Talk:COVID-19 pandemic in the United Kingdom/Archive 4

This article and...Wales
I'm starting two sections in this talk page to attempt to focus our collective attentions in a measured and calm way. Let us look at this article, as freshly and neutrally as we can, and ask ourselves, "Does this article, with United Kingdom in its title, give Wales adequate, fair, and measure coverage?" If not, let us explore why not, and how to solve the problems, each in turn. doktorb wordsdeeds 10:07, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * just curious, but why not three sections, with one for Northern Ireland too? Or even four, to give England a fair hearing? -- DeFacto (talk). 10:57, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Nothing malicious, just a focus on two areas and take it from there. doktorb wordsdeeds 11:10, 21 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Sensible way forward. Let us hear very specific points one by one of what people believe is missing and see if it can be added. When considering current content we must remember that the UK Government does not only speak for England on many issues during this crisis despite devolved administrations having the responsibility of implementing different regulations. And we must not forget that England makes up the vast majority of the population of the UK and the majority of the cases of Coronavirus and deaths from it. The article must give due weight to that.


 * The aim of improvements to this article must be to add appropriate detail for Wales/Scotland and Northern Ireland. Not strip this article of most of its content to remove stuff that relates to England. RWB2020 (talk) 10:59, 21 May 2020 (UTC)


 * - we must remember that the UK Government does not only speak for England on many issues . No! Not in the case of COVID-19; some issues, maybe, but not many! Give me 5 examples (which, possibly you may find), and I'll give you 10 where Johnson and co give the impression that they're speaking for 'the whole of the UK', but in fact they speak only for England. This only shows the indoctrination of Wikipedian editors by the very biased English media. John Jones (talk) 17:47, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * If you think theres a problem with the article. Be specific and suggest how each bit should be improved. Point by point. Im really not interested at all in your irrational and incorrect rants about what you think the UK Government has a right to say or do. Your lack of understanding of the devolution settlement is not my problem. RWB2020 (talk) 19:43, 21 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I've suggested improvements over the last 3 weeks: read 'Template:Over coverage' above for a list of the first 10%. Secondly, What have I said that is incorrect? Please specify. I'm rather surprised that you didn't manage to find 5 examples where the UK Government did actually 'speaks for the whole of the UK, rather than just England'! Probably because they never did. Lastly, what bit about devolution do I not understand, and do give me examples so that I can learn from you. John Jones (talk) 20:24, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * On a previous rant you said "If this statement was true, BJ would be breaking the law; education is devolved!" The British Prime Minister and UK Parliament can legislate on any matter including devolved issues. The idea that he would be breaking the law is laughable. It was in relation to the fact at the Cobra session earlier in that day all the devolved administrations and the UK Government had agreed that schools would close. England, Wales and Scotland's schools were to close at the end of the week. Northern Ireland's closed the very same day. But the PM announced the decision for the whole country, not just England. In exactly the same way that the PM announced that there had been agreement with the devolved administrations that all pubs would close at the same time too and there have been similar UK wide announcements, even though implementation has been down to the devolved administrations to carry out.
 * You also said " which briefing? The briefing led by Handcock is the England briefing!". The UK Government's daily press briefing is not the "England briefing", it is a UK briefing for the whole UK, even though some of the matters that get announced may only apply to England. The graphs shown each day and data published, is UK wide data.
 * You also said; "Johnson stated that the UK was on level four, moving towards level three... table is for England only" - No, that is a UK Government table for the whole United Kingdom, and the chart even says UK on it. The devolved administrations may set up their own separate systems, but the UK Government absolutely can and does have levels which apply across the United Kingdom, even though the actions that follow in those levels remain devolved matters. RWB2020 (talk) 20:43, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Your points in turn:
 * 1) This article had the following information: Boris Johnson made a statement on his daily briefing, announcing that all schools in the UK were to close on Friday... Not saying that he was speaking on behalf of the 4 governments was (and is) misleading! Once again - an attempt to deceive the reader that Johnson is omnipotent, had created the diktat himself, and this, I can assure you is WP:BIAS at its worst. Your statement that Westminster can over-rule Welsh (or Scottish) law is correct, but has never been done; not once, not even now during COVID-19. And without doing so, without over-ruling the devolved governments, Boris Johnson WOULD be breaking the law. Please don't edit on matters which you obviously don't understand. The sentence (Boris Johnson made a statement on his daily briefing, announcing that all schools in the UK were to close on Friday) gives the impression that he has created a law which over-ruled the devolved governments and that is not true. Wikipedia needs to be 100% clear in these matters.
 * 2) If you believe that Hancock speaks for the whole of the UK, then you are very, very wrong. He speaks only for ENGLAND! They can call it 'UK Briefing', just as you call this article UK, where in fact 95% is about England. That is a fact that needs to be given to the reader of Wikipedia - not political rubbish coming from the Conservative party or elsewhere. Rather than saying Matt Hancock told the briefing..., an unbias article would say: Matt Hancock told the UK briefing... or Matt Hancock told the England briefing... Not stating which of the 4 governments' briefing make lazy editing, and is very unclear to the reader.
 * 3) No! Not unless the devolved governments agree to be on the same UK level. That has not yet happened. Clarity please! John Jones (talk) 21:39, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia goes by the sources and reality. even if you don't like something or think something should not have been said or should not have happened. If the UK Government call it a UK briefing, the media call it a UK briefing, and the briefing contains UK data and questions that relate to all of the UK. How is it not a UK briefing? RWB2020 (talk) 22:12, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * So if Trump says, "Domestos curres COVID-19": using your rational, Wikipedia should also say that? Nonsense! You ask How is it not a UK briefing? Read my comments again. What is written in this article is Matt Hancock told the briefing... It does not say which briefing, which of the 4 briefings. And like many other sentences in this article, is therefore unclear and ambiguous to all but true blue Unionist English nationalists (to paraphrase your words earlier on). John Jones (talk) 22:27, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Wiki would say Trump said it, not that it was true. And reliable sources wouldnt be saying its fact. But leaving that aside, i have absolutely no problem at all with the article saying "Matt Hancock told the UK briefing" rather than "the briefing". That seems like a totally reasonable thing to say. Im just objecting to the idea that it is in any way an "England briefing" which is not accurate. RWB2020 (talk) 22:32, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I have changed the sentence before the Matt Hancock briefing bit, to say UK Government's briefing where it previously just said government's briefing. As that covers the same day and the Hancock sentence directly follows it, it should be clear to everyone now which briefing is being talked about. No problem at all with those sorts of changes being made if there are similar corrections needed within the article. RWB2020 (talk) 22:40, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Subheadings for "Research" section?
Hi all, is there a rationale for the lack of subheadings in the Research and innovation section? MassiveEartha (talk) 16:59, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * @ Someone created the section with about four or five different things. Clearly were not expecting it to be expanded in a proper way. If you can think of appropriate titles, please add them. Games of the world (talk) 17:52, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * COVID-19 is dealt with by country, therefore we too should sub-head by country. I suggest starting with least population (NI), so that we can attain a fair balance. John Jones (talk) 06:17, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * No just no. There is not one study or research project that is confined to a particular country. The first suggestion was reasonable, your suggestion is not. Games of the world (talk) 07:45, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with John Jones! Health is devolved! Wales reports as a nation on the statistics, with NHS Wales and Public Health Wales working together. The same applies to all 3 other countries. Of course there is research by the other 3 nations - have you read what's happening in Cardiff + Bangor Universities? Obviously not. This article doesn't even mention research other than that in England. Wici Rhuthun 1 (talk) 10:06, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * This section must not be split by nation, that is nonsensical and illogical. This should be a summary of notable research on COVID-19 regardless of location. If you find research that should be added meeting standards of notability and reliable sources then add it. |→ Spaully ~talk~ 10:13, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The whole section reads like a list of unconnected facts, separate headings of "Research" and "Innovation" are obvious ones, then subdivide into types of research. Will give it a go. |→ Spaully ~talk~ 10:20, 17 May 2020 (UTC)−
 * This article is a geographical based article, therefore, a geographical breakdown of this section is imperative. Anything else would confuse the reader. 2A00:23C6:9908:CD00:B587:8643:E1A4:2D60 (talk) 05:34, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

