Template talk:COVID-19 pandemic data/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 March 2020 - per capita coronavirus case statistics

Add column for with this source https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/#countries Moneyball99 (talk) 09:38, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

No we are not going to do this, as it is too hard to maintain. Previously it was tried, and failed. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:59, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Algeria

https://www.ennaharonline.com/%d8%aa%d8%b3%d8%ac%d9%8a%d9%84-%d8%a3%d9%88%d9%84-%d8%ad%d8%a7%d9%84%d8%a9-%d9%88%d9%81%d8%a7%d8%a9-%d8%a8%d9%81%d9%8a%d8%b1%d9%88%d8%b3-%d9%83%d9%88%d8%b1%d9%88%d9%86%d8%a7-%d8%a8%d9%85%d8%b3%d8%aa/ In this source,(from BNO) confirmed cases are 24, death 1, but does it conclude that 8 recovered? Anyone who can translate it, please edit the template... Thanks!!! Luke Kern Choi 5 (talk) 09:57, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 March 2020

first deceased person in Poland. [1][2] Natanieluz (talk) 11:32, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

 Done. thanks for providing a source. dying (talk) 12:32, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

New column

Should we have an "Active Cases" column on the template? There's plenty of sources for it, most notably Worldometers.info It wouldn't be too hard to put on - just want to know what people think! :) Sir Magnus (talk) 12:14, 12 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. please search for "column" in the archives to see previous related discussions. regardless, thanks for the suggestion! dying (talk) 12:34, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Another new column should be added - "Active cases per 100,000 of population", or a new table of Total, Active, Deaths - all per 100,000 of population. For example 1,000 total active cases in Germany is not the same as 1,000 total active cases in Slovakia. (as Slovakia's total population is more than 10 time less than in Germany) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rgrof (talk • contribs) 03:46, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 March 2020

Levifan (talk) 13:28, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Belgium has not 433 cases at 12 march, but 399 as reference 9 assures. Reference 10 is not trustable, it's a live reference, with rumours and with quick news that often seems to be wrong, f.e. the 34 cases in the retirement house could not be confirmed.

 Done. agreed. thanks for the information. dying (talk) 13:50, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 March 2020

Levifan (talk) 13:51, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

belgium has 399 cases, reference 10 is not reliable (a live reference with information that always changes), only reference 9 is reliable

 Already done. looks like this was written while i was carrying out your request. no worries! dying (talk) 14:29, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 March 2020

Please update San Marino death count to 5 according to official source: http://www.iss.sm/on-line/home/artCataggiornamenti-coronavirus.49004093.1.20.1.html . Confirmed cases is stated 67, but I don't have access to Twitter, so can not check. Garyczek (talk) 14:23, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

 Done. the sammarinese government source appears to first mention 67 "casi positivi" and enumerate where they are recuperating (with all 67 accounted for in the enumeration) and then mention 5 "decessi", so i have always interpreted this as meaning that there are 72 cases, with 67 recovering and 5 deceased. i do not speak italian (aside from maybe "grazie mille"), so if you do (or anyone else does), could you confirm? i currently have the table at 72 cases. grazie mille! dying (talk) 15:04, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Ah, you are right. Good eye ;) Non-italian Garyczek —Preceding undated comment added 16:51, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Updated. Thanks M nurhaikal (talk) 17:35, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 March 2020

Is there any source to back that Pakistan 2 recoveries. Actually the total case is 21 and recoveries are 1. https://www.thenews.com.pk/latest/628096-coronavirus-cases-in-pakistan-rise-to-21-after-gb-reports-third-case and https://www.geo.tv/latest/276129-pakistans-first-coronavirus-patient-discharged-from-hospital-after-full-recovery NomanPK44 (talk) 15:31, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

 Done Mgasparin (talk) 18:24, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 March 2020

Sri Lanka coronavirus cases should be increased to 3 (currently at 2) Blitzlasher1 (talk) 15:37, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

can you provide an official source? thanks in advance. dying (talk) 16:37, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

changed parameter of edit request to "answered=yes" as both core source and template now have the updated values. RayDeeUx (talk) 22:46, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 March 2020

more cases in Poland (total of 51) [3] Natanieluz (talk) 15:54, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

 Done. thanks for providing a source. dying (talk) 16:39, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 March 2020

Change confirmed cases in Iceland from 103 to 109. An indevidual (talk) 15:56, 12 March 2020 (UTC)indevidual An indevidual (talk) 15:56, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

 Done. thanks for providing a source. dying (talk) 16:34, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

References

Sources that are not in English

Is it frowned up on to link to a source that is not in English. The reports about the latest number of cases in Iceland are usually based on briefings by Icelandic officials and the briefings are in Icelandic. An indevidual (talk) 16:20, 12 March 2020 (UTC)Indevidual

not at all. i believe, in general, the more reliable the source is, the better. however, if two sources are equally reliable (such as a government releasing the same information in multiple languages simultaneously), my personal preference is to use the english one here if available (as this is english wikipedia). if there's a government press release not in english and a secondary source reporting on that release but in english, my personal preference is to use the original government source (unless it's a video and therefore difficult to translate by machine). i don't know if i speak for everyone about that last point, though. dying (talk) 16:29, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 March 2020

Please update confirmed cases count of Czech Republic to 104 as stated in https://www.seznamzpravy.cz/clanek/praha-v-karantene-nebude-popira-famy-babis-92389 . Czech PM announced on Twitter @AndrejBabis. Garyczek (talk) 16:45, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

 Done. thanks for providing a source. dying (talk) 17:39, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

New case in French Polynesia

Should it also be under France or listed separately? M nurhaikal (talk) 17:35, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

It is under France as French Polynesia is not a country itself. Here's an invisible comment from the main template to explain further:

The French territories' cases should be included in the total of France as they are not independent/separate entities as is done with Denmark (Faroe Islands) and the United Kingdom (Gibraltar, etc.).

Hope that helps. RayDeeUx (talk) 22:44, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 March 2020

It seems that default sorting should be fixed: the current version shows Chile (33) below Bulgaria (23), should be a few positions higher Cato censor (talk) 18:03, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

 Done. thanks for pointing that out. dying (talk) 18:15, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks to you for the edit! Cato censor (talk) 18:29, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Attn: total confirmed case figures

The total global comfimed case figure needs alteration. BlackSun2104 (talk) 19:39, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

I changed it to add up, but numbers have already increased without updating the total! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:20, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 March 2020

The total amount of cases in the United States is now 1,715, with 41 deaths. Please update the current information. Ybinstok (talk) 00:19, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

 Done as per values in core source. Thanks for the reminder! RayDeeUx (talk) 00:38, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 March 2020

Panama has 27 confirmed cases. Source: https://www.diaadia.com.pa/el-pais/panama-suma-27-casos-de-coronavirus-insisten-en-las-medidas-de-prevencion-364001 190.34.243.177 (talk) 01:43, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

 Done Ref added. I got into an edit conflict with M nurhaikal who is doing MASSIVE cleanup on this template, so someone may need to proofread my changes. –ToxiBoi! ^(contribs) 06:30, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

 Already done (in regards to data). The aforementioned editor has already saved that info. –ToxiBoi! ^(contribs) 06:31, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Update 13 March: Vietnam has 44 cases

Anyone update? 2601:204:E37F:FFF1:D450:2B2F:1C79:785B (talk) 02:44, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Please use the {{edit extended-protected}} for edit requests and provide reliable sources. Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 06:12, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 March 2020

Panama has 27 confirmed cases. Source: https://elcapitalfinanciero.com/minsa-confirma-27-casos-de-coronavirus-en-panama/ 190.219.162.190 (talk) 03:35, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

 Already done Repost of request above. –ToxiBoi! ^(contribs) 06:29, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

New case in Turkey

Turkish MoH Fahrettin Koca confirmed second coronavirüs case. Source: http://www.haber7.com/guncel/haber/2952030-son-dakika-turkiyede-ikinci-koronavirus-vakasi HasbeyTV (talk) 07:34, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

 Done Mgasparin (talk) 08:53, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 March 2020

