Template talk:COVID-19 pandemic data/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 March 2020

Argentina has 225 confirmed cases.

Source: https://www.infobae.com/sociedad/2020/03/22/confirmaron-67-nuevos-casos-de-coronavirus-en-la-argentina-y-el-total-de-infectados-asciende-a-225/ 190.245.94.183 (talk) 02:50, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

 Done Thanks. Mgasparin (talk) 03:21, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 March 2020

Honduras has now 26 cases instead of 24. https://covid19honduras.org/?q=dos-nuevos-casos-en-cortes-news Allancalderini12 (talk) 03:58, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Allancalderini12: Someone updated it already. Thank you. --MarioGom (talk) 10:14, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 March 2020

+27 new cases in Poland, +2 more deaths (total of 563/7) [1][2] Natanieluz (talk) 12:13, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Someone updated it already. Thank you. --MarioGom (talk) 15:21, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

San Marino on 22 March 2020

Please update San Marino confirmed cases count to 175 (151+20+4), according to latest official report: http://www.iss.sm/on-line/home/aggiornamenti-coronavirus/articolo49014149.html 😷 garyCZEk 📢 ✍ ｛🧒👧👦🚲💻🚗🍣｝ 14:04, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

 Done. Thank you. --MarioGom (talk) 15:19, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Notes on Jersey and Guernsey

Someone recently added notes to the Crown dependencies of Jersey and Guernsey stating "Not recognised as independent. (NAME) is a Crown dependency of the United Kingdom.". This is unnecessary as readers can simply read about those locations on their respective pages. If we do agree to keep those notes, we should add similar notes to Hong Kong and Macao: "Not recognised as independent. (NAME) is a special administrative region of China.". JMonkey2006 (talk) 08:10, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

See #New RfC on countries/dependencies. --MarioGom (talk) 15:23, 22 March 2020 (UT 2020 (UTC)

Another column

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

Link to previous column discussions.[3] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:48, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We could use these maps.

• Confirmed cases per million[4]

• Confirmed deaths per million[5] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:45, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

We have an interactive tool but it is not nearly as nice as Our World in Data's.[6] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:46, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

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

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

There are lots of ways to look at the situation on the ground and each has their benefits and weaknesses. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:49, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Scrolling

I saw that User:Koavf recently removed the scrollbars [7] out of WP:ACCESSIBLE concerns. However, the WP:ACCESSIBLE page simply states that "Wikipedia articles should be accessible to readers using browsers and devices that have limited or no support for JavaScript or Cascading Style Sheets". Browsers that don't support CSS would simply display the full table. Additionally there is a toggle button where people can disable the scrollbars if they don't want them. The scrollbars were also tested to work on the mobile site and app. There is also an accessibility cost to showing a very large table all at once. Anyways, i don't think the rationale behind WP:ACCESSIBLE applies here, and I don't think that the scrollbars in practice introduce any accessibility issues for anyone. I'd like to suggest the scroll bars be added back in. Bawolff (talk) 22:24, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks User:Bawolff. Have reverted them. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:25, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Doc James, Per MOS:SCROLL and Help:Scrolling list says to not use scrolling lists in article space. "This includes reference lists, tables and lists of article content, image galleries, and image captions." We cannot use scrolling lists in a table in the article namespace. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:28, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

We also have WP:IAR. Lots of people here are supportive of scrolling. Your first link does not work.

