Template talk:COVID-19 pandemic data/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

→

Archive 15

Change in recovery counting for Germany

The status of reliable sources for recoveries in Germany (see previous thread). As of today, Zeit Online started using recovery estimates from the Robert Koch Institute. That means that no reliable source is reporting recoveries purely based on actual recovery counting and all are factoring in official estimates (I didn't check, but I assume that based on confirmed cases that are still alive after X days). That is true for Berliner Morgenpost, Zeit Online and Tagesspiegel. This does not seem entirely unreasonable given that more countries seem to be using that kind of criteria for recoveries counting. Do you think it is ok to stick to Tagesspiegel now and use their RKI-based recovery estimate? --MarioGom (talk) 16:22, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Ping Walkee: Maybe you have some further input? --MarioGom (talk) 16:22, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

It's true what you say. They all factor in reports of regional health departments and the official estimate. It is not obligatory to report a recovery, so I assume regional health departments also estimate in part. For Hamburg, at the moment of writing, we get 1790 recovered persons in all three sources, for example, so I guess that value was officially reported and is seen as more reliable than the value there of the general estimate by RKI. Perhaps Renerpho could help us out. He was more knowledgeable than me in the discussion at Talk:2020_coronavirus_pandemic_in_Germany/Archive_1#Recoveries:_Berliner_Morgenpost_or_Die_Zeit?.--walkee^talkee 17:04, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

I think it is best to stick to the estimate as it is. Tagesspiegel seems to be fine in that regard. I'm sure there are sources that give more precise (possibly higher, possibly lower) figures, but any such numbers are questionable. Just now, Tagesspiegel, Morgenpost and Zeit Online once again diverge in their death toll numbers. The lower value of 2,280 by Tagesspiegel seems to be the reliable one; the higher values of 2,303/2,349 are dubious. Worldometer has switched to the highest value, unfortunately. In general they seem to prefer sources that give higher values over others. This is made worse by the fact that one can report to them when a source indicates new cases/deaths, but one can not report when a source gives a lower value than what they already show on their site. Long story short: Let's keep the recovery value an "estimate only", and the other numbers what appears to be the most consistent, rather than the highest. Renerpho (talk) 08:32, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

This is true regardless of the fact that we possibly underestimate the numbers of cases, deaths and recoveries by several orders of magnitude. There appear to have been 20 million cases of COVID-19 in Italy alone by March 30,[1], and 4 times as many deaths as reported.[2] But it becomes a guessing game (and a WP:OR contest) when we try to pinpoint that. "Confirmed cases/deaths" are just that - cases/deaths that are officially confirmed. The actual numbers are higher, but I suppose we will only know how much higher a couple of years from now.Renerpho (talk) 08:40, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Switzerland

Numbers of Deaths is wrong again.

This is the offical source: https://www.bag.admin.ch/bag/de/home/krankheiten/ausbrueche-epidemien-pandemien/aktuelle-ausbrueche-epidemien/novel-cov/situation-schweiz-und-international.html its on 756 and not over 900 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidisler (talk • contribs) 11:11, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Davidisler: For many countries, sources from the press are usually more up-to-date than official government websites. This often happens when the government publishes daily consolidated updates, but regional authorities update their counts through the day. Anyway, some time ago I opened a discussion specifically about figures from Tribune de Genève but it got no feedback so far: Talk:2020 coronavirus pandemic in Switzerland § Federal Office of Public Health vs Tribune de Gèneve. --MarioGom (talk) 11:41, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

france

please change france's coronavirus cases to ~113,300 [3]https://gisanddata.maps.arcgis.com/apps/opsdashboard/index.html#/bda7594740fd40299423467b48e9ecf6 [4]https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/public-global-health/491719-france-announces-1417-dead-from-coronavirus-largest also i might not be correct as the WHO says that France has 77,000 cases. [5]https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/situation-reports/20200408-sitrep-79-covid-19.pdf?sfvrsn=4796b143_4 although the discussion above has some controversy between the french government and total cases (french gov/nursinghome and hospital)Humiebees (talk) 02:54, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Humiebees: JHU counts for France are wrongly inflated because of multiple errors. They are double-counting overseas territories and cases in nursing homes. See an explanation here. --MarioGom (talk) 08:15, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

You can also check common errors in aggregate sources here: Wikipedia:WikiProject COVID-19/Case Count Task Force#Common errors. --MarioGom (talk) 08:16, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

I think JHU might have fixed the EHPAD error by now, since it reports 83,080 cases now. --MarioGom (talk) 08:25, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

For some reason there is 112k in the template, but the source gives 82k. Agathoclea (talk) 16:06, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Agathoclea: I have reverted it. It is a wrong figure from Worldometer. AustroHungarian1867: please, see the above discussion. --MarioGom (talk) 16:15, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Required updates for UK

UK's CCF is now 65,077 and death toll is 7,978. Please update accordingly. https://www.arcgis.com/apps/opsdashboard/index.html#/f94c3c90da5b4e9f9a0b19484dd4bb14 BlackSun2104 (talk) 19:15, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

BlackSun2104: Apologies for asking, but does the figure include cases in BOTs? If it does, I cannot update it according to ARCGIS. Cheers, u|RayDeeUx (contribs | talk page) 19:46, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Just for the record: that link (cited source in the table) does not include any BOT or Crown dependency. --MarioGom (talk) 08:30, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 April 2020

pls update the deaths of MS Zaandam into 4 deaths and add Ruby Princess in the data, it has 662 positive cases and 12 deaths as it has the same death counts as Diamond Princess. 213.129.40.216 (talk) 07:49, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. Of the 4 deaths on MS Zaandam, only 2 were confirmed to have COVID-19 unless you have sources saying otherwise. With regards to the Ruby Princess, the cases were discovered after disembarkation, thus counted into Australia's numbers. --17jiangz1 (talk) 09:17, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

France figures, nusing homes included

Please tally France's CCF with JHU GIS website, because the figure of 68,605 only includes hospital cases. France decided to add in the nursing home cases, the nursing home cases plus the hospital cases add up to 89,953 which has already surpassed China , please amend. https://gisanddata.maps.arcgis.com/apps/opsdashboard/index.html#/bda7594740fd40299423467b48e9ecf6 BlackSun2104 (talk) 02:25, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

I was trying to find a reference to support this. Is there any government figures listing this? Particularly a site that can use the same URL from day-to-day, but updates daily? I will update anyway. Already done. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:05, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

JHU CSSE double counts many territories in France. Their total is always wrong. See #Urgent updates for France and Germany. --MarioGom (talk) 08:46, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

@BlackSun2104 @Graeme Bartlett : For day-to-day monitoring in France. Confirmed cases in retirement homes have already been included in the total number of cases from the start (68,605 to April 4 = confirmed cases by hospitals, family doctors and retirement homes). Confusion stems from the fact that the number of deaths in retirement homes was not included before the start of April and that confirmed AND suspected cases in retirement homes have been counted specifically since April 1st. This disturbs JHU SIG and Worldometers who carry out double counts and add confirmed and suspect cases which wrongly increase the number of confirmed cases in France. Anyone knows how to report this mistake ?... Buisson (talk) 18:46, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Johns Hopkins University (JHU) reports 110k for france, not 78k--Dwalin (talk) 10:15, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Dwalin: JHU fixed the problem today. Worldometer still reports the higher figure. Anyway, both JHU and Worldometer report incorrect figures for France. --MarioGom (talk) 18:14, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Buisson: I contacted JHU for them to fix the territory double-counting issue. No response so far. Worldometer has a system to report increases, but not decreases. --MarioGom (talk) 18:14, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

it is yet 118k--Dwalin (talk) 21:19, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Dwalin: Please, read the above discussion, as well as previous discussions (e.g. 1), to learn why that figure is wrong. --MarioGom (talk) 09:01, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