Number of recoveries in France is now 15 (and will probably grow day after day) 2A01:E0A:599:BB40:C5C2:FAFD:F515:A79F (talk) 08:46, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Do you have a reference to cite? Mgasparin (talk) 08:54, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

You are right. It's based on three individual cases (so it's not official yet factual) on local news (search : Jonathan Peterschmidt in Alsace for instance). But so far, France never made an official statement and doesn't want to communicate on cures until several days after theses cases have been medically documented. So let's wait. --2A01:E0A:599:BB40:C5C2:FAFD:F515:A79F (talk) 11:38, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Edit request

Hungary has reported the first recovered patient (16–0–1), please update the template and change source to the following: "Tájékoztató oldal a koronavírusról" (in Hungarian). Government of Hungary, Cabinet Office of the Prime Minister. 2020-03-13. Retrieved 2020-03-13.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link). Please also fix the 24th source. Thanks in advance! Bencemac (talk) 09:10, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Updated: 19–0–1. I fixed the date of the source above. Bencemac (talk) 09:23, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 March 2020

Tunisia has one recovered case so far 145.253.232.146 (talk) 09:59, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Checked multiple sites, but no source found for that. Sun Creator^(talk) 10:08, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Update data

I want to update data on data of recovered cases in Indonesia, but i cannot edit this because the template is extended-protected. Please update the aforementioned. Citation: https://news.detik.com/berita/d-4938023/kasus-positif-corona-di-ri-jadi-69 Recoveries: 5 Akmaie Ajam (talk) 11:48, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 March 2020

I am in charge of the statistics on the page for the Corona pandemic in Sweden. All I would like to do is to update the numbers for Sweden, as it's often behind schedule, sometimes by as much as 24 hours. CarlWalterMolina (talk) 11:10, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Well currently our table says 727 cases. Is that right? Is there a government statistics or some other page that updates more rapidly than the World of Meters for Sweden? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:58, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 March 2020

4 new confirmed cases in Poland (total of 68) [4] - Polish MOH official twitter Natanieluz (talk) 16:04, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

 Done. thanks for providing a source. dying (talk) 17:09, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 March 2020

Confirmed cases in Iceland are now up to 134. The Directorate of Health and The Department of Civil Protection and Emergency Management are responsible for this website. An indevidual (talk) 17:32, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

 Done. thanks for providing an official government source. dying (talk) 17:38, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

References

Guadeloupe

I found that there's 1 case in Guadeloupe per Worldometer Please check this. Thanks, Luke Kern Choi 5 (talk) 13:34, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

thanks for pointing that out. worldometers cited radio caraïbes international, which, according to french wikipedia, is one of the major radio stations of guadeloupe, but is a privately-owned station. i dug a little deeper and found that guadeloupe la première is a local television station fully-owned by the french government. i've added a citation to a relevant article on their site, and added the number to the one currently being shown for france. dying (talk) 17:53, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

edit request 13 march 2020

the italian recoveries are 1439, as is reported in the source in the template — Preceding unsigned comment added by Francomemoria (talk • contribs) 17:56, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

 Done. thanks for referring to the cited source. dying (talk) 18:06, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Needs to update table

Kazakhstan 3 cases, Palestine 35, Bosnia 13. https://www.usnews.com/news/world/articles/2020-03-13/kazakhstan-confirms-first-coronavirus-cases , https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/#countries --138.75.187.123 (talk) 14:57, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

can you provide either an official government source or a local reputable reliable source? alternatively, can you explain why neither would be sufficient and provide a replacement source? thanks in advance. dying (talk) 18:15, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 March 2020

Netherlands now has 803 total confirmed cases and 10 deaths (https://www.rivm.nl/nieuws/actuele-informatie-over-coronavirus)

Netherlands Dutchhelper12 (talk) 13:07, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

 Already done. thanks for providing an official government source. dying (talk) 18:18, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 March 2020

Please update confirmed cases count for Czech Republic to 141. According to official web of Ministry of Health of the Czech Republic: https://onemocneni-aktualne.mzcr.cz/covid-19 Garyczek (talk) 18:16, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

 Done. thanks for providing an official government source. dying (talk) 18:23, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Attn : France

France confirmed case figure needs updating. BlackSun2104 (talk) 18:32, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Attn : table

The confirmed case figures of several countries do not tally. BlackSun2104 (talk) 19:15, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Attn : required updates

Figures need updating by now. BlackSun2104 (talk) 20:06, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 March 2020

second confirmed dead in Poland (total of 2) [5] - Polish MOH Natanieluz (talk) 21:00, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

 Done thanks for providing an official government source. dying (talk) 21:18, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 March 2020

In Pakistan total cases are now 28 https://www.geo.tv/latest/277182-pakistan-has-28-confirmed-cases-of-coronavirus-dr-zafar-mirza NomanPK44 (talk) 22:12, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

 Already done. Thank you for the source though! RayDeeUx (talk) 23:54, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 March 2020

Change data for Canada (number of confirmed cases at least). GOV source is https://www.canada.ca/en/public-health/services/diseases/2019-novel-coronavirus-infection.html and is found in a table just a little bit down from the top of the webpade (updated daily). Right now you have CP24, a news outlet as the source and it conflicts with government confirmed cases. 2001:1970:5AA7:C900:6506:6E2D:C3C5:8763 (talk) 19:19, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

The number appears to be superseded. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:59, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 March 2020

The case numbers in Northern Cyprus (Turkish Republic of) are not included in the announcements by Republic of Cyprus. TRNC must be included as a separate territory. There are currently 5 detected cases. Canerguclu (talk) 03:41, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Added. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:57, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Attn : discrepancies.

The confirmed case figures of several affected nations do not tally. BlackSun2104 (talk) 21:18, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

You are going to have to be specific to say what the nations are and what you are tallying with. Otherwise we cannot do anything. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:58, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Per Capita data

Is there any way a "per capita" column could be added?

This information seems extremely hard to find anywhere online, and would be useful for many.

Thanks, Anon :). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:BB6:1BC4:C258:344D:A7E8:8DDF:BFDD (talk) 20:13, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

You can see this column in https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/ . However as it is too difficult for us to maintain, it has not been happening here. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:09, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 March 2020

"Change the number of infected people in the Mexico Column, as of today the Mexican Government has confirmed there are now 26 cases. The cases have doubled since last Wednesday. 26 cases confirmed. 105 under observation. Milenio.com (In Spanish) The number of confirmed cases in Mexico increases to 26. Elfinanciero.com (In Spanish) Fantom261092 (talk) 04:57, 14 March 2020 (UTC) Fantom261092 (talk) 04:57, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

References

Updated, thanks Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:30, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 March 2020

Panama has 36 confirmed cases. Source: https://www.tvn-2.com/nacionales/coronaviruus-lleva_0_5532196812.html 190.219.162.190 (talk) 00:26, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

It was updated. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:31, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Update Vietnam

CDC Vietnam confirmed case 48 with 3 severes. Please update now. https://tuoitre.vn/tp-hcm-co-ca-benh-48-lien-quan-ca-covid-19-thu-34-o-binh-thuan-20200314103918362.htm 2601:204:E37F:FFF1:4901:15B7:B916:1781 (talk) 05:14, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Updated, thanks. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:30, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

https://www.cnn.ph/news/2020/3/14/coronavirus-death-philippines.html Jumark27 (talk) 09:29, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 March 2020

Update confirmed cases in Hungary (scroll down a bit and it will show) Synxify (talk) 09:03, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

 Done --Drabdullayev17 (talk) 10:00, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 March 2020

16 more confirmed cases in Poland (total of 84) [6] Natanieluz (talk) 09:23, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

 Done Natanieluz thank you for info. --Drabdullayev17 (talk) 09:54, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Philippines

Philippines now has 8 deaths in COVID-19...

