Template talk:COVID-19 pandemic data

RfC on countries/dependencies

I think we need to have the countries/territories/dependencies issue settled once for all.
Are territories and dependencies (full list from List of countries and dependencies by population: Hong Kong, Puerto Rico, Macau, New Caledonia, French Polynesia, Guam, Curaçao, Aruba, Jersey, U.S. Virgin Islands, Isle of Man, Cayman Islands, Bermuda, Guernsey, American Samoa, Greenland, Northern Mariana Islands, Faroe Islands, Turks and Caicos Islands, Sint Maarten, Saint Martin, Gibraltar, British Virgin Islands, Åland Islands, Cook Islands, Anguilla, Wallis and Futuna, Saint Barthélemy, Saint Pierre and Miquelon, Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha, Montserrat, Falkland Islands, Christmas Island, Norfolk Island, Niue, Tokelau, Cocos (Keeling) Islands, Pitcairn Islands) as well as scarcely or not universally recognised countries (Taiwan, Kosovo, Western Sahara, Transnistria, Northern Cyprus, Abkhazia, Artsakh, South Ossetia) to be included in their respective countries' counts or not?
As of now, two dependent territories (namely Hong Kong and Macau, so that China is referred to as "China (mainland)"), along with scarcely or not universally recognised countries are listes separately from their respective countries, others are not. The count is made more complicate by the fact that most sources (notably including Coronavirus COVID-19 Global Cases by Johns Hopkins CSSE and Coronavirus Update - Worldometer) list all dependencies separately.
Please, have your say! --Checco (talk) 10:24, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

• My guess is that we should be completely consistent with List of countries and dependencies by population and several other articles. In fact, in Wikipedia it is customary to list and/or consider territories and/or dependencies separately from respective countries for statistical purposes. Dependent territories are never included in their respective countries' counts. As a consequence, in our template mainland China should be referred simply as China. --Checco (talk) 10:26, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
• I think that the territories and remote parts of countries should be considered separately. Unfortunately that means more lines in the table. But at least we can follow sources that we use. China has to have the "(mainland)" on it to prevent confusion, and this was heavily discussed in earlier weeks. Though I do not support use of "small" for it. We certainly need a consensus on it as there are many reversals on these entries, and confusion. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:39, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Note that earlier discussion Template talk:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data/Archive 3#Guernsey clearly supported Guernsey (and possibly Jersey) as having its own entry. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:53, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
    • I disagree on China, on both respects. Why should we add "mainland" here? In no other list, in which Hong Kong and Macau are listed separately, there is such thing as "mainland China". If "mainland" has to stay, let's have it smaller, at least. --Checco (talk) 10:58, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
      • The reason is that we avoid excessively small text as it is too hard to read for some. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:01, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
        • Indeed. I would remove "mainland" or, at least, make it less evident. --Checco (talk) 11:18, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
          • Removing "mainland" while listing it as such and parallel to HK and Macau would violate WP:NPOV.Rethliopuks (talk) 13:51, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
            • Not at all. Hong Kong and Macau have a different status and, by the way, are on the mainland! It is "mainland" which is hardly NPOV and, indeed, it virtually never mentioned in lists in Wikipedia. --Checco (talk) 14:16, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
              • You're mistaken, my friend. "Mainland", perhaps confusingly, refers to the area claimed by PRC that excludes Hong Kong, Macau, and Taiwan. So, Macau is geographically part of the continent but it's not part of "Mainland", and Hainan which is a real island is. The reason? It's because "Mainland China" is a term propelled into existence by political needs rather than geographic. Rethliopuks (talk) 14:22, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
                • Again, this template is a strange exception in Wikipedia. Differently from here: 1) dependent territories are usually listed separately. 2) China is usually listed as "China" also in tables and lists where Hong Kong and Macau are listed separately. Big inconsistency! Again, just take a look to List of countries and dependencies by population --Checco (talk) 17:14, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
                  • I think the issue here is that we're counting. It's clearly ridiculous to say that there's a "mainland China" as a country, as much as it is to state that there exists "the British Islands" or "Contiguous United States" as a country; at the very least, such a claim would definitely violate WP:NPOV. Even listing them as territories instead of their respective countries would violate WP:NPOV. However, it's a different matter when we need to actually count numbers on parts of land. Imagine using "United States" to only include the lower 48 or "France" to exclude Corsica -- that would be an unexpected thing to do. But our statistics is so, then we must make a note that we do not refer to the entire PRC (or US or France) but which parts of it, one way or another -- it's either going to be "China" with a note or "mainland China". I prefer the latter. Rethliopuks (talk) 15:18, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
                    • You are probably not aware of what dependent territories are. --Checco (talk) 15:26, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
• We need to discuss few criteria, independantly otherwise democracy is a MESS.
  Populations: Every political area with population >1~5 million should be included. Micro states (Andorra, Vatican, etc) shouldn't.
  Status / Dependencies: territories should be attached to the de facto highest authority, judged by tax flow, police, army. Thereby: most dependencies will be attached to their upper authority as a 'province/region/...'.
  Scarcely or not universally recognized countries if population is notable >1~5 millions, fiscally, militarily independent : Taiwan, Kosovo, Western Sahara, Transnistria, Northern Cyprus, Abkhazia, Artsakh, South Ossetia.
  Core idea => We don't do politics, a reporting authority is included ; We reduce to highest reporting autority (Island of Man => UK, etc) ; we push away micro-micro-state. Yug (talk) 10:53, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Probably a bad idea to exclude any state for its population, because this is supposed to be a global count. Rethliopuks (talk) 13:57, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