MarioGom france added death and cases in Retirement homes, previously not counted. --Dwalin (talk) 13:30, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Dwalin: Yes. And they are currently included in totals. See the official source ([6]), note the tooltips in the stacked bar chart. See a full breakdown here: User:MarioGom/sandbox/COVID-19 France. In short: 86,334 = 4,166 (Deaths in EHPAD) + 8,044 + 7,066 + 23,701 + 20,151. JHU and Worldometer are adding them on top of new totals that do include them. --MarioGom (talk) 13:36, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Chart style suggestion : should new cases percentage should be calculated based on active cases ?

Looking at Template:2019–20_coronavirus_pandemic_data/Mainland_China_medical_cases_chart - I believe trends would be much better visible when the new cases % increase would be calculated based on the currently active cases? Richiez (talk) 18:49, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Hello Richiez, we are not considering new columns at this time. Please see "Highlighted discussions" on this talk page. Cheers, u|RayDeeUx_contrib^{talk page} 19:16, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Is it a new column - or could we just replace the old? Richiez (talk) 18:25, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

And another issue is that many places do not publish recoveries, so we cannot calculate or get the active cases reliably for everywhere. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:00, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

I know, and various countries have different methodologies what they regard as recoveries. Would it make sense to use a calculated surrogate - I believe 95% of cases "resolve" after 14 days and very few take longer than 4 weeks? Statistically the mistake might be smaller than real reported data. Richiez (talk) 18:25, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Richiez: That would be original research and we should not do it. It would be also impossible for us to update that kind of calculator here, since we have no data about when each case was diagnosed. --MarioGom (talk) 16:59, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Add column for date of first case to the table for context

The following discussion 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.

---

Hello, I came to this page because Google displays the data of this table on there result page for "Coronavirus". I thought, it would be helpful for interpreting the numbers, if there was also a column for the date of the first case.

In my case, I wanted to figure out as I saw the table, how severe the situation was between different countries. Of cause, I would then also need the population of the country. Still I think, at least the date of the first case would be a useful information to add.

--94.222.83.249 (talk) 16:38, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Hello, it's nice to see someone from Google's sidebar who's interested in improving the table! Unfortunately, current consensus about editing this table says we are not to add any new columns at this time. Cheers, {{u|RayDeeUx}}_contrib^{talk page} 17:30, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Also dates of first cases can be found at the following table: 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic by country and territory § Timeline of first confirmed cases by country or territory. --MarioGom (talk) 17:30, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

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.

Brazil: number of recoveries is wrong

173 was the number of recoveries in 24 hours between the 6th and 7th of April 2020, see here.

I did a little research. I found individual recovery numbers for 13 states (of 26) and the Federal District of Brazil. Some were current (as of 9th of April 2020), some were a few days old. The sum of them is already about 850. And that does not even include São Paulo, which could be additional 800.

As far as I know, there is no record of a total number of recoveries for Brazil, similar to the Netherlands. Therefore, in the table a dash ("-") should be displayed for Brazil as well, because the value of 173 represents only the number of recoveries of one day and not the total number. And it could imply a wrong picture.

Could you please pass this information on to all relevant subpages (including different languages), like:

• 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Brazil (especially the quick facts and the representation of recoveries in the diagram under Timeline)

Dremmelt (talk) 19:27, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

TBH, the recovery data is really hard to find, as the Brazillian Ministry of Health is not reporting it The number of suspects is also not up to date.

I will try to replace the current values with a dash. --Hagnat (talk) 20:55, 10 April 2020 (UTC) [edit] Just realized i have no idea how to properly update the infobox.

Let's keep an eye on Globo G1. I guess they might report cumulative recoveries at some point. --MarioGom (talk) 23:15, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 April 2020

UK cases have been adjusted today to now include swab testing for critical key workers. The current case total is 73,758. All the information is in the following link. Number of coronavirus (COVID-19) cases and risk in the UK Timothyf1 (talk) 18:27, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Timothyf1:  Done. Thank you. --MarioGom (talk) 19:52, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Dropping some further sources about the same figure, since it seems it's problematic for some editors: [7], [8], [9], [10]. --MarioGom (talk) 23:29, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Dellux mkd, Pablothepenguin: I think you should look at this discussions and the provided sources: 256,605 people have been tested, of whom 73,758 tested positive. [11] [12]. --MarioGom (talk) 23:32, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Noted. Thanks. Dellux mkd (talk) 01:00, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Ireland Missing

Hi, Ireland seems to be suddenly missing today, 10 April 2020 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:DD:9F25:8044:888A:B20A:E45F:6195 (talk) 20:15, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Appears to have been deleted in revision 950198458. KolyaSchaeffer (talk) 21:18, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

It was deleted in this edit, which I'm sure was accidental. I've just reverted it. Thanks for pointing it out. Capewearer (talk) 21:26, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Yep, it was accidental. Sorry for that. Dellux mkd (talk) 01:02, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Required updates for Ireland

Ireland's CCF is actually 8,089 not 7,054, even JHU reflects that, please update accordingly. https://www.gov.ie/en/news/7e0924-latest-updates-on-covid-19-coronavirus/ BlackSun2104 (talk) 22:50, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

This was updated by Dellux mkd, thanks. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:35, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

BlackSun2104: I would like to remind you again that you are allowed to edit the table directly without having to add new topics in this talk page. Template edit protections were lowered to autoconfirmed users a while back, and you are an autoconfirmed user. Cheers, u|RayDeeUx (contribs | talk page) 13:26, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Dubious tag

I removed a dubious tag from the China reference, as it was fattening the column. If anyone wants to discuss whether there is a better reference, or why information is wrong for Mainland China, then discuss it here. A footnote on the country name could be used to mention the quality of information we give. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:56, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

This is a spillover from Talk:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic in mainland China § Is there something in this article relating to the concerns about accuracy of number of infected/deceased? and related discussions. I don't think public US intelligence reports are due here. Also, actual deaths are likely to be higher than reported in every country. We have discussed this a few times for a few countries, but it boils to the following: this table represents mostly confirmed cases, confirmed deaths and confirmed recoveries. All of these rely on testing and official reporting. Third-party estimates simply do not belong to values in this table. --MarioGom (talk) 22:07, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

There is a difference between mistakes and intentional under-reporting, which is what the articles state. I am open to a way of noting it a different way from what I did. Suggestions? Adoring nanny (talk) 22:58, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Adoring nanny: intentional under-reporting according to the United States intelligence agencies? It does not look too reliable or due, given that China and the United States are currently engaged in a geopolitical battle. --MarioGom (talk) 09:03, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