This article and...Scotland
I'm starting two sections in this talk page to attempt to focus our collective attentions in a measured and calm way. Let us look at this article, as freshly and neutrally as we can, and ask ourselves, "Does this article, with United Kingdom in its title, give Scotland adequate, fair, and measure coverage?" If not, let us explore why not, and how to solve the problems, each in turn. doktorb wordsdeeds 10:07, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm gonna risk making an idiot of myself here. Why talk about it on the talk page before you've tried in some way to improve the article's coverage of Scotland and run into problems like repeated reversions? Otherwise, just add the content you want to add. Archon 2488 (talk) 16:08, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Because we have to start somewhere. If an editor introduces lots of Scottish content into the article without reaching consensus beforehand, then that's one situation. If an editor removes lots of Scottish content without etc etc. I thought maybe a new approach was needed. Improving the article in the current way isn't working if this talk page is any guide. So let's focus on two home nations as a starting point. See what needs doing and work on that, then move on to the next problem, and so on. It can't help to try doing things "the other way round" doktorb wordsdeeds 22:23, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Start with the map in the Infobox. Apart from the fact that it has no sources, it doesn't either have the country borders in place. This article is about 4 governments, 4 National Health Services, 4 Public Health bodies in 4 different countries. Not ensuring the map reflects that is bias, and shows that neutrality has gone through the window in this article. I will certainly remove the map and tag this article again, if things don't improve. The article is long enough as it is; start with removing trivial stuff about England. John Jones (talk) 22:34, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * This is an article about the United Kingdom. The main map in the infobox does not need to show internal boundaries of the United Kingdom. Removal of the map is absolutely something id reverse, especially if its removal is for the politically motivated reasons you just listed. RWB2020 (talk) 05:31, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I will also undo edits that mass remove content about England which are clearly being removed for political reasons too. RWB2020 (talk) 05:33, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Start with adding the fact that when Boris announced opening up lockdown in England, with his "Stay Alert" policy, he did not consult with the other 3 governments. 2A00:23C6:9908:CD00:B587:8643:E1A4:2D60 (talk) 05:46, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Re: This is an article about the United Kingdom. No it's NOT!!! THIS IS AN ARTICLE ABOUT COVID-19 in 4 countries, and how the 4 governments are dealing with the pandemic. These 4 countries COLLECTIVELY can be termed UK, but UK does not = England. Get it right! Secondly, decolonialising this article, balancing and getting a balanced article is not a "polical" act! That tells me more about you than anything else! 2A00:23C6:9908:CD00:B587:8643:E1A4:2D60 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:20, 22 May 2020 (UTC)