• The problem I see is when a territory whose de facto sovereignty is widely disputed and when the territory has yet been added. Thus Taiwan is not an issue because the scheme is mainland China, Hong Kong, Macau, Taiwan -- listing four regions thus circumventing the sovereignty issue. One present problem is Northern Cyprus: the territory has now seen confirmed cases, so as a global count the cases should be included. Do we have a WP:NPOV solution that allows listing the cases in the territory one way or another? Rethliopuks (talk) 13:55, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Northern Cyprus should be included as a separate line… Cyprus is not including the Northern Cyprus cases in its reports, and it makes no sense to completely exclude Northern Cyprus from the table (the cases still exist). The issue with dependencies is unrelated as they are not independent (recognised or unrecognised) and (most?) are not claiming to be so their totals are generally included in the main country’s reports. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.77.220.109 (talk) 15:41, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree that Northern Cyprus should be listed separately, it can be put in italics or something, but we can't just exclude its cases Extended Cut (talk) 17:10, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Since the numbers are patients under health authority's control, what should be showed is which health authority is actually overall responsible for that patients. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.193.47.172 (talk) 14:27, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

• List of countries by population (United Nations) is another list.Selfstudier (talk) 15:20, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Not all countries are recognised by the UN and/or are members of it. And, by the way, also in that list dependent territories are listed separately from their respective countries and China is listed as just "China" (even though Hong Kong and Macau are listed separately). Thanks, User:Selfstudier for your point! --Checco (talk) 17:14, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

193 UN member states (+2 non member observer states) and 233 in that list (you can reconcile it with the other one, some are in, some are not).Selfstudier (talk) 17:58, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Are numbers from Puerto Rico counted twice? It says that US cases include Puerto Rico's, yet it's still listed separately.Extended Cut (talk) 17:16, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Philosophical reflections

• Purpose: The main purpose of Wikipedia in general, and the current article in particular, would - in my opinion - be to share information with one another. That said, any message involves choices, as to sending it, its subject, its content, its wording, its degree of clarity / vagueness, etc.
• Neutrality: Already in those choices, neutrality is / can be lost. In the particular case under discussion here, ceases to exits at the latest as soon as at least one person disputes the borders and/or naming of an area on the globe.
• Information: I would define information as any both well-defined and true (part of the) contents of a message about facts and circumstances, or else any well-defined and well-documented (i.e. by a clearly described and available source) contents of a message about facts and circumstances, possibly with an assessment of the accuracy.
• Availability: We can only send / share messages about information that is available. It appears to me that for numbers of infected (total and/or current), recovered, succumbed for sizable parts of the world, we depend on numbers made available / published by the sources / authorities that have access to (qualitatively) good measurements thereof.
• Division: As long as for a well-defined division of the world (country, province, etc.) one authority reports in a well-defined and clear way and is not (substantially) contradicted by another authority with at least an equal level of trustworthiness (and in assessing substantiality and trustworthiness, neutrality may be (partially) lost), using messages (here: numbers of infected, recovered, succumbed) published by that authority seems to be the best possible way of showing such numbers for this well-defined division in a table. Things get more complicated when several authorities / sources claim to be leading, but I doubt whether that is a major issue at this point in time for most of the divisions. I would say that the (kind of) divisions are ultimately dictated by the authorities / sources that execute and report about measurements, whatever the divisions are that they choose to report on, and whatever the levels of quality and neutrality underlying these divisions and numbers. Of course, we are free to discuss the quality of the numbers, but I see no point in choosing any other divisions of the world than are chosen by the (reporting) authorities / sources as long as we do not have data about different divisions at our disposal.
• I would therefore suggest that the one(s) who are willing and prepared to share messages about case numbers in a table use the numbers published by authorities for the well-defined division(s) they report for in a clear way. The resolution (e.g. country, province, state, municipality) is a matter of choice, as long as a credible (again: risk of loosing neutrality) source reports on a division of a particular resolution.

Practical implications for the countries in the Kingdom of the Netherlands are proposed to be as follows. The Kingdom of the Netherlands consists of four separate countries, namely:

• (the country of) the Netherlands;
• Aruba;
• Curaçao;
• Sint Maarten.

In turn, (the country of) the Netherlands consist(s) of:

• the European Netherlands;
• the Caribbean Netherlands,

and the Caribbean Netherlands in their turn consist of three public bodies somewhat similar to municipalities, namely:

• Bonaire;
• Sint Eustatius;
• Saba.

For (the country of) the Netherlands, the (main; again: neutrality may be lost in interpreting this adjective) reporting authority is the RIVM (National Institute for Public Health and the Environment). It reports for the well-defined division (the country of) the Netherlands, therefore excluding Aruba, Curaçao and Sint Maarten. I cannot find any (clear) indication that its scope would be different from this, nor have I seen it provided by the one(s) who have/has added a text saying that the numbers for Aruba and Curaçao would be included in those for the Netherlands.

Furthermore:

• Aruba has its own Directie Volksgezondheid. Please refer to e.g. https://www.overheid.aw/home-ned/departementen_46763/letter/D/ and https://www.facebook.com/pg/desparuba/posts/.
• Curaçao has its own Volksgezondheid Instituut Curaçao. Please refer to e.g. https://vic.cw/pap.
• Sint Maarten has its own Department of Public Health. Please refer to e.g. http://www.sintmaartengov.org/GOVERNMENT/VSA/PUBLIC-HEALTH/Pages/default.aspx.