China is the source of gems like "The US army did it".[13]. Adoring nanny (talk) 00:05, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Adoring nanny: Yes. As I said, China and the United States are engaged in a geopolitical battle. In my opinion, that means that their cross-accusations cannot be taken at face value. Obviously they are due, with clear attribution, in some places such as 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic in mainland China § Undercounting of cases. --MarioGom (talk) 00:29, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Then what about China's deception, during the crucial time, saying that there was "no clear evidence of person to person transmission" as detailed here [14] This is an example of China lying about Coronavirus and about the very issue that led directly to the pandemic the world is suffering right now. After that, why should we believe their numbers? Adoring nanny (talk) 01:46, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

This sort of thing is not for this table. But the discussion can go in the country article. Footnote [b] covers this in general. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:15, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

I think it is appropriate to note in the country notes that some countries' figures are heavily disputed and are accused of manipulation by multiple media sources. It is not just the US government's intelligence services; the UK government has made the same accusations, as have several other countries and a number of independent media organizations. The same applies to Iran, whose numbers are disputed. It is obviously the case that every country's numbers are underreported, but the argument is that some countries have deliberately underreported their numbers for the purpose of propaganda, which is quite apart from the generic "every country's numbers are too low due to lack of testing". Titanium Dragon (talk) 07:00, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

I'd like to add that China reports symptomatic cases only, whereas every other country (as far as I know), reports all positive cases (symptomatic or not). This makes China's position in this table misleading. I believe this should be verified and some distinction should be made, or remove China from this list altogether as the criteria does not (and probably can not) match all other items in the list. Perhaps we can add a new column called "Symptomatic" or "Total Sick" and move China's entry there, and leave a note for China in the "Cases" column explaining this. — [ kentronhayastan ] 22:58, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

There are issues with all countries numbers. This can go in the text of the specific article in question. Not ever possible thing needs to go in this table. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:52, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

I strongly advocate that official numbers should be used. This since comprehensive testing is not done in all countries. And some nations count the casualties in a different manner, such as those who dies from pneumonia as a secondary cause not is included etc. To make offhand guesses based on estimates taken from less reliable sources would have the page end up in an endless loop of edit and re-edits from people with various agendas. And as already mentioned above, this work is done during a massive disinformation and propaganda campaign carried out by several sides. So the only reasonable thing to do is to go with the numbers that are given by each government or health agency, and leave this to future work by experts to make corrections when all facts are known. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.255.128.142 (talk) 02:18, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

American English or British English?

Which form of English should we use for the footnotes in this table?

One of the article(s) that this table is featured in uses British English according to its talk page, but some of the footnotes here use American English.

Obviously, this discrepancy is minor given the current situation, but I feel that it wouldn't hurt to find out about this now...

Cheers, u|RayDeeUx (contribs | talk page) 15:02, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

I guess whichever gains consistent usage first as per MOS:RETAIN. But also note that all dates seem to use DMY. --17jiangz1 (talk) 16:31, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

As far as I know, DMY dates are the most widely used across the world (which is noted in MOS:DATETIES). 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic is the most visited article using this template, and it uses DMY format and British English. I would say that this template should just follow 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic. --MarioGom (talk) 16:47, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Since scientific papers is published in British (Oxford) English and the page should maintain scientific accuracy I strongly suggest that British English is used. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.255.128.142 (talk) 02:50, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

An argument for moving away from WOM

• [15] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:55, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Agree regardless of the tweet. However, only three locations cite WOM as a reference (USA, Botswana and Guinea), and of those two only two locations uses WOM without any other source so this isn't as urgent of an issue as it was weeks ago. Cheers, u|RayDeeUx (contribs | talk page) 15:16, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Replaced the last ones with the ECDC. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:48, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Agree, given the persistent errors that we have discussed here every few days. For the United States, 1point3acres seem to be significantly better. For every other country, there's just way more reliable sources. I would also support moving away from JHU CSSE except for the totals row. --MarioGom (talk) 16:53, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Well hopefully we can get JH to fix it. Here is the ECDC[16] but they do not have recoveries.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:54, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Would like to update MarioGom and Doc James that I have gotten other sysops/admin folks to add one more bullet point to the edit notice with the following:

* Do not use WorldOMeter as a source to report any figures.

I've also removed all comments mentioning WorldOMeter. Let's hope that other editors will respect that bullet point. Cheers, u|RayDeeUx (contribs | talk page) 01:56, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Sounds good. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:01, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

How to denote missing data

Moved from Talk:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic:

Wrong info

Why is there No recoveries in uk? There is 135 recoveries in uk not 0. I found a YouTube video about coronavirus Link > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sK5-DfNyewA Hi poland (talk) 10:59, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

See related footnote for the UK in the Template:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data: "As of 23 March 2020, the United Kingdom government does not publish the number of recoveries. Last update on 22 March reported 135 recovered patients". Brandmeister^talk 12:26, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

The table is technically correct, since it defines "–" as no data, not as zero, but this post makes clear it's confusing people. Let's change it to just say "no data". {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 08:24, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

{{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 08:26, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

I think the dash is quite convenient, since it is obviously distinct from zero, but I have no objection to use "no data" instead if other editors think that is more clear. It fits in the column without widening it. --MarioGom (talk) 08:39, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

I not sure if there's a reason for not using notes inside the table, but adding the note "d" to the dashes would be of great help to the readers (without polluting the table because there are so few dashes). Feelthhis (talk) 13:14, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Even Google uses "—" to denote no data, so I think our current format is sufficiently clear. --17jiangz1 (talk) 07:43, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Google uses this template data. So no wonder we have similar convention. Yug (talk) 07:53, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

The way I see it is that a dash is potentially unclear, whereas "no data" is absolutely clear, and doesn't really have a downside I can see. I'd prefer the switch be made. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 04:19, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 April 2020

152.250.121.4 (talk) 03:50, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. What's the request? --17jiangz1 (talk) 08:20, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Why did you delete possible duration section ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.43.249.52 (talk) 12:26, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 April 2020

According to https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/ I want to edit the article Template: 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data. Ali Amini Dehaghi (talk) 14:34, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done.

Hello Ali Amini Dehaghi, we are no longer using Worldometer as a source for COVID–19 cases. Cheers, u|RayDeeUx (contribs | talk page) 14:36, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

OK, after seeing the mysterious lingering template-style text I notice where the issue is and have rectified it. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. Cheers, u|RayDeeUx (contribs | talk page) 15:34, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 April 2020

Can the total number of people tested be added? or the negative results?, seems good to show recoveries as well, if available.

Thank you 204.48.141.30 (talk) 15:02, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done.

Hello, we are not adding any other information besides name of location, total cases, deaths, recoveries, and supporting references. Cheers, u|RayDeeUx (contribs | talk page) 15:16, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 April 2020

I think it's a good idea to report not just national cases, which include deaths and recoveries, but also active cases, to better understand the pandemic trend from national point of view (maybe not in the main page, but in secondary pages which analyze the pandemic based on countries and territories). I would suggest to add data about the number of tests performed, which can be found here "https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/" or individually on specific websites of the respective countries, just to better realize how and how much the amount of positive people is linked to the number of tests performed. Franciuf (talk) 17:55, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. Please refer to the current consensus. --17jiangz1 (talk) 18:36, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Deaths in hospitals vs. nursing homes

A decision needs to be made regarding how we're tallying the deaths. Some countries like France include deaths in both hospitals and nursing homes, while others like the UK include deaths that happened just in hospitals. What should be done in this case? Should we include notes breaking up the number into hospitals and nursing homes whenever available? --Spaastm (talk) 19:15, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Hello Spaastm, these figures are up to the countries who report them. The table reports the total number of deaths, regardless of whether the death occurred in a hospital or nursing home.

