Jump to content

Template talk:COVID-19 pandemic data/Archive 13

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15→Archive 18

Edit Request 26. April 2020 (Luxembourg)

The number of recovered persons for Luxembourg is extremely incorrect. This page shows 760 recovered, while in reality there are currently 3088.

Here's the official page of the Department of Health of Luxembourg. If you click on "38.514 persons tested since the beginning of the crisis" you'll see the current amount of cured persons: https://gouvernement.lu/en/dossiers.gouv_msan%2Ben%2Bdossiers%2B2020%2Bcorona-virus.html

A chart can be found beneath, here's the direct link: https://msan.gouvernement.lu/dam-assets/covid-19/stats/Infectes-et-gueris.png

Change 760 recovered to 3088 recovered. TheScarwolf (talk) 13:20, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

 Done: thank you TheScarwolf. I've also added an explanatory comment to the template. Capewearer (talk) 13:41, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 April 2020

The number of recovered cases in the Commonwealth of Dominica is now at 13 recovered. http://dominica.gov.dm/corona A00rEdit (talk) 17:35, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

 Done: thank you A00rEdit. Capewearer (talk) 17:44, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 April 2020

I understand wanting to correct Pennsylvania's numbers if needed, but simply listing -201 on 23 APRIL PA daily deaths is not the way to do it. People did die in PA that day. Correct the days in question or note it in some other way. 71.46.218.126 (talk) 20:57, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Hello, you are not at the correct talk page. This template lists COVID–19 cases by country/territory/int'l conveyance, not by US states. Consider 2020 coronavirus pandemic in the United States instead.  Not done. Cheers, u|RayDeeUx (contribs | talk page) 22:48, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Edit request; 24 April 2020

Hi! ^_^, there are almost 100 cases on board the Costa Atlantica cruise ship, could anybody include it? Thank you --CoryGlee (talk) 22:10, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

CoryGlee: Please cite a source and follow WP:WORLDOMETER. Thanks in advance. Cheers, u|RayDeeUx (contribs | talk page) 23:02, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi RayDeeUx ^_^ ... here's the latest source ^_^ , cheers to you too. ^_^ ---- --CoryGlee (talk) 11:20, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
Hello CoryGlee: I have updated the template as per your source. Thanks for bringing it to our attention! Cheers, u|RayDeeUx (contribs | talk page) 13:44, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
Since the ship is currently docked in Japan, is there any indication that cases from the cruise ship are not counted in local numbers?--17jiangz1 (talk) 15:39, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
Nevermind, I found the official count[1] does not include cases from the ship[2]. Weirdly, the official count of the cases in Nagasaki by the national gov on the same day (19) is more than that of the regional health dept. (17). Usually national counts only lag behind... --17jiangz1 (talk) 16:02, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
RayDeeUx, I've commented out the explanatory note ref you added: The named reference CostaAtlantica was invoked but never defined. Capewearer (talk) 16:57, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
Capewearer: Thanks. Was planning to do that myself but then I had to go for lunch. Maybe it'll be useful once international media catches wind of this new international conveyance. Cheers, u|RayDeeUx (contribs | talk page) 19:14, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Abkhazia Update

One case has recovered in Abkhazia: [3] (Russian language link). Kaiser matias (talk) 14:26, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

 Done Thank you for the update. Dellux mkd (talk) 00:36, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 April 2020

The number of recovered COVID-19 in the Commonwealth of Dominica is at 13 now, here are multiple links...... including the press briefing. https://www.dominicavibes.dm/news-264234/ https://dominicanewsonline.com/news/homepage/news/covid-19-four-more-patients-in-dominica-recover-some-services-to-resume/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JaDNSzrUSAM&feature=youtu.be&t=542 A00rEdit (talk) 04:57, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Aasim 06:10, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
By the way, Awesome Aasim, we don't enforce the "change X to Y" here as long as there's a reliable source to justify processing an edit request. Most of them involve updating case counts. Cheers, u|RayDeeUx (contribs | talk page) 14:47, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Sort Descending plz

Hi, this may just be my O/S or something, but I can make most of these columns go sort ascending but not sort descending. I don't know if others have the same issue, but I suspect I'm not the only one who sees sort descending to be a more useful option than sort ascending. Any chance of fixing this? (Countries can go either way, and cases default to sort descending, but deaths and recoveries don't seem to have a descending option. ϢereSpielChequers 14:48, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Hello WereSpielChequers, please see items listed under the heading "Current consensus". We do not have plans to change the current sorting scheme, which is sorting by highest cases and going down (ex: 1 million –> 1 thousand–> 1 hundred –> 1). Cheers, u|RayDeeUx (contribs | talk page) 15:22, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
WereSpielChequers: You can click on the totals cell (see the small up/down arrows) to sort by any column. --MarioGom (talk) 15:26, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
Thanks MarioGom, In theory yes, and that works on two columns, but the deaths and cases columns only seem to offer me sort ascending. I can see the small up and down arrows, but when I hover over those two columns the only option I see is "sort ascending". This may be something to do with my ancient kit, do the sort descending buttons work for you? ϢereSpielChequers 15:35, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
WereSpielChequers: Seems to be working for me. https://imgur.com/a/2C0tLdJ. Cheers, u|RayDeeUx (contribs | talk page) 15:52, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

French departments

Now that the French departments are not listed separately, should we include their cases in France's footnotes?--17jiangz1 (talk) 16:06, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

