I've edited before to turn "Cases" into "Reported Cases", but this has been reverted. I think it is important to make clear that these numbers are wrong. All public health officials know that they're wrong. These numbers are the confirmed cases, but the actual number of infected people is higher, probably substantially higher. (On Friday, the UK had a figure of 798 cases, but an estimate of 5-10,000 actual cases.https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-51865915) I don't know what the best way of showing that is, but we should not be giving the impression that these numbers are the real number of cases. Bondegezou (talk) 11:01, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
i would imagine that, due to the nature of statistics, it is generally understood that when reporting a statistic such as the number of cases, by necessity, one can only report on the number of reported cases. as a result, while you may be semantically correct in stating that the column labelled "cases" is not reporting the actual number of cases, i would think that, as a matter of pragmatics, it is generally understood that "cases" means "reported cases". after all, the same argument that you made can also be made for the column labelled "deaths", but your edit did not appear to also change the "deaths" label to "reported deaths". it might even be more appropriate for the recoveries column, as many governments are not reporting recoveries, and some of the recovery statistics here are only based on what local news sources are reporting.
although i agree that, if one were to attempt to be as semantically correct as possible, we should be relabelling these columns to make sure that people understand that these statistics are based only on what is reported, i believe most of the other editors are trying to make the table as simple as possible to convey the necessary information. i'd imagine that you'd agree with the last point, as i see that you've decided to remove all the color from the null values in the table, considering it "overcomplicating formatting".
personally, if some editors feel very strongly about adding the word "reported" to the column label, i wouldn't really mind, but i thought you might want to know why other editors didn't seem to like the unnecessary addition. dying (talk) 12:45, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. I've added a footnote, which seems to have stuck (ergo, been accepted), although it could probably be worded better. I'm not convinced editors are aware at how approximate these numbers are, or indeed at how rapidly they're becoming even more approximate. Death statistics are generally much more reliable, but, yes, still also liable to underreporting. If it was up to me, I'd drop the Recovered column, where the reporting is very patchy. Bondegezou (talk) 15:29, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
Done. i am currently interpreting the count of recovered patients to be separate from the "casi positivi", so i have updated the number of positive cases to 115 (102+9+4). please let me know if i am interpreting the source incorrectly. thanks for referencing the cited source! dying (talk) 17:18, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
Slight increase of Germany total confirmed case figure
I'm assuming these would need to be combined with the stats from the overseas territories and dependencies: for instance, Worldometer is saying that one of the cases in Gibraltar has recovered, but that's not included on the PHE tracker. I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing.18:45, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
| style="padding:0px 2px;"| <!-- please do not replace this source with an aggregate source if the aggregate source does not provide more up-to-date details, as this primary source is a more reliable source --><!-- please simply comment out the following source if removing the citation, as this is a government source, and likely will be referenced again in the future -->{{Cite web|url=https://www.santepubliquefrance.fr/maladies-et-traumatismes/maladies-et-infections-respiratoires/infection-a-coronavirus/articles/infection-au-nouveau-coronavirus-sars-cov-2-covid-19-france-et-monde|title=Infection au nouveau Coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2), COVID-19, France et Monde|date=2020-03-16|website=www.santepubliquefrance.fr|language=fr|access-date=2020-03-16}}
Not sure who updated it, but that is no longer the case as of the time of this reply.
BlackSun2104, please keep this behavior up and put sources alongside your periodic reminders for us to update numbers for countries. As you can see, we cannot edit figures without government sources or other reliable news sources. RayDeeUx (talk) 01:12, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
Time stamp
Is it desirable to place a time stamp on this template? I'm referring to this section:
{{resize|As of {{TODAY}} ([[Coordinated Universal Time|UTC]]) · History of cases: [[Template:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data/China medical cases|China]], [[Template:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data/International medical cases|international]]}}
Right now as COVID-19 infects more people daily [as well as the number of edit requests we're getting here every day], there's no significant difference between the date of last update and the current date.
The important thing is to keep the current three numbers (cases, recoveries, deaths) as up to date as possible.