As far as I know, similar issues might even persist in the United States (specifically New York State), where COVID–19 deaths in residential homes (not to be confused with nursing homes) aren't included in the state's death, and in turn COVID–19 deaths in the US.

There isn't much we can do about categorizing deaths by where they occurred. We simply get the most recent figures from each location by using reputable sources regardless of the specific story behind each COVID–19 case in that location.

Hope that eases some of your confusion. Cheers, u|RayDeeUx (contribs | talk page) 01:47, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Spaastm: I guess you are talking about hundreds of deads that are not counted ([17]). This seems to be similar to Spain, where only in Madrid there are more than 4,000 deaths in nursing homes ([18]). However, none of these deaths are officially confirmed COVID-19 cases, either because of reporting criteria or lack of testing. I'm not sure in which category the UK falls, but in the case of Spain, it is plain lack of testing. Excess mortality in nursing homes (+8,000 at national level) is assumed to be caused by COVID-19, but there are no lab tests for them pre- or post-mortem. As RayDeeUx pointed out, I don't think we can do much about it at the moment. --MarioGom (talk) 08:09, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Adding new item to current consensus

Now that we've moved completely away from WorldOMeter as a source and I've added it into the edit notice of this template, I want to add it to the current consensus section as well so that we don't worry about edit requests citing WorldOMeter in the future.

Please see my sandbox and comment on it. Thanks in advance.

Cheers, u|RayDeeUx (contribs | talk page) 02:07, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

That seems reasonable. Perhaps also add a note about avoiding aggregate sources that if possible. --17jiangz1 (talk) 08:19, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Looks good, although it's just Worldometer without the capitals in the middle. the wub "?!" 09:10, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

the wub: Oopsies, I don't know if I want to speak to sysops about that. Though as long as the message gets across, capitalization of that word shouldn't be too much of an issue.

17jiangz1: I see why you would like that, and as much as I agree with you I don't see as much discussion regarding aggregate sources besides dangling invisible comments in source editing mode, so the best I can do is save that for another time.

Rest assured, if other editors feel that aggregate sources become an issue there will definitely be a discussion on it as the history of this talk page shows. Cheers, u|RayDeeUx (contribs | talk page) 14:35, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Update: I've added the item to current consensus now. Cheers, u|RayDeeUx (contribs | talk page) 14:59, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

RayDeeUx Thanks! I'm an admin so have gone ahead and fixed the edit notice. the wub "?!" 16:16, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 April 2020

The total numbers need to be recalculated. For whatever reason, they're off by approximately 33 000. 67.213.87.57 (talk) 00:33, 13 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.

The totals are summed from other cells; it's possible that those numbers may not be updated but it would help if we knew which country's numbers were wrong. Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 00:42, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 April 2020

Change Belize Recovery cases from 11 to 0. 186.65.90.249 (talk) 23:26, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 00:36, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

 Done. There is no source for 11 recoveries and according to Worldometer, JHU and other sources, the number od recoveries in Belize is 0. When reliable source is provided the number will be updated. Thank you. Dellux mkd (talk) 00:56, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Iran / other countries

If we are adding notes that the figures are underreported based on claims for Iran (note #2) then it is only fair to do it for every country. Here are some sources (although I personally believe note #2 should be deleted):

USA: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/10/nyregion/new-york-coronavirus-death-count.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/05/us/coronavirus-deaths-undercount.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/coronavirus-death-toll-americans-are-almost-certainly-dying-of-covid-19-but-being-left-out-of-the-official-count/2020/04/05/71d67982-747e-11ea-87da-77a8136c1a6d_story.html https://www.bostonherald.com/2020/03/26/coronavirus-cases-way-underreported-in-massachusetts-across-the-country-experts/

Brazil: https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2020/apr/04/medics-in-brazil-fear-official-coronavirus-tally-ignores-a-mountain-of-deaths https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-brazil-cemetery/at-brazils-biggest-cemetery-grave-diggers-take-own-measure-of-coronavirus-toll-idUSKBN21K3J3

China: numerous reports. On practically every website

Ecuador: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-04-02/with-corpses-piling-up-ecuador-region-could-see-3-500-dead https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/08/world/americas/ecuador-coronavirus.html

India: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/01/india-coronavirus-cases-rise-amid-fears-true-figure-much-higher https://m.economictimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/india-could-possibly-be-under-reporting-covid-cases-k-sujatha-rao-former-health-secretary/articleshow/74815001.cms

Indonesia: https://www.hrw.org/news/2020/04/09/indonesia-little-transparency-covid-19-outbreak https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2020/04/04/asia-pacific/jakarta-funerals-unreported-coronavirus-deaths/#.XpGQxySSQlQ

Japan: https://www.businessinsider.com/why-japan-cases-of-coronavirus-are-so-low-2020-3

UK: https://edition.cnn.com/2020/04/07/uk/coronavirus-uk-deaths-intl-gbr/index.html https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/31/uk-coronavirus-death-toll-reaches-1789-amid-data-reporting-concerns — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.70.152.26 (talk) 09:46, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

I just checked the footnote for Iran a minute ago, and it seems like the footnote implies that other sources have higher numbers, not that official sources in Iran are underreporting. I might be misinterpreting the footnote's purpose, but it seems like the footnote was meant to acknowledge the possibility of higher figures based on other sources.

As for China and other countries...

Look, it's pretty clear that the nature of COVID–19 prevents every country from testing every person they can for new cases, and the table displays confirmed cases based either on reputable news sources or government sources. These numbers are clearly going to be lower than the actual number of virus carriers. Therefore, the footnote for Iran can stay. Additionally, the footnote next to the column header "Cases" already mentions that the figures in the table are only confirmed cases. Adding footnotes for each country regarding the possibility of underreported COVID–19 cases would be redundant.

Although I do want to applaud you for sticking to reputable news sources as potential sources. Keep that up.

Cheers, u|RayDeeUx (contribs | talk page) 17:29, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Right but the confirmed cases are the official figures for Iran (which may be different from the reality but as you mentioned is happening for every country), which makes the second footnote redundant. Anyways, let's look at the reliable sources for the Iran claim (JPost and Radio Farda are not reliable for Iran lol). The France 24 source has references from BBC Persian (banned in Iran), MEK (banned in Iran), and epidemiologists in Canada who guesstimated a figure. Not to mention the three figures are completely different. So in a way saying okay we guess (not confirm) the figures are higher but based on nothing, BBC Persian (right they release a number, based on what again: how are these confirmed cases)… of the other sources, we have JPost (if anyone is really going to claim an Israeli source is reliable for Iran or vice versa, then they must be living under a rock), Radio Farda (again, a website funded by the US government who is openly hostile to Iran is not reliable for Iran, besides if the guy quoted to IRNA, then why not use an IRNA source, you know if it exists…). Look, all I am saying is if you want to keep the note, have notes for each country whose official sources have lower numbers than other sources (for example the President of Ecuador said there were many more deaths, here https://www.aa.com.tr/en/world/ecuador-bodies-of-coronavirus-victims-are-on-streets/1791407 is saying that Guayaquil itself has had at least about 800 deaths; this claims around 6 million people in Italy and 15% of Spain is infected https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial-college/medicine/sph/ide/gida-fellowships/Imperial-College-COVID19-Europe-estimates-and-NPI-impact-30-03-2020.pdf) but don't add notes for one country