Source: https://www.cnn.ph/news/2020/3/14/coronavirus-death-philippines.html

Jumark27 (talk) 09:27, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

The number is included. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:08, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 March 2020 regarding Sweden's semi-suspension of infection testing

Append "Sweden" in the data table with an annotation;
Testing of suspected infections has been semi-suspended in certain regions as of 12th March, in order to focus efforts on people with increased risk of serious illness and complications.
(Update SVT statement) "According to the recommendations of the Public Health Authority at this time, only persons in need of care or who are already admitted to hospitals with coronavirus symptoms should be tested. This has a significant impact on the figures for the number of cases in Sweden. The following figures are thus an under-reporting of the actual number of cases and show only those that have been tested - not all that have the corona virus." (Existing source https://www.svt.se/datajournalistik/the-spread-of-the-coronavirus/)
Source: https://www.expressen.se/nyheter/beslutet-personer-med-symtom-ska-inte-provtas/
Source: https://sverigesradio.se/sida/artikel.aspx?programid=103&artikel=7427169
Source: https://www.svt.se/nyheter/inrikes/ny-nationell-strategi-farre-coronatester
(Update additional source): https://www.svt.se/nyheter/lokalt/stockholm/farre-kommer-provtas-for-corona-i-stockholm
Vitdom (talk) 12:01, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

 Done. However, the language of the annotation may change to fit the needs of the article. Thanks for the sources! RayDeeUx (talk) 13:40, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 March 2020

Ireland has 91 confirmed cases. Fungebob (talk) 12:15, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

 Not done–please provide a source. The source that the Republic of Ireland cites states 90 cases as of 13 March 2020. RayDeeUx (talk) 13:13, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 March 2020

Malta: 18 total, including 1 recovered. https://timesofmalta.com/articles/view/five-new-coronavirus-cases-taking-maltas-total-to-18.778007 46.11.80.248 (talk) 12:23, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

 Done as per values in core source which also shows the same numbers. Thanks for providing a source though! RayDeeUx (talk) 13:18, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 March 2020

9 new cases in Poland (total of 93) [7] Natanieluz (talk) 12:37, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

 Done as per values in core source. Thanks for including a source though! RayDeeUx (talk) 13:19, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 March 2020

Change Estonia cases from 79 to 109. Source: https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/#countries Plienas26 (talk) 12:41, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

 Already done. Someone else has updated the values before I had a chance to do so. Thanks for the reminder anyways! RayDeeUx (talk) 13:20, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 March 2020

Change Estonia cases from 79 to 109. Source: https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/#countries Plienas26 (talk) 12:41, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

 Already done. Someone else has updated the values before I had a chance to do so. Thanks for the reminder anyways! RayDeeUx (talk) 13:20, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 March 2020

Confirmed cases in the United Kingdom: 802 -> 1,140 .

Here's the source (a citation from the country's wikipedia page about the pandemic): [8]

Alphazelf (talk) 14:47, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

 Already done QueerFilmNerd^talk 15:25, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Change source and number for Georgia

• the Gov's official website is a better sources. 30 cases for now.--Melberg (talk) 14:58, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

 Done. thanks for providing an official government source! dying (talk) 18:47, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 March 2020

United Kingdom cases is now 1140 80.3.233.121 (talk) 14:59, 14 March 2020 (UTC) 80.3.233.121 (talk) 14:59, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. QueerFilmNerd^talk 15:24, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 March 2020

Change active cases, recoveries and active cases in Spain: from 6,023 to 6,043, from 193 to 517 and from 5,639 to 5,335, respectively, according to the source on the template: RTVE 5.34.154.217 (talk) 15:37, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

 Not done as what you want changed is unclear. No reason to fret, though–the template already has higher values. RayDeeUx (talk) 18:28, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 March 2020

Please update confirmed cases count for Czech Republic to 177, as stated on official Covid-19 site of Ministry of Health of the Czech Republic: https://onemocneni-aktualne.mzcr.cz/covid-19 Garyczek (talk) 17:21, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Y It seems that someone has already updated the statistic for Czech Republic, prior to my response. —ALittleQuenhi (talk to me) 17:54, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Attn : required amendment

The total confirmed case figure does not tally. BlackSun2104 (talk) 17:22, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

 Not done–it's unclear what it is you want changed. Without a specification of what needs to be edited, we cannot do anything. RayDeeUx (talk) 18:49, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

new Greece cases

Greece has 228 cases now. I am RedoStone (talk) 18:13, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

 Already done. Template has the values you requested. Nevertheless, please mention a source next time. RayDeeUx (talk) 18:36, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Attn : Germany

Germany total confirmed case figure should be 4525 by now, please amend accordingly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.74.163.85 (talk) 18:41, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

 Done as per values from Germany's source. Thanks for the reminder! RayDeeUx (talk) 18:47, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 March 2020

10 more cases in Poland (total of 103)[9], 1 new confirmed dead (total of 3)[10], 13 recovered [11] in total. Natanieluz (talk) 18:37, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks for the sources! RayDeeUx (talk) 18:44, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Attn : required amendment

The global confirmed case figure is incorrect, please amend. BlackSun2104 (talk) 20:14, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

 Not done–see replies to your most recent edit requests for more info. RayDeeUx (talk) 15:04, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 March 2020

Brazil has 121 confirmed cases of COVID-19, instead of 151, according to Health Mininstry, as reported here on national government's official plataform about the disease http://plataforma.saude.gov.br/novocoronavirus/ GSVaz (talk) 20:19, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

 Done> Thanks for the source and reminder! RayDeeUx (talk) 23:43, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 March 2020

Norway Mikstra (talk) 20:46, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

@Mikstra: that's really vague. What do you want updated? CoronavirusPlagueDoctor (talk) 20:47, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

I have changed Norway case number. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:14, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 March 2020

1 new confirmed case in Poland, total of 104 [12] Natanieluz (talk) 21:31, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks for the source! RayDeeUx (talk) 23:35, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 March 2020

Turkey 6 case now https://twitter.com/drfahrettinkoca/status/1238931031442575366

 Already done with different source. Thanks for the reminder though! RayDeeUx (talk) 23:33, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 March 2020

Panama has 43 confirmed cases- Source: https://www.telemetro.com/nacionales/2020/03/14/casos-por-coronavirus-en-panama-se-elevan-a/2676623.html?utm_content=buffer52e50&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=app+buffer+/ 190.219.162.190 (talk) 23:35, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks for the source! RayDeeUx (talk) 23:39, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 March 2020

2. COVID-19 Philippine Cases as of March 14, 2020; 10:00 am (PST) ncovtracker.doh.gov.ph, accessed 14 Narch 2020
3. Philippines confirms 34 new #COVID19 cases, total now 98 #coronavirus 14 Narch 2020 mobile.twitter.com/ABSCBNNews accessed 14 Narch 2020

Change Narch to March 967Bytes (Contact) 01:25, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks for pointing it out! RayDeeUx (talk) 01:40, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 March 2020

Uzbekistan confirms first case https://www.jpost.com/Breaking-News/Uzbekistan-confirms-first-coronavirus-case 621008 2601:843:C202:3B10:DDE6:850D:EECF:8A5 (talk) 06:17, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

 Already done with different source. --Drabdullayev17 (talk) 07:31, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Indonesia

Please update Indonesia... Indonesia now has 117 cases Jumark27 (talk) 07:00, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Someone updated it. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:45, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 March 2020

As of 10:00, 15 March 2020 (SLST/UTC+05:30), 11 confirmed cases in Sri Lanka. Official Daily situation reports ᴛʜᴇMᴀɴLK ^(Talk) 07:09, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

 Done --Drabdullayev17 (talk) 07:28, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 March 2020

Malta: 21 total; 2 recovered - https://timesofmalta.com/articles/view/three-new-coronavirus-cases-in-malta.778310 46.11.80.248 (talk) 11:22, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

 Done --Drabdullayev17 (talk) 13:14, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 March 2020

Update number of cases for Slovakia from 44 to 54 Source: https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/#countries Þhorn (talk) 12:37, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

 Done. thanks! dying (talk) 13:04, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 March 2020

Change number of cases in the Philippines to 140, and deaths to 11

source: https://news.abs-cbn.com/news/03/15/20/doh-confirms-29-more-covid-19-cases-nationwide-total-now-at-140 Christianzt19 (talk) 13:21, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

 Done here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:56, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 March 2020