 * There is a clear political agenda here by some editors to pretend the United Kingdom is not a country. The Anti English and anti British bias on display on this talk page is very transparent. This is an article about COVID-19 in the Uk. There are separate articles individually for each part of the United Kingdom for even more detail. But as over 80% of the population of the UK is in England and the vast majority of the deaths and cases of Covid have been from that part of the UK too, It should not come as a surprise that more content may relate to developments in England. This article goes out of its way to already make clear the devolved administrations and different restrictions in place in different parts of the UK. I don't accept there is some big problem but there certainly will be if we allow the extremely biased political edits to this article some seem to want. RWB2020 (talk) 07:32, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Considering that the four countries of the UK have separate governments with powers over most aspects of how Covid-19 is being dealt with, and that separate articles exist for how those governments have dealt with the crisis, surely the purpose of this article is to be a place where the responses of the different governments within the United Kingdom can be compared? This should not require 80% of the article to be about England. Birtig (talk) 08:45, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Well said! I totally agree with Birtig. Now, let's debunk aa lot of English 'trvia' as someone said earlier, to the COVID-19 pandemic in England article. Wici Rhuthun 1 (talk) 08:51, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 80% of the contents of this article is not about England. The point was 80% of the population and deaths are in England so it is understandable that there is going to be more content relating to that. If you think this article should be 25% Scotland. 25% Wales.25% Northern Ireland and 25% England then it is being totally unrealistic. And its out of step with every other country article where regional differences occur too. This article already does make very clear the differences in approach between different parts of the United Kingdom, the different timings, stats, and rules of lockdown etc. RWB2020 (talk) 09:00, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

I've added the Template:Which to around 20 ambiguous, unclear, foggy instances of the government. All the others need to be done. This is both lazy writting, biased editing and makes the default = England! Wici Rhuthun 1 (talk) 10:28, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Imagine going through this article adding which tags to bits that are obviously talking about the UK Government, rather than just adding UK Government if its such a big problem. Then you accuse others of lazy writing.  So pathetic. Heres a solution, how about we refer to the UK Government as the Government throughout the article and just use the term Devolved administrations for the others if theres such confusion. It would avoid some repetition and also better reflect the relationship and status of the different authorities.    RWB2020 (talk) 12:39, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * For example. lets take the bit in the introduction. "On 20 March, the four governments shut all schools,[15] restaurants, pubs, indoor entertainment venues and leisure centres, with some exceptions." That might cause confusion as to what these "four governments" are. Maybe it would be more accurate and clearer for people to understand if we put "The UK Government and the devolved administrations shut all..."? Would maybe help avoid anyone getting confused about what governments we are talking about. I know clarity is really important to some here.  RWB2020 (talk) 12:45, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Also the default stance for a reader to see gov would to assume that it is the UK gov. If it is Welsh or Scot gov then clarify. But putting tags like that through out the article is just disruptive. Games of the world (talk) 13:25, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The easiest solution is to simply add 'for England' when a paragraph is about an action of the UK government or UK government minister that was only for England, and 'for the whole UK' when the action affected the whole UK. Birtig (talk) 14:31, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Trouble is, in a list above of supposed examples of problems with the article, where an editor alleges its only about England, they are in fact incorrect, and it is actually about the UK. For example.. attempting to claim that the UK Government's 5pm daily press conference is an England one is blatantly absurd. Yet thats what someone was arguing above. As i said before, i actually dont mind UK Government being added for clarity across the article, but if someone feels so strongly about that they should add it themselves, not take even more time tagging "which" after each mention of it expecting someone else to go around and add UK for them. Where a specific rule just relates to England, that needs to be made clear, i believe we do already have clear explanations in the article of the different rules in different parts of the country.  RWB2020 (talk) 14:38, 22 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Let me give you another example of the problem if we go down the path some seem to want. On Monday 23rd of March in an address to the nation the British Prime Minister announced the UK wide lockdown. His announcement was not just to England, it was an instruction to everyone in the United Kingdom. That announcement was separate to the actual implementation of the lockdown which was carried out days later by the UK Government and devolved administrations separate regulations, it did not happen legally in England at the moment the PM announced it, just as it didnt for Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland. And ironically the Welsh and Scottish Government's regulations were more in line with the Prime Minister's announcement than it was in England. Seen as he said in his announcement people could only go out once a day for exercise. That was a legal regulation in Scotland and Wales, but it never was in England. So this is a lot more complicated than some seek to make out when just portraying the British Government announcements as only ones for England. RWB2020 (talk) 14:44, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

This article is >90% based on England and is therefore a fork
I've now tagged this article with split portions as it's a fork from COVID-19 pandemic in England. This article contravenes WP:NPOV and is clearly biased in favour of what is described elsewhere on this Talk page as England=UK dominance. DeFacto suggested: "I agree that the article is a mess, and it confuses and it does not adequately differentiate between what is happening in the UK as a whole, and what is happening only in one or other of each of the four home countries. I'd favour removing all content which does not apply equally to all four of the home nations (it could be migrated to the appropriate home country-specific article if it wasn't already there). Then we could have just a short single paragraph summary under a header for each of the four home countries with a 'main' template directions readers to the appropriate articles."