Secondly, these sources are over a month old, we're talking about the time when there were less than 210 deaths officially; not really relevant today I believe

And what is with that condescending tone? Just because I would like the article to be neutral about Iran, I am likely not to use reputable sources? Or do you offer everyone applause when they provide sources? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.70.152.26 (talk) 12:34, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 April 2020

190.194.238.75 (talk) 14:55, 13 April 2020 (UTC) Argentina 97 deads

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. There are, consulting the real-time source provided as Argentina's reference, still 95 dead reported. --Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 17:05, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Pls, please do not rename nation's name SO EASILY

Pls, I use the data from this template to calculate on a DB, so don't change the country name so easily. Please change the nation's name in the entry, being BASED ON firm needs and consent. - --Kyuri1449 (talk) 20:06, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Hello Kyuri1449, would you like to tell me which countries have interrupted your calculations? Cheers, u|RayDeeUx (contribs | talk page) 01:39, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, RayDeeUx. Entry's renaming like below will change the order of sorted data entries, when the table is sorted by nation's name. Unfortunately, it is very interrupting. The example as of Apr. 9 to as of Apr. 11:

• Northern Mariana -> N. Mariana Islands : this goes after Nother Cyprus to after Myanmar.
• USS Theodore Roosevelt -> Theodore Roosevelt : this goes after Uruguay to after Thailand.

Addtions such as Charles de Gaulle are welcome, as it won't change the order of sorted data entries, just inserting.

Also, even if the order changes, it can be tolerated once every two weeks instead of once every few days. Thanks. Regards. --Kyuri1449 (talk) 07:51, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Ditto. My spreadsheet with all April data broke for same reason. Not so much for that as for consistency (we use "North Macedonia", not "N. Macedonia") I reverted that change. jax (talk) 14:24, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Jax-wp and Kyuri1449: I've added a few invisible comments to the rows whose location names could be abbreviated. Hopefully other editors will respect them. Cheers, u|RayDeeUx (contribs | talk page) 14:56, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Kyuri1449: If you want a more stable identifier, use the link targets of the countries, not the link text itself. That is what I'm using in my scripts and it worked much better. --MarioGom (talk) 18:25, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 April 2020

France -> 135.591 Confirmed cases and not 95.403 Aivgel (talk) 08:24, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done And what trustworthy sources tell us that? Sources that have such high numbers for France have been double counting nursing home tests. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:27, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Just for the record, here you can find a detailed explanation about why JHU and Worldometer figures for France are wrong: Template talk:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data/Archive 11 § France figures, nusing homes included. --MarioGom (talk) 20:25, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 April 2020

Regarding Covid - 19 cases in New Zealand, Deaths related to Covid - 19 seem to be up to date. However confirmed cases seem to be out of date by quite a significant margin. As of time of writing (4/14/2020) The number of confirmed cases of Covid - 19 are at 1366 confirmed cases (source for this claim:https://www.health.govt.nz/our-work/diseases-and-conditions/covid-19-novel-coronavirus/covid-19-current-situation/covid-19-current-cases (which i believe is the same source the index uses)), This page however states it at 1072 confirmed cases. It is rather frustrating to see only deaths being updated on this index when both stats should be being updated. Dolan 411 (talk) 01:34, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: This list only listed the number of confirmed cases and exclude probable cases --Tensa Februari (talk) 02:37, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Dolan 411: When you look at that link, check the Number of confirmed cases in New Zealand row, not Number of confirmed and probable cases. --MarioGom (talk) 08:03, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 April 2020

You are missing the State of Washington in your US data by state. 75.134.16.30 (talk) 14:39, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't think that's the case, but I'm not sure where you are looking at. This table is about countries. You might want to check this page: Template:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data/United States medical cases by state. --MarioGom (talk) 18:30, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Ah, I see my mistake. Thank you for clarifying. Dolan 411 (talk) 08:09, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Note for Kosovo

Moved from Talk:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic

 – MarioGom (talk) 14:48, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

The following discussion 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.

---

I believe that the note for Kosovo "excluding Serbia" should be removed. It provides no additional information, as Serbia is never seen as a part of Kosovo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.2.95.0 (talk) 13:01, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

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.

Access to Morocco dashboard

It seems there are limitations of access the official Morocco dashboard at covidmaroc.ma. I update figures from the official press agency Maghreb Arabe Press because covidmaroc.ma fails for me with error 403 Forbidden. And it is not just me. Please, do not remove other sources, since keeping covidmaroc.ma limits verifiability for other editors. --MarioGom (talk) 15:04, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 April 2020

Please include in the table the total population of the country. 81.205.62.14 (talk) 10:52, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. Please, see the #Current consensus section. Thank you. --MarioGom (talk) 13:34, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 April 2020

ok total AlfabetaCo (talk) 23:58, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

AlfabetaCo,  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. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:00, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 April 2020

2806:108E:10:ABA2:C1FD:C273:F4DA:4111 (talk) 00:05, 17 April 2020 (UTC)KOIPKP

 Not done. What is the request? Cheers, u|RayDeeUx (contribs | talk page) 00:18, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 April 2020

The Commonwealth of Dominica recovered from COVID-19 count is at 8 not 5 https://dominicanewsonline.com/news/homepage/homepage-carousel/covid-19-update-statistics-for-dominica-as-of-15th-april-2020/ A00rEdit (talk) 01:16, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

A00rEdit,  Done. Thanks for the source! I've updated the number and replaced the old one with this one. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:42, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Seychelles error

The recent update on Seychelles has 5 deaths added, and 0 recoveries. The source cited states that 5 recovered, and no mention of deaths. Please move the 5 from deaths to recoveries. Ptilinopus (talk) 11:36, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Ptilinopus:  Done. Thank you. --MarioGom (talk) 14:10, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 April 2020

The cases number in Haiti is now 43

Copy and paste: – — ° ′ ″ ≈ ≠ ≤ ≥ ± − × ÷ ← → · § Sign your posts on talk pages: Constant Legagneur (talk) 11:55, 17 April 2020 (UTC) Cite your sources: Constant Legagneur (talk) 11:55, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Constant Legagneur:  Done. Thank you. --MarioGom (talk) 14:19, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

References

• France Wikiliz972 (talk) 18:55, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Need a reliable government source for the United States

This wikipedia page is hugely consequential since Google pulls from it when someone searches for 'covid-19 deaths' or something similar.

It is using a hugely unreliable source for the United States data.

The United States data is supplied by this website: https://coronavirus.1point3acres.com/en which states that .

The main webpage is in Chinese https://www.1point3acres.com/ which claims to be a "media-based tracker"

Following through its links you get to a medium blog post here: https://medium.com/1point3acres/about which confirms that, apparently, the site is run by Peter Sun, an undergraduate student at Duke.

Its inconsistencies are clear - the homepage claims its "media-based" but the tracker that the wikipedia page is actually linked to lists the United States Center for Disease Control (CDC) as the source of its data (here: https://coronavirus.1point3acres.com/en scroll down).

