Talk:COVID-19 pandemic in Japan/Archive 1

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:52, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Abe and First Novel Coronavirus Expert Meeting.jpg

Are you going to update the case map?
Are you going to update the case map? That is, are you going to update the map showing which prefectures have confirmed infections? 2604:3D09:A580:680:F5DB:5FCF:36B5:C215 (talk) 10:32, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

First Case in Japan: Jan. 15, not Jan. 16
+ https://github.com/swsoyee/2019-ncov-japan/blob/master/50_Data/byDate.csv + https://mhlw-gis.maps.arcgis.com/apps/opsdashboard/index.html#/0c5d0502bbb54f9a8dddebca003631b8 User: Emmanuel Planas   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.187.170.52 (talk) 12:05, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * These Japanese sources below show that the 1st COVID-19 case was identified in Japan on January 15th and not Jan. 16th as the Wikipedia July 15th version shows: has to be corrected. Thank you.
 * ✅ Zoozaz1 (talk) 01:10, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Three different numbers?
Template:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data: 675; this article: 716; Template:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data: 804.--Adûnâi (talk) 19:10, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

WikiProject COVID-19
I've created WikiProject COVID-19 as a temporary or permanent WikiProject and invite editors to use this space for discussing ways to improve coverage of the ongoing 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic. Please bring your ideas to the project/talk page. Stay safe, -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 17:27, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Dates in template are one day off from dates in WHO situation reports?
The template's date's/counts are accurate and seem to come from the WHO, https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/situation-reports. However the date for the counts seems to be one day off, for example the count listed for 2020-04-02 matches what the WHO gives for 2020-04-03. This makes the chart/template seem to be missing the current day's entry.

If this an actual data entry error? If so I'm happy to fix it. Totsubo (talk) 10:04, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Timeline updates
When including statistical figures in the timeline, please consider the following rules:

Article size Lists, tables, and other material that is already in summary form may not be appropriate for reducing or summarizing further by the summary style method. If there is no "natural" way to split or reduce a long list or table, it may be best to leave it intact, and a decision made to either keep it embedded in the main article or split it off into a stand-alone page. Regardless, a list or table should be kept as short as is feasible for its purpose and scope. Too much statistical data is against policy.

If you would like to emphasize that a certain place is a hotspot or experiencing a public health disaster, I think it is better to cite a specific event (such as a declaration of an emergency, a Governor's statement, or a large-scale event) rather than just including numbers.Randdavit (talk) 00:43, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Need photo related to less people around Tokyo and Osaka
Can anyone take some photos related to fewer people on the streets of Tokyo and Osaka? Hope someone can translate it in Japanese version of Wikipedia see the photo for reference and upload it into this category, Thank You!--Wpcpey (talk) 12:47, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Differences to Wikipedia in Japanese
Is there any explanation for the difference in the number compared to Wikipedia in Japanese? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.56.241.23 (talk) 07:16, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

I'd like to ask the same question. The English page always seems to be two days ahead of the Japanese language page. Why is this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.67.45.199 (talk) 05:01, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

The Japanese don't seem to be really into Wikipedia I guess? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 240D:1A:8AF:4D00:9DE9:AABB:1033:CB49 (talk) 17:32, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

'Wikipedia has many more editors in English than in Japanese. Wikipedia is edited by volunteers who don't necessarily have multilingual skills. Most Japanese and English versions of pages differ in content, focus, length. This article is no different. Without a team of multilingual editors co-ordinating on these two pages, there's no hope they could ever match. Wikipedia is only as reliable as the individuals invested in improving it, on a page by page basis. Perhaps when all of this has died down, the two pages will at least settle into better fact-checked versions of their current condition. If you have multilingual skills it would be great if you could factcheck content and improve it, while retaining healthy skepticism over the accuracy and format of both pages. See also this New Scientist article regarding language biases on Wikipedia.Louise000 (talk) 04:23, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

I've just checked the Japanese Wikipedia's source for confirmed cases and deaths. They both utilise NHK, but the one we're using appears to be a snapshot (English WP source) while the one over there (Japanese WP source) is updated daily; as of typing this reply up it reflects the numbers for 14 April 2020 at 10:30 AM (UTC+9). Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  05:00, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Pending changes
Should this document be changed to the pending change level? I often edit documents, and in some cases, other users don't want to change the document. That's why I would like to know if changing to a pending change level is the opinion of the majority of other users. If the opinions of the majority of other users are notified of the incident that they should be taken by others, the phenomenon that makes me feel uncomfortable and unconfirmed that my document change history is suddenly blanked out by other users will disappear smoothly. 211.237.125.110 (talk) 08:30, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Additionally, if this document is set to a pending change level, I believe that the reliability of the document will not be diminished by reducing the number of attempts made by the user. In addition, I would like to reduce the amount of time wasted by making some controversial changes as a result, like I did before.For that reason, it would be nice if the setting items in the document would be at the level of pending change even for a certain period of time. 211.237.125.110 (talk) 08:55, 21 April 2020 (UTC)


 * As it stands the article has seen many constructive or good faith edits by unregistered users. At the moment page protection seems like it would do more harm than help.   Mccunicano  ☕️  11:31, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Using NHK over Ministry of Health?
Hi guys, dropping in from Template:2019-20 coronavirus pandemic data. We've been noticing a discrepancy with numbers being reported here on this page versus the ones on the template. From what I can tell it's because NHK is being used here whereas on the template the Ministry of Health's (MoH) reports are being used. What's the reason for using NHK? An editor on the template said that the MoH was the most cited source on other sites and as such is the source we're using on there. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  21:47, 20 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Wouldn't a secondary source be preferred per WP:PSTS?   Mccunicano  ☕️  11:47, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , governmental reports can be considered as a secondary source as the primary source would be the research data acquired from testing. A lot of other articles use their governments as the source, such as: 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Wisconsin, 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Canada, and 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Taiwan. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  15:45, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I do however see this bit down here: 各地の自治体や厚生労働省に取材して判明した情報をNHKが集計したものです. which says that NHK draws from the MoH and municipalities. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  15:52, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