17jiangz1: Once COVID–19 cools down we can consider it, but since there's a 24 hour delay between merged French figures and separate figures for French overseas regions/departments I don't know if other editors would remember to update the footnote frequently. Heck, some of the folks who edit USA's values update the negative values for USA territories in the sum templates only to forget to update the territories' respective rows. Cheers, u|RayDeeUx (contribs | talk page) 16:39, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Strange numbers and sorting issues

There is bad data being added to the template from somewhere. New Zealand, US Virgin Islands, and Dominican Republic all have more recovered/dead cases than total cases. Many other countries may have bad data from the same source but without showing this obvious red flag. Also FYI, DR Congo and Republic of the Congo don't sort alphabetically with the shown name; they sort as if their name started with a "C". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:3A60:E0C0:E0CE:DF30:1291:909 (talk) 18:11, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

We will see about the issues with DR Congo and Republic of the Congo. As for US Virgin Islands, the issue has been fixed on the source. I will address these issues myself, and thank you for bringing this to our attention. Cheers, u|RayDeeUx (contribs | talk page) 18:34, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
Update: US Virgin Islands has been fixed already, and I have changed the sort value of DR Congo to "Democratic Republic of the Congo" as per WHO situation reports. Cheers, u|RayDeeUx (contribs | talk page) 18:40, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
Update 2: This should explain the numbers behind New Zealand:

New Zealand recoveries are higher than the recorded number of infections due to the exclusion of a number of probable infections.

I am going to look into the Dominican Republic now. Cheers, u|RayDeeUx (contribs | talk page) 18:44, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
Update 3: Whoever updated Dominican Republic's numbers made a typo, it seems. I have fixed it now. Cheers, u|RayDeeUx (contribs | talk page) 18:46, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
Thanks RayDeeUx, I left a feedback on New Zealand's page letting them know that their numbers don't make sense. Hopefully they see it. I think the template was previously uploading the total cases with the probable cases. Please don't overlook "Republic of the Congo" not sorting right either. Again, thanks for your work and quick feedback. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:3A60:E0C0:E0CE:DF30:1291:909 (talk) 18:52, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
Please keep in mind that the situation with DR Congo and RotC(ongo) sorting might just be temporary until I get feedback from other editors. Additionally, I think the current situation with New Zealand's source might prevent us from having a higher case count than recovery count. Cheers, u|RayDeeUx (contribs | talk page) 19:06, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

RotC(ongo) and DR Congo sorting

See above topic's discussion for context.

I have used WikiBlame (that's the name of the tool, I'm not looking for someone to blame, I promise) to see when RotC and DR Congo were given the sort values "Congo, Republic of the" and "Congo, DR" respectively. Once I finishing typing this paragraph I will continue searching for these insertions, but in the meantime I was wondering if these sort values were already appropriate, and if so how there was nothing on the viewer's end (like an efn template) to address for why these two rows mingled with other countries whose names began with "C" in alphabetical sorting.

Cheers, u|RayDeeUx (contribs | talk page) 19:11, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

It might have been my doing. I have now changed the Congos' names and sort strings to be consistent with other lists on Wikipedia like List of countries and dependencies by population and List of countries by population (United Nations) to avoid confusion.--17jiangz1 (talk) 20:17, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Adding an edit notice for this talk page - thoughts?

I've been noticing that even after lowering edit protections to auto-confirmed users as well as establishing points of current consensus in this talk page that there are still a few folks who ask for new columns and change the sorting scheme. I don't want the talk page (and its archives) to sound like a broken record of "please look at 'Current Consensus'", so I was wondering if we can duplicate the content under "Current consensus" into an edit notice for the talk page for the sake of visibility.

This is what most editors see when they visit the talk page (using the default Wikipedia skin, not Timeless, on a 16" MacBook Pro for those curious): https://imgur.com/a/M3eOFDj. (for how the talk page looks with Timeless skin with Dark Reader for Firefox, same device: https://imgur.com/a/bKUeMtH)

In both cases, the "new section" button is in a higher position than the content under "Current consensus". This makes the items under "Current consensus" less visible for people who have concerns about new columns, sorting, sources, etc. An edit notice would bring more visibility to the content under current consensus, and therefore less "ghost" topics, for lack of a better term.

Thoughts?

Cheers, u|RayDeeUx (contribs | talk page) 16:20, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

RayDeeUx, could you take your concerns over to the COVID-19 talk page? We're finalising how to best incorporate the consensus into talk pages. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:53, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Totals

Did I miss something? The totals at the top of the table are hugely out of sync with the actual figures in the columns. In round figures, the total of cases at the top is about 32,000 more than the sum, the deaths are about 500 less than the sum, and the recoveries are about 25,000 more than the sum. Are the totals being sourced independently of the table? This makes no sense! Ptilinopus (talk) 14:42, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Totals are sourced independently, hence the reference next to the row of totals. With values of each location updating so frequently we will have to make do with this until the pandemic cools down. Cheers, u|RayDeeUx (contribs | talk page) 15:15, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
RayDeeUx, if I recall, the wiki software doesn't allow for summation in tables, does it? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:49, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
Tenryuu: I've just looked around the help pages for wikitables just to be sure of my suspicions, but there doesn't seem to be automated tallying support for wikitables. A sum template of 225 parameters is the closest option. Cheers, u|RayDeeUx (contribs | talk page) 18:44, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
RayDeeUx, that sounds unwieldy and unhelpful. I think it would be best if totals were updated every 2 weeks or month just so that it's relatively up-to-date but not tedious. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:58, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
mw:Help talk:Tables#Automatically Summing Table Column seems possible with JS access. --17jiangz1 (talk) 23:40, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
17jiangz1, I'm going to assume that Wikipedia has the relevant software installed. Do you know if there's any relevant documentation for the automatically summing table? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:57, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Administrative divisions