Clicking on the CDC link takes you only to the CDC's homepage.

If you actually go to the CDC's official count, their cases are significantly different

As of 5:47am EST April 15:

https://coronavirus.1point3acres.com/en count is 26,114 CDC official count is 22,252 (Source: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/cases-in-us.html )

This is a huge discrepancy.

It is ridiculous to let an individual self-promote his page by using it over a government source on one of the most important wikipedia entries. While Peter Sun's page includes both US and Canadian data it is only being used for the US data on wikipedia - Canada's data is CTV News which is a comparatively reliable source.

I therefore propose that the numbers and source are immediately corrected to the CDC official government page, which is what Peter Sun cites on his page for his United States level statistics, so he should not have grounds to object.

N0thingbetter (talk) 09:54, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

N0thingbetter: Allow me to explain the process that we used to narrow our sources to 1point3acres (1p3a for short).

Way back in early February, before the surge of COVID–19 cases in USA, this template cited Worldometer and CDC. This was fine at the time, because there wasn't such a high rate of testing in the US to make the difference between CDC's numbers and state-tested numbers noticable.

Eventually, Worldometer began to show errors in case counts, and editors of this template chose to move to local reputable sources (ie news outlets or government sources) per location.

Some folks found CTVNews for Canada, and that has been Canada's source since then. This was a little before the time when cases in the US began to surge during early to mid-March. If I remember correctly, US was still citing CDC.

As US cases soared, CDC could not keep up with the high volume of cases they needed to report, and eventually switched to an alternating weekday schedule in updating COVID–19 cases on their page. Thus came 1p3a.

Eventually, 1p3a updated figures so often that it could almost keep up with the latest cases from each state/territory of the US, as well as to the point that even CDC cited 1p3a's numbers (here: https://coronavirus.1point3acres.com/en/data, scroll down).

Since then, the only hiccup 1p3a has made was with recoveries in the Northern Mariana Islands, but that was fixed within the day.

The main issue really boils down to finding reliable figures without having to wait every 24 hours. 1p3a is the closest option we have for the US at this time. Unless if the CDC manages to operate under a similar schedule as 1p3a, we have no plans to switch to CDC.

And as far as I understand, Peter Sun (or other 1p3a contributors) have not mentioned their figures being used on Wikipedia anywhere on their page. Rest assured, there is no self-promotion on this table.

If you have concerns about the consistency of the data, each state and territory listed in 1p3a has a small little button (either an "i" or a "✓", depending on the state or territory) next to a red phone. Click on that button and there should be more info about the difference in figures between what 1p3a has and what the respective state/territory source has.

Hope that addresses your concerns. Cheers, u|RayDeeUx (contribs | talk page) 15:37, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Proposal: Group ships separately from territories

Suggestion Group the template into territories and ships separately. The Corona Princess was of special interest in February, as it was one of the major outbreaks at the time, with more reliable numbers than the Chinese. But now with a new boat every 3 or 4 days, it clutters up the template.

Proposal: Either group ships (and similar non-territorial vessels) separately AFTER list of territories, or create a separate template for vessels. jax (talk) 14:35, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Hello Jax-wp, this table reports COVID–19 cases based on the location where the case was diagnosed, and is ordered by the number of reported cases in descending order (ie 1 million –> 200 thousand –> 100, etc.). There is no plan to change how we sort locations in this table at this time. Cheers, u|RayDeeUx (contribs | talk page) 14:48, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

I support the merging of ships together under one or two common items (e.g. under "international conveyance", as the WHO does, or "ships" or "cruise ships"). This will make the list way clearer and more easily readable. Individual cases could be specified in the footnotes if needed. Raphaël Dunant (talk) 09:49, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

That would be a useful conveyance, so to speak. It could work. But note that we have had a separate grouping before, at the bottom of the table. Of course that was a different table, not scrollable. We still could have two (scrollable) tables in one template though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jax-wp (talk • contribs) 06:04, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

I did a first version of grouping the ships together, as in the example given by Jax-wp. Tell me what you think. The only problem I see is that when the table is sorted, the line "International Conveyance" is sorted as well, but I don't know how to change this. Except from this, it looks very good in my opinion. Raphaël Dunant (talk) 10:12, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I think it is better. It doesn't help me in my use case (I sort the territories by name, then dump them into the spreadsheet, and then the ships intermingle with the countries), nor for anyone else sorting the columns, but for regular use I think it is much cleaner. jax (talk) 16:59, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Abkhazia Update

Abkhazia has 3 confirmed cases: Link from government news outlet (in Russian). Kaiser matias (talk) 22:35, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks for the source! —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:21, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Change for MOS:SMALLFONT compliance

I forgot to follow up on this.... the "China (mainland)" text in the template is out of compliance with MOS:SMALLFONT. This is the way it is because of this DRN thread, and Admanny and Checco said back in March that it would need an RfC to overturn. But, that DRN thread only had four participants: Admanny, Akira CA, Krazytea, and Hayman30. Not a huge consensus, and I'm not suggesting a huge change to the consensus. Can I just remove the {{small}} from the template, which does not need it, without requiring an RfC? – Muboshgu (talk) 19:08, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Muboshgu I think it makes sense if it doesn't widen the column or break the line. It would be good to wait for the feedback of more editors. After all, it has used the small font for two months, so I don't think it is an urgent issue. --MarioGom (talk) 19:50, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

This is an accessibility and style issue, and also applies to other text as well, in the footnotes and territories like "St. Vincent & the Grenadines". Since the font size of the titles and main text in this template is already at 85%, we can't have any smaller text as per the MOS:SMALLTEXT: "Under no circumstances should the resulting font size of any text drop below 85% of the page's default font size" --17jiangz1 (talk) 06:49, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

I have fixed the font-sizes to be in compliance with MOS:SMALLFONT. With regards to the DRN on China (Mainland), it being smaller was not mentioned by the moderator. Admanny was the only one who suggested that, and Akira specifically said they were fine with it being small or not. Given that MOS:SMALLFONT is very clear: Under no circumstances should the resulting font size of any text drop below 85% of the page's default font size (my emphasis) there seems no reason to disregard that here. the wub "?!" 14:23, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

The only thing left seems to be the references and V.T.E which ideally should be "normal" size. --17jiangz1 (talk) 17:11, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

If "mainland" has to stay, I stick with consensus: small character. However, I also argue for the removal of "mainland" altogether. After all, in no other list or template in which Hong Kong, Macau and (obviously) Taiwan is listed separately from China, there is such thing as "mainland". It contradicts what we are doing with all the other countries which have dependent territories that are listed separately in this template. --Checco (talk) 19:38, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. No other 'mainland' country (examples include Denmark excluding Greenland and Faroe Islands) has a word following it to indicate the exclusion of some territories. There should also be consistent footnotes for every country that is disputed or separated. Currently, countries with limited recognition such as Palestine and Taiwan do not have footnotes, though I recall about a month ago they were labelled 'disputed between X and Y'. Palestine has about 70% recognition, so we also need to define limited recognition. I'm not 100% sure about whether an RfC is still open regarding this. JMonkey2006 (talk) 10:00, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

The wub, thanks! – Muboshgu (talk) 21:23, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Due to the how large the table has grown with the number of notes for many of the countries in the past two months, China included, I think it would be best to leave it as "China" and leave a note saying not including HK, Macau or Taiwan. I'll make the edit now. Edit: okay so I saw that hidden note so I left it hidden. But this is what I think is proper for now. Admanny (talk) 02:27, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Good job! --Checco (talk) 13:44, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Okay so some other editors from the DRN are reverting my changes back to having small. I'm not really going to push this as aggressively but I would stand by "China" with a footnote or "China (mainland)". Admanny (talk) 06:38, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

• See #Removing "mainland" from China. --MarioGom (talk) 14:00, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Semiprotected edit request.