This is exactly what happens on the Rugby league in the United Kingdom article, where the content go on each of the 4 countries. Cell Danwydd (talk) 09:25, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * You and some users are fanatic about this. In the main article (COVID-19 pandemic), the UK is one of nine countries whose national response is detailed even though the UK's population is <1% globally. Is that article biased? Should that be moved or removed? Ythlev (talk) 10:22, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Is this a proposal to do something concrete or a generic complaint? Contrary to the above comment, I do not agree that an article about the UK should be in effect an article about England with the occasional nod to a Celtic nation. On the other hand, I do not think removing content which does not apply equally to all home nations is realistic, unless we want the article to be an introduction followed by collection of redirects to individual articles about S/E/W/NI. Archon 2488 (talk) 10:27, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with, and others, that there is too much overlap, and that England-only content should be concentrated in the COVID-19 pandemic in England article, and that only an overview of that article should be left here, with links to that article (same for NE, S and W stuff). However, I think that that article is the fork (and not the other way around as they suggested). I think that this article was created in good-faith and intended to cover the whole of the UK on the assumption that the UK government covered this sort of thing centrally (like with defence). But as it becomes more apparent that the UK government was, in effect, only the government of England in terms of their jurisdiction over matters with respect to the Covid-19 measures being taken, that assumption was usurped. Now we have a mess with five articles and a lot of overlap and commonality with no clear route out of it. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:48, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, DeFacto. The only glimpse of unbiased common sense that I've seen for quite some time. Thanks you. John Jones (talk) 10:56, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I hope you'd also agree that "unbiased common sense" would also dictate that we work together in good faith, and that article content will be more likely to be improved if we avoid characterising, or supporting the characterisation of, talkpage comments from those who we don't agree 100% with, as disruptive editing! -- DeFacto (talk). 11:47, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The situation we have here is broadly similar to that of the US, whereby individual states of the Union are doing their own thing in many respects. Each state has its own article (example: COVID-19 pandemic in Alabama), but the main article COVID-19 pandemic in the United States gives an excellent country-wide perspective. The same arrangement is what we need here, and that appears to be what we've got. If there's an emphasis on England in the main article it's simply because England is by far the biggest and most influential of the four nations; not a problem. Arcturus (talk) 15:35, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry, that is incorrect. England does not have its own devolved government so the UK government acts on behalf of England on matters that are otherwise devolved. The analogy with the USA would be similar if California did not have its own state government and the US Federal government acted on behalf of California. Due to the unique way the UK is run, it is important that articles are not misleading to readers who may not fully understand the implications and consequences of devolution. Birtig (talk) 15:56, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * This repeated tagging of a key article to the UK populace is disruptive. This is patently not a fork of the England article, which came later and had information added from here, and agree with DeFacto that overlap would indicate that article is a fork. Would the editors that feel strongly about this settle on whether to keep the fork header, or the NPOV/bias one and work constructively towards making the article fair? Slapping tags is not constructive. |→ Spaully ~talk~ 17:09, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I support the removal of the tags - I see no robust reason to keep them. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:22, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Remove all the tags. Arcturus (talk) 17:42, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Remove all the tags which do not seem to be justified at all and possibly is just to drive traffic towards the separate pages for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland even though for despite minor differences in "lockdown laws", there is a UK wide approach. I find it a disgrace that lots of peoples hard work is being criticised because some think theres too much detail about England. Some people seem to refuse that England makes up over 80% of the population of the UK and the vast majority of the covid cases in the UK, that is going to obviously impact on the contents of the article. If this article was 25$ about England and 75% about Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, despite that consisting of a fraction of the cases and deaths, it would make no sense and be even more biased that the alleged bias people are complaining about in the article now.  There are perhaps specific examples within the article where wording could be improved to reflect devolved competence. But ive seen examples above moaning about things that are totally unjustified. Nothing that warrants these tags. RWB2020 (talk) 17:49, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support User:Jxseph14 (see '90% England centric 10% other nations', above, 10 May 2020) said:
 * I have to agree, for a UK centric page, this is very English orientated... a reshuffle of information to the COVID-19 pandemic in England should be carried out in my opinion.
 * The core problem needs fixing if the tags are removed, otherwise the underlining problem and subsequent arguing will continue. The answer is simple - start unforking by migrating information relevant to England to the England article. The question of which came first is irrelevant; the ethos of a fork (see WP:POV forks is all facts and major points of view on a certain subject should be treated in one article.
 * One could look at both these articles as 'Related articles' rather than forks, and if so then we still need to address the England=UK bias and the 'which gov are you referring to' issue. And, if we do really desire the best possible article, then lets remove both tags and work on getting a more balanced article, where all countries are treated equally. Should this not happen, however, I will reinstate the tags. John Jones (talk) 19:02, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Can it be proved that the part of the UK that has been hit by far the hardest compared to the other parts of the UK is being given serious WP:UNDUE? Just a question. Mabuska (talk) 20:02, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * None have provided proof of undue weight at all despite excessive rantings above. Based on some of the comments certain editors have made they have a fundamental misunderstanding of devolution, and they also seem to think this article should in no way mention anything at all that happens in England. Mass amounts of content now seem to be getting deleted from the article because of those tags being there. The longer the tags remain, the more we will see large chunks of the article be deleted by people. RWB2020 (talk) 21:03, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Well the virus has hit England the hardest, and as the largest component of the UK in terms of size, population and virus statistics it does deserve the lion's share due to WP:WEIGHT. I'm a federalist at heart however NI/S/W don't really deserve equal representation per WP:UNDUE. If it and the other countries already have their own articles, then this one should primarily be a summary article with the key points of each region. Mabuska (talk) 10:58, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * In regards to tags the one that is presently at the top of the article is 100% merited. The article is far too long. Mabuska (talk) 11:00, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * That one tag isnt too bad. At one point yesterday there were 3 different tags at the same time and the other ones suggesting bias were the most problematic. RWB2020 (talk) 10:54, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