For these reasons I propose using the RIVM-numbers with respect to (the country of) the Netherlands - including Bonaire, Sint Eustatius and Saba - only (and excluding the three other kingdom partners Aruba, Curaçao and Sint Maarten besides (the country of) the Netherlands), and separate entries and numbers for any cases in these three other countries as soon as they are reported by the appropriate (another judgment case) authorities. I am not aware of any parties disputing the de facto control and authority of the four governmental organizations mentioned.

The Netherlands do not count recoveries.Redav (talk) 17:34, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

• Taiwan should stay separate as they have a different government have carried out very different actions, etc. I think this is a case by case issue. Not something that can be solved by some overall rule. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:51, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

I may actually have to retrace my steps a bit. I have come to an understanding of how practically helpful a COVID-19 cases data table could be that corresponds to a standard list of divisions (i.e. countries, territories, etc.) that may not fully correspond to areas of responsibility of certain (public health) authorities. Please refer to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2019%E2%80%9320_coronavirus_pandemic. There seem to be several options. One is using https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_dependencies_by_population, but that list seems to be in need of changes to its handling or and handling of the Kingdom of the Netherlands and its four constituent countries in a consistent way. (The Kingdom of the Netherlands consists of the four constituent countries Aruba, Curaçao, Sint Maarten, and (the country of) the Netherlands.) Another option is using https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population_(United_Nations), where these four constituent countries seem to be treated in a consistent way. The need for a clear reference to the sources, and - if appropriate - data numbers that are aggregates of e.g. the numbers for the four constituent countries in the case of the Kingdom of the Netherlands.Redav (talk) 13:47, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Adding population columns to the table.

Would it be possible to add a column that would display the number of infections per 1000 residents or another denominator that would allow for comparing data in relation to the total population of the country? Haider254 (talk) 12:52, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

This can be disregarded, I noticed this was already discussed earlier. I will try to delete this post if possible. If not, I apologise for my hasty question. Haider254 (talk) 12:54, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

I have done this in a spreadsheet (source: this template and List_of_countries_and_dependencies_by_population).

I do think there should be a Wikipedia page with some or all these derived formulas (e.g. cases per million and fatality rate). jax (talk) 09:52, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

"Active" column

I am strongly against the "active" colum, which was added with no clear consensus. It is a at best misplaced on the right and it is quite redundant. I am asking User:Rethliopuks to remove it and seek consensus first. A RfC can be started too. --Checco (talk) 13:58, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree with that. This column is unnecessary, and makes the table slightly less readable. Doster123 (talk) 14:19, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

I actually thought an "active" column would make the table more readable for the readers that want to know the current situation of the pandemic as opposed to a historical aggregate (this is useful for many purposes e.g. answering "how 'dangerous' re: COVID-19 is region X now?"). A few examples of the functions this column serves: it makes clear how many cases remain open in mainland China, which is by no means otherwise clear at a glance (are there more cases than Italy? Fewer than Iran? etc.); it puts Macau to the bottom of the list as it has currently no active cases; it puts Japan below Belgium and Singapore below Estonia because both has fewer active cases than the other.

This column may not be globally distinctly useful for the moment, but in at most a few weeks it will be. Currently for most countries, "active" ≈ "confirmed", but that is only because the pandemic is at its nascent stage for the majority of number of countries. Already the table is being confusing/unuseful for a few countries in E/SE Asia as it doesn't reflect the progression of the pandemic well.

While this column is arithmetically redundant, it is not time-wise redundant. Calculation takes time and resources which the reader may not be able to realistically afford. It's like why nearly all COVID-19 data templates list both "new on the day" and "total as of the day", even though one of these columns is totally arithmetically redundant. (I'm actually not aware of any template that does not have the two separate columns) Rethliopuks (talk) 14:43, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Clearly, there has never been and there is no consensus for the "active" column. --Checco (talk) 17:15, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

agreed. it is so often requested by people who haven't searched through the talk page archives for previous discussions about this that i think we should try to keep an explanation on the bottom of this talk page. (realistically, no one looks at the top of the page, where, for example, it says who situation reports are one of our core sources.)

also, although rethliopuks has had extensive experience dealing with editing data from this pandemic as evinced from his list of contributions (which i highly commend rethliopuks for), the experience is largely on mostly static tables of data. while i agree that data of this nature is useful (and indeed should be added to less dynamic tables), i believe the idea of such columns for this specific table have been generally rejected by editors regularly updating this specific table. if i am counting correctly, rethliopuks appears to only have about 15 edits to this table, with only 6 of them in the past few days (and likely centered around adding the column), so i don't blame rethliopuks on believing that adding the column was a good idea. i should also note that i have no issues with adding this column once the pandemic is over.

as the column may be getting quickly out of date and is being an active nuisance for editors right now, i will boldly remove the column if someone else comments their approval of doing so below, as i am assuming consensus has been achieved. dying (talk) 18:33, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

It is misleading and incorrect to create Active column by simply calculating Cases minus Deaths minus Recovered. Some countries do not report recoveries, so there is no known Active number. For example Finland generally doesn't report recoveries for privacy reasons. 84.250.234.143 (talk) 19:07, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

good point. i knew some governments didn't report recoveries, but i had not thought of the implication. dying (talk) 19:11, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

done. if someone believes consensus was not achieved, please feel free to undo the change. apologies if i broke a part of the table in the process. dying (talk) 19:18, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