Argentina's cases are now 2277, 100 dead and 515 recovered. Source (only look at the table, not the graph, the graph takes a little to update). TheTrueGilben (talk) 23:51, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Not done for now. TheTrueGilben, the current source used to monitor Argentina says otherwise; while the number of confirmed cases are the same, the number deceased (98) is different. The number of recovered cases on the template (515) matches yours but does not match the Pagina12 source that we are currently using (claims there are 365 cases). Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 02:52, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Pagina12's data for recovered are a couple of days outdated. LaNacion has been updating the recoveries daily. TheTrueGilben (talk) 05:22, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

TheTrueGilben: Página 12 data seems to be more up-to-date (see cases and death counts) than La Nación. Does anyone know if there is a difference in their source or methodology for recoveries? It might be that La Nación is more up-to-date for recoveries, or maybe both sites count them differently? --MarioGom (talk) 08:08, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure about that. And news TV channels in Argentina use the same number of recoveries from La Nacion. And I also saw today on a news channel that the dead were 102. TheTrueGilben (talk) 18:28, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

TheTrueGilben: Thank you. Both sources are more aligned now, but La Nación indeed looks a bit more up-to-date. I will change it. --MarioGom (talk) 14:06, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 April 2020 - column for active cases

A fourth number column, containing numbers of active cases (cases minus deaths and recoveries), would be nice to have for comparison and sorting. Having that additional column could be made easier (i.e. not requiring manual calculation and and input of active cases upon each update) with a template that would include something the like following code:

|{{formatnum:{{{1}}}}}
|{{formatnum:{{{2}}}}}
|{{formatnum:{{{3}}}}}
|{{formatnum:{{#expr:{{{1}}}-{{{2}}}-{{{3}}}}}}}

For example, if a country has 123,456 cases, 1,234 deaths and 12,345 recoveries, the result of

|{{formatnum:123456}}
|{{formatnum:1234}}
|{{formatnum:12345}}
|{{formatnum:{{#expr:123456-12345-1234}}}}

would be |123,456 |1,234 |12,345 |109,877, where 109,877 is the automatically calculated number of active cases. Of course, this should be enhanced with some {{#if: ... }} parts to include the cases where some of 3 numbers isn't available, i.e. the code should check if all 3 numbers exist (i.e. if all 3 entries are numbers) and return the calculated value only if this is true, otherwise return something like {{color|darkgray|–}}. 109.60.39.154 (talk) 11:53, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: #Current consensus is to not add more columns. Also, we do not have recoveries data for all countries, and for many countries where we do have it, it is significantly older than cases. Inferring active cases from our data would not be correct. --MarioGom (talk) 13:47, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

As I can see in the relevant discussion, the main reason to not add more columns is that it would be difficult to maintain, which is why I suggested a code that would automate the process. If the {{#if: ... }} parts are added (and I could also write that that kind of code), only countries with all numbers would have the number of total cases. Also, while it might be true that "inferring active cases from our data would not be correct", this could also be easily remedied with a footnote at the table heading that would define what does "active" mean, and define it as an automatically calculated number of total reported cases minus number of deaths and recoveries (wherever possible to calculate), maybe even with an emphasized remark saying that "this is just an automated calculation (all cases minus deaths and recoveries)" which for some reason might not give the correct results despite its input numbers being considered acceptable for inclusion.

Therefore, all the raised concerns leading to that "consensus" (which seems to be explicitly supported by only two editors) could be easily addressed. But, even if that doesn't satisfy the concerns, that's fine too. :) 109.60.39.154 (talk) 16:06, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

"Difficult to maintain" doesn't just mean handling numbers, it also means loading the source code of the template. I edit the United States values, where there's a lot of sum and formatnum template action behind the scenes. That's a lot of brackets to handle, and nesting so many templates into one line can only drive editors insane. There are other locations that also share the same situation as the United States in terms of how their data is shown. In short, we are not adding this column. Cheers, u|RayDeeUx (contribs | talk page) 17:17, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind reply. :) I agree, nesting a lot of templates can be messy and it is therefore a valid concern.

However, this gave me another idea, which might be far-fetched, but it might make the editing easier if implemented. If rows in the table would be separate templates transcluded in this one and containing showing "edit" links only when directly viewing this template using some <noinclude> magic. If that would be feasible and done, editing would probably be less of a mess, because each entry would be edited separately.

That was just some food for thought and throwing some ideas while hoping that some of them might help in some form. Cheers! :) 109.60.39.154 (talk) 18:07, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Yep. A similar idea was tried at Template:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data/layout. We never got to actually use it, but if I recall correctly, nobody opposed either. --MarioGom (talk) 18:17, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Cutting down on dispute details in Notes

The notes are getting very long. Some of the notes about disputed territories currently contain extra detail about the disputes and their history. I think these are extraneous here, we have links to extensive articles about all these disputes if readers wish to know more, and these notes should probably contain only information relevant to the figures. My proposed changes (with comments in green):

Russia

Including cases from the disputed Crimea and Sevastopol

Israel

Excluding cases from the West Bank

Including cases from the Golan Heights (the Status of territories occupied by Israel in 1967 article linked previously doesn't actually cover the Golan Heights)

Serbia

Excluding cases from the disputed Kosovo

Ukraine

Excluding cases from the disputed Crimea and Sevastopol. Cases in these territories are included in the Russian total.

Excluding cases from the unrecognized Donetsk and Lugansk People's Republics.

Kosovo

Remove both notes: Serbia is never considered a part of Kosovo (unlike vice versa) and we don't have other disputed territories flagged where it's not related to the numbers. See also Talk:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic#Note for Kosovo

Donetsk and Luhansk People's Republic

Remove the first note, covered under Ukraine note. Keep the second.

-- the wub "?!" 23:27, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Israel note should read either State of Palestine (concordance with linked article, my preference) or Gaza and West Bank, but not just West Bank? Other than that, I agree with the changes. I removed the Serbia not included in Kosovo note but apparently someone added it back, that one is bizarre.