2650 is the more accurate figure, that reflects better on the ground situation, to see case increase by a slight amount may give people a false sense of security and safety, but when cases increased by hundreds, people will start taking it seriously, hope that helps. BlackSun2104 (talk) 17:04, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
In Wikipedia, the number of France is equal to Worldometer's number of France. However, Worldometer's number doesn't include France's other territories. Can someone fix this? Or did Worldometer double count? If they double-counted, we should not use their sum. Please tell me what's wrong. Thanks, Luke Kern Choi 5 (talk) 23:53, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
We don't use WorldOMeter for France's case count, we use France's sources. Therefore the territories are included. Until we get a more recent number from France's Ministry of Health or another reliable source, we are keeping the number as is.
What I was concerned was that Wikipedia's number was 6633 for France, and Worldometer's number for France was 6633 too, although it didn't include territories of France. So, I was questioning did Worldometer made a mistake(double-counting) in translating original sources, or Wikipedia's number(or France source of Wikipedia's number) doesn't include other territories. Can you check out France's sources if the numbers include the territories, RayDeeUx ? Thank you very much, Luke Kern Choi 5 (talk) 00:11, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
Worldometer is competely UNRELIABLE. It says the USA has had 85 deaths, but does not itemize them by state, or refer to sources that deal with this. All itemized sources say the USA has had 75 deaths, itemized by source. Can we agree to boot out Worldometer as an unreliable source? Arrecife (talk) 00:19, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
Please disallow Worldometer as a legitimate source. It does not properly provide sources for its statistics e.g. Coronavirus deaths. Scientific sources (like CDC) and established news media shuld be used instead. Arrecife (talk) 00:31, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
Not done. While many of the regular editors of the template agree that WorldOMeter isn't reliable, we have already shifted away from WorldOMeter by using local sources such as reports from the Ministry of Health from various countries, WHO, or reliable nation-specific sources. Past edit requests have also been asked to include sources other than WorldOMeter as part of a measure to shift away from WorldOMeter.
Hope that addresses your concerns.
Other editors, thoughts? Apologies for mass ping: Doc Jamesdying
Worldometer is at this moment the only source given for China, Iran, USA and many other major countries. This chiselling will go on until Worldometer is discarded. Please reactivate my request. Arrecife (talk) 01:33, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
Deactivated request. I just made a new section regarding this issue, please bring your thoughts there. Changing sources is a task too big to fit into an edit request. RayDeeUx (talk) 01:41, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
It is a balance between uptodate and reliable. Worldometer provides sources for their claim and in my opinion is reliable enough. The only way we are going to get more reliable but less up to date sources used is if we fully protect this page. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:40, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
thanks for the ping. personally, i don't think a lot of the aggregate sources are reliable, and there should be a strong reason why they may be preferred over official sources. worldometers, in particular, seems to often want to be the first to report something, and as a result, seems to also use sources that are possibly questionable, if it even mentions a source at all. i'm assuming that its popularity here is because a lot of editors drop by after seeing an update on worldometers, excited to post an update, without actually checking how reliable the source of the update is. in addition, if worldometers cited its sources, i see no reason why editors can't simply cite the source itself instead of worldometers, since if the source is reputable in the first place, it's also likely more reputable than worldometers.
i recognize that some of the countries with a lower count currently only have worldometers as a source. i've actually been thinking about replacing them with either the who situation report or their dashboard. i'm assuming official government sources for the countries with a lower count simply haven't set up the infrastructure to provide regularly-updated numbers, possibly because they didn't think this pandemic would have a serious effect on their country until recently. i don't blame them; it seems like this describes most countries. many of the countries near the top of the table now didn't provide good official sources for information either until recently. so, i propose using who as our default aggregate source until those governments can provide a good official source. since those countries in question don't really have that many cases at the moment, i'd imagine that those numbers don't have to be constantly updated right now, and who's rate of updates would be sufficient for the moment.
offhand, the only reason why i think we should keep worldometers is because it is the only source cited for some of the values for recoveries, especially for countries that do not officially report recoveries. however, whenever that's the case, it's also quite possible that the value of recoveries, even reported by local reputable reliable sources, are determined only by what their news staff happens to hear. in such cases, i think reporting such a number may actually be rather misleading, and would personally prefer the cell to be left blank (or perhaps filled with an em dash) to indicate that no data is officially reported by the government and/or no reliable data can be obtained otherwise.