Amount of infected in Pakistan is now 52 https://gulfnews.com/world/asia/pakistan/pakistan-records-spike-in-number-of-coronavirus-cases-as-the-government-takes-preventive-measures-1.70403993 HeinzMaster (talk) 15:05, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

 Done with existing source on template/table, which also shows the same figure. Thanks for your source though! RayDeeUx (talk) 15:11, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Attn: required updates

The confirmed case figures of several countries need updating and the global confirmed case figure should be more than 162,000 by now. BlackSun2104 (talk) 14:25, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. Instead of giving us vague instructions, please specify which figures need changing and provide a source for each figure that needs an update. RayDeeUx (talk) 14:59, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Attn: Switzerland

Switzerland confirmed cae figure should be 2217 by now. BlackSun2104 (talk) 14:50, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. Cite a source. RayDeeUx (talk) 14:57, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Qatar

First four recoveries have been announced in Qatar, also appearing in the John Hopkins data - https://www.gulf-times.com/story/658411/Four-Covid-19-cases-in-Qatar-have-recovered-MoPH I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 15:35, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

 Done by someone else with your source. Thanks for the source! RayDeeUx (talk) 15:49, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 March 2020

Total cases in pakistan are 53 https://www.samaa.tv/living/health/2020/03/pakistan-coronavirus-tally/ NomanPK44 (talk) 15:58, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

 Done, thank you. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:02, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 March 2020

https://mobile.twitter.com/MZ_GOV_PL/status/1239189940094808065

Update for Poland, 119 infected, 3 dead HeinzMaster (talk) 15:59, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

 Already done. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:02, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 March 2020

Update the number of recoveries in Spain, published in the official page of the national TV channel. 6,046 cases, 193 deaths and most significantly 517 recoveries. JulenBengoitia (talk) 16:20, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: Could you please provide the link to a reliable source that may confirm this (preferably government-supported data). Thank you —ALittleQuenhi (talk to me) 17:52, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 March 2020

Please update San Marino confirmed cases counts to 97 (92 positive + 5 dead) according to official source: http://www.iss.sm/on-line/home/artCataggiornamenti-coronavirus.49004093.1.20.1.html Garyczek (talk) 17:31, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Y It seems that someone has already updated the statistic for Czech Republic, prior to my response. —ALittleQuenhi (talk to me) 17:56, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

 Done. looks like they have four recoveries as well! that's good news. thanks for mentioning the source referenced. dying (talk) 18:02, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

I found a reliable source by National government http://plataforma.saude.gov.br/novocoronavirus/ GSVaz (talk) 20:31, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

looks like the source is already one of our cited sources. in any case, thanks for bringing it up! dying (talk) 05:03, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 March 2020

Is it possible to sort the countries descending by Confirmed cases count by default? The sorting after cases changes should not be manual process. So is it possible in Mediawiki at all?

If not, Could you please move Iceland under Israel? Garyczek (talk) 18:13, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

 Already done. Although I don't know if Mediawiki supports automatically sorting countries by cases after an edit. Don't take my word for it though–I'm still new to Wikipedia. RayDeeUx (talk) 18:38, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 March 2020

Can you add a column 'Deaths/Cases' in the table. It will show how the countries are effectively treating their patients. Add this column to the right-side of 'recoveries'. Timer edit (talk) 12:01, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

 Not done - deaths are not an indicator of how effectively patients are treated. Moreover, see Template talk:2019–20_coronavirus_pandemic_data#"Active" column. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:52, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Half collapsing this template

So this is soon going to expand to 250 some items as every country in the world has cases. We need to figure out how to half collapse this table. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:47, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

I would not really like to see this collapsed. Previous collapsing was controversial, and editors sometimes trashed the table when changing it. Perhaps a scrollable box could be used where this is transcluded. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:55, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

User:Graeme Bartlett do you have an example of a scrollable box? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:15, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

I have made a sample box here: User:Graeme Bartlett/sandbox6. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:47, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Try this.<div style="float:right; width:33em; height:40em; overflow:auto; border:0px"> ... </div> This enables the table floatable.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 22:05, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

User:Phoenix7777 once again you are brilliant. And thanks User:Graeme Bartlett this is great. Will move live. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:09, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

User:TheseusHeLl can you please discussion? What is your issue? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:40, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Hey, Doc James

My bad I didn't see this discussion. I thought it was some technical mistake. -TheseusHeLl (talk) 23:49, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Love the new framed view on desktop but it shows up as a giant white area in the app (tested on Android). Once expanded, it's impossible to scroll left or right. - Wikmoz (talk) 22:36, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

I think that's just one of the limitations of using Wikipedia on mobile devices. I'm not sure what to do about that. Mgasparin (talk) 23:05, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

User:Wikmoz we have a section on this. Would be useful to keep conversations together. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:45, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Okay I see the issue is that it is too wide for mobile screens. Maybe we need to enforce the once ref per line. And move the refs to after the country name. User:Phoenix7777 you know how to fix the mobile issue? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:49, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

I tried a workaround (40em → 500px). Is it improved?―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 00:43, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, that seems good now. Sun Creator^(talk) 00:49, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

I have managed to fiddle with this enough to get things fitting better on mobile. User:Doc James/table Thoughts? We use shorter terms for the headings. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:44, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Rows are of various height based on the country length and therefore messy. Would be better if all rows are the same height. Sun Creator^(talk) 00:49, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

User:Sun Creator We can move to abbreviations for countries, like US, UAE, UK Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:57, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

User:TheseusHeLl setting it to 500 px[13] appear to make it format less well on mobile. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:04, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Doc James, Try 495px and see if it makes it better. -TheseusHeLl (talk) 01:10, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Well it appears it is nearly impossible to make this work perfectly on both mobile and desktop :-( Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:18, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

User:Koavf than how do you propose we deal with this table as it goes to 206 countries? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:57, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Doc James, You could have the biggies: China, Italy, South Korea, United States, etc. and then after you get down to the bottom 50% or so, go to "Other Asia" or "Other Southeast Asia", etc. Another options is to have the tabular data saved at c: and make an interactive graph with it a la List of countries by carbon dioxide emissions (permanent link--see the map). Thoughts? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:02, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

We need to get the map graphing tool working much better. I am not sure there is a good solution that works for everyone. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:06, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Doc James, you can take a look [[14]. Dates are organized by month, so I'm thinking we can organize cases by the continent the country is on. Thoughts? RayDeeUx (talk) 22:54, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

User:RayDeeUx Or maybe by top 50, next 50, last 50. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:34, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

I made an attempt at User:Bawolff/sandbox/covid. Not sure its an improvement on the other attempts. Bawolff (talk) 03:03, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Not readable with large font sizes

Hi, I use large font sizes to read the web. The current layout for this template chops off most of the "Territories" column, leaving "Cases" the first readable column. This seems to be the last revision readable with large font sizes: https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Template:2019%E2%80%9320_coronavirus_pandemic_data&oldid=945131522 138.88.18.245 (talk) 01:24, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Reported a related issue a few hours ago but it looks like that was archived for some reason. The framed view shows up as a giant white area in the app making the article appear broken. Once expanded, it's impossible to scroll left or right. - Wikmoz (talk) 02:31, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Actually, looks like they removed the scrolling function, which resolved the app issue. Assuming it resolves the large font issue as well. - Wikmoz (talk)

Yes, it does. 138.88.18.245 (talk) 03:51, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Implementing a collapsible view option

Would somebody with the technical know-how please consider implementing an option to collapse the template to top 20 (or whatever number is agreed) countries? The template length has begun to distort the parent article layout significantly. Melmann 14:40, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

We did that, but then issues with that are 1) sorting is then incorrect 2) the columns in the bottom section are removed, numeric data gets stuffed in effectively one cell 3) it doesn't show correctly on mobile. Sun Creator^(talk) 14:43, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

sun creator is correct. you can also see the issues raised above in this section. dying (talk) 15:06, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

To add MOS:COLLAPSE says "templates should not conceal article content by default upon page loading.", so basically even if it worked correctly it would be against the MOS guideline. Sun Creator^(talk) 15:27, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

This is going to stretch to 205 cells. Not sure the solution. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:59, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Scrollable elements render any content obscured within them unprintable and they are against the MOS. Wikipedia has the concept of a main article/main list. The solution would be to link to the main article of the template. I would list a maximum of 75 countries, along with the grand totals, on 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic while linking to the countries and territories article for a more comprehensive list. Or just remove the template from the main pandemic article altogether, put some information in prose form and a link to the countres and territories article. Zarex (talk) 04:59, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Is there a CSS that will turn off scrolling for the print version and expand it out? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:10, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

@Graeme Bartlett: An article should be accessible to readers using browsers and devices that have limited or no support for CSS. A scrollable table has accessibility issues. Zarex (talk) 08:05, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

The scrolling is added by css, so if your browser is 25 years old, Wikipedia will first off definitely not work due to lack of TLS support, but more importantly the table would display fully as the scrolling is only added to CSS in the first place. It is indeed possible to add CSS that only applies to print versions to remove the scrolling. As for accessibility in general, do we have specific examples of it not working? I don't see why it would affect a screen-reader. Bawolff (talk) 03:03, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks User:Bawolff. Maybe we could just add a link in the right upper corner that people can click on and it takes them to a page that has the template without scrolling? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:26, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

What sources should we use?