On a side note, I think remaining objections could be solved if we just italicized everything that is not listed as a country (not territory) in WHO Situation Reports, but I'll wait until #RfC: Criteria for territory listing is closed before proposing that. --MarioGom (talk) 23:54, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Regarding italicizing everything that is not listed as a country, that might be confusing with regards to ships, as by convention, with ships like USS Theodore Roosevelt, only the name "Theodore Roosevelt" is italicised. --17jiangz1 (talk) 07:23, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

the wub: Your proposal seems to be uncontroversial. Could you check my comment above about Gaza and West Bank? --MarioGom (talk) 14:03, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

MarioGom: Thanks, using State of Palestine seems best. I double checked the reference used for Israel, there's no evidence that it only excludes the West Bank and not Gaza Strip, and that wouldn't make much sense to do anyway. Perhaps Gaza just got left out of the exclusions because the first cases there only came later. I'll go ahead and implement the notes changes now since no one has objected. the wub "?!" 21:50, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 April 2020

Newzealand confirmed cases is old, it is 1401 currently 119.224.23.54 (talk) 23:49, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. The source being used to take New Zealand's numbers states the number of confirmed cases is 1,086; the total number of confirmed and presumptive cases is 1,409. What source are you referring to? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:26, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Additional column for cut-off date and time

We need an additional column to display the cut-off date and time (in UTC) for each country, so that editors are able to tell when the figures for each country was last updated. This may be held behind the <noinclude> </noinclude> tags to withhold it from being displayed in the articles concerned. 1.64.49.65 (talk) 10:00, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

That would be useful (behind <noinclude>), but I'm not sure we have the capacity to keep that column updated and consistent. It would be a significant additional amount of work. --MarioGom (talk) 10:04, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

HUGE discrepancy for numbers!

I (and I'm sure many others) would LOVE to know just how wikipedia is authenticating the numbers of cases being listed.

For example, the health department in my county has officially listed 9 cases and 1 death, yet YOU are listing my county as having over 300 confirmed cases! Either wikipedia is grossly inflating the numbers, or my county is downplaying/hiding the extent of the threat - I aim to find out WHICH.

97.107.39.103 (talk) 19:43, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

This template is for listing COVID–19 cases for countries, territories, and international conveyances. Counties are not equivalent to countries. Please find the correct talk page and bring your concerns there.

Update: I've done a bit of behind-the-scenes searching and your respective country has well beyond 300 cases. It's clear that your main concern is about your respective county and not your country. As mentioned earlier, we do not handle counties, only countries, territories, and international conveyances. This is not the correct talk page to discuss your concerns. Cheers, u|RayDeeUx (contribs | talk page) 20:06, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

So if you DON'T list by county, then WHERE are these numbers below coming from?

BROWN COUNTY, WI - 439 cases, 1 death

DOOR COUNTY, WI - 328 cases, 1 death

KEWAUNEE COUNTY, WI - 246 cases, 1 death

MANITOWOC COUNTY, WI - 50 cases, 0 deaths

97.107.39.103 (talk) 23:41, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=545765029705248&set=a.139972046951217&type=3&theater

97.107.39.103 (talk) 23:53, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

As I mentioned earlier, this template does not handle counties. Please bring your concerns to the appropriate talk page. Cheers, u|RayDeeUx (contribs | talk page) 00:20, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

YOU are being listed as the source, so it's YOU who will be held responsible for knowingly providing false information.

wikipedia has FINALLY stepped over the line, and is looking at seizure and shutdown!

97.107.39.103 (talk) 02:02, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Your Facebook link is broken. Again, this is the template for countries around the world, not for "counties" in the state of Wisconsin. Perhaps you should take a step back and read 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Wisconsin. If you're looking for the States as a whole, consider 2020 coronavirus pandemic in the United States. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:23, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

The Wikipedia community is not and cannot be responsible for all Facebook posts by people who cite Wikipedia incorrectly. --MarioGom (talk) 09:20, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Additionally, please take a look at WP:UNCIVIL. Cheers, u|RayDeeUx (contribs | talk page) 14:27, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Chinese Maths

Moved from Talk:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic by country and territory § Chinese Maths

 – MarioGom (talk) 12:48, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Writing this on the 17th of April 2020. The total number of deaths added to the total number of recoveries is higher than the total number of detected cases. My mandarin is a little bit weak, but I'm pretty somebody sure messed up translating the official page of the Chinese government. Manish2542 (talk) 07:28, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Maybe they took the Chile approach to count deaths as recovered. No, seriously: The reference says 3342 deaths and 1081 active cases. 82,367 = 77,944 + 3342 + 1081 matches exactly, but then China added people who died at home, see this edit by User:AustroHungarian1867. At the very least these people need to be added to the total cases, but probably the number should go up much more from people who recovered at home. --mfb (talk) 08:23, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

 Done. At the moment I have changed deaths to match the source (3,342). Thank you. --MarioGom (talk) 08:44, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Also note that edit summaries are not valid sources. This table has received many changes that were incorrect or not supported by any reliable source. It is a recurrent issue. --MarioGom (talk) 08:50, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

I have reverted again ([19]). There are reports about revised statistics in Wuhan. But let's check how reliable sources report it and how it is handled in WHO, China reports, etc. No rush, and please, do not update to figures that contradict cited sources. --MarioGom (talk) 12:50, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

• Here's the issue: Wuhan statistics have been officially revised today. There are 325 additional confirmed cases in Wuhan and 1,290 deaths ([20]). I guess this will be included in official China consolidated report tomorrow as well as World Health Organization Situation Reports (just guessing). Do you think we should add these cases today, temporarily adding the mentioned source? --MarioGom (talk) 13:52, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

• The recoveries for 16 Apr have to be subtracted by 965 (1290−325) or else the totals will not match. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 13:54, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

CaradhrasAiguo: We don't know whether these 325 cases were accounted for in previously reported recoveries or not. I think it might be better to just wait 10-15 hours until the next consolidated report to have consistent figures. --MarioGom (talk) 13:57, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Just saw that the NHC revised their aggregate figures for 16 Apr after reporting the Wuhan government's corrections, including the subtraction of 965 recoveries. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 14:31, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

CaradhrasAiguo: Thank you! --MarioGom (talk) 16:18, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Notifying other involved editors: Dellux mkd, AustroHungarian1867, Spaastm. --MarioGom (talk) 13:57, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Haiti update

Change the number of cases to the coronavirus in Haiti from 41 to 43 Constant Legagneur (talk) 11:57, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Update cases Franc

165,027 cases (April 17) Wikiliz972 (talk) 18:55, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Wikiliz972,  Not done. We include only confirmed cases. See the footnote for the second column: "This number shows the cumulative number of confirmed human cases reported to date." The figure you report includes suspected cases (not confirmed). Probably from JHU or Worldometer. --MarioGom (talk) 19:14, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Revised data for Spain

Quick update on Spain. Sorry for the lack of link, I'm just watching this on a TV broadcast: data reporting is being revised for all regions. In the next few days there will probably be a big jump in cases. However, note that there might be some sources including suspected cases for some regions. Please, as always, check if figures match the stable and reliable sources we have been using for the country (RTVE, El País and ISCIII), all of them in hidden notes) and avoid other sources, which can be dubious if they significantly diverge from these three. --MarioGom (talk) 17:08, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

China's death toll revision

In this article, it states that Wuhan added 1,290 fatalities to the previously reported 2,579 on Friday, bringing the total toll to 3,869 nationwide. From what I can tell the numbers on here have already been revised, but should we add a footnote to address the sudden increase? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 16:59, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

References

Tenryuu:For the sake of transparency, I suggest we should. We don't want any IP editors going full caps lock like the person from Wisconsin yesterday. Cheers, u|RayDeeUx (contribs | talk page) 17:10, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

This template presently does not note the clinical diagnosis (rather than waiting on PCR lab results) from 10 Feb onward that resulted in an apparent trebling (at least) spike in new cases across mainland China on that date; that discrepancy, as well as the Wuhan government's correction have been added as notes at {{2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data/Mainland China medical cases chart}}. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 17:21, 17 April 2020 (UTC)