one small additional point: i think it is possible for us to keep most of the updates from unreliable sources away from this page if we all check the history of the page every so often and undo updates that use unreliable sources. this is something that i personally would not want to try to enforce by myself, but if there is consensus on this, i think dealing with these edits will be manageable, and the editors that come here unfamiliar with how we are trying to avoid questionable updates may quickly understand that we are only looking for reliable sources here.
anyway, i'll start replacing the sources for the countries near the bottom of the list with the who dashboard. i'm assuming this doesn't require consensus since the top of this talk page already states that who is one of our core sources, but feel free to revert my changes if you disagree. dying (talk) 02:36, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
We need to keep the number of sources to two at MOST two. The problem we dealt with was people continually changing the numbers to higher ones without changing the source.
okay, i've stopped. i've only done it for nepal so far, where the first case fell ill back in january, and has recovered since. i'm assuming that, in this case, the rate of who's updates doesn't really matter.
so, are you saying that wikipedia's policy is to prefer unreliable data paired correctly with an unreliable source than unreliable data temporarily paired incorrectly with a reliable source but reverted once discovered by another editor? i would have personally preferred the latter, which is why i suggested it, but i know i have far less experience with wikipedia's policies than you do, and admittedly had not even considered it to be an issue until you brought it up.
however, from what i can tell, the issue of random editors coming in and changing the numbers without citing the source used will likely happen regardless of what sources we choose to use, and even if consensus decides to use worldometers as the default source in order to attempt to avoid having the wrong source cited, it's likely that there will still be editors changing the numbers to ones even higher than those found at worldometers without citing their sources. dying (talk) 03:25, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
User:Dying Accurately representing a less ideal source is better than misrepresenting an ideal source.
When we used out of date sources people would change it multiple times an hour to a higher value not in that source.
WHO is sometimes wrong aswell such as with the Diamond Princess.
With WorldOMeter things have been less unstable.
As I have previously said I am happy to go with Johns Hopkins but we need support to fully protect this than . And we need to be happy with being out of date a bit. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:17, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
[PROPOSAL] - Shifting away from WorldOMeter
As the past few days have shown, WorldOMeter is... misbehaving, so to speak.
The number of cases WorldOMeter wishes to report and the number of cases from government sources seem to collide.
Lately I've seen that many countries cite their respective Ministers/Ministries of Health or other reliable sources for case counts and other updates.
The countries/territories that solely rely on WorldOMeter are:
China, United States, Switzerland, Israel, Belgium, Denmark, Japan, Canada, Qatar, Australia, Greece, Finland, Ireland, Pakistan, Egypt, South Africa, Mexico, Cyprus, Armenia, Palestine, Ecuador, Senegal, Malta, Lithuania, Maldives, Bolivia, Dominican Republic, New Zealand, Uruguay, Liechtenstein, Ghana, Ethiopia, Rwanda, Guyana, Cameroon, Cuba, Kenya, DR Congo, Guatemala, Namibia, Saint Lucia, Sudan, Antigua and Barbuda, Benin, Bhutan, Guinea, Liberia, Mongolia, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, Somalia, Tanzania, Togo, Vatican City, Nepal
The countries/territories that rely partly on WorldOMeter are:
I feel that it's better to use government sources, but I'm having a hard time finding the right pages for a majority of the countries listed. Obviously, China, US, Italy, and other more well-known countries shouldn't be too difficult.
It could be me using DuckDuckGo instead of Google, but can we find the proper government sources for the lesser-known countries?
We have discussed this so many times. You need to get consensus to fully protect this page first. And than we will get hundreds upon hundreds of requests to update before the official sources do. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:41, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
Established local media sources such as the Seattle Post-Examiner should be acceptable...they can go towards making a tally.Arrecife (talk) 02:13, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
But too many people felt it was not up to date enough.
We discuss this over and over again. I am happy to go with Johns Hopkins but that will require full protection.