can someone please put back the administrative divisions i know that they are not the best but it would be better to see if all administrative divisions have it or only part of the country — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cokibdoki (talk • contribs) 21:03, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Cokibdoki: I'm not sure if you meant the French administrative regions, but if you are then I'm afraid there is nothing that can be done about France and its administrative regions/overseas departments/etc. According to the most recent RfC, there was a majority consensus to merge France's case counts with the case counts of French administrative regions and/or overseas departments. Hope that addresses your concerns. Cheers, u|RayDeeUx (contribs | talk page) 14:05, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

TAJIKISTAN! 28.04.20

See - [4] Firdavs Kulolov (talk) 08:31, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Hello Firdavs Kulolov, are you sure there are COVID–19 cases in Tajikistan? The country-specific Wikipedia article regarding COVID–19 in Tajikistan, 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Tajikistan, has not updated its counts yet. Cheers, u|RayDeeUx (contribs | talk page) 14:10, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Add European Union

Comparing huge countries like the USA to Spain or Italy is not very useful. I think we should add European Union to the list as a sum of its 27 members. --Gtoffoletto (talk) 18:52, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Gtoffoletto, aggregating countries that have no shared crisis management, healthcare system, etc, is not very useful either. Keep in mind that lockdowns, border controls, quarantines, etc, are completely independent for each country and had really different timelines. Also, territory listing criteria is a very contentious topic on this talk page and we went through 2 lengthy RfC, plus dozens of threads about it. So I would not complicate things unnecessarily. The World Health Organization does not list the European Union as a single territory. If we add that exception, we'll be soon discussing about adding the Eurasian Economic Union, UK+British Overseas Territories, Commonwealth of Nations, etc. --MarioGom (talk) 20:52, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Hey MarioGom, the EU does have a shared crisis management [5] and much more integrated healthcare systems than the US for example [6]. Also "lockdowns, border controls, quarantines, etc, are completely independent for each country" is not really true as we have common border controls and rules for the free movement of people and products across the entire union through the Schengen Area. The other entities you mention are not even remotely comparable to the EU in terms of shared sovereignty. Has this particular topic been already discussed in the RfCs? --Gtoffoletto (talk) 00:50, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Gtoffoletto,
  • The Schengen Area is effectively suspended at this point, borders are closed/restricted in many countries. There is cooperation regarding COVID-19, but ultimately effective measures lie with national governments. There is no such thing as European lockdown or state of emergency, for example. The EU simply cannot do that.
  • Anyway, I think it is better to examine how different reliable sources deal with it ([7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13]). "Being comparable to the United States" is not a very strong rationale. China or India will still have ~3x the population than the United States or the European Union, while most countries outside the European Union will continue to have much smaller populations.
  • The two last RfCs did not deal the the European Union specifically. There are some discussions in the archives I think, but I don't think the EU was subject of much debate so far. Let's wait for more input. --MarioGom (talk) 01:06, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
If this kind of wide regional comparisons can be useful, maybe we could consider adding a totals section with regions as defined by WHO: European Region, Region of the Americas, Eastern Mediterranean Region, Western Pacific Region, South-East Asia Region and African Region. Although they look a bit unnatural to me. MarioGom (talk) 01:15, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
@MarioGom: Well suspending Schengen IS a coordinated response and an example of why the EU is relevant here. Normally it would not be possible for individual states to do that unless justified. Only comparable response has been China that has stopped movement within its borders to an entire region. Regarding EU wide lockdown I don't think it exists even in the US. It wouldn't be an appropriate response at such large scales. I think you point that other sources don't count the EU as whole is valid (interesting that they don't) but there may also be a bit of circularity there. At this point many sources look at Wikipedia's reporting for case numbers.
The EU number is not even clearly available here European_Union_response_to_the_2019–20_coronavirus_pandemic nor here 2020_coronavirus_pandemic_in_Europe which is pretty absurd. Those pages use portions of this template. --Gtoffoletto (talk) 12:28, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Gtoffoletto, I said effectively suspended. It was not a EU action. It's just that multiple countries in the Schengen area closed their borders unilaterally. Those were national responses. Also the Schengen area overlaps with the European Union. There are EU members not in Schengen, and non-members in Schengen. Regarding sources, none of the ones I mentioned use Wikipedia or follow our criteria. They mostly follow WHO, JHU or their own particular criteria that does not fully overlap with Wikipedia's. MarioGom (talk) 18:49, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
Gtoffoletto: For the time being, we are sticking with listing by countries and territories as per "Current consensus", which is similar to WHO's listing scheme in most regards. Unless if the WHO decides to list all 27 members of the EU under a row as "European Union", we will not do the same without further input from other editors through RfC threads. Additionally, this table is not intended to make any comparisons, it simply lists confirmed COVID–19 cases in countries/territories/int'l conveyances that report COVID–19 cases.
Hope that clears up your confusion. Cheers, u|RayDeeUx (contribs | talk page) 02:48, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Do you have a link to that consensus or previous discussion? I agree an RfC may be appropriate. I wouldn't remove the individual states. Just also include the EU wide number which may also be excludable in certain lists with a parameter if necessary. This table is used in EU related pages and doesn't have the total EU number which is absurd or cannot be used in certain EU related articles (see discussion above). --Gtoffoletto (talk) 12:36, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Gtoffoletto, maybe this would be a good place to start: 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Europe § Statistics by country and territory. The ECDC may be a good source to get EU/EEA & UK figures: [14]. --MarioGom (talk) 18:55, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
I opened a discussion for that: Talk:2020 coronavirus pandemic in Europe § EU, EEA & UK totals. MarioGom (talk) 19:04, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
This is reasonable, since European Union is a supranational entity that has total GDP counted as a total. EU should be included as total.Rwat128 (talk) 13:44, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi from Germany, it is nonsense to add all EU numbers because of different testing strategies, some countries test a lot in order to find contacts and put them in quarantine, to slow down or stop the pandemia, others like Sweden tell their people simply to stay at home when they feel sick, and do not test them. Contacts? So what! The numbers of deaths might be better comparable. Of course the addition of total infected cases in the world is equally ridiculous and media do it nevertheless. --188.97.174.249 (talk) 02:52, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Duff edit created an extra column