No more columns. It is wide enough. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:52, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Half collapsing this template

Am asking around

To see if any one has solutions to half collapsing or adding scrolling that would work... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:13, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Okay this works well on desktop, mobile, and in the app User:Bawolff/sandbox/covid One can swipe left and right to see the edges. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:23, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

It works on desktop and tiny screen. But if we have scrollable, I suggest no default collapsed bits like notes. If you click on a note nothing happens if it is collapsed. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:43, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Agree with that User:Graeme Bartlett. You want to make the change? I am unable to figure out how. By the way it opens for me on desktop. And I see it open by default on mobile. I also see it as open by default in the app. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:48, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

While it seems to work well enough in the sandbox, on all of my Mac, Windows, and Android OS the entire left side of the box is cut off, icons and all scrolling left and right does not work. Perhaps looking to the past can provide a solution for today. During the 2009 flu pandemic the Template:2009 flu pandemic data was used and that template then provided the link to the data by country. Given the fluid nature of this event and the constant editing, perhaps a top 10 could be used in a condensed version, with the link provided to all the countries and territories a la the 2009 pandemic data box. Krazytea(talk) 05:14, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

User:Krazytea What browser are you on and can you provide screen shots? It works fine on a windows machine running chrome. And on an android phone (both mobile and app). Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:18, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

I am using Firefox and the Wikipedia App on Android. Krazytea(talk) 05:23, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Okay try now User:Krazytea. I have now adjusted it and it works for me on Firefox. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:24, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Just FYI, for [1], the reason i had padding on the right, is that some browsers (in particular firefox desktop on linux) take out space for the scrollbar, and things get cut-off without some padding (I have no idea how much padding is appropriate though, the amount i chose was probably unideal). Bawolff (talk) 05:40, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

The sandbox works OK for me on Android - with firefox mobile, chrome mobile and chrome desktop (though here is is quite small, but zoomable). Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:08, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

As pointed out by Krazytea above, Template:2009 flu pandemic data shows the perfect way to summarize the data in the pandemic main article. Cases by continents and economic regions and worldwide cases (grand totals), and maybe a few top countries, with a link to further information: Cases and deaths by country. Regardless, too much statistical data (e.g. excessively long tables to impede the readability of the main article) is against policy (WP:NOTSTATS). Being scrollable doesn't solve the problem because it hinders printability and has accessibility issues. Zarex (talk) 07:55, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Support suggestion by Krazytea and Zarex. Bondegezou (talk) 11:27, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

I guess I do not. I quite prefer the current format, but I am proposing improvements too (see below). --Checco (talk) 11:34, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

I do not like the Flu layout either. People want to know what is happening in their country. I know that I want to know what is happening in my country. Lumping Canada, the US and Mexico together makes no sense.

With respect to accessibility / printibility. Can we have a button within the template that takes a person to the full version without scroll? Or has the scrollable version change to the full version? User:Bawolff Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:39, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

hmm. For printability, we could maybe use TemplateStyles so it doesnt scroll when printing. Bawolff (talk) 17:50, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

I made a new version that should print better, and has a button to expand all - User:Bawolff/sandbox/covid. Thoughts? Bawolff (talk) 21:24, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

@Bawolff: The button to expand is nice but in Firefox there is a horizontal scrollbar and the vertical borders in the second header row are missing (between Countries, Cases, Deaths, Recoveries and Refs). Zarex (talk) 22:22, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

@Zarex: I tried to add more padding so the vertical scrollbar doesn't show up, which worked in my testing but might not work everywhere (It seems like firefox requires the extra room, where chrome doesn't, and how much room a scrollbar takes up seems a bit unpredictable). I had trouble making the top border show up in both chrome and firefox. I found a way that works in chrome but not firefox, and a way that works in firefox but not chrome. Nonetheless, I think my new version is a lot better. Bawolff (talk) 23:45, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

This looks great. Exactly what I was looking for. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:28, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Another thing that might make sense, is word wrapping the country columns (But only if you are on a small screen). I tried to do that in my sandbox [2] (View on a small screen width). Honestly, it didn't really help as much as i thought it would. Bawolff (talk) 04:02, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Further improvements

I quite like the scrollable box, but the header should be fixed. What do you guys think?
Secondly, what about reducing the first column's width, in order to make the table more readable also for smartphone users.
Many thanks, --Checco (talk) 11:08, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

How do you want to fix the header User:Checco?

Yes we should reduce the first column's width. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:37, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

I guess we can keep the header stable, so that it is not scrolled down. --Checco (talk) 15:27, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

If we do have horizontal scrolling, maybe the flags should also be fixed - that would allow keeping track of what country well also not taking up a lot of room. Anyways, i did a version in my sandbox where the top headers (not the flags) are fixed, although it seems like some mobile browsers don't support it: User:Bawolff/sandbox/covid. Bawolff (talk) 21:41, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for collapsing this table. Much too large otherwise. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:09, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Broken Again

For me, this is the last fully readable version: https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Template:2019%E2%80%9320_coronavirus_pandemic_data&oldid=945630678 edit notes describe the next as "fixed." 138.88.18.245 (talk) 20:09, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

For me, things get considerable worse with this version: https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Template:2019%E2%80%9320_coronavirus_pandemic_data&oldid=945711573 edit notes describe this as "At least make it so that you don't have to scroll horizontally" but it chops it off halfway through "cases" unless users find a way to scroll horizontally. And scrolling part of the window without the rest can trigger migraines. 138.88.18.245 (talk) 20:09, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Revised template

Following a request from User:Doc James I have made a simpler to use template: it is at User:Rich Farmbrough/2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data

All the best: Rich Farmbrough (the apparently calm and reasonable) 22:32, 15 March 2020 (UTC).