I think WorldOMeter well not ideal is good enough. Like seriously we do not really now how many cases we have. We are fight for false precision but to a lack of testing in many areas of the world. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:32, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
<divid="covid19-container"role="region"aria-label="2019–20 coronavirus pandemic by country and territory table"tabindex="0">
{| class="wikitable plainrowheaders sortable" style="text-align:right; font-size:85%; margin:0 0 0 1em;"
The ARIA label is read out by screen readers only, if table, overview, summary makes most sense is better decided by an English Native speaker. But it has to be clear and better repeating information as the region will get read out on same level as main navigation by screen readers.
I've also removed double-whitspace before `margin` and the unnecessary value units `px` and `em` on null values there. Volker E. (WMF) (talk) 03:36, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
Partly done. hope i did that correctly, as i don't have a screenreader to confirm. please let me know if otherwise. i've left the extra "px" and "em" in there because a similar change had been made before but there was a reason to revert it. please let me know if the removal of those units is necessary to make the table navigable for screenreaders. dying (talk) 03:56, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
One of the cited source is from the Swiss Federal Office of Public Health. It's definitely more accurate than Worldometer but they categorize reported cases into two parts; 'Tested Positive' and 'Confirmed'. I'm inclined to pick the 'Confirmed' count, but what about you guys? Or do you guys just use Worldometers' figures instead? M nurhaikal (talk) 13:26, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
@Natanieluz: I checked that link and I'm getting the message "Sorry, that page doesn’t exist!" from Twitter. Do you have a corrected link to the Tweet or an official link from Poland's health ministry? Alucard 16❯❯❯ chat?14:08, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
Further suggestion for improvement and ensuring consistency.
Positive case should be included, not just confirmed cases. If you are tested for positive for the COVID-19 virus, you will be ordered to undergo a quarantine to prevent further transmission of the virus to your friends, family members, neighborhood and loved ones. I can see the same mistake happening with the Switzerland figures, hope that helps. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BlackSun2104 (talk • contribs) 13:50, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
There is already an annotation next to the word "Switzerland" explaining this discrepancy. I personally don't know how Switzerland tests its patients such that the Federal office of Public Health in Switzerland feels the need to show two figures, but we are going with confirmed cases as per the source that is currently cited [Federal office of Public Health in Switzerland].
Also, the link you provided shows nothing about cases at all, only a few PDF download links.
Your source has already moved to 237, but I updated it to the the 236 nonetheless per the current source in the article (which is in use for multiple countries). Noting these figures cannot never be perfect they're mostly estimations. – Ammarpad (talk) 16:50, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
Syria
The table currently lists 7 confirmed cases and 3 deaths in Syria. The used source ([7]) does not seem to back this claim. There are currently no confirmed cases (confirmed cases, by definition, require testing, not rumours) and no acknowledged deaths ([8]). Should we change these numbers to 0 confirmed cases and 0 deaths? I don't think relying on dubious sources conflicting with official sources is something acceptable. --MarioGom (talk) 15:11, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
The world table says US has 85 Covid deaths, while the US table says the US has a total of 68 deaths. And now you have put both tables under protection so we cannot correct the mistake. If you are going to clamp down on these tables, those who still have the privilege of editing should at least avoid obvious mistakes. Arrecife (talk) 15:54, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
I would like to suggest an edit to the footnote [b], by changing 'Reported confirmed cases. Actual case numbers are higher, but impossible to ascertain.' to 'Reported confirmed cases. Actual case numbers are most probably higher, but impossible to ascertain.' Lorenzo Diana (talk) 17:28, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
There is a pending update for Switzerland, I'm not sure what are the right numbers. Multiple sources are supposedly up-to-date but with different numbers: [12], [13]. What is the figure we're looking for? "Tested positive"? "Confirmed"? --MarioGom (talk) 14:49, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
RayDeeUx: it looks Worldometers is using the number for tested positive. If confirmed is the right thing, we should remove the Worldometers reference and add a comment for future reference. --MarioGom (talk) 16:44, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
Done. Updated Switzerland according to worldometers.info, although I still have doubts about the correct number, see the above thread. --MarioGom (talk) 15:39, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
Bennypc: can you read Thai? could you translate this? 1. ผู้ป่วยยืนยันติดเชื้อรักษาในโรงพยาบาล 229 ราย กลับบ้านแล้ว 42 ราย เสียชีวิต 1 ราย รวมสะสม 272 ราย Google Translate seems to be completely wrong. --MarioGom (talk) 09:26, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
IGNORE - IT WAS ALREADY UPDATED
I would like to report the new data of Italy: 33190 active cases, 4440 recoveries and 3405 deaths for a total of 41035 cases.[1]Lorenzo Diana (talk) 17:18, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
"Number of cases
As of 9am on 19 March 2020, 64,581 people have been tested in the UK, of which 61,352 were confirmed negative and 3,229 were confirmed positive. 144 patients in the UK who tested positive for coronavirus (COVID-19) have died."