The text "As of {{#if:" now appears at the bottom of the data, and this appears to have had the unintended effect of creating a new (and mostly empty) column for the table. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.109.241.184 (talk) 17:10, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm using Timeless skin and that does not appear to be the case for me. Also loaded it in default skin without issues. Thoughts from anyone else? Cheers, u|RayDeeUx (contribs | talk page) 18:59, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
That was yesterday. Clearly someone has fixed it. (Whoever it was... thank you!) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.109.241.184 (talk) 08:59, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
It was the mighty Caner Güçlü, who came up with a workaround in this edit while I was still lamely trying to work out why the format date template had failed. Anyone know why it failed, and whether a better fix is available? Capewearer (talk) 13:40, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
@Capewearer: I still didn't understand why it failed yesterday. I assumed "hour" field cannot be left empty. On the other hand, the examples at Template:Format date were showing broken at the same time, which now look just OK. Maybe you could try it again? Caner Güçlü talk 03:27, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
You're right, that template has since been fixed. So I've restored it here, thanks. Capewearer (talk) 03:58, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 April 2020 BŁĄD

37.128.32.79 (talk) 08:04, 30 April 2020 (UTC)


Tylko w Polsce jest więcej ozdrowienców niż zarażonych!!!!?????

Says that in Poland there are more healed than there are cases. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:23, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
I have adjusted the number. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:30, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 April 2020

Change Mexico cases to 17,799 because it has been updated Eduardo Tort (talk) 06:35, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Updated, thanks. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:33, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 April 2020

<!-the information regarding deaths due to covid -19 in PAKISTAN is false. The correct figure is 343. --> Hammad solangi (talk) 23:23, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

@Hammad solangi:  Done! GoingBatty (talk) 00:49, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
Thank you Hammad solangi (talk) 13:28, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 April 2020

Singapore has one more death, at 15, and 16,169 cases total.

Change number of deaths from 14 to 15, and total number of cases to 16,169.

Thanks!

Source: https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/covid-19-new-cases-16000-apr-30-worker-dormitory-moh-12690334 Spoopybootyhole (talk) 16:45, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

 Done. Capewearer (talk) 16:59, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

"Excluding the disputed Taiwan"

Resolved
 – Consensus has been reached on using the phrase Does not include Taiwan. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:12, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
Moved from Talk:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic § "Excluding the disputed Taiwan"
 – MarioGom (talk) 18:12, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

This phrase is used in the footnote regarding China.

I don't really think this is justified, insofar as Taiwan is no more or less disputed than any other part of China - the ROC and PRC both claim all of China, including the mainland and Taiwan.

I don't really understand why there is the insistence on saying "China excluding XYZ" instead of the equivalent "Mainland China" which needs fewer footnotes, but if we are going this route it should just be "excluding Taiwan". Magic9mushroom (talk) 19:19, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

  • I agree. I see no point in emphasizing the disputed nature of Taiwan here, and the phrases "Mainland China" or "excluding Taiwan" both make better sense, though I have no real opinion on which ("Mainland China" feels more intuitive for me, though). A loose necktie (talk) 20:07, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia's naming policy, there are grounds for specifying "Mainland China" only to clarify that Hong Kong and Macao are excluded from the assertion being made. That is not the case in most occurrences of the phrase in this article, and that should be changed. Kevin McE (talk) 23:36, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

I should clarify that I'm talking about the statistics in the infobox, which are for "China" with footnotes saying "excluding Hong Kong and Macau" and "excluding the disputed Taiwan". That is equivalent to "mainland China", but saying "mainland China" would avoid the need for those footnotes. Magic9mushroom (talk) 08:02, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
There was a three month long debate on the mainland China vs China excluding... issue. The consensus was to standardise every country and territory by writing the country's name and including a footnote. Otherwise we would have had to write "mainland Denmark, mainland United Kingdom, mainland United States". A non-standardised approach was unanimously excluded so the option of only writing "mainland China" for China was removed. Several discussions were related to this issue but most are now closed (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=952281574#Removing_%22mainland%22_from_China). JMonkey2006 (talk) 10:32, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Its a weird phrase, to all non-Chinese audiences “China” already excludes Taiwan. MOS is clear, we use “China” only to refer to the People’s Republic of China, “mainland China” in the context of Wikipedia means the PRC minus the SARs. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 23:53, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Horse Eye Jack, agreed. The use of the adjective "disputed" is unnecessary and I think it should be removed. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:55, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