Thanks User:Rich Farmbrough will review. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:34, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

We will need a way to add references aswell. We change the references as we update the data. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:44, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Automatic Sorting of the Table Rows by Confirmed Cases Count

Could you make sorting of Countries descending by Confirmed cases count by default? This is how: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:Sorting#Default_order or more specifically: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:Sorting#Using_JavaScript_to_trigger_client-side_table_sorting

The sorting after cases count changes should not be manual process. Could you make our and mainly your lives a bit easier? Thanks ;) Garyczek (talk) 06:48, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

If you read what you linked to it says: "It is not possible to make a table appear sorted by a certain column without the user clicking on it". However you can amend your own common.js to add a script that will sort on load. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:38, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

I will note that sort errors get fixed quite quickly. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:38, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Countries and territories??

Hello. I am so sorry for my bad English but I want discuss one point. Why we show 137 countries and territories? On WOMC there are 151 countries and territories around the world and 1 international conveyance affected by COVID-19. --Drabdullayev17 (talk) 07:35, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Some territories are added into another country in our table, eg Gibraltar into UK, or Faroe Islands into Denmark, or French overseas territories into France, or Puerto Rico into US. This is open to discussion though. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:41, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Graeme Bartlett so if we add territories to countries and only show count of countries then we should write just Countries on table instead Contruies and territories. Am I right? --Drabdullayev17 (talk) 13:08, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Because this is not done for all territories, and especially because doing so will get us into trouble with WP:NPOV. An example is splitting the Greater China region into four: mainland China, Hong Kong, Macau, and Taiwan, as this circumvents any issues with sovereignty. Rethliopuks (talk) 15:08, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

https://www.bag.admin.ch/bag/en/home/krankheiten/ausbrueche-epidemien-pandemien/aktuelle-ausbrueche-epidemien/novel-cov/situation-schweiz-und-international.html#-1199962081 BlackSun2104 (talk) 15:15, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

https://www.bag.admin.ch/bag/en/home/krankheiten/ausbrueche-epidemien-pandemien/aktuelle-ausbrueche-epidemien/novel-cov/situation-schweiz-und-international.html#-1199962081 BlackSun2104 (talk) 15:15, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

San Marino

Worldometer says that San Marino has 101 cases, 5 deaths and 4 recov. I saw the note that Worldometer is not accurate about this. Why? If this number is true, please remove the invisible note. Thanks Luke Kern Choi 5 (talk) 08:35, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

That matches the government source. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:42, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Territories

I need some help in updating France, UK, etc. because I'm not sure how many cases are there in each territory. Can someone fix this? I'm sure that France and UK numbers are wrong. There needs to be a way to solve this problem in the future, too. I presume that a lot of people could mistaken about this. Thanks, Luke Kern Choi 5 (talk) 10:03, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

i think the editors at french wikipedia have been doing a pretty good job with keeping track of the breakdown of cases in the article about the pandemic in france. of course, we shouldn't just cite them as our source, though they may help in obtaining the appropriate sources to cite. dying (talk) 12:12, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 March 2020

1. a few new cases in Poland (total of 111) [3]
2. How it is possible that in less than 10 days (first positive test comes from 4 March, Polish gov claims that we have 13 recovered people on 14 March) we already have 13 recovered people in Poland? [4] Natanieluz (talk) 10:13, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

For (2) perhaps they had only a mild disease, or they were sick for a while before the test, and later on when tested, it came back negative. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:45, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

(1) was done here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:47, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Ref column

Currently the refs are both in the Ref column (2 refs) and in the country rows, making WP:CITEKILL. I think country-wise refs are sufficient and those in the Ref column could be dropped. Brandmeister^talk 10:58, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

from what i can tell, the superscripts in the country column are notes, and the superscripts in the reference column are citations. i believe many editors have been trying to keep the number of citations down, although since there are three figures per country, there may be up to three references required to support them all at any one time. can you point out a specific instance where you feel there are too many citations? thanks in advance. dying (talk) 11:51, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

I mean refs 1 and 2 (JH and Worldometer) used immediately after the word Ref. Since sourcing country rows is sufficient, sourcing the Ref. header itself is redundant. So those refs could be moved further down. Brandmeister^talk 13:34, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

ah, yes, that's true. thanks for pointing that out. surprisingly, after a quick search, i noticed that we actually weren't even using the johns hopkins source anymore, so i've commented it out. i've also removed the worldometers citation as it is fully cited elsewhere. i believe these citations may have been useful when we decided to obtain the column totals from an aggregate source instead of summing them up ourselves, but now that it looks like enough editors regularly make sure the sums are updated, i'm guessing that we no longer need those citations.

i'm assuming this edit is minor enough to not require consensus, but feel free to revert the change if you feel otherwise. dying (talk) 18:02, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Nice, thanks. Brandmeister^talk 20:22, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Reported cases