UK confirmed case figure needs amemdment.
[2]BlackSun2104 (talk) 18:08, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
Done, see above. BlackSun2104: Please, do not open a new thread about the same country when your previous thread was not answered yet. It just adds more overhead for some editors to answer. Thank you! --MarioGom (talk) 18:42, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
Yeah. That's why I always make an effort to find the data from local sources (news outlets), rather than rely on Worldometer. They're about 90% accurate at most. M nurhaikal (talk) 10:13, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 March 2020
I have added a couple notes to Iran. WHO believes that Iran's death toll is severely underreported due to lack of testing and may be as much as five times higher. Titanium Dragon (talk) 07:08, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
I also think that the Chinese numbers are a complete fabrication, but this is a table of reported numbers, so whatever the numbers are officially reported, we put them in. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:26, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
Most countries are severely underreported once their healthcare system is collapsed. Spain tested only severe patients during last weeks and it is now trying to deploy rapid tests, but most cases go untested even after contacting health services. --MarioGom (talk) 00:24, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
US row too wide compared to the other countries
Can someone please amend this. I'm not sure how to. Thanks. M nurhaikal (talk) 15:36, 19 March 2020 (UT
+33 new confirmed cases in Poland, total of 411[20], and we need to change the total death to 5[21] (according to Polish MOH, the patients die because of another disease, she had covid-19 but, she died because of another disease) Natanieluz (talk) 15:31, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
Seems like it went back to 19,711, and there are also new deaths. Not the news I expected to see, but thanks for the reminder and source anyways. RayDeeUx (talk) 18:11, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 March 2020
BlackSun2104: Done. Someone updated it already. Please, keep in mind that we cannot update everything in real time. A lot of us are monitoring these sources, in particular for countries at the top of the table like Germany. Also, again, you don't need to include the same URL again for every message. --MarioGom (talk) 23:09, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 March 2020
Currently, the Chinese coronavirus epidemic in Haiti lacks an article, alone among all countries. Should it be added? Or a link to the NA article, at least?--Adûnâi (talk) 02:58, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
I think in the list of countries with cases should be also flag of EU with number of cases in the European Union, will be pretty informative. Is it possible to add it there? Peter1170 (talk) 11:25, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
Dont need to be original research. Just someone can add to tamplate some script, which will count cases from every country in the EU. In template are offcial numbers, so it will count automatically official numbers.Peter1170 (talk) 12:19, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
Ah but then we're getting into WP:SYNTH I think. Creating statistics from existing ones is not really what this template is for (would we no then fall foul of WP:SOURCE come to think of it?) I'm sure there might be a way in prose to refer to EU figures but adding an entry for the EU seems fairly "window dressing" to me. doktorbwordsdeeds12:24, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
Someone, on the grounds that the Australian figures should not include the 10 cases on the Diamond Princess, keeps reverting to figures that are from March 19. As of the 20th March (See the data on the Australian COVID19 page, Section 4, Total Cases, for tables and sources), Australia’s cases reached 875. This is stated to include the 10 on the ship. So how does 875 - 10 = 709?!! And if the death on the ship were included, Australia’s death toll would be 8. So the correct Australian totals excluding the ship victims should be 865 cases and 7 deaths. Can someone please straighten this out? Ptilinopus (talk) 13:40, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
Cyprus - the footnote states includes Northern Cyprus. But Northern Cyprus has also been added. So double counting. Jersey and Guernsey - separated out yet again - though the UK footnote says they are included. I’ve commented repeatedly about the need for consistency. If we separate out some dependent units, we need to for all - British, French, Dutch, Danish, US... And finally, Isle of Man on the maps is coloured as having cases - but is not included in the UK figures nor mentioned in the footnote. Can we get it straight please? Ptilinopus (talk) 13:49, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
El tiu Cancho: Thank you for noting this. ISCIII is updated about once a day with the daily report from the Ministry of Health. RTVE does almost real-time updates consolidating new data from different regions. So, except for a short time lapse every day at noon, RTVE is more up-to-date than ISCII. --MarioGom (talk) 14:04, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