I removed "the disputed" in diff. (I suspect it was included at least in part as way to shoehorn in the link to the Political status of Taiwan article.) -sche (talk) 23:03, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Parallelism should be maintained with Crimea, which is recognized to have been illegally annexed by more UN members than the number of states that formally recognize the ROC on Taiwan. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 23:11, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
If the PRC took Kinmen that would be a decent parallel to Crimea... Comparing a backwater with a little more than two million people to one of the most powerful nations on earth with a population of over 20 million is a joke. This is also Wikipedia, not a UN agency, so whats the relevance of UN member states? Those aren’t WP:RS. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 14:08, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
I am claiming parallelism in terms of consistency, not that they are identical. most powerful nations on Earth with a population of over 20 million is nothing but WP:SOAPBOX, considering no RS can back that polemical statement; it has less population than the adjoining Fujian of the PRC, and already has barely more GDP PPP than Shanghai and will be overtaken before long given the current 2020 GDP forecasts. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 18:31, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
The user above restored the disputed wording, but AFAICT is the only(?) user here who thinks it belongs. -sche (talk) 05:14, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
-sche: I suspect it was included at least in part as way to shoehorn in the link to the Political status of Taiwan article. Yes. As far as I know, that is the case. We tried to include a link hinting at the status of each split territory (e.g. British Overseas Territory, France's Overseas Collectivity, Crimea annexation by Russia). --MarioGom (talk) 17:59, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
I've edited to "does not include Taiwan"; I feel that's more neutral on whether Taiwan's part of China, in addition to not problematically calling it "disputed" (per my other statements on this page). I'm aware CaradhrasAiguo is probably going to object to this, but I can't make any sense of his/her argument and the rest of us seem to mostly be in accord. Magic9mushroom (talk) 00:08, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

I do not see a clear parallel between Crimea and Taiwan (Taiwan last changed hands from Japan to the ROC, and Japan no longer claims it), and I don't understand why (#nations that say Crimea was annexed illegally) vs. (#nations that recognise ROC) is meaningful. Crimea is worth noting as disputed in descriptions of Ukraine and Russia because most of Ukraine and most of Russia are not disputed; all of China is disputed between the ROC and PRC, and Taiwan is not three-way or four-way disputed (unlike e.g. Aksai Chin). I don't see a valid reason to note Taiwan being disputed. Magic9mushroom (talk) 09:44, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Well folks, seems like this discussion's over and we have concluded with Does not include Taiwan. Cheers, u|RayDeeUx (contribs | talk page) 14:32, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Discussion about Taiwan footnote

Resolved
 – Consensus has been reached on using the phrase Does not include Taiwan. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:14, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

There is a discussion about China's footnote regarding Taiwan: Talk:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic § "Excluding the disputed Taiwan". --MarioGom (talk) 18:02, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

MarioGom: Should we move the discussion here, since it has to do with the template? Cheers, u|RayDeeUx (contribs | talk page) 18:06, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
RayDeeUx, ok, done. MarioGom (talk) 18:12, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Guantanamo Bay criteria

Notifying experienced editors: MarioGom (sorry for double ping!), Capewearer. Cheers, u|RayDeeUx (contribs | talk page) 16:03, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Raphaël Dunant, I would like to see the criteria you mentioned in [[15]]. Thanks. Cheers, u|RayDeeUx (contribs | talk page) 13:48, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello RayDeeUx. The criteria that values should be updated regularly was one of the main arguments in the consensus in favour of removal of the French overseas departments (See the RfC for details). And it makes no sense to list a military base not listed by WHO for which there is not any update provided by the US Navy since a month ago (see this link for more details). Raphaël Dunant (talk) 14:24, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Raphaël Dunant, there has been no mention of Guantanamo Bay in this talk page (besides one brief mention by MarioGom to explain its exemption from Google sidebar results) and our current discussion here. Additionally, the consensus around using Proposal A in the RfC you mentioned reads, and I quote:

Also, territories that are not listed at WHO Situation Reports at all, may be listed if all the following requisites are met:

  1. There is at least one reliable source for the statistics.
  2. The counts are not included under any other territory in WHO Situation Reports.
Now, Guantanamo Bay isn't be a territory, but it is not listed by WHO at all. Additionally, there is no indication that it is included in United States totals. However, as we already have the singular case from a source seen in earlier versions of the template, Guantanamo Bay deserves its own row despite a lack of updates from the US Navy. The footnote already addresses the lack of updates, so we can just copy-paste the data of the old row into a future revision. Cheers, u|RayDeeUx (contribs | talk page) 14:38, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
If Guantanamo Bay is listed, then why not list every other oversea US military bases in the world. Here is an article indicating that there is many cases in overseas US military bases. There is no indication that the numbers in these military bases have been accounted for in any other territory of the world. Moreover you're right, Guantanamo Bay is not a territory per say and as such shouldn't be listed based solely on this criteria. What do you think? Raphaël Dunant (talk) 15:17, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Raphaël Dunant: Seems like we got a special case on our hands. What do you say on keeping it in the footnote for the United States for now, since the issue's not too urgent to include as a separate row (as it's excluded from Google's sidebar results), and wait for more experienced editors to handle this?
As a side note, there's probably several COVID–19 cases in US military bases, but since all US bases aren't allowed to release further case figures as per the footnote, there aren't other US bases listed on the template besides what we had for Guantanamo Bay. That should explain why we didn't list other US bases. Cheers, u|RayDeeUx (contribs | talk page) 15:53, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Having the US military bases in the notes of the US is a very good idea actually. Let's temporarily do that until a better solution is suggested. Raphaël Dunant (talk) 16:53, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Tunisia Recoveries

