Talk:COVID-19 pandemic in Wales

OR comparison table
in your revert of my removal of your recent addition your edit summary read: "NOT OR; comprehensibly referenced to solid sources." Given that WP:OR states: "This [OR] includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources." perhaps you could clarify which reliable sources use this selection of countries and of data sources to conclude that this is a "comparison with other small nations". It would help too if you gave the criteria those sources used to select this subset of countries with less than 10M population, and whether they noted the futility in suggesting that, without skilful statistical analysis of all the likely contributory factors to the differences, that this comparison tells us anything. Also, perhaps (per WP:BRD), whilst we try to reach a consensus over whether to keep this content, you could remove the disputed content and restore the status quo, to help honour the collegiate nature of article development that Wikipedia encorages. -- DeFacto (talk). 08:43, 9 May 2020 (UTC)


 * You refer to this table and explanation:


 * Health care in the United Kingdom is a devolved matter, with England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales each having their own systems of publicly funded healthcare, funded by and accountable to separate governments and parliaments, together with smaller private sector and voluntary provision. As a result of each country having different policies and priorities, a variety of differences now exist between these systems.


 * Deaths per 100,000 population of all 4 countries of the UK, as at 9 May 2020.


 * The ongoing measure of rate (number of deaths divided by population) is used consistently worldwide as well as by WHO. The death rate of each country in the table comes from one source: GOV.UK, so there's no conflict, no 'original research' there. The 4 countries exist as a group on the same page of the GOV.UK website; it's the full list of counties in the UK; so the WP:OR remains intact. Which reliable sources use this selection of countries? GOV.UK. Dividing the # of deaths with the population in mathematical terms can not be described as 'analysis or synthesis'.


 * If what you say is correct, then how come we have the following on Commons?


 * John Jones (talk) 15:32, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * no, it wasn't that table, it was the one you added in this edit with Iceland, Georgia, New Zealand, etc. as I said at the top of my post. And Commons have different rules to Wikipedia, and I don't know whether those diagrams break their rules, or not. But that wouldn't be relevant anyway as the solution there, if they broke the rules too, would be to remove them too. -- DeFacto (talk). 16:48, 11 May 2020 (UTC)


 * What rule do you refer to, that would be different? For diseases it is common to give infection rates per 100 000. worldometers.info offer the choice to sort data per 1 mio. How would you prefer to compare New York to the United States, London to UK, Germany to Austria? Absolute numbers cry for records, while just relative numbers do offer the option for a real comparison. --Traut (talk) 14:16, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * as far as I know, Commons don't have NPOV, OR or verifiabilty policies. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:49, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't know what the dispute here was about - but the charts shown above just do use official numbers, the division of ECDC by population. Don't know how this could conflict with NPOV or OR --Traut (talk) 19:36, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * you need to read the first post in this thread to see what it's about. In a nutshell, it's the selection of the randon countries being compared and the lack of any explanations of the dangers of comparing numbers collected using different methodologies in the table added with this edit. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:55, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Ok, now I see - there is no real pattern how to select and compare data with other countries. There would be more than 100 to compare with. Any subset is based on subjective selections. The graphs above are selective too - I excluded those below 10 mio. In fact I used above 30 mio. But I included Sweden because they chose a different approach instead of lockdown, making the comparison more interesting. --Traut (talk) 21:38, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Deaths
Which deaths were counted? Death caused by the China-Virus or death person just infected with the China-Virus? How does the death number for January to June 2020 compare to recent years? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.8.233.210 (talk) 08:37, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The subsection 'ONS excess mortality data' sets out clearly the total deaths from all causes and compares it with the same in recent years. It is apparent that very few excess deaths occurred prior to April and a large number occurred between early April and mid-June. These numbers are largely reflected in the 'deaths with confirmed or suspected Covid19' values on the same graph. Yadsalohcin (talk) 10:01, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