Including TRNC
An user removed TRNC. But if there are British dependencies listed, TRNC should be listed as well. I added a note that TRNC is only recognized by Turkey. Beshogur (talk) 13:55, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
The table is presenting a false (and bleak) picture of the virus. You can't even correct it! For example, in New Zealand, there are 5 (five) cases, and most have recovered. The table shows no recoveries. The first person recovered on 1st Mar [22]. I mean, that's almost two weeks ago!! There are references for the others too, but I can't be bothered supplying them. I know they reported on the others, for example case 2 of the 5, a woman, is definitely recovered also. I'm sure that most if not all the other countries are wrong too. Please someone supplying this table - correct it, or remove it! It is wrong wrong wrong. Thank you. Wallie (talk) 09:31, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
What part of "New Zealand coronavirus patient recovers but concern about pandemic spreads" is unclear? The second case has been released and that is documented also. It is plain silly to give references to every single case. As stated, that is over 200,000 references. Wallie (talk) 12:06, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
Another aspect of the table I find odd is the discrepancy between the number of countries listed at the top and the actual number by count. At the present moment the summary at the top says 132 countries/territories. An actual count comes to 125. Where are the other 7 countries or territories? If they are included in a mother country (e.g. French Guiana in France), then they should not be counted separately as a country. Or if they are counted then they should be listed separately. Lack of accuracy/clarity on this verifiable point leads to doubt about the other less readily verifiable figures. In addition, there is a disconnect between the table and the map. The map shows at least 3 countries affected which are not in the table: Guinea, Sudan, and Cayman Islands. Ptilinopus (talk) 14:56, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
The table discrepancy continues. At this time the total countries at the top of table totals says 145 countries. An actual count of countries in the table is 136 plus 1 ship. Where are the missing 8? Ptilinopus (talk) 02:14, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
Again. Actual count of countries on the table is 137. The total at the top summary has jumped to 150! The source seems to be the dubious Worldometer. How about some consistency?! Incidentally there are 3 countries on the list that were not there 4 hours ago (Rwanda, Namibia, Antigua & Barbuda) - and 3 that have disappeared (since the count remains 137). I notice that Aruba and Curaçao have been deleted - though they are separate countries, equal to the Netherlands. Even so, their details have not been included with the Netherlands. I see Puerto Rico is listed though it much more part of the US than Aruba etc are of the Netherlands! I note the disappearance of Jersey and Guernsey too - even though they are not part of the United Kingdom. Nor have their data been added to that of the UK. Can we have consistency please? Ptilinopus (talk) 12:23, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
Before you go and denigrate Worldometer, maybe you should compare the countries and find out why there are more in Worldometer than in the main table. Cayman Islands, for example is reported in Worldometer, but not in the main table. It is an autonomous British Overseas Territory, which definitely makes it a "country or territory." And yes, Caymen Islands has a case, as reported in the Miami Heraldhttps://www.miamiherald.com/news/business/tourism-cruises/article241196966.html.DrHenley (talk) 02:18, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
While I would personally agree that it would be better to report geographically rather than politically, my biggest issue is consistency. At least now the table has adopted a consistent approach: dependencies are included in the main country. So as the footnotes to the table say, Gibraltar, Jersey, Guernsey and Cayman Islands are included under U.K., the French dependencies etc are under France, Aruba, Curaçao etc under Netherlands, Faeroe Is and Greenland under Denmark, Guam, Puerto Rico, US Virgin Is under USA etc. Previously, it was some one way, some the other. Arguing over definitions of countries is unprofitable. What has not changed is the totals versus the list. Overnight 4 more countries were added - Benin, Tanzania, Somalia and Liberia, but the total remains at 143. Actual count says 147. Ptilinopus (talk) 19:31, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
See my comment just above. Puerto Rico is not independent. I would like the table and map to reflect geographical spread - dependencies remote from the main country listed and shown separately. But for consistency, they are included in the main country. Regardless of preferences, consistency is better. Ptilinopus (talk) 19:31, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