There seems to be a typo in Tunisia's recovery number. Source lists 316, but we have 3016. KolyaSchaeffer (talk) 02:48, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

KolyaSchaeffer: Fixed. Cheers, u|RayDeeUx (contribs | talk page) 02:51, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

The CDC says 37,308 US COVID-19 Deaths as of Today. Why does Wiki say 65,603?

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/index.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by Don Williams (talk • contribs) 07:29, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

See the section "Why these numbers are different" on the site you linked. CDC's "counts often track 1–2 weeks behind other data for a number of reasons". --17jiangz1 (talk) 08:46, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
17jiangz1: In the future, when you reply to a comment that wasn't made by an IP address, please try to comply with WP:PING. Notifying Don Williams of a reply. Cheers, u|RayDeeUx (contribs | talk page) 17:19, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
CDC page breaks out COVID19 only from COVID19 plus other. Other data sources might combine them. I wish all data sources would be more explicit in exactly what is included in their statistics. GangofOne (talk) 19:03, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 May 2020

I would like to add in updated data regarding coronavirus in India. I would be obliged if you grant access for the same. Ankushghosh73 (talk) 17:04, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not done as there is no edit request.
Ankushghosh73, please read Wikipedia:User access levels#Autoconfirmed and confirmed users for more information. Cheers, u|RayDeeUx (contribs | talk page) 19:14, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Cases in Falklands/Malvinas - Casos en Malvinas/Falklands

English (translated): IMHO, if the cases of the British military base and colony in the Falkland/Malvinas Islands are excluded as Argentines, I believe that the neutrality of Wikipedia is being clearly violated. To count them, the world count did not fit significantly, much less the British, but the Argentine count must be respected, like/so the pillars of Wikipedia. Especiales (talk) 11:45, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Spanish (source): EMHO, si se excluyen como argentinos los casos de la base militar y colonia británica en las Islas Malvinas/Falklands, creo que se está violando claramente la neutralidad de la wikipedia. Contarlos, no cambia significativamente el conteo mundial, mucho menos el británico, y el argentino debe respetarse, también los pilares de la Wikipedia. Especiales (talk) 11:45, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Especiales: Please understand that the listing of locations of any type do not represent any ideology, and do not push an agenda. WHO Situation reports also split cases reported from the islands you mentioned from cases in Argentina. See here for an example: https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/situation-reports/20200503-covid-19-sitrep-104.pdf?sfvrsn=53328f46_2 Cheers, u|RayDeeUx (contribs | talk page) 13:10, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Spain

The number of cases for Spain is markedly different from that given in Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/Spain medical cases chart; presumably serology-confirmed cases are not being counted here. Would be nice if someone could bring these templates in sync by editing this one. Thanks. 188.108.98.189 (talk) 17:55, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Bump. Can someone who's able to edit the template please do so? Thanks. 88.71.17.252 (talk) 12:12, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
Seems like the template you two are mentioning violates WP:WORLDOMETER. I have no idea whether serology-confirmed cases are coming from Worldometer or from Spain's Ministry of Health. MarioGom, do you know a bit more about Spain's reporting criteria? Thanks in advance! Cheers, u|RayDeeUx (contribs | talk page) 13:47, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
RayDeeUx, I think historic data comes from the Ministry of Health, and running total for the day comes from Worldometer. I'll double check it. MarioGom (talk) 13:53, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
Sources aside, the main difference is that {{COVID-19 pandemic data/Spain medical cases chart}} also includes antibody tests without PCR test. These are officially reported but separate from cases, unless there is a positive PCR as follow up. Note that most antibody tests without a positive PCR are not considered as cases and will probably never be reported as cases or recoveries. MarioGom (talk) 14:54, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
MarioGom: So... should we include them? For now I'll just add a footnote saying serology-confirmed cases are excluded. Cheers, u|RayDeeUx (contribs | talk page) 15:44, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
RayDeeUx, these are not confirmed cases by the official Spanish, European Union or World Health Organization definitions. So I'd say they should not be included in this table. MarioGom (talk) 15:53, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
MarioGom, OK, then the footnote I've added for Spain stays. Cheers, u|RayDeeUx (contribs | talk page) 16:02, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
RayDeeUx, sure. I'm not really sure whether these are considered confirmed cases or not. There are additional serology tests (not included in the Spain medical cases chart) for asymptomatic patients that are not reported. I'll update here if I learn how the totals actually break down. MarioGom (talk) 16:11, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
Just chiming in - thank you to you both for your work on this. I see that a note has been added now that the figure for Spain excludes serology-confirmed cases, that's great. I still think that the mismatch between the figures given in this template and Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/Spain medical cases chart is unfortunate and should be corrected in the medium term, but for now I'm happy, so again: thank you! 88.70.246.203 (talk) 08:40, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Should we move references to the left column?