Citing references that DO NOT support the content

Has happened again. Do others consider this an issue. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:51, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Okay as we appear to have decided that Johns Hopkins is too slow and were simple changes the numbers to other sources which Johns Hopkins did not support we may aswell remove the reference we were not using anyway. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:03, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

The Johns Hopkins site has been slow, but has illogical things going on. Like the death numbers go down, and that causing a lot of edit conflicted here on this page. Perhaps that is a technical issue due to caching and site traffic. Yesterday they has 117 regions total and you can see now that it's 115, so again that is a bit crazy. So yea, it's not reassuring because they don't directly link to the sources for revisions, nor do they revise based on daily WHO figures etc. The WMO have sources at the bottom of there table(https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/#news) (much like Wikipedia), so you can check them if you have the time. Sun Creator^(talk) 23:14, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

I've not encountered a problem. Can you give an example. Am I concerned? No, it's currently monitored by so many eyes, that even minor errors are corrected quickly. Sun Creator^(talk) 23:07, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

I have trimmed all the Johns Hopkins references as we were using them for data that they did not support. If people insist on worldometers than we can go with that I guess. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:17, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

I see now references have been removed, mostly JHU. I don't agree with that change. The WOMC are quicker then JHU for local news sources most of the time, but not all country have a local news that care to report and JHU would have the WHO/ECDC data quicker. What I have been doing is adding JHU and WOMC together and between them they cover the 24 hour cycle quick fast. Sun Creator^(talk) 23:23, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

User:Sun Creator I oppose that. Why list a source that does not support the content in question? If JH is higher than WM than delete WM and add JH. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:08, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

i don't know about the other editors, but when i make an update that does not use either the johns hopkins or the worldometers source, i add the third source but do not delete either of the first two, since there seemed to be a preference to reverting back to either or both of those first two sources once the newer information has been integrated into them, and i didn't want to make it difficult for other editors to add that source back in. also, sometimes, the third source only provides one updated number, so using the new source as the sole source would leave some information uncited. please let me know if my practice violates any wikipedia policy i may be unfamiliar with.

personally, if i had to choose between the johns hopkins source and the worldometers source, i would choose the johns hopkins source, as it seems more reputable, albeit slower, while worldometers tries to get information out as quickly as possible and seems less trustworthy as a result. however, i've seen mistakes in both.

that being said, i'm not sure why we often seem to revert to using those first two sources, since i don't see why any newer source should be removed simply because an older source has finally updated. i would personally prefer using primary sources. dying (talk) 23:35, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

I used to add reliable third party sources but they are soon incorrect. The reason is say a government published 50 cases and 10 deaths at 9am. During the day local media will report an addition person that is ill or has died. So the figures are not then 50 cases and 10 death, but now 51 cases and 11 deaths. At that point the government source is both dated and incorrect, so others will remove it. Sun Creator^(talk) 23:46, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

When older sources no longer support the data we need to remove them. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:11, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

I think that is counterproductive. You would remove official sources because they out of date after 30 minutes? It's that kind of thinking that means sources are removed and replace constantly. Including johns hopkins source and the worldometers, which do get out of date at some point over a 24 hour period. Sun Creator^(talk) 03:08, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

If the source does not support the existing content yes it should definitely be removed or the content changed so that it does support the content in question.

We need to make a decision to either 1) have the official source and out of date numbers or 2) have less official sources and be more up to date. We do not list the most uptodate numbers and pretend they are supported by the official sources. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:42, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

I am for "official" sources, less up to date (WP:NOTNEWS: "While including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information."), less changes in the article. WikiHannibal (talk) 13:49, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Okay so if we want to use "official" sources only we will need to fully protect this page so only admins can edit it. User:WikiHannibal feel free to start such a RfC. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:17, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Live numbers are not encyclopedic

Does anyone else feel Live numbers are not encyclopedic? I feel a lot of effort is applied to update numbers in a table cell that is mostly less then an hour out of date. Effort would be better applied to have less focus on the numbers and more on what them mean in the context of the subject matter IMO. Sun Creator^(talk) 23:31, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

A few steps in this direction would be to collapse 75% of this table which is going to expand to 250 items soon.

And moving it out of the lead of the outbreak article. I have tried but people keep reverting. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:12, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

The template size and placement isn't the issue. It might be better bigger to add columns to indicate the time of figures 'as of: 13 March 13:21-UTC' which would remove the requirement to remove a reference when it's slightly out-of-date. Also a separate article page might be an idea then it can be complete collapsed in the main article. Sun Creator^(talk) 11:23, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

To begin with most people that are editing this article aren't doing so because they want to or care about wikis. This wiki is mainly used as a means to gather information archive and keep track of what is happening with the virus. Removing relevant data and making the page harder to navigate because it doesn't conform to the the general idea of wikipedia is just evil. It sounds more like doing something like this, would more have to do with being a stickler rather than actually adding anything of value to the page itself. What I am saying is, if you want to make it harder to navigate the page... please do so once the virus isn't active anymore. Don't go putting people in danger simply because you feel that the page doesn't do whatever it is that some admins have decided that they wanted the place to do.--Thronedrei (talk) 22:37, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

switch from johns hopkins to worldofmeters

why? is it to promote it or something? i had never before heard of worldofmeters. if i had the time i would replace all sources with johns hopkins. i consider johns hopkins to be more reliable.Pancho507 (talk) 00:26, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

agreed. actually, if i had to choose between bno and worldometers, i'd prefer using bno. i couldn't figure out why bno stopped being considered reliable, and a search of the talk archive seemed to mention that one issue is that they use facebook and twitter as a source, which i personally don't consider to be a problem if they are using official government facebook and twitter accounts. (apologies if i missed any other reasons why bno was considered unreliable.) worldometers also seems to have the same problem (using facebook and twitter as sources). however, in addition, worldometers will often not even have any sources listed to explain a recently updated number, while bno seems to be pretty careful about what updates it publishes, and even questions some primary sources, sometimes going so far as to explain that it believes a government is accidentally misreporting in an update.

in any case, i can understand the switch from using bno to johns hopkins (as johns hopkins is more reputable, though bno has apparently gained a lot of reputation due to this crisis), but the switch from johns hopkins to worldometers makes no sense to me. dying (talk) 00:56, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

So what should we use? I do not care at this point. We just need to use the source that ACTUALLY supports the numbers we list. And not list half a dozen sources one of which may support the number listed.

