Jump to content

Template talk:COVID-19 pandemic data

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 188.108.98.189 (talk) at 17:55, 4 May 2020 (→Spain: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Highlighted open discussions

Guantanamo Bay criteria

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

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

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

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

Tunisia Recoveries

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

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

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

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 3 May 2020

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

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

Cases in Falklands/Malvinas - Casos en Malvinas/Falklands

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

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

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

Spain

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:COVID-19_pandemic_data&oldid=954861708"