We currently have a separate column just for references. This is unusual for tables, and I'm not sure why it's needed. Wouldn't it be better to just move all the references to the column where we list the country name? This would free up a bit of space and make the table seem less cluttered. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 01:26, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Sdkb: I think one of the main reasons would be to visually distinguish the references from footnotes, as otherwise it would be a bit cluttered with the mixing of the two.--17jiangz1 (talk) 07:35, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
Sdkb: References have always been in a separate column, even when this template was first created. See here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:COVID-19_pandemic_data&oldid=937975932. Cheers, u|RayDeeUx (contribs | talk page) 14:29, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
Sdkb: Actually, it is quite common for Wikipedia tables to have a final references column when the reference is meant to cover multiple cells. --MarioGom (talk) 18:13, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Sorting the number of recoveries in the table

Just wanted to report a bug that sorting by the number of recoveries (doesn't matter if ascending or descending) provides a wrong result. While countries without data are at the bottom (or top) of the table, countries that have more than a thousand recovered cases appear in between 1 and 100 due to a decimal place. Just a minor issue though! -WhosJan (talk) 17:08, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

WhosJan,  Fixed thank you! MarioGom (talk) 18:07, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Fixing headers

Thanks to some new code in jquery.tablesorter, I've fixed the wonky headers for this table at the sandbox version: Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/sandbox. Now the sort buttons are at the top where they belong (and you can still access them after scrolling the table). Would anyone object to me moving these changes to the main template? Kaldari (talk) 20:58, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Kaldari: That seems great, just the number of countries should be right-aligned. --17jiangz1 (talk) 21:16, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
Done. I'll wait a little while longer in case there are more suggestions. Kaldari (talk) 21:44, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
I've now implemented the header changes. Feel free to revert if there are problems. Kaldari (talk) 03:04, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Location total

Now that virtually every country has been affected by the pandemic, can we replace the "227" number under "Locations" with "Worldwide"? The 227 number is unintuitive (it took me a while to figure out what it even meant) and largely meaningless at this point. When there were only a handful of countries affected it was useful for tracking growth, but at this point it's more useful to talk about how many countries are not affected (or more realistically, not reporting). "Worldwide" seems like a better header for the totals row, i.e. worldwide cases, worldwide deaths, etc. Kaldari (talk) 03:19, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Kaldari: No. "Virtually" means almost, not all locations. Additionally, there are international conveyances listed in the template, making the number of locations listed necessary. Cheers, u|RayDeeUx (contribs | talk page) 13:47, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
The fact that there are local conveyances in the total number makes it even less useful, IMO. What conclusions can I draw from the fact that 227 "locations" have been infected? The number is useless and confusing, IMO. Kaldari (talk) 17:11, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
Kaldari, some people and sites such as Google use this table for their own proposed, so it's best if we dont touch that number right now. Cheers, u|RayDeeUx (contribs | talk page) 18:51, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Ship

Why some ship has it own entry, but MV Artania is not (4 deaths, 81 cases confirmed by Western Australia, 8 more by Indonesian authorities? Not sure confirmed cases have any overlap or not. ) Matthew hk (talk) 12:31, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Matthew hk: Until we find a reliable source (either reputable news media sources or government sources) that break down their cases to include cases on the international conveyance you mentioned, we cannot have a separate row for cases diagnosed on said int'l conveyance. If you have a reliable source and it complies with WP:WORLDOMETER, please cite it here. Cheers, u|RayDeeUx (contribs | talk page) 13:50, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
RayDeeUx, WA authority has this break down. Not sure national level they made this breakdown or not.... https://twitter.com/MarkMcGowanMP/status/1257959630929420288/photo/1 Matthew hk (talk) 16:10, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
Instead , at national level, they did not separate the case of Ruby Princess. https://www.health.gov.au/news/health-alerts/novel-coronavirus-2019-ncov-health-alert/coronavirus-covid-19-current-situation-and-case-numbers Matthew hk (talk) 16:17, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
Matthew hk: Thanks. Have you checked if the 8 cases confirmed by Indonesian authorities is included in Indonesian totals? Cheers, u|RayDeeUx (contribs | talk page) 16:26, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
My ability to read Indonesian news article (such as this one [16]) is very depends on google translate. I don't know how to find their government source. Matthew hk (talk) 16:29, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
Matthew hk: Try finding the references associated with Indonesia in this template as a starting point. I am still working on case counts for MV Artania. Cheers, u|RayDeeUx (contribs | talk page) 16:34, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
I note someone has added Artania to the list. I don’t know how those who flew home from Perth are counted, or how any remaining on the ship after it left Perth, Australia, but the cases treated in Australia, and deaths there, are reported as part of Australia’s totals. In order to insert Artania in the list, the number is being subtracted from Australia’s total so there is a discrepancy of that number between the official Australia totals in the 2020 Coronavirus in Australia page and its template, and the master template. This seems like manipulation of the figures in order to insert Artania. There are many cruise ships listed on the COVID cruise ship page but most are not listed separately. Why Artania? Ptilinopus (talk) 15:13, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
I think that the cases treated in Australia should be counted as against Australia's total, as that is how most sources are considering the data. Does presentation try to separate the numbers from Australia (apart from Wikipedia?) Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:38, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
We can add the number back to Australia (and Indonesia) but also adding footnote. This is how WA Premier present the data in state level. As i said, at national level they did not separate data from Ruby Princess, Artania and probably people infected at Diamond Princess. Matthew hk (talk) 13:27, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