We have too many editors who consider Johns Hopkins to slow. I am happy to use the source but we could need to limit the editing of this article to admins only. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:06, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

my vote would be for using johns hopkins as our main aggregate source (including being the source for the totals row) with up to an additional two reliable sources that have updated information, or using up to three reliable sources and not necessarily using johns hopkins.

for example, if johns hopkins states a country has 50 cases, with 0 deaths and 2 recoveries, while the country's ministry of health's official twitter account announces that 3 patients have recovered and the major national newspaper covers the first coronavirus death in the country, i can see listing all 3 sources (including twitter) being valid. then, if the president of the country holds a press conference on youtube announcing 20 additional cases, that can be listed too, with johns hopkins removed if desired. of course, once johns hopkins incorporates those updates into its data, it will list 70 cases, with 1 death and 5 recoveries, and the additional sources may be removed if desired, even though there was nothing wrong with using them in the first place.

does this make sense? please let me know if i'm not explaining this well enough.

from what i understand, this was what we were doing until today, when worldometers was added as a reference to almost every entry, for a reason i seem to have missed.

i would be happy to hear anyone else's opinion on this. dying (talk) 01:51, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

JH while not as updated as World of Metres, seems to be more reliable. Do we know how World of Metres source their data from? M nurhaikal (talk) 01:43, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

World of Metres has their list of sources below their table. They keep adding new ones at the top, and link to where they got their info, so it is easy to see what has changed. It is mainly news web sites. So one option is to use the source that World of Metres uses, if we think it is reliable enough. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:37, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

At this juncture, I feel like we should stick to one source and just update the data using only that particular source. It might lead to the data being not be up to date, but really, its just a matter of minutes (if using worldometers), or hours (of using Johns Hopkins). The source citation has often become too messy. Some territories have up to 4 sources cited sometimes. M nurhaikal (talk) 01:56, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

If we are not going to use the most uptodate numbers than we need to get consensus to fully lock this page. Otherwise the numbers we keep getting changed to WM regardless of what JH says. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:59, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

i'm not sure that ignoring all primary sources and using only one aggregate source is the best solution, as that would mean there wouldn't be much reason for anyone to reference this chart for up-to-date information, as they could just go to the aggregate source instead. however, if that is what the consensus is, i'd prefer using the johns hopkins source because i believe it's the most reputable aggregate source. dying (talk) 04:45, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

It was User:Sun Creator that added the World of Metres to each entry. I did not agree with that, especially that two references are not needed, and a reference that does not support the number should not be there. You can see a fragment of our previous discussion here: #Two sources happily cover it all or one source and edit conflict all day long., but that has no clear conclusion, but I hope we can get a consensus here. Making editor life easy, so that sources do not need to be added or removed is not a good reason to have multiple references on each line. I think we should use Johns Hopkins as much as possible, but that we do need to have a reference that supports the figures. I think WOM is acceptable as it is more up-to-date, but JH is better if we can use it. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:00, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

I'd be interesting in what Wikipedia policy supports constant removal of sources. Normally, we are asking users to supply sources to content. But here somehow removal of sources is preferable. It's an odd situation. Sun Creator^(talk) 03:13, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

If you change the number in Wikipedia and the old source does not support the new number, you do not leave the old source. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:23, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

admittedly, i did not previously realize that it is preferred to remove an aggregate source if it no longer supports the data, and i apologize for that. i had previously left them because editors generally removed all non-aggregate sources once an aggregate source had updated its numbers.

going forward, i'll remove an aggregate source if none of its numbers are reflected in the table. however, whenever i add a primary source, it's often to update only one of the numbers, so i've left the aggregate source as a citation for the other numbers. please let me know if i should only use the most updated source instead. dying (talk) 04:45, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

ah, thanks for pointing out that previous discussion for me. i'm not sure how i missed it.

the argument that everything will be covered by citing both johns hopkins and worldometers doesn't seem to make much sense, as no aggregate source can ever be as up to date as all primary sources. i believe i've seen plenty of primary sources that had not been incorporated into any aggregate source at the time. also, i personally see no problem with having to add and remove references constantly, as that is the nature of documenting a rapidly-changing situation.

i agree with your point that we don't need two aggregate sources. dying (talk) 04:45, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

″===Official versus most up to date numbers=== The only way we are going to get official numbers to stick is if we fully protect this page. So if people are serious about wanting to use official numbers than we need a RfC to fully protect this template. I do not have a strong feel what we do as the official numbers equal the most up to date numbers within a day.

Also if we go with official numbers we will get 100s of edit requests to change to non official numbers. So our readers want the non official numbers which makes me lean towards us simple providing them. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:22, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

There is no merit to protecting the page; this is not one of those cases where it is necessary. The majority of the issues come from inexperienced editors or editors who are misbehaving (I've dealt with a couple already - one of whom was blocked). Any such editors who are misbehaving or not getting it get sanctioned through the usual processes and their edits are reverted as we do through the usual consensus building process.

The sole issue comes down to people acting too quickly without thinking about the sources they are using. If a source does not verify the content, it cannot be used or the content needs to be changed to reflect what is verifiable. If the source cited is unreliable, the content does not meet the criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia. Some of the primary websites cited even on WOM do not inspire the greatest deal of confidence. It is up to editors to research and find a sufficiently reliable source, just as we do with any other article. That is why I do not complete some requests on this page immediately - because no such sources exist yet and the source provided in the request does not meet the criteria.

The numbers need not be limited official government-published numbers to meet the criteria, but the table need not be updated to reflect the most current numbers if insufficient(ly) reliable sources are reporting those numbers yet. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:26, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

User:Ncmvocalist I am fine with that. This means by default we will go with the most uptodate numbers rather than the official numbers. If this is what we are choosing it would be useful for people to stop asking that we go with official numbers. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:02, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

I think we have to balance up-to-dateness and reliability here since we dont have a source where both are excellent. WHO is highly reliable but 1-2 days behind while all aggregators are of course very up to date but more or less reliable. I feel that John Hopkins is a good balance, its a team of experts / academics and the methodology is published in a peer reviewed journal. To me JH would probably be the best balance, we should also discuss worldofmeters here Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard since I know very little about it and its methodoloigies. --hroest 17:44, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Johns Hopkins and Worldometers disagree on the US

Johns Hopkins says 1050 cases, 29 deaths and 8 recoveries, while Worldometers says 1016 cases, 31 deaths and 15 recoveries. Which is the better, more accurate number? With a number that much lower, is Worldometers not counting the Grand Princess cases? TheNavigatrr (talk) 16:40, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

All of the sources appear to be inconsistent even outside of these 2. I think the only consistency is that confirmed cases are above 1000. Hopefully this issue is settled soon. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:53, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Should this have wrong information from aggregator websites?

I see there is an ongoing debate on what sources should be used for these statistics. There are aggregator websites like the John Hopkins map and Worldometers that are convenient to use and there is an argument to be made that those are better than chasing official reporting and media reports from each individual country, even if this means a lag in reporting most recent numbers. However, there can be instances where these data aggregators simply have it wrong. One such instance is the figure given for the number of recoveries in Iceland. The aggregator sites say that there has been 1 recovery. This is wrong and not based in any official information from Icelandic authorities that have not released any such information. This was even specifically addressed at a press conference today where the chief physician for contagious disease in Iceland denied that this was true and that this information could not come from authorities in Iceland. I have attempted to track down where the aggregators have this number from but none of the sources they cite actually support the number given. I have attempted to contact these sites personally to correct them but I guess they are very much overwhelmed by emails right now. I have attempted to correct this in this template and put in a special note about this in the table that this number should still be 0 (zero) until a primary source says otherwise but my edits have been reverted with no commentary at all. Should we just have the wrong information on here for the sake of convenience? --Bjarki (talk) 18:44, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

This is interesting, thank you. Do you have a sources to support this, say to the press conference? Graham Beards (talk) 19:17, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

The press conference is here: https://www.visir.is/g/202017593d/svona-var-ellefti-upp-lysinga-fundurinn-vegna-koronu-veirunnar The discussion starts at 31:00 when a journalist asks if it is correct that one person has recovered as is reported on various websites. The answer is that this is not right and that this information does not come from icelandic health authorities. He goes on to say that most infected people had only mild symptoms and some have no symptoms any more but that the health authorities don't yet have a standard for what constitutes a recovery from the disease so there have been no official figures for that yet. --Bjarki (talk) 19:40, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

interesting. i know virtually no icelandic, so can't confirm myself, but what you say matches the body language of the person speaking in the video. of note, the bno aggregate source lists no recoveries for iceland.