5 mile limit
Please can the article be updated to include the 5 mile from home travel restriction, when it was imposed and when relaxed. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-53281723 John a s (talk) 12:01, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Scrolling problem
Great to have both the new cases daily and by week, but (despite the "overflow-x: scroll;" in the code) the daily chart does not display for me with a scroll bar, so I can't see the latest numbers- what's needed to fix this, please? Yadsalohcin (talk) 21:19, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Ps scrolling is fine on the mobile version I can see using Android... It is the desktop version seen in Firefox that is my issue...Yadsalohcin (talk) 22:15, 27 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Fixed- found missing ; new cases daily now shows scroll bar and seems fully functional Yadsalohcin (talk) 07:27, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Welsh Government videos - please add!
Hi all. After a few months of discussions, the Welsh Government have agreed to place all their You Tube videos on a Creative Commons open licence (CC-BY) and an OGL licence. This is massive! I don't think any other governments have done this; correct me if I'm wrong! I've so far added around 40 of their videos on Commons, and they will be adding pre-July videos in the next few weeks, also on open licences, which I will add to this list (with summaries) on Commons. You can add them to this article, and any other articles of course! They could also be a separate list aricle, a kind of video diary. Feel free to use and reuse on any of our wiki projects! Llywelyn2000 (talk) 17:59, 30 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes, that'll be really helpful especially given how thin on the ground non-copyright imagery to represent modern news events often is. I've added one of the videos to the circuit-breaker section of the timeline. Llewee (talk) 12:56, 1 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi Llewee. There was no 'circuit-breaker' in Wales. Please tread carefully, for you are treading on our graves. John Jones (talk) 19:20, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

New cases per day in 2020
The graph of new cases per day in 2020 has developed a number of errors. When I extract all the data from the current source (the 'Wales' column in the data in the 'Cases by date reported, by nation' section for figures are as reported daily at coronavirus.data.gov.uk GOV.UK Coronavirus (COVID-19) in the UK (section: Daily cases by date reported)) there's a lot of differences prior to August. Were we using a different source early on? Unless someone knows better regarding the source of the earlier numbers, I therefore propose replacing:

With:

(Above from user:Yadsalohcin, 31 Dec 2020)

but I cannot see any "data available on PHW" as described. Can someone point the article at the source, please? I had spotted that the new daily cases graph no longer had any annotation about the 'data glitch' declared on 16 December, and perhaps hastily put something back in about it- the numbers being used appeared to have been corrected retrospectively, but there was no note about it. I still cannot find the "data available on PHW" as described.
 * There is an edit note today which says: "2a00:23c7:8d84:4500:d91f:48b1:40c0:8dff talk‎ 92,598 bytes −462‎ →‎New cases per day: - used the data available on PHW to correct the cases per day after the original delay in December undo Tag: references removed"


 * ...2021, 780, 2238, 1968, 2234, 2494, 0, 1228, 615, 530, 11468, 2801,...
 * has been replaced with:
 * ...2021, 780, 2602, 2692, 2664, 2812, 2285, 2734, 3539, 3181, 3142, 2801,...


 * which, though eminently credible, is currently unsourced.


 * Meanwhile the numbers from earlier in the year were still not matching the values in the cited source (coronavirus.data.gov.uk) and as there have been no voices of dissent regarding the paragraph above (from 31 Dec 2020) I have now amended the numbers for earlier in the year. Yadsalohcin (talk) 19:04, 12 January 2021 (UTC)


 * yeah you're right, the replacement numbers over December appear to be the case numbers by specimen date - I've revised them to match the source as we shouldn't be mixing different data sets on the same graph. There were a couple of other typos from September and October now fixed too. Pilchard (talk) 15:58, 16 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi Pilchard, thanks for this! Yadsalohcin (talk) 19:13, 17 January 2021 (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) 22:38, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Vaccination-strategy-for-wales (page 10) map of vaccination centres in Wales 7th of Jan.jpg

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) 03:55, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Covid-19 Welsh dragon painting in front of Penrhyndeudraeth road sign, Wales, UK (July 2020).png

Update required to identify years
As we are now more than a year since the first lockdown, the text in this and many other articles relating to Covid-19 needs urgently to be updated, as there are frequent references to "March" and "April" without mention of the year being identified. This is severely misleading, and requires an editor to go through the articles to clarify that the March or April mentioned refers to 2020, not to 2021. Rif Winfield (talk) 08:29, 25 March 2021 (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) 04:33, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Vaccination-strategy-for-wales (page 10) map of vaccination centres in Wales 7th of Jan.jpg