I assume you mean Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Scrolling_lists_and_collapsible_content Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:32, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm having trouble finding the rationale behind that page or any sort of source for the accessibility claims, or what "devices" the concern is about. The closest i could find is Template:Scrollref TfD, where the concern was about printing, but that doesn't apply here as the full table is shown when printing due to a print stylesheet (You can test with print preview in browser). Bawolff (talk) 22:35, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

I did, thanks. IAR is not an acceptable excuse for making inaccessible content. I'm frankly shocked that a medical professional would make that argument. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:37, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

You have not described how this makes the content inaccessible. In fact not doing it makes the page less accessible. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:39, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

So it says "When such features are used, take care that the content will still be accessible on devices that do not support JavaScript or CSS[8], and to the 45% (and climbing) of Wikipedia readers who use the mobile version of the site,[o] which has a limited set of features. Mobile ability to access the content in question is easy to test with the "Mobile view" link at the bottom of each page.[p]" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:36, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Doc James, "Scrolling lists should not used in article space. This includes reference lists, tables and lists of article content, image galleries, and image captions." is very explicit. I don't know why you are trying to argue around it. If it's a bad rule, then let's get rid of the rule. Nothing is special about this article. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:38, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Also removing scrolling is interfering with solving https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T247702 problem, by making an unstable target to work on. We have previously agreed on having scrolling, and have bypassed some of the negatives. So any bold changes here will need a consensus first. One point of the scrolloing is to make it more accessible. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:39, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

That is the Help:Scrolling list not the MOS on scrolling which makes no such claim. And yes their can be exceptions. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:40, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

User:Koavf describe how this harms accessibility and we can work to address that. I would argue that it improves accessibility. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:43, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Doc James, For whom is accessibility improved, James? Internal scrolling is difficult for users with particular needs when it comes to interfacing with the content: e.g. if they have difficult controlling a mouse and so may use voice commands or a specialized browser that is not going to be able to scroll internal in a page. How could internal scrolling increase accessibility to anyone, particularly these users? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:46, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Koavf so you are specifically looking at people who use screen readers and you want to make sure that this works for that group of individuals?

Or just those who use "voice commands or a specialized browser"? If so we should reach out to these individuals and see what they need. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:50, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Doc James, That is my understanding, based on my limited understanding of accessibility. I am not an expert, so I defer to what I know are the best practices. Rather than try to find everyone to post screenshots on Phabricator and hope that we aren't missing anyone (the sort of person who can't actually read this article is probably not going to be the sort of person who takes all of the extra effort to post why/how and tell everyone else how to fix it), I'm asking you as a fellow Wikimedian who has provided a lot of value to this site for years, an admin who is trusted to have best judgement about how to enforce the norms of this community, and a medical professional whom I am sure wants nothing better than the best outcomes for everyone to please revert yourself for the benefit of those persons who will be impacted by your decision to ignore the best practices about internal scrolling. Additionally, I have asked you questions that you ignored and I would appreciate you answering them. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:58, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Additionally, I just realized that there is pre-collapsed content and a button to "show all". As MOS:SCROLL points out, this is the exact opposite of what should happen: the content should be rendered and then have the option to collapse it. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:00, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Koavf if you are not an expert who do you suggest we reach out to? User:RexxS does a lot of work around accessibility. Rexx you have thoughts? As User:Graeme Bartlett states not having scrolling is also an accessibility issue. We really want this to work for everyone. We currently have technical support helping to solve any issues with respect to this. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:01, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

The show-all button just gets rid of the scroll bars. Nothing is "collapsed". Bawolff (talk) 23:03, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Your question was "how does scrolling improve accessibility for anyone"? Well with the table at nearly 200 rows it creates a great deal of white space on a narrow screen pushing content lower in the article and thus making it harder to get too. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:01, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Doc James, That may be a usability issue but I'm not seeing an accessibility dimension here to there being white space. It's an annoyance and not aesthetically pleasing but it doesn't prohibit access to anyone based on a different cognitive ability, etc. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:40, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Doc James, Thank you for asking and for seeking some feedback: I respect that you're putting in effort into this. I don't collaborate with anyone on accessibility here and in fact, I frequently have to fight solo over and over again to get basic accessibility into articles and templates (e.g. table captions). It seems like Wikipedia:WikiProject Accessibility is a good place to go shopping. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:39, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