I've edited before to turn "Cases" into "Reported Cases", but this has been reverted. I think it is important to make clear that these numbers are wrong. All public health officials know that they're wrong. These numbers are the confirmed cases, but the actual number of infected people is higher, probably substantially higher. (On Friday, the UK had a figure of 798 cases, but an estimate of 5-10,000 actual cases.) I don't know what the best way of showing that is, but we should not be giving the impression that these numbers are the real number of cases. Bondegezou (talk) 11:01, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

i would imagine that, due to the nature of statistics, it is generally understood that when reporting a statistic such as the number of cases, by necessity, one can only report on the number of reported cases. as a result, while you may be semantically correct in stating that the column labelled "cases" is not reporting the actual number of cases, i would think that, as a matter of pragmatics, it is generally understood that "cases" means "reported cases". after all, the same argument that you made can also be made for the column labelled "deaths", but your edit did not appear to also change the "deaths" label to "reported deaths". it might even be more appropriate for the recoveries column, as many governments are not reporting recoveries, and some of the recovery statistics here are only based on what local news sources are reporting.

although i agree that, if one were to attempt to be as semantically correct as possible, we should be relabelling these columns to make sure that people understand that these statistics are based only on what is reported, i believe most of the other editors are trying to make the table as simple as possible to convey the necessary information. i'd imagine that you'd agree with the last point, as i see that you've decided to remove all the color from the null values in the table, considering it "overcomplicating formatting".

personally, if some editors feel very strongly about adding the word "reported" to the column label, i wouldn't really mind, but i thought you might want to know why other editors didn't seem to like the unnecessary addition. dying (talk) 12:45, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

References

Percentage

Could another column be added to show the percentage of deaths vs total cases? And if needed, recoveries vs total cases? Ae245 (talk) 13:17, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

It wouldn't be meaningful at this stage. pauli133 (talk) 13:33, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

...and this has already been discussed here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:53, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

But how come? It's very helpful to people looking to find information. Some people including myself come to this data just to see the deaths-total ratio, for awareness on how bad the pandemic has become. At the moment I would have to manually calculate the ratio. I think it will be very helpful if it is automated. Furthermore, I do not think it is pernicious in any way. Ae245 (talk) 14:20, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

i agree that this information could be useful. however, this will likely not happen as, from a practical standpoint, it is too difficult to maintain. more information can be found on this page here. in addition, please search for "column" in the archives to see previous related discussions. regardless, thanks for the suggestion! dying (talk) 14:28, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

I understand but after fidgeting around recently I learned that it's possible to automate this process for which editors don't need to do anything extra other than update the normal numbers, as the percentage would be automatically calculated using a template. Ae245 (talk) 14:38, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Someone has already added an "active" column despite a clear consensus against adding such a column, making the table quite difficult to maintain. Sure, both the "active" column I'm mentioning now and the "Percentage" column you propose are automated by formulas that rely on the numbers that require manual edits–total cases, deaths, and recoveries. But the important thing right now is to keep those numbers that require manual editing as up-to-date as possible while using the most reliable sources, and once COVID-19 is under control we can consider these additional columns. RayDeeUx (talk) 15:02, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

ae245, even if it is automated, i have my doubts about the editors agreeing with an additional column at this point, as there have been complaints about it already being too wide. (my vote for an additional column would be to separate the official sources from the reputable reliable ones that may be easily replaced, as suggested by sun creator, but i fear even such a narrow column containing mostly static data might still make the table too wide for some editors, and i don't want to add the column without consensus.)

that being said, if what you claim is true and you have time to kill (perhaps because you're under lockdown), you're welcome to provide a mock-up for us in the sandbox so that we can understand your request more accurately. of course, i can make no guarantees that your code will be accepted, or even that it will be used for its original purpose. if i asked the other editors what calculations they wanted automated right now if it were possible, i'm guessing the most likely response would be the sums for the columns. (that's a hint, by the way.)

by the way, if you really are under lockdown, hope you're staying safe. dying (talk) 18:34, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

No more columns. It is wide enough as it is. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:53, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Attn: Switzerland (repeat)

Switzerland confirmed case figure should be 2217 by now. BlackSun2104 (talk) 15:28, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

 Not done–please stop spamming the talk page with edit requests that lack sources. RayDeeUx (talk) 15:46, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Switzerland reports 2200 tested positive but note that only 1563 are confirmed; so we have updated according to the latter number. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:55, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Suggestion for improvement

Regarding about Switzerland, the tested positive case number of 2200 should be included, https://www.bag.admin.ch/bag/en/home/krankheiten/ausbrueche-epidemien-pandemien/aktuelle-ausbrueche-epidemien/novel-cov/situation-schweiz-und-international.html#-1199962081. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.74.163.85 (talk • contribs) 16:07, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

As seen in the previous talk page topic:

Switzerland reports 2200 tested positive but note that only 1563 are confirmed; so we have updated according to the latter number -Ncmvocalist

Hope that helps. Please sign your comments in the future, by the way. RayDeeUx (talk) 16:13, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Ireland

Worldometer data indicates one recovery in Ireland - here's a local newspaper article about it, it's a secondary source so I'm not sure about making the edit myself: https://www.irishpost.com/news/coronavirus-patient-cork-discharged-hospital-making-full-recovery-181521 I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 16:07, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Added the source for now–it might be commented out as soon as Ireland's official government source notes the recovery. RayDeeUx (talk) 16:24, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Diamond Princess data duplicated?