Despite the protocol which had begun to be consistent, someone has again split out Jersey and Guernsey. Even though I would prefer to see such entities separated out to give a better view of the geographical spread, the adopted protocol has been that dependent territories/countries be included under the main country. Either Jersey and Guernsey should remain under the UK, or we should also separate out the French, Dutch, Danish, US and the rest of the British territories. Jersey and Guernsey are no more independent than are Faeroe Is, Greenland, Curaçao, Aruba, Cayman Is, Puerto Rico etc. Consistency please!!! Ptilinopus (talk) 00:12, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
Someone keeps putting incorrect country totals at the top of the table. As of now, by actual count, there are 149 countries and one ship - an increase of 2 (Gambia and Barbados) from yesterday. But the number given is 165. How does +2 become +18? Ptilinopus (talk) 02:25, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
Thanks Graeme Bartlett! I noted just now it had jumped again to 171, but someone has again just corrected it back to the current 153! However, I have transcribed the table into a spreadsheet so I could check the data, I find the total cases and total deaths are also incorrect and inflated. Can’t the table contain a formula to generate correct SUM of columns? Total Cases is given as 206,845; it is actually 204,698. And total Deaths is given as 8,272; the actual sum is 8,251. Ptilinopus (talk) 14:55, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
"Misconceptions are circulating about how to prevent infection, for example: rinsing the nose, gargling with mouthwash and eating garlic are not effective." The source does not say that garlic is ineffective. The source says that there are no studies regarding efficacy of garlic on COVID-19. (Garlic is rather broad antimicrobial and one of the likelier candidates. A future study *may* demonstrate some beneficial activity.)
The table should be sorted by number of deaths, not cases. The number of deaths is a better guide to the severity of the situation, and probably a better guide to the total number of hidden cases as well. Fig (talk) 17:31, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
Right now the table displayed leads to some questions. One that is important is how objective and correct the dataset is.
I understand that wikipedia can not act as a substitute for all countries, and these countries may use different set of standards and criteria to determine who died because of which cause; but I also think that wikipedia should make a much stronger effort to link in as MUCH useful and OBJECTIVE information as possible. Right now the dataset that I see is a bit strange. Countries that have a comparable wealth, and a comparable health system, have such a huge difference displayed in what they report. You can see this best within europe, with such huge differences. While some of this can be explained with e. g. better health care systems, there is a discrepancy in e. g. germany compared to the netherlands, and this is very confusing right now. So, IMO, we need to first make sure that the data is really correct. Yesterday I pointed out that some of the other data is a bit weird, e. g. recovery rate in south korea being slower than in china, which makes not a lot of sene, and is more indicative of the possibility that wikipedia has not yet added the information of more recoveries FROM south korea. IMO it is very important to make the dataset as correct as possible, because it will be used in discussions too. Wikipedia needs to be a great role model here, in particular because many private media report a lot of CRAP right now ... with factually incorrect data. 2A02:8388:1641:8380:3AD5:47FF:FE18:CC7F (talk) 15:05, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
We just report data available from reliable sources. No such thing as fully "correct" and comparable data exists yet. Each country reports in different ways and different intervals. --MarioGom (talk) 15:14, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
Do we include probable cases
Health Canada is reporting 846 confirmed cases and 27 probable cases. Do we include these probable cases Thank you for helping Wikipedia. Benica11 (talk). 15:28, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
Benica11: We are including confirmed cases only. Different countries might have slightly different criteria for reporting, or sometimes it might not be clear in the press. But if both figures are known, we're using confirmed cases. --MarioGom (talk) 15:32, 20 March 2020 (ch 2020 (UTC)
As you said, the options would provide criteria for all territories. We can either combine all autonomous territories into their official country or separate all of them from their 'mainland'. I recall, early on in this wiki (about two months ago), that a consensus was reached about separating Hong Kong data from China. If we decide to combine all data into the one country, we should revert that decision. My only opinion is that we should have a uniform standard for all countries, not just separating Chinese autonomous territories. JMonkey2006 (talk) 00:54, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
Source [6] messing up the tsble
It's appearing as cited sources for multiple countries and can't be clicked. Can someone who's more knowledgeable fix this. M nurhaikal (talk) 05:18, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
Add a column on the leftmost side to make it numbered list.