User:Koavf okay I will ask there. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:46, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Note, from googling, the internet seems to say, scrollable things are ok, as long as they have tabindex=0 (so they are focusable and scrollable with keyboard) and label-aria. Which User:Volker E. (WMF) (indirectly via editrequest) got added to the template. Edit: The tabindex doesn't work due to MW banning that attribute (phab:T247910). However firefox still considers it a focusable element, so its all ok in firefox at least. Bawolff (talk) 23:10, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

User:Koavf my request of you is to help us solve the accessibility issues of scrolling so that they are no longer an issue. Would you not agree that this would be win win? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:14, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Okay I have reached out to people on FB for someone who uses voice commands. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:39, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Doc James, I don't know that there can be internal scrolling that is accessible. I do think that a broader best practice should be considered but that's not on the level of this one single template but the level of the MOS and help page mentioned above: that way, it's applicable to the whole encyclopedia. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:41, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

I think we should give the tech folks a chance to work on it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:46, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

First of all, can I request that we don't go back-and-forth editing the CSS in and out while this is under discussion, please? It would be helpful if we can see the template with scroll bars just for the purposes of checking whether we are creating accessibility problems by adding them.

The way I would usually tackle accessibility concerns is to try to simulate the experience of a possible disadvantaged user:

• I can confirm that none of the screen readers I use to check have any problems with the table, which is expected, as they generally take no notice of CSS and the table is properly marked up with column and row headers and scopes. We could be more certain if we asked Graham87 to have a look at Template:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data and make sure that he can read the entire table and the accompanying notes.
• I can confirm that on Chrome and Firefox, I am able to focus the links in the table using just the keyboard, and so am able to read the entire table and notes without the use of a mouse.
• I can confirm that on my mobile phone (a fairly generic Android device), I see the entire table without scroll bars, so there is no issue for me there.

That leads me to suggest that there probably isn't any class of disadvantaged user that those scroll bars cause problems for. I'm coming round to the view that our guidance at MOS:SCROLL is being taken rather too mechanically at Help:Scrolling list. MOS:SCROLL requires us to "take care that the content will still be accessible on devices that do not support JavaScript or CSS, and to the 45% (and climbing) of Wikipedia readers who use the mobile version of the site". It looks to me like the template developers have done their due diligence in this case, and I believe that we don't need to invoke IAR to show that this template is a reasonable exception to the general injunction not to use scrolling lists in article space. Of course, that's just my opinion, and someone may yet find a group of users that I hadn't considered, who are disadvantaged by the scroll bars, so perhaps we should keep the issue under review for a while, and await any reports of readers finding problems with the template before coming to a final decision. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 23:54, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

RexxS: Just to confirm, are you talking about the mobile site or mobile app? There should be scrolling on mobile website [9], but not the mobile app [10]. Bawolff (talk) 23:59, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Voice readers don't work here.....and mobile view is not readable.--Moxy 🍁 00:12, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

User:Moxy what issues are you seeing with mobile view? I am able to scroll right an left on my android phone. With respect to voice readers are you talking about the ones built into your phone? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:31, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

I use NVDA.....as for scrolling in mobile view both horizontal and vertical are there. This template is not abnormal in this type of function. Don't see a solution....just pointing out a fact that very few of us deal with.--Moxy 🍁 00:48, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

User:Moxy you say "mobile view is not readable"? You means that screen readers do not work on this table when on mobile? Does it work for this table without scrolling? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:59, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Screen reader cant begin in the right place because vertical and horizontal side-scrolling is in effect thus the template is mostly hidden from the reader. File:Screen shot of pandemic template.jpg. But again this is a normal problem and why we recommend prose text.--Moxy 🍁 02:09, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

User:Moxy so this reads fine with a screen reader? Template:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data(nonescroll). What about it you hit the "show all" button to turn off the scroll does it work than? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:39, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Bawolff: Unfortunately, using mobile view on a desktop machine often does not accurately reflect what is seen when viewing a Wikipedia page on a mobile device. I agree that viewing https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:2019%E2%80%9320_coronavirus_pandemic_data using Chrome on my desktop machine shows scroll bars. However, actually viewing that page on my Android phone using 'Chrome for mobile' shows no scroll bars as they are particularly pointless on mobile phones. --RexxS (talk) 00:18, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Interesting. For me, chrome version 80 on my android phone - area is scrollable. Scrollbars only show up during dragging (Seems to be generally how the ui works on my phone. Bawolff (talk) 01:04, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, there's no screen reader problem with scrolling. The mobile view doesn't work at all well with desktop screen readers. Graham87 03:46, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