do the icelandic authorities have any site where we can obtain official statistics? i could not find any that were regularly updated, and would like to cite one if i were to correct that value to a 0. i suppose this press conference would likely be acceptable as a source, though a source more accessible to english speakers would be preferred. thanks in advance. dying (talk) 20:18, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

There is no regularly updated official site which displays the current statistics. There are supposed to be daily status reports here but this has not been very reliable (today's report is not on there yet for example). These have also often been released so early in the day that there have usually been several confirmed cases that day after the publication. Some days there has been an English version of the report but usually not. There is a little widget here (see on the right side of the page) on the news site Mbl.is which gives the current state of infections (red) recovery (green) and current number people in qurantine (yellow). --Bjarki (talk) 20:40, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

ah, thanks for the information and those links. i don't think i would have ever been able to find them myself. i don't mind that they're not in english; i should have clarified that by "accessible to english speakers", i meant that an easily translatable source (e.g., icelandic text; c.f. icelandic speech) would also be fine. also, thanks for correcting that value to 0 on the template.

going forward, i'll probably try to update iceland's numbers using the landlaeknir.is link you mentioned supplemented by either the widget or articles on mbl.is. here's to hoping that they won't need to use a fourth color for that widget. dying (talk) 21:39, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

source for germany

Suhgestion for Germany updazes: Use the official source, Robert-Koch-Institut. Because getting data from a newspaper like Berliner Morgenpost (which by the way has different numbers from all other sources like Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung or Robert Koch Institut) will not help regarding accuracy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.204.238.156 (talk) 17:00, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

i was torn over this one. normally, i would also prefer using the robert koch-institut, as the bundesministerium für gesundheit (federal ministry of health) points to the robert koch-institut as the official source for its numbers on the coronavirus pandemic. however, i often wondered why it kept on lagging behind all the other sources until i read on deutsche welle that they were using an independent tally (from deutsche presse-agentur) because even the robert koch-institut itself "admitted that it only counts cases that are communicated to it via official channels".

so, realistically, if we were to use the robert koch-institut, we not only would have our figures repeatedly overwritten by editors who are more interested in getting a bigger number on the board than getting an accurate number even though it may be delayed, we may also be sacrificing accuracy simply because the institute itself is calculating its numbers in a way that is almost certainly going to lead to undercounting. as a result, numbers put out by the robert koch-institut appear to be widely accepted as far below the actual count, and perhaps the only benefit to using them is to be able to claim that we are using the official numbers, or at least be able to until they are overwritten by an overzealous editor with a larger number of unknown source.

because of this, selecting an unofficial aggregate source is almost a necessity. the berliner morgenpost, which we are currently using here, seems to be a reasonable selection. the details lower on the berliner morgenpost's page mention that it uses both the robert koch-institut numbers as well as those of district and state health authorities, and that it acknowledged that, due to various issues, the numbers they publish are "fortlaufend korrigiert" (continuously corrected), so i am currently assuming that their numbers are fairly reasonable, and almost certainly more accurate than those of the robert koch-institut. in addition, the berliner morgenpost's reputation as a solid newspaper in berlin gives added weight to its reliability as a secondary source.

i hope my reasoning makes sense. i must admit, however, that i am neither german nor currently living in germany, so my opinion may not be as sound as someone else with more firsthand experience. please let me know if there are other benefits to using the robert koch-institut's numbers that i may have missed, or if you are aware of another secondary source that you think may provide us with more accurate numbers. in particular, i actually haven't gone looking for the deutsche presse-agentur tally, since the berliner morgenpost seemed accepted here and i had no reason to want to substitute one already-accepted secondary source for another.

by the way, if there is a consensus to use the robert koch-institut numbers instead, i'm happy to conform. thanks in advance! dying (talk) 19:46, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

1point vs worldOmeter

Just want to grumble. 1point list their sources better than worldOmeter. WorldOMeter currently lists 40 deaths, but doesn't justify it, 1point says 39. 1point3acres lists the states where deaths occur, a better breakdown. https://coronavirus.1point3acres.com/en Just wondering why worldOmeters is preferred. The issue is tiny. Agree that worldOmeters is better than john hopkins. Thanks for the change. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 20:32, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Agree User:Daniel.Cardenas. I also like that they put dots for their last day now to mean that all the numbers are not yet in. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:38, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Johns Hopkins University (JHU) not updating

In some case over 24 hours out-of-date despite clear official numbers. For example, UK "As of 9am on 12 March 2020, 29,764 people have been tested in the UK, of which 29,174 were confirmed negative and 590 were confirmed as positive." That was now over 24 hours ago, but JHU still says UK cases is 451. Sun Creator^(talk) 09:54, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

JHU and Worldmeter are unreliable. We should use the official data of respective countries or WHO even if they are updated once a day. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It is a shame to use popular and easy sources for references.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 10:00, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately some people, including administrators, remove out-of-date sources, so official sources get removed when a reliable source gives an update. I have considered adding a column for the official source in addition to the existing reference column. Sun Creator^(talk) 10:23, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Don't add more columns though. The table is wide enough for a phone screen already. Comment out the reference and leave a comment note about its use. Many people want to keep it more updated than official sources allow. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:00, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Plenty of wider tables on Wikipedia. Could have it's own article like COVID-19 testing. Sun Creator^(talk) 13:40, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

agreed. if wikipedia doesn't keep its citations to either official or reputable reliable sources, then there is no reason why wikipedia should be relied on above other unreliable aggregate sources.

as the commonly-used aggregate sources (johns hopkins, worldometers, and bno) all seem to have issues with their reporting, i'd suggest using updates from both official government sources and local reputable reliable sources (e.g., mbl.is for iceland but not for brazil), using who as the only default aggregate source when the former sources do not suffice, and reverting any edits that ignore this convention. there may be instances where exceptions might be made (e.g., germany), but we can address exceptions made for each such country separately.

also, adding an additional column for the official source sounds like it could be a good idea. although the table may be wide enough for a phone screen already, the column would likely not be that wide itself, likely being populated by only one or two superscript numbers per row. however, i am admittedly not editing over a phone, so i don't have firsthand experience over whether adding even a narrow column would be too much. dying (talk) 16:34, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Reporting Denmark as 1,573. Seems that JHU has some problems. Sun Creator^(talk) 23:53, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

United Kingdom as 3, no deaths and 1 recovered. Sun Creator^(talk) 23:55, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

If we went with old and official numbers we would get 1000s of edit requests before the update... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:16, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Brazil Update

There are 147 confirmed cases in Brazil as of March 13 LGCR (talk) 15:18, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

can you provide either an official government source or a local reputable reliable source? alternatively, can you explain why neither would be sufficient and provide a replacement source? thanks in advance. dying (talk) 17:15, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Please add serial number in table so that change in position of countries by number of cases could be monitored Waqasmwi (talk) 07:56, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 March 2020

The Philippines now has 64 confirmed cases according to the latest news I heard. Jumark27 (talk) 17:40, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

can you provide either an official government source or a local reputable reliable source? alternatively, can you explain why neither would be sufficient and provide a replacement source? thanks in advance. dying (talk) 17:54, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

The number has been updated, but if you have a source for the update, please provide it, else no one will update without a reference. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:38, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Sr No. Column must be added so that change in country's position could be monitored Waqasmwi (talk) 08:00, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

MOS:SMALLFONT

@Checco and Admanny:, you've both referenced some "consensus" about putting "Mainland" in small font. I see none here. Not to mention, whatever consensus you come to doesn't override MOS:SMALLFONT: Avoid using smaller font sizes within elements that already use a smaller font size, such as infoboxes, navboxes, and reference sections. This means that ... tags, and templates such as {{small}} and {{smaller}}, should not be applied to already-reduced text within those elements. Under no circumstances should the resulting font size of any text drop below 85% of the page's default font size (i.e. 11.9 px in Vector skin or 10.8 px in Monobook) – Muboshgu (talk) 01:07, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_185#Template:2019–20_Wuhan_coronavirus_data Feel free to open another RfC now that the table size has decreased, but specific-case consensus should always take precedent first. Admanny (talk) 04:38, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree with User:Admanny. However, I am going to open a RCF in order to have the list consistent with List of countries and dependencies by population, that is no "mainland" for China, all territories and dependencies separate from respective countries and so on. --Checco (talk) 09:48, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