The question occurred to me on realising that all of the passengers and crew disembarked. If the numbers are duplicated in country data, we should remove the ship data altogether or account for it. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:25, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

I think those cases were removed from Diamond Princess back when the table still relied on BNO News as the core source, so those cases wouldn't be double counted. I too, have the same concern for this ever since we leaped from BNO to JHU, then to WorldOMeters, then to individual government-associated aggregate sources.

Thoughts, anyone else? RayDeeUx (talk) 16:30, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Since asking the question, I can see that the data is definitely duplicated - eg; the Australian death is reported in both counts. The real question is whether data is based on place of diagnosis or place where confirmed cases ended up? (The same question also pops up for any confirmed cases, not necessarily involving Diamond cruises, that were subsequently allowed to evacuate from infection epicenters.) Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:36, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 March 2020

Update numbers for Croatia. It is now 48, based on the same official source that is already referenced in the table. Izumitelj (talk) 16:56, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

 Done here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:06, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 March 2020

The current number of recoveries in the Netherlands is 2, see: https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/#countries (already referenced) Benimation (talk) 17:59, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

do you have a more reliable source for this, preferably a government source or a local reputable reliable source? alternatively, can you explain why neither would be sufficient and provide a replacement source? worldometers has reported recoveries incorrectly before, and their most recent citation is actually to the same government source cited here, which has yet to officially report a recovery, as far as i know. thanks in advance! dying (talk) 18:11, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

WikiProject COVID-19

I've created WikiProject COVID-19 as a temporary or permanent WikiProject and invite editors to use this space for discussing ways to improve coverage of the ongoing 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic. Please bring your ideas to the project/talk page. Stay safe, --Another Believer _(Talk) 18:04, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 March 2020

Please, update the number of cases in Brazil to 176. Source: http://plataforma.saude.gov.br/novocoronavirus/ GSVaz (talk) 20:11, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

 Done. thanks for referring to the cited source. dying (talk) 20:38, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 March 2020

Please update the number of recoveries in Poland from 0 to 13. Source: https://polandin.com/47133548/coronavirus-case-count-rises-to-119-three-fatalities-in-poland There's also plenty of sources in Polish, such as this one: https://wiadomosci.gazeta.pl/wiadomosci/7,173952,25790188,koronawirus-w-polsce-szef-glownego-inspektoratu-sanitarnego.html or this one https://www.dorzeczy.pl/kraj/132740/szef-gis-13-pacjentow-zakazonych-koronawirusem-wyzdrowialo.html AnalogIgor (talk) 21:01, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

strange. i had seen a similar request previously, but saw that someone else had apparently closed the request earlier, so i had assumed it was fulfilled at the time. now, i see that the referenced tweet from the chancellery of the prime minister has been deleted. (you can find the link to that (now deleted) tweet above. the closed request is currently the first one on this page containing the word "poland".)

although i do recognize that you have submitted local reputable reliable sources, i am hesitant to report the 13 recoveries now because an official source has apparently retracted that statement, and i do not know if there have been other official government statements along those lines. it may have been an accidental misreporting, and the local news is simply propagating it.

are you familiar with any other official government sources that confirm the value of 13 for recoveries? dying (talk) 23:12, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Ok, it seems that the 13 patients weren't actual full recoveries, they were patients that started to get better instead of getting more sick. They haven't actually been discharged or cured, but the wording used by the Chief Sanitary Inspector caused some confusion. Here is a Polish source that explains it all https://wiadomosci.onet.pl/kraj/koronawirus-w-polsce-13-ozdrowiencow-o-co-chodzi/e6rv430. As of now there are no confirmed recoveries. AnalogIgor (talk) 12:30, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Another update on brazilian situation

Brazil's Ministry of Health has updated the total of cases again, from 176 to 200. Source: http://plataforma.saude.gov.br/novocoronavirus/ 191.177.187.155 (talk) 23:13, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

 Done. thanks for referring to the cited source. dying (talk) 23:26, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 March 2020

Panama has 55 confirmed cases. Source:

https://www.telemetro.com/nacionales/2020/03/15/se-elevan-a-55-los-casos-de-coronavirus-en-panama-80-son-leves/2679186.html 190.219.162.190 (talk) 23:45, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

 Done. thanks for providing a local reputable reliable source. dying (talk) 00:51, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 March 2020

China now has 80,860 cases, 16 more than previous report, with 3,213 people killed and 67,749 fully recovered. Source: http://www.nhc.gov.cn/yjb/s7860/202003/114113d25c1d47aabe68381e836f06a8.shtml GSVaz (talk) 01:06, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

• The numbers have been updated thank you. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:22, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

A good note for improvement

I have run excel spreadsheet on the table being displayed, it shows that the total figure is 168,806 , not more than 169,000. On JHU CSSE, it clearly displayed that Swtizerland figure is 2200, https://gisanddata.maps.arcgis.com/apps/opsdashboard/index.html#/bda7594740fd40299423467b48e9ecf6, in my honest opinion, positive cases not just confirmed should be included, since they can be potentially highly infectious and cause widespread community transmission. You can spread COVID-19 asymptomatically. BlackSun2104 (talk) 02:45, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Continued

Required consistency is needed to avoid further confusion. BlackSun2104 (talk) 02:48, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 March 2020

Panama has 55 confirmed cases. Change 43 to 55. Source: https://newsroompanama.com/news/pubs-and-bars-closed-as-virus-cases-climb-to-55 190.219.162.190 (talk) 04:14, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Percentage Deaths / Number of Cases Reported