COVID Alert levels in the "May 2020" section
In the May 2020 section of the article, the government's "COVID Alert Levels" are listed in table form, and I just wanted to let you all know that I've uploaded a PDF copy of the slides used by the government when announcing these levels to Commons, here (OGL3). I accidentally uploaded it with the wrong filename, and I've requested it be renamed. This PDF also has the curved graph the government used to talk about relaxing restrictions and R-rate below 1 or whatever (on page 2). This could be useful on this article, especially if someone converted it into a different file format for each graphic in the PDF.  Seagull123  Φ  18:43, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * To follow on from the discussions above about the differences in terms of for the whole UK / England only, those two slides demonstrate the complex nature of the situation well. The first slide is a UK wide alert system slide, that clearly applies across the United Kingdom and specifically mentions about no cases being in the United Kingdom. The second slide setting out easing of social distancing restrictions are the UK Government's proposals for easing restrictions in England, and the devolved administrations have their own equivalent plans. When either slide gets added, we must ensure the wording is clear on those points. Certainly think the alert level one should be included on the article.  RWB2020 (talk) 18:52, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks RWB2020, for your keen eye! We should also find and upload the other 3 equivalent plans. John Jones (talk) 19:13, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Agreed if we could get the different easing plans for Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland too to go along side the England one that would be most appropriate and be helpful to include. RWB2020 (talk) 20:02, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

UK Coronavirus Cancer Monitoring Project
Newly approved article via Articles for Creation: UK Coronavirus Cancer Monitoring Project. -- Zanimum (talk) 23:45, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Deletion / attempt to censor the importance of the 4 countries of the UK in health matters
Once again, User:defacto wants only the 'UK' aspect to be found in this article. This is a blatant attempt to censor the fact that Health in the UK is decentralised, devolved to each of the four nations. edit shows that NO attempt is made to create a fair, article and to remove the extensive bias and disproportional coverage towards England=UK in the article, although it is tagged with Template:Over-coverage.

The deletion was of the following:

Confirmed cases of COVID-19 per 10,000 residents in all 4 countries of the UK by council area:

All three maps are in the infoboxes on the 3 COVID-19 articles relevant to the UK, there's nothing new there; I'm therefore surprised that they, as a collection, have been deleted in what must be one the most political of all edits ever made on Wikipedia. The reader of this Talk page can only come to one conclusion: that this editor and two others are driven by an England based entity eg the UK Government, NHS England, Public Health England in promoting a 'one-UK' approach. A common link has been found and more of this will be published at a later date. Be careful!

DeFacto's edit comment was:  removed oer WP:BRD - it is pointless with different scales for each country and no way to know what the highest value is (other than what it is greater than)). In my book, to use words like 'pointless' shows immaturity. There is a point in explaining visually on the UK article as too the details of all 4 nations. Different scales - yes it does. Nowhere on WP does it state that same scales must be used on all maps in an article. And, due to the fact that the scales are on each map, the reader can cope with different scales. If this was the real problem, DeFacto would have contacted the creators of the maps to ask if they could use the same scale. He or she didn't; and that tells me that this is merely an excuse not to place maps of the 4 nations on this page.

This deletion only consolidates in my mind the bias in this article as well as the CoI of some of the editors. John Jones (talk) 15:43, 17 May 2020 (UTC)


 * if you'd get down off your soapbox for a moment and check my edit history, you will see that I have no problem with the addition of useful, balanced and neutral information, and that I have a strong record of defending the independent characters of each of the four UK counties, and that I've tried several times in several articles to untangle the conflation of their four identities. The glaring problems with the three maps added here (apart from that there should be four), and the reason I removed them, are that: a) they all use different ranges in their keys, so are not comparable, and b) we don't know what number the darkest colours represent because there is no upper value for it. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:57, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Did you not read my text?
 * a) I answered this one: Nowhere on WP does it state that same scales must be used on all maps in an article. And, due to the fact that the scales are on each map, the reader can cope with different scales. If this was the real problem, DeFacto would have contacted the creators of the maps to ask if they could use the same scale.
 * b) My apology! No, we don't know the exact numbers involved as they change each hour, and we don't need to. These maps are broad brush, they're on each article (apart from NI) and on this article for at least the last two months - and you haven't complained! But the top figure could easily be added. The map on the infobox of this article is two days out of sync; they're done every c. 3 days. So you don't complain for two months, but as soon as a map of Wales, Scotland and England goes up, they're deleted. Odd world! John Jones (talk) 21:53, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * a) you don't need it to be said anywhere on WP, it is just common sense to expect that that such graphs, lined up next to each other for comparison, should use the same scales. b) the graph is a snapshot in time, so the numbers do not change, and at the time the top of the ranges are, of course, known, so should be stated. It doesn't matter how "broad brush" they are, as the data is known it can be used. Obviously if they are in different articles it doesn't matter that they use different sales, but side-by-side in the sme article of comparison purposes they are next to useless with different scales. -- DeFacto (talk). 06:45, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Far out my depths taling on this, as I solely look at Scotland page from time to time. Although you are both right. I like the multi-maps set up, it shows the spread in great detail across the Uk and also shows between each Home Nation. I do believe that Defacto is correct however as data if shown and possibly compared together should have the same scale per graph. Readers may confuse the scales and i know that they are clearly displayed next to maps but these thing can happen. Jxseph14 (talk) 23:03, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I also believe these maps add value to the article, while wanting consistent binning. As it stands, they are not commensurable, which makes for confusion. This is not ideal, especially considering that the numbers in question are not of different orders of magnitude, which means that it should be easy in principle to redraw the maps to be consistent with one another. I certainly don't oppose including them in this article, but if it were possible to regenerate them with fixed bin/category definitions, it would be perfect. Archon 2488 (talk) 00:29, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * How wonderful to see some positivism in this discussion! Thanks both! So let's look for a compromise: the three value-bands are different so let's work on this. can you clarify exactly what you mean with to regenerate them with fixed bin/category definitions, please? Fixed range?
 * The main change, in my opinion, would be to have the same range for each country ie the odd one out at the time of writing is the England map as the darkest colour does not cover > 60. Secondly, do we go for the exact maximum number in each range (Scotland and England) or to the nearest 10, as per Wales map? Third, can we round to the nearest whole number, rather than to 2 decimal points (as with Scotland)? Am I on the right track? John Jones (talk) 05:57, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * thanks, now we agree they are not that useful the way they currently are, we can move on. -- DeFacto (talk). 06:51, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Not at all! I believe they are fine as they are. However for the sake of compromise, I'll agree with a fixed range. Your compromise will be to allow the maps. Compromise is a virtue only when it is taken by both sides. John Jones (talk) 09:51, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * sorry, I must have misunderstood what you meant when you wrote: "The main change, in my opinion, would be to have the same range for each country". I took that as agreement with my comment that the main reason for their exclusion was that "they all use different ranges in their keys, so are not comparable". Can you please clarify. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:09, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * In order to find a compromise, I suggested that the main change needed would be the range (ie I took from you and 2 other editors). My personal view is that different ranges could be used as long as the maps include that information. So we go with the first, my suggested compromise. John Jones (talk) 11:08, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, do we need the two decimal places, or not? Let's remember that the stats here are actual people. John Jones (talk) 11:12, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

I would support choosing "intuitive" category definitions (like 10-20, 20-30) and applying them evenly across all the maps. I don't know exactly what you mean by "actual people", but two decimal places is IMO excessive. I don't know how these charts are generated – is it done manually using some tool I don't know, or does a script create them from a data source and "guess" at appropriate category sizes for the granularity of the data? I would also (pedantically) point out that these charts are not strictly showing rates per capita, meaning per head of population – they are rates per ten thousand population, and the scale should indicate that IMO. I do not understand DeFacto's point above about "no upper value", as it is common for charts like this not to indicate maxima or minima; they are just intended to show which regions fall into which categories. If there's a fervent push to abandon, say, $$\leq 10$$ for $$1.5-10$$, where 1.5 is the minimum rate of any region on the map, then fair enough. Archon 2488 (talk) 12:57, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with the "intuitive" range idea. As far as I can see, the maps are created with a Python script which takes a parameter for the country to be processed and uses that to decide various things including the url for the online data it uses to produce the map. I'm guessing it has an algorithm to decide the ranges, given the "non-intuitive" and varied nature of them. By "no upper value" I mean that we don't know, for instance with the dark colour on the England map being keyed as ">= 54.33", whether the highest death rate in a dark area is 54.33 or 10,000. I think we need to know the top value of the top range (or have another range with a bottom value set but unused in the map). -- DeFacto (talk). 13:20, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Taking all 5 editors' thoughts into consideration,. Above the maps, we could have: Confirmed cases of COVID-19 per 10,000 residents in all 4 countries of the UK by council area:. I've never seen a map like this with the maximum on it before, and as only one out of five editor thinks it important, I've left it out. Thanks John Jones (talk) 14:37, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry map didn't upload, Hold on please. John Jones (talk) 14:42, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * All done, but you'll need to clear you cache to view. John Jones (talk) 14:45, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * so far, so goodish. We still don't know if the darkest colour is 60-69 or 60-10,000, and can you show us the other three maps using the same ranges. And as a matter of interest, how did you create this one - by hand, or with a script? And where does the population density for the council areas come from? The current England and Scotland maps are created by an open-source script and all the data that goes into them is explicit. Thanks for your work so far on this. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:41, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * If the darkest color was 10,000 then the key would have been calibrated differently. But as you insist, I've now added the maximum number. You ask a few questions regarding the map. I was asked to take over this map at the beginning of May and as you can see underneath the main map, have uploaded updates daily / every other day since then. The stats come from the main dashboard of Public Health Wales and the map done by hand. I could adapt the others (England and Scotland), but it would be easier if the original creator/uploader amended his or her template. I'll have a word with the editor. John Jones (talk) 16:58, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Look, once upon a time I added the England map and two users (one was DeFacto I think) insisted on removing them because "this article is not about England". Let's sort that out first. Ythlev (talk) 01:46, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * If you want to compare them, why not just have one Great Britain map?
 * Does 20-29 include 29.5?
 * Why 50-58 instead of 50-59?
 * Don't use 18-05-2020. The maps are used for other languages, so dates should be in international format. Ythlev (talk) 01:40, 19 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your suggestions!
 * -GB? No! Health is run by all 4 governments separately.
 * Does 20-29 include 29.5? round up to 30 (as agreed above)
 * 50-58 - because 58 is the highest (max) figure for that country.
 * 18-05-2020 - yes, I'll correct the Wales map; thanks!
 * What has been has been; DeFacto would have been correct, if only one map (England) was used. Now we have 3. This is now the consensus. When we have all 3 in place, and everyone happy, we will need to create a 4th - Northern Ireland.
 * Thanks Ythlev ..... John Jones (talk) 04:55, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Health is run by all 4 governments separately. Then why must they have the same scale...? And what does infections have to do with who runs health? Does 20-29 include 29.5? round up to 30 (as agreed above) So really the bin labelled 20-29 is actually 19.5-29.5, which is completely arbitrary. Also what will you do when an area exceeds 70? Ythlev (talk) 05:53, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * we need to be able to compare the four countries directly, and that would be easier if the colours meant the same thing on all maps. I think an even better solution would be to combine the council area details for all four countries into a single UK map. I think I might have asked this before, and, if I remember, the data wasn't available then, but now that it apparently is, could you do one of those? -- DeFacto (talk). 06:27, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * your combo suggestion goes against the consensus reached so far. It's an attempt to unify all 4 countries, although they are very different. Having 4 maps gives a more balanced article, and I'm surprised by your remark. Please stick to the consensus. John Jones (talk) 06:36, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * this is a UK article so the map should ideally be a UK map, like when you draw a map of Europe you don't separate out each country. The four (but currently only three apparently) separate maps is a compromise because a single map wasn't available. But if we could get a single map created showing the same detail, I think it would be more appropriate. -- DeFacto (talk). 06:53, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Personally, I agree with you that they don't need the same scale, however 4 other editors think they do. Stats are collected by each country and not on a UK basis. In the case of Wales, they're collected by Public Health Wales... Having 4 maps would give a detailed picture of all 4 health areas / NHS areas / countries. Regarding the scale / Key: what do you suggest? Rounding up / down is acceptable as we're looking for an estimate of the cases not an exact figure. When an area exceeds 70 a darker colour can be used. As DeFacto said, these don't need to be updated daily; we're only looking for a snapshot, maybe once a month. Thanks Ythlev! John Jones (talk) 06:36, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

I changed the UK map to a more detailed one. This page can just use it. The individual countries can stay in the individual country pages. Ythlev (talk) 08:25, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * that looks great to me, thanks! And it would tick all the boxes if you could just bolden the borders between the UK countries and add their names. -- DeFacto (talk). 08:52, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Consensus broken by User:DeFacto: User Talk:DeFacto - I've just read the above thread whereby a consensus was reached to add 4 separate maps. You have now gone against that consesnsus; that is viewed as disruptive editing. I've deleted the map, as it wasn't agreed on this Talk page: borders of the NHS regions / countries were also removed. Your editing is very WP:POV. Cell Danwydd (talk) 10:03, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * There is no consensus to remove the map. Ythlev (talk) 10:07, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * that is nonsense - I didn't edit anything on the page against any consensus. All I did was air my view here on the talkpage (which is precisely what talkpages are for) that this UK-scoped article should have a UK-wide map. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:14, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I've read the whole thread half an hour ago: there was a discussion and a consesnsus reached to add the 3 or 4 country maps.
 * There was no consensus to change the Infobox map Ythlev.
 * What User:DeFacto has done is to break the agreement and attempted to find his own separate solution by amending the Infobox map. Cell Danwydd (talk) 10:18, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Then you should revert the map, not remove it. Ythlev (talk) 10:25, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * please show evidence to support your (what I see as absurd) allegation that supporting another editor's work on Commons, that they described on the talkpage here, amounts to editing against consensus. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:30, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * You asked an editor to change the Infobox map rather than going with the consensus of displaying 3 individual country maps. I agree 100% with Cell Danwydd. You are becoming disruptive. Ythlev changed the map, although he or she knew that it was going against the consensus. That was very underhanded. Two indisputable facts. John Jones (talk) 10:51, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * adding the three maps has nothing to do with the infobox UK map. You are welcome to add the three maps if you like, but the UK map has been there for a while and there is no consensus to remove it. If you prefer the less detailed country-region version, you can revert it. However, since I see the UK map as sufficient, I will not be updating England and Scotland more than once per month . The only reason I made them in the first place was because I couldn't find detailed data for S, W, NI until now. Ythlev (talk) 11:03, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay, Cell Danwydd reported me for edit warring. I won't update any of the maps anymore. You guys do whatever you want. Ythlev (talk) 13:13, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * this is an open and very active discussion, and no consensus has been reached yet, and nothing from it should have been conveyed to article yet. When I said "I think an even better solution would be to combine the council area details for all four countries into a single UK map. I think I might have asked this before, and, if I remember, the data wasn't available then, but now that it apparently is, could you do one of those?" I was exploring what I thought could be a better solution than that of having the clutter of an extra four maps (and all of different scales) in the article. I had no power over how chose to answer my exploratory question to them. I think you need to read WP:CONSENSUS if you don't understand that. -- DeFacto (talk). 11:16, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

I've created this image of COVID-19 outbreak Northern Ireland per capita cases in council areas, as we had no such map. I've also placed it on the relevant article.

However, the map in the Infobox (this article; above) still needs addressing as there is but one source in the description, and that is to the # cases of COVID-19 and not per rata; the source is also unreliable, in my view, and the data produced by the 4 individual governments should be used. I've raised the issue on commons. As it won't be updated, it will of course give false / incorrect / outdated information. Therefore I suggest that the map in the Infobox be deleted (or better still, reverted to the old version) until a better, newer one is sourced. John Jones (talk) 13:41, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * if isn't going to update their whole-UK map, couldn't you? Or could you make a manual version of it yourself? It does seem tidier to have a UK map in this UK article, rather than a separate map for each of the four countries. And it takes up less room than having the old, not so useful, map in the infobox and then four more separate maps beneath it. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:29, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I wish I could! I have no Python, and wouldn't know where to start on such a complicated map! The Wales map is more 'paint by numbers' than coding! I've left a message on the [COVID-19 Wikiproject asking for help. What's really frightful, imho, is that 9 wikis are using the map without verifying the reliability of its source! [[User:John Jones|John Jones]] (talk) 15:37, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 9? I made 22 maps of this kind used on many more wikis. On COVID-19 pandemic in France, it is outdated by almost two months. Frightful. I am sending the world into misinformed chaos. better still, reverted to the old version. The old version does not need to be updated? Okay. You own the article anyways. Ythlev (talk) 05:16, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I was referring to the map on this article's infobox: File:COVID-19 outbreak UK per capita cases map.svg, which has no verifiable and reliable source. At the time of writing, it is on 9 other wikis. I wasn't referring to any other maps you have made. All these maps should be updated day by day, otherwise we're giving incorrect information to the reader. More importantly, you still haven't defended the one and only source of the data, in the image's description. In fact, no one has defended the data, so the map will need to be deleted from the above Infobox. Lastly, the data is collected by each country, therefore the country borders need to be shown on the map. you have been questioning the integrity of my data to the iota, yet you allow this image, without verifiable or reliable source to remain on the article; as you have said yourself, it contravenes WP:OR and WP:NPOV. Seems you only question the data on Scotland, N Ireland and Wales, but allow unsourced, unreliable data in this article! John Jones (talk) 08:47, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * the 's map is verifiable from the linked Python code. It's sourced to PHE and ONS data, which is about as good as you can get. Perhaps that needs clarifying in the file data so users can add it to their captions if they wish. And don't forget to AGF and NPA. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:52, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Current sources are: Arcgis (UK and Scotland), PHE (England), ONS (population). Ythlev (talk) 11:12, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * You say - Ythlev's map is verifiable from the linked Python code - have you seen this Python code? Is it open for all to see? No! John Jones (talk) 14:56, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes it is... File:COVID-19 outbreak Pennsylvania per capita cases map.svg was made by a user using my script. If you don't know where to look, that's noone else's problem. Ythlev (talk) 16:09, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * yes I have seen the code and yes it is openly available to all - that it why I'm not worried about it! -- DeFacto (talk). 17:16, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * You say - It's sourced to PHE and ONS data - no it's not! Part of it comes from Ythlev - read Ythlev's answer to my question (above) - which it has taken 2 full days to get. It needs a reference - a link to the exact source. This doesn't! John Jones (talk) 14:56, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * all the sources used are available from the Commons file, I found them all. Like I said above at 10:52, 21 May 2020, these could be mentioned in the caption of the image in this article and/or in the Commons file data if you like, but Wikipaedia's verifiability test is met - the data used is verifiable. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:08, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I was referring to the map on this article's infobox. Well if you don't care about other maps, why would you care about the UK map on other wikis? It's not like you made it. As DeFacto said, these don't need to be updated daily; we're only looking for a snapshot, maybe once a month. All these maps should be updated day by day It's hard to have a meaningful discussion when you just reply whatever comes to mind. Yeah sure, you update them. Good luck. Ythlev (talk) 11:08, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * This discussion is about the UK map in the infobox. The sources need to be linked in the description of the map, on Commons, otherwise the image is unverifiable. I care about true maps, good, clear maps which are well sourced and reliable. That is my interest in this map. Now, regarding your answer Current sources are: Arcgis (UK and Scotland), PHE (England), ONS (population). - We need a link to this exact wording in the source from the image file on Commons. If that is not done, then this image should NOT be used on this article. Secondly, it appears that you have a formula which works out the pro rata rate, and as DeFacto says Talk:COVID-19 pandemic in England, I don't see these rates per head compared in any of the sources, therefore this contravenes WP:OR.  Lastly, I suggest you both take a look at WP:SOURCES: Use sources that directly support the material presented in an article and are appropriate to the claims made. This means the 4 original sources from all 4 countries, not a website (Arcgis ) which does not cite its sources. This is fundamental to everything Wikipedia stands for! Note also: Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source. I've already given you several days to provide references; and have now added a citation needed template.  John Jones (talk) 14:56, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I suggest you read Wikipedia policies carefully before citing them. it appears that you have a formula. If you call x ÷ y a formula. It is not OR according to WP:CALC: Routine calculations do not count as original research. Use sources that directly support the material presented in an article and are appropriate to the claims made. The source has the exact numbers I used, so it directly supports. What you really mean is that the figures are not from health authorities, which is not at all a requirement. The sentence "The index case for the UK, a 50-year-old woman who had travelled from Hubei province and entered the UK on 23 January, had developed fever and fatigue on 26 January." is not sourced from officials. Guess what, the NHS or PHE don't conduct tests themselves. There is no reason to insist on official figures. Ythlev (talk) 15:56, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * We already have references for the map then? If you click on the link to the python files you can see the script used, one big formula. I don't think a citation is necessary Jxseph14 (talk) 16:38, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * No we don't. The link on Commons goes to Github, where there are 2 source:
 * 1. Public Health England, NHSX - that page only contains info on England.
 * 2. Office for National Statistics website; link to vector boundaries for Local Authority Districts
 * So where are the other links? Population? Scotland? Northern Ireland? Wales? John Jones (talk) 17:41, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * we aren't comparing Iceland's way of measuring their death-rates with Wales's method here, which is what that discussion was about, we are straightforwardly mapping reliably sourced. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:14, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Is it that complicated? let me reword: This image therefore is not reliably sourced, DeFacto! I will therefore delete this image, as per WP:SOURCES, unless reliable sources to all data are added on the