The order of the columns

The columns should actually be in the logical order of progression, i.e. "Cases → Recoveries → Deaths" rather than "Cases → Deaths → Recoveries"; you get the disease, you start the recovering process and so on. That's the order on Infobox pandemic as well. Zarex (talk) 04:50, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

interesting thought. i'd actually argue that the order of progression is from cases to deaths to recoveries, because you first get the disease, and then you start dying. hopefully, if your immune system (or your local healthcare system if you can afford it) is good enough, you then start getting better, and you eventually recover. however, i'd agree with you that the column order would match the order of disease progression if the columns were positive cases, recovering cases, and deaths, but we are not currently keeping track of recovering cases.

philosophical ruminations aside, i'd guess that the recoveries column is last simply because many countries are currently not reporting recoveries, perhaps because there haven't been any yet, perhaps because they haven't decided what constituted a recovery yet, perhaps because there is a privacy issue with reporting that data, or perhaps simply because they don't wish to keep track of that data. who's situation reports do not report recoveries.

in any case, the number of recoveries is likely going to be pretty inaccurate for a while, since many cases are staying at home, and even if your government is keeping track of the number of recoveries, reporting yourself as a recovery to the appropriate authorities at this time may not be a high priority for a lot of people. dying (talk) 19:51, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

I think it is fine the way it is. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:13, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

agreed. i should have made it clearer that i preferred the status quo in this case. dying (talk) 05:01, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Dependencies and unrecognised states issues

I think even the channel islands are not overseas territories, they're still crown dependencies who subject to British administration, especially on their health services? The point why there's no controversy in separating Taiwanese, macanese and hong-kongan data from the Chinese one is because they all have their own government and health departments.

Also, we probably should not add unrecognised states to the chart and their data should be incorporated to the countries who have internationally recognised legitimate governance over those area of concern. Pktlaurence (talk) 05:06, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

We should have them listed and not have politics interfering. If some area has an independent health jurisdiction and reporting, and our sources report that way, then we should also report them as such. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:23, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree. The whole point of this wiki is to keep track of how many infected etc there are in each region. Adding the numbers to the total of the country that they belong to only mucks things up.--Thronedrei (talk) 22:29, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

First, dear Graeme, it would be appreciated if you would kindly move your NC discussions into this thread.

Next, I will judge with points of these accordances: I) Does the Cypriot government and/or health department include NC cases in their own data? This would be the most important point of concern; if they don't, NC cases should probably be separated. II) Does NC have their own health department? I honestly don't know much about that place other than the greeks and Turks having cutthroat fights over this little island. Regardless, all Dependencies cases goes into their sovereign nation's data, including Cayman and Channel Islands and isles of man etc, there's probably a consensus and definitely no debate in that. Pktlaurence (talk) 06:58, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Northern Cyprus has its own independent health system, their numbers are not included in Turkey's or Rep of Cyprus's data. De facto it is a sovereign and a full state organization. I understand the worry of de jure status sparking discussions, however this is a data collection by "territory" in practice .Canerguclu (talk) 18:20, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

@Pktlaurence: That is manifestly untrue. The Channel Islands are most definitely not subject to British Administration and have an entirely separate healthcare system (mostly privatised, and certainly no NHS). Additionally, official and government sources do not include the Channel Island statistics in their data, nor are they included when news articles report on the UK situation. To this end, there has already been an archived discussion on whether or not Guernsey (and Jersey) should be separate and the result was that they should be separated.—Formulaonewiki 08:59, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Alright, I will agree on separating North Cyprus, but I still don't think separating the channel islands is a good idea. Does other dependencies run on NHS too? If they dont, we'll be separating all of them like in the chinese article. Pktlaurence (talk) 09:13, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

@Ptklaurence: None of the Crown Dependencies (Guernsey, Jersey, and the Isle of Man) have an NHS. The closest would be IoM which has some sort of agreement, though it’s largely funded by a locally raised national insurance/tax. Guernsey and Jersey have no links with the NHS whatsoever. A further illustration is that none of the UK advice so far re schools staying open, public gatherings etc. apply to the CIs — they decide their own approach to tackling the virus.

I’m far less familiar with BOTs, but it is my understanding that they have somewhat less independence, particularly on an international level, than the Channel Islands. I can’t therefore make much of an argument either way on BOTS, but I’d certainly argue (as previous discussion has also concluded) that at least Guernsey and Jersey should be independently listed. —Formulaonewiki 10:03, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

NB: whatever is decided, as it currently is, referring to Jersey, Guernsey, Cayman Islands and Gibraltar as ‘dependencies cases’ is technically incorrect. ‘Dependent’ they may be, Gibraltar and the Cayman Islands are not ‘dependencies’. —Formulaonewiki 10:12, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

@Ptklaurence: The situation of the Channel Islands has been explained by Formulaone and you can also see the section 'Guernsey v. Gibraltar' in the archive. As for BOTs, I don't have a stand on whether they should be listed separately but just want to provide these facts. For the health authorities on BOTs, I wasn't able to find any evidence that they run on NHS but to find that Gibraltar, for example, has its own health authority. BOTs also don't appear in the NHS regional count as well as the total count on the official website by the UK government (the official report by the UK government only includes the four constituent countries). Chbe113 (talk) 17:42, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

North Cyprus

Some areas of limited recognition are cropping up. North Cyprus is a territory with cases that are not counted in Cyprus. They are verifiable by other references, but not by WOMC. I have inserted this entry. But what is the consensus. Should it be included or not? What kind of extra note is required? I note also that Kosovo is included in the table, a territory not widely recognised as a country. I support having all these areas of limited recognition listed separately rather than causing confusion by lumping them together and then needing an explanation about why sources do not support the figures given. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:17, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Please comment at #RfC on countries/dependencies. No need to talk more in this section. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:40, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 March 2020

Another column with Currently infected people should be added. Right now the numbers include Dead and reovered cases, which skyrockets the number. Actual infected number is not 1,40,000. Agniv742101 (talk) 06:31, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree. 99.168.78.139 (talk) 08:07, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

If a person is infected then is declared healthy, only to get infected again later... how does such data get handled?--Thronedrei (talk) 22:41, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. To add another column to this template would most likely require a throughout discussion. Use of the edit request templates is for non-controversial edit requests that can be implemented without a consensus. Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 08:41, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

The (country of the) Netherlands vs the Kingdom of the Netherlands

The country of the Netherlands consists of:

• the European (part of the) Netherlands
• the Caribbean (part of the) Netherlands, which consists of the (overseas) public bodies:
  • Bonaire
  • Sint Eustatius
  • Saba

The RIVM (National Institute for Public Health and the Environment) is responsible for (the country of) the Netherlands. Among other things, it takes responsibility for counting and publishing verified positive cases for COVID-19 in this country (but not recoveries; they are not registered).

The Kingdom of the Netherlands consists of:

• (the country of) the Netherlands (as described above)
• Aruba
• Curaçao
• Sint Maarten

Aruba has its Directie Volksgezondheid . Curaçao has its Volksgezondheid Instituut Curaçao . Sint Maarten has its Department of Public Health .

Contrary to the remark in the reference behind the name of the Netherlands in the table on https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Template:2019%E2%80%9320_coronavirus_pandemic_data&action=edit, I have not been able to find any indication, let alone proof, that the case count for the Netherlands would include Aruba and Curaçao.

Would the author of that remark please elaborate on this?Redav (talk) 08:47, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

References

Puerto Rico

Puerto Rico should be a separate record, the same way it is listed separately (apart from the US) on the John Hopkins site. There are confirmed cases as of today.--The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 09:17, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

I believe PR is already included in USA's count, as seen in the COVID-19 article for the United States. RayDeeUx (talk) 18:52, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 March 2020

Remove Puerto Rico as its own row, since it is already included in the count for the United States. Alexander V. B. (talk) 10:11, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

We need to discuss this in the following section. Please join in a discussion. There was just a request to add it in and it has been added and removed a few times without a clear consensus yet. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:46, 14 March 2020 (UTC)