Consider adding a Deaths / Number of Cases Reported (as a percentage) column to the table. It is a good indicator of the efficiency of measures taken in each country to combat deaths. Thanks, Mollie Kruger, South Africa — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.242.129.185 (talk) 04:35, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

sorting the table by deaths first and confirmed cases second

What do you think about sorting the table by deaths first and confirmed cases second? Probably makes sense to list death column first if people agree.   Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 04:47, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

I think we should keep sorting as simple as possible, by number of cases first and then by the name of the place. You can always click at the top of the column to change order. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:27, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

What makes one way or the other simpler or harder? Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 06:23, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Daniel.Cardenas, the columns are sortable; clicking on the top of the column will sort them in ascending/descending order of number/alphabetical sequence. Are you referring to default sorting? Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 06:25, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, default sort order. Reason is that Deaths is a more important statistic. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 14:05, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 March 2020

Honduras has now 6 confirm cases of coronavirus http://www.radioamerica.hn/confirman-tres-nuevos-casos-de-coronavirus-aumentando-a-6-los-contagiados-en-honduras/ Allancalderini12 (talk) 06:14, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

 Done Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 12:07, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Australia COVID19 total

Total is 375 now and it is reflective on the Australian specific page but not the main Coronavirus COVID19 page global diagram Njhumphrey (talk) 09:07, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

I updated it after I found a proper reference, but now WOMC also has this figure. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:30, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Polish source of information

Poland's national public-service radio broadcasting have official english webstie, so is better source of information: https://www.polskieradio.pl/395/7784/Artykul/2474163,Coronavirus-cases-in-Poland-rise-to-150-three-dead — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.8.240.171 (talk) 10:30, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 March 2020

25 new confirmed cases in Poland (total of 150) [5], also we have 0 recovered people

• today (16 March 2020) at MOH press conference, Polish Minister of Health (Łukasz Szumowski) was asked by TVN24 journalist/ reporter if we have any recovered patients in Poland, and he say that we dont have any, he also said that the term "uzdrowieńcy" is the name of the people who is felling better and better, but still have COVID-19 virus. Natanieluz (talk) 11:14, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

 Already done Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 12:02, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 March 2020

Change default sorting so Spain sits above South Korea (SK then being 5th place with Spain in 4th) as Spain's just surpassed SK in number of cases. GoodCrossing (talk) 12:00, 16 March 2020 (UTC) GoodCrossing (talk) 12:00, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

 Note: I also ask a more experience editor to update default sorting for Honduras I just updated their total cases from 3 to 6 but I'm not very comfortable with updating the sorting of this template. Thank you. Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 12:09, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

 Already done Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 13:28, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

The usual editors have agreed that it's not worth having it. Mainly because its very challenging to maintain an up to date data, even as it is now and because it is secondary data. M nurhaikal (talk) 13:38, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Yet another column?

Again, this is happening. CFR. M nurhaikal (talk) 12:41, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 March 2020

Please Change the no. of corona virus affected cases in India from 110 to 114 source: https://www.news18.com/news/india/coronavirus-outbreak-live-updates-odisha-pune-vaccine-death-toll-n95-mask-vatican-city-prevention-symptoms-2537681.html Lokeshwaran V R (talk) 13:01, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

 Working Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 13:03, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

 Done Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 13:06, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

South Korea and Spain

Since Spain currently has more confirmed cases than South Korea, its position should be above that of South Korea. Hope that helps. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.74.163.85 (talk) 13:13, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Add CFR Column - or not?

Added "Case Fatality Rate" (CFR) column to the "Template:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data" - please see => "preliminary template" (and/or "template version") - "CFR" column calculated based on currently available posted data - worthwhile addition to the template or not? - Comments Welcome - Thanks. Drbogdan (talk) 13:14, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Right now we're still struggling to keep the main figures (cases - deaths - recoveries) as up-to-date as possible. Once COVID-19 is under control, perhaps we can implement that column.

By the way, there was another column, the "active" column, which was added despite clear consensus against doing so. Part of the reason was because the table is already difficult to maintain as is, considering the growing number of countries with COVID-19 cases. This CFR column you're proposing would likely have the same effect–making the table harder to maintain and/or edit on small resolution screens. RayDeeUx (talk) 14:19, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

"show all" expands. When expanded, could it be replaced by "show fewer" like "show"/"hide" ?

|-
! colspan="6" | <div class="covid-show-table">[[#covid19-container|[show all]]]</div>{{Navbar-collapsible|{{resize|85%|{{Nowrap|[[2019–20 coronavirus pandemic]] by [[2019–20 coronavirus pandemic by country and territory|country and territory]]}}}}|Template:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data}}

T3g5JZ50GLq (talk) 14:05, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 March 2020

Total cases in Pakistan are now 136 https://www.geo.tv/latest/277427-coronavirus-updates-march-16-latest-news-on-the-coronavirus-outbreak-from-pakistan-and-around-the-world and first death is now confirmed https://dailytimes.com.pk/577307/pakistan-reports-first-coronavirus-death-in-hyatabad-medical-complex/ NomanPK44 (talk) 14:18, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 March 2020

Albania AlbionOfAlbania (talk) 14:22, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 March 2020

Change number of recovered patients for Serbia from 0 to 1 per www.worldometers.info/coronavirus as source.

Change number of cases for Serbia to 55 per https://covid19.rs/ as source. Илија Гуск (talk) 14:24, 16 March 2020 (UTC)