseas territories with Template:Sum, since it accepts negative numbers. --MarioGom (talk) 13:41, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 March 2020

Please update San Marino counts according to official source http://www.iss.sm/on-line/home/artCataggiornamenti-coronavirus.49004093.1.20.1.html as follows: 230 confirmed, 25 deaths, 13 recovered. 😷 garyCZEk 📢 ✍ ｛🧒👧👦🚲💻🚗🍣｝ 13:01, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Garyczek:  Done. Thanks! --17jiangz1 (talk) 19:48, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 March 2020

Please set netherlands recovery to 250. [22]https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/ Humiebees (talk) 14:25, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Google's COVID stats sidebar, with data from Wikipedia

Hi all – wanted to give you a heads up that Google is using several template pages (as of this writing, this template and Template:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data/United States medical cases by state) to create a statistics table/visualization that appears at the top of Google search results for COVID-related terms. You can see a screenshot of this to the right or see it in action by Googling "covid," "corona," "coronavirus," etc. This isn't a formal partnership between the Wikimedia Foundation and Google (Google made the decision to use this data on their own), but we're communicating about the feature and their upcoming plans for it. As the community gathers more granular stats on cases, deaths, and recoveries, Google is interested in potentially making use of these additional pages to expand the feature.

I'm cross-posting this notice to the talk pages of the relevant templates and T:WikiProject COVID, and I'm watching this page and other COVID content via my volunteer account. If there's a new discussion about moving, deleting, or making major changes to the structure of this template, I'd super appreciate a quick ping either to this account or my volunteer one so I can let the folks at Google know and they can adjust where the feature points accordingly.

If you have any questions about this, please let me know! MPinchuk (WMF) (talk) 15:21, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MPinchuk (WMF): Thank you for the update! They probably noticed already, but it is worth noting that our totals are currently not consistent, so they may want to either sum the column themselves or get data from elsewhere. Also because of #New RfC on countries/dependencies, we are splitting overseas territories, dependencies, etc. So today the list of territories is changing significantly. Best, --MarioGom (talk) 15:29, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, MarioGom! Noted & will let them know about both. MPinchuk (WMF) (talk) 16:01, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To MPinchuk (WMF) Holy s@%$, the impact of this table has grown larger than expected! Thanks for the update, but how exactly will Google handle the new rows for territories as per the new consensus? Cheers, and thanks once again! RayDeeUx (talk) 16:55, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
RayDeeUx, yes, and it's also a big vote of confidence in your work! This was not a decision they reached lightly or without considering other potential data sources. RE the territories RfC, I think that should be fine as long as they're aware of it (which they are now) and can plan for making some tweaks to their scraping scripts. The things that they're more worried about breaking the feature are deletions, moves without a redirect, or big changes to table formatting (e.g., going from vertical to horizontal data display). I'm assuming 1 & 2 are unlikely and will be looking out for any community discussion on 3. (Not to say no one can/should change the table formatting if needed! Just something to consider, similar to how mobile formatting has been taken into consideration in various RfCs.) MPinchuk (WMF) (talk) 19:44, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Turkey numbers on 30 March 2020

Cum. confirmed cases: 10827, Cum. deaths: 168, Tot. recovered: 162. [1] I believe, it is important to cite English language references. ---Caner Guclu talk 16:32, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Turkey: Death toll from coronavirus rises to 168 Health Ministry data shows 1,610 new cases in past 24 hours, bringing total to 10,827". Anadolu Agency. Retrieved 30 March 2020.
User:Canerguclu let me give you extended confirmed and than you can take care of it. Just no more than two references at a time. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:59, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! --Caner Guclu talk 18:18, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Germany's CCF : Slow to update

Germany's CCF is now 66,125, please update accordingly. [1] BlackSun2104 (talk) 21:37, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Spain : slow to update

Spain's CCF has risen to 87,956, please update accordingly. [2] BlackSun2104 (talk) 22:07, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Recovered people in Argentina

This page shows the current number of recovered people in Argentina. The number shown on the template (51) is pretty outdated. And also the death count: it sits at 23 right now. TheTrueGilben (talk) 23:10, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Denmark

Following the New Consensus on territory/dependency splits, I note that the figures given for Denmark include the figures for the split dependencies of Faroe Islands and Greenland. The figure for Denmark (cases) in the table is 2,755. The article on Denmark (see table "New COVID-19 cases in Denmark, including Faroe Islands and Greenland") specifically states this figure includes Faroe Is (178) and Greenland (10). Removing these entities leaves Denmark with 2577 cases which is what the summary box "2020 coronavirus pandemic in Denmark (mainland)" in Denmark states. Ptilinopus (talk) 23:24, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Panama

Panama has 1075 confirmed cases, 27 deaths and 9 recovered. Source: https://www.laestrella.com.pa/nacional/200330/panama-suma-1-075-casos-endurece-cuarentena-frenar-covid-19 190.219.162.190 (talk) 23:51, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ https://interaktiv.morgenpost.de/corona-virus-karte-infektionen-deutschland-weltweit/
  2. ^ https://www.rtve.es/noticias/20200329/mapa-del-coronavirus-espana/2004681.shtml
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:COVID-19_pandemic_data&oldid=948248920"