State of Palestine

Cases in Palestine should either include Eastern Jerusalem or not, it is better to include Eastern Jerusalem because the Palestinian ministry of health most of the time does not breakdown the recovered cases. There another problem, the total cases as of now are not including Eastern Jerusalem, but the deaths include the two fatality cases in Eastern Jerusalem, so this should be fixed as soon as possible. Dr. Mohmad (talk) 12:31, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Dr. Mohmad: How the State of Palestine reports its cases is outside of the Wikipedia community's control. Without a reliable source that accounts for cases for Eastern Jerusalem as part of a breakdown of total cases within the State of Palestine or other neighboring areas, we cannot do anything about this situation. Cheers, u|RayDeeUx (contribs | talk page) 13:59, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
The East Jerusalem figures should not be counted as Palestine, as they are derived from Israel stats. The official Palestine have these numbers listed in a separate total, so they are easy to not double count. This is the same process as not including Falkland Islands with Argentina, ie a state claiming an area that they don't control and then publishing the information as if they do control it. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:41, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

South Ossetia Update

South Ossetia has announced they have 3 cases. These are the first confirmed cases there, and would not be counted in Georgia's totals. South Ossetia confirms first three cases of coronavirus. Kaiser matias (talk) 20:18, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Kaiser matias, the cases have been added by now. Cheers, u|RayDeeUx (contribs | talk page) 13:40, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Diamond Princess deaths

Per COVID-19_pandemic_on_Diamond_Princess#Deaths we have a bunch of sources that list all fourteen. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:21, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

The Japanese source is missing one death https://www.mhlw.go.jp/stf/seisakunitsuite/bunya/newpage_00032.html
Specifically this one it appears https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/01/dutton-says-extending-travel-ban-not-possible-and-defends-coronavirus-response
Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:24, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
We finally have some sources that are updating to the full number https://www.reuters.com/article/health-coronavirus-japan-cruises/how-lax-rules-missed-warnings-led-to-japans-second-coronavirus-cruise-ship-hot-spot-idUSL4N2CO35L
But we here at Wikipedia really detail the exact number best. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:28, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

French Guinea

How is going on the data of French Guinea? (In other words, where are the agreements summarized on this table regarding the treatment of foreign territory ?: Be careful of confusion with Guyana, and confusingly French Guinea says Guyane in French.). I can't find any explanation in the textual notes, but COVID-19 pandemic in French Guiana exists and no entry in this table. thank you. PS: I don't care so much about this , but just to 'prevent lost items'.--Kyuri1449 (talk) 11:47, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 May 2020

Currently, the table states that the total cases for New Zealand is 1492, however, it seems this is mistakenly using the sources probably+confirmed case number rather than just the confirmed cases.

The column's description states that the columns is for confirmed cases, so this seems incorrect. Dgrowley (talk) 04:09, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done, thanks Dgrowley. Capewearer (talk) 04:19, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Abkhazia, Artsakh, and South Ossetia

All three have updated numbers: Abkhazia (9 cases, 1 death, 2 recovered); Arstakh (14 cases, 0 deaths, 8 recovered); South Ossetia (22 cases, 0 deaths, 0 recovered). English-language source. Further, I'll note the linked site does source their material from the relevant health authorities, and is a neutral source for the region (which can be difficult). I'll also be happy to continue noting updates here, and if alternative sources are needed will get those. Kaiser matias (talk) 16:24, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Kaiser matias, your source is missing a row for the Republic of Artsakh. The other locations you've mentioned have been updated, however. Cheers, u|RayDeeUx (contribs | talk page) 21:18, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
@RayDeeUx: Sorry, Artsakh is Nagorno-Karabakh. They changed the name of the country in 2017 but many still use the historical name. Kaiser matias (talk) 21:29, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
Kaiser matias, I have updated the figures now. Keep us updated! Cheers, u|RayDeeUx (contribs | talk page) 00:13, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
My pleasure. Will keep doing so, and keep up the good work. Kaiser matias (talk) 02:05, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 May 2020

India: total corona cases-74243 Deaths-2415 Recovered-24124 Achyuthkp27 (talk) 18:59, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. RandomCanadian (talk | contribs) 19:34, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
RandomCanadian, for a template of this nature (ie ongoing pandemic with influx of Wikipedia editors) it would be safe to check the current source that correlates to the location the edit request is referring to and see if the numbers match up before denying the edit request. Cheers, u|RayDeeUx (contribs | talk page) 15:21, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 May 2020

New cases 1162 New death 19 103.80.2.77 (talk) 11:47, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: we currently record only the total number of confirmed cases and deaths. A reliable source is also needed, along with the name of the country or territory to which the change applies. Thank you, Capewearer (talk) 12:16, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 May 2020

Bahrain recovery number is incorrect 2,2195 should read 2,219 - the 5 is typo AidanMoylesGray (talk) 18:45, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

AidanMoylesGray:  Done and fixed. Cheers, u|RayDeeUx (contribs | talk page) 19:20, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 May 2020

Morocco cases number is incorrect 6,512 should read 6,512 - the 4 is typo > 18:13, 13 May 2020‎ Dellux 171,194 bytes +2‎ Morocco, Bahrain — Preceding unsigned comment added by Herbrax212 (talk • contribs)

Herbrax212:  Done and fixed. Cheers, u|RayDeeUx (contribs | talk page) 19:21, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:COVID-19_pandemic_data/Archive_13&oldid=956815448"