User:Graham87 thank you. So would you say this is sufficiently accessible than? With respect to mobile does it work when there is no scrolling? Or does it not work regardless of whether there is scrolling or not? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:24, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

@Doc James: Yes, it's accessible enough. Re mobile, I'm not very familiar with that environment at all, but I'd say it wouldn't make any difference re scrolling. Graham87 06:14, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Such a problem for editing we have a script Wikipedia:Editing on mobile devices#Scrolling....that should be implemented all over.Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility/Data tables tutorial.--Moxy 🍁 06:35, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

What is needed to "implement all over" User:Moxy? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:29, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't think that script is relevant to this situation. Bawolff (talk) 04:34, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Here is some research by Jakob Nielsen:

In any case, all key information should be visible on the initial screen because scrolling can cause accessibility problems:

• The additional action that scrolling requires can be difficult for users with motor skill impairments.
• Low-literacy users can't easily reacquire their position in the text after it moves.
• Elderly users often have trouble getting to the right spot in scrolling menus and other small scrolling items.

And the W3C:

Avoiding the need to scroll in the direction of reading in order to reveal lines that are cut off by the viewport is important, because such scrolling significantly increases the effort required to read. It is also important that content is not hidden off-screen. For example, zooming into a vertically scrolling page should not cause content to be hidden to one side.

I think that these are best practices we should follow. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:14, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

You can try a RfC to get further input. I agree with User:Graham87 who states "Yes, it's accessible enough" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:41, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Netherlands and other countries which have no recoveries data

Can I add recoveries data from John Hopkins University (https://www.arcgis.com/apps/opsdashboard/index.html#/bda7594740fd40299423467b48e9ecf6) for countries such as Netherlands, etc? Dede2008 (talk) 02:28, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Dede2008: I'm not sure. Data about recoveries is sometimes questionable. For example, our main source for Norway ([11]) explained explicitly that they do not track recoveries because there are no official reports about it, so they can only get some of them from local news outlets, and those are just anecdotal evidence. Other countries have some kind of official reporting of recoveries (e.g. China, Germany, Spain), but we already have reliable sources for them. --MarioGom (talk) 22:56, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Kyrgyzstan update

Moved from Talk:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic § Semi-protected edit request on 21 March 2020

 – MarioGom (talk) 13:40, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

In Kyrgyzstan 14 cases confirmed I am resident of Kyrgyzstan please update — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shabir hussain72 (talk • contribs) 12:53, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

source?--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:38, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/#countries — Preceding unsigned comment added by Foxtail286 (talk • contribs) 16:00, 21 March 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.70.152.26 (talk) 20:28, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Just added it, take a look and see if I did it right. Thanks! RayDeeUx (talk) 23:09, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The only one who believes that is a 'fact' appears to be yourself. I've already pointed out (which you've already decided to ignore entirely because it rebuts your 'fact') that in 2008, Guernsey and Jersey signed an agreement with the UK including a number of clarifications regarding the international identity of the islands which expressly stated that each Crown Dependency has an international identity that is different from that of the UK. 73.118.244.165 (talk) 23:05, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

•  Done United States Man (talk) 23:12, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
• You did not update the reference tho, it is cited above. Thanks.73.118.244.165 (talk) 23:20, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
• I did update the reference. I just used a new article from the existing site that had the same numbers you provided! United States Man (talk) 23:22, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
• Sorry for that. Just to note AA is the government agency, so it is "reliable" for official numbers. THanks.73.118.244.165 (talk) 23:26, 23 March 2020 (UTC)