E.g.
1 China 81,008 ...
2 Italy 47,021 ...
....
This number help daily viewers to see how quickly a country progresses compared to other countries (more quickly or more slowly) Tungpham20 (talk) 05:04, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
We won't add any columns to the table unless there is a consensus here to do so. The problem is that the table becomes wider, and then has trouble displaying on phones. Anyway if others have opinions on this please comment in this section. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:03, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
MarioGomI tried Google Translate and found this other official source from Danish government: https://www.ssi.dk/aktuelt/sygdomsudbrud/coronavirus/covid-19-i-danmark-epidemiologisk-overvaagningsrapport"Fra slutningen af februar til den 11. marts testede man primært personer med både milde og mere alvorlige luftvejssymptomer, der rejste til Danmark fra lande med høj smittespredning, for COVID-19. Dette skete som led i inddæmningsfasen. Fra den 12. marts er man som led i afbødningsstrategien overgået til at teste folk med indlæggelseskrævende symptomer for COVID-19. " JMKaisar (talk) 23:33, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
Suggest you include a column stating number of days since index-case was identified; it would greatly help
interprete the strength of the daily situation and infere what part of the curb a given country might be in.
csa. MD. MPH.201.214.235.3 (talk) 15:09, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
Done - Hello, and thank you for lending your time to help improve Wikipedia! If you are interested in editing more often, I suggest you create an account to gain additional privileges. Happy editing! - MrX 🖋 18:43, 21 Ma
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 March 2020
We list 1,587 recoveries in France. As far as I can tell, this figure does not come from official reports ([27]) and I couldn't find it in the press. Worldometers has this number, but I'm not sure where it comes from. Could someone help finding a source for this? Thank you. --MarioGom (talk) 20:06, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
San Marino cases count to:
Confirmed: 111 (102+9)
Deaths: 9
Recovered: 4
Done. i am currently interpreting the count of recovered patients to be separate from the "casi positivi", so i have updated the number of positive cases to 115 (102+9+4). please let me know if i am interpreting the source incorrectly. thanks for referencing the cited source! dying (talk) 17:18, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
Not done. While many of the regular editors of the template agree that WorldOMeter isn't reliable, we have already shifted away from WorldOMeter by using local sources such as reports from the Ministry of Health from various countries, WHO, or reliable nation-specific sources. Past edit requests have also been asked to include sources other than WorldOMeter as part of a measure to shift away from WorldOMeter.
Partly done. hope i did that correctly, as i don't have a screenreader to confirm. please let me know if otherwise. i've left the extra "px" and "em" in there because a similar change had been made before but there was a reason to revert it. please let me know if the removal of those units is necessary to make the table navigable for screenreaders. dying (talk) 03:56, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
Already done Number already updated with this source from Estonia's Heath Board. Alucard 16❯❯❯ chat? 14:11, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
Not done: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the template 
Partly done: The numbers were updated but the secondary source was not. So I went ahead and updated the source Lpgomar Alucard 16❯❯❯ chat? 07:44, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
Czech Republic to 572, as the official source says: https://onemocneni-aktualne.mzcr.cz/covid-19 Garyczek (talk) 08:07, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
Done Alucard 16❯❯❯ chat? 09:33, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