NHK is just one news mass-media agency, and it does not have the reliability and verifiability (on Wikipedia) beyond the government's announcement. For example, the number of victims and injuries in typhoons and flood damage in the Japanese version of Wikipedia has already been agreed as the standard for government announcements. So it's safe to think that adopting numbers from NHK might be a violation of the rules, even in the English version (finally an agreement is needed, what about the COVID19-related agreement on English Wikipedia ?)--Kyuri1449 (talk) 11:49, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Plot of the number of cases.
The plot of the number of cases is not congruent with it's source. Notably the deaths are listed at 132 while the official count on the ministry's website is currently at 98. I fixed the number of cases for recent days, which was also off but if someone could go through the data and figure out where the discrepancy started, especially with deaths, it would be nice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.253.63.20 (talk) 16:02, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

I did some revising, and the numbers are all over the place. As stated in the chart's subtext, please use the WHO Situation Reports and Ministry of Health reports to update the daily chart. They provide us with a uniform source to help us track the rise of cases over a long period of time. --Randdavit (talk) 00:13, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

The chart is listing the numbers from April 20th for April 19th. Either the timezone difference is causing a discrepancy or there is a day that is missing.

The jump in deaths on April 22nd is due to previously unconfirmed deaths being confirmed. Someone should add a note explaining this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.253.63.20 (talk) 14:06, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Statistics
Statistics related to this article are needs to be updated for showing recent situations. HeroNumberZero (talk) 15:41, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:52, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Japanese Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare "Three Cs".pdf

Second wave? The first was never stopped!
Hi from Germany! I just looked at this article the first time and was surprised to see that there was a second wave in Japan in the content. But looking at the charts, there never was a decline in new cases in Japan! So the so-called first wave was never stopped! Look at our charts in Germany, we had a remarkable first wave that was broken, unfortunately in some of our states politicians now believe "hey, we reduced the measures, and the number of new cases is still stable now, so we can continue to reduce the measures". (Believing, if we do that slowly, the virus will not realize it.) A pandemic can not be fooled like that. --88.68.59.47 (talk) 07:03, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I meant the "second wave starting end of march". NOW, there is really a new wave. --88.68.59.47 (talk) 07:06, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello. Yes, Japan is still in the first wave. Last June, I was hearing in the news (BS1 NHK) about the second wave coming so it implies we are still in the first wave. I just noticed the section subheaders implying that the second wave started in March now that you mentioned it. Thatnks for bringing it up. I hope those maintaining this page reads your comment. —Allenjambalaya (talk) 08:10, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

A couple of source articles
&mdash;Jerome Potts (talk) 08:44, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Excess mortality: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-05-12/tokyo-mortality-tally-shows-no-surge-in-deaths-during-pandemic
 * https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-05-22/did-japan-just-beat-the-virus-without-lockdowns-or-mass-testing

Page exceeds post-expand include size limit
This page currently exceeds the post-expand include size limit, which means that the some templates on the page will not display properly. On other COVID-19 pandemic pages, this has been resolved by moving graphs and charts to a separate page and linking to them, instead of including them all in-line on this page. I would suggest a similar approach here. --Ahecht (TALK PAGE ) 07:19, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. Without looking at concrete PEIS values, the biggest offenders appear to be the "Statistics" section and the first graph displayed in the article (featuring tabbed view for different months). — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  18:03, 5 July 2020 (UTC)


 * You may be interested in this discussion: Wikipedia_talk:Template_limits. --Prototyperspective (talk) 21:19, 26 September 2020 (UTC)


 * So the problem still persists. I take it no one would object if we move statistics to Statistics of the COVID-19 pandemic in Japan? Any one or two charts we want to keep here? Pinging, who originally raised the concern in July, and , who appears to be the editor maintaining this article. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  07:19, 1 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Sure, no objections. Perhaps everything under that subheader can be moved already. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 09:09, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅. Everything's been moved over to Statistics of the COVID-19 pandemic in Japan. I only had to remove COVID-19 pandemic data/Japan medical cases from this page as it was taking up over 2/5 of the allowed PEIS limit. Cheers! — Tenryuu 🐲  ( 💬 • 📝 )  15:54, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles for different prefectures
Since Japan is starting to get more cases, I think we should start making Wikipedia articles for each individual prefecture, like how it’s broken up for American states. Any thoughts? — Okonomiyaki39 (talk) 02:12, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:37, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Japanese Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare "Three Cs".pdf

Update
Update or unlock. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 36.11.229.54 (talk) 09:29, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

PEIS warning
The following warning appears on the page when you preview it:

Warning: Post-expand include size is too large. Some templates will not be included.

Since the seven charts in the "Statistics" section haven't been updated since November 2021, I hid them and the now empty section using an HTML comment, which removed the warning. If you want to keep the charts, I would suggest switching the source data from daily numbers to something more practical like weekly or monthly. If this doesn't resolve the warning, then I also suggest doing the same to the daily Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/Japan medical cases chart. Jroberson108 (talk) 13:30, 24 February 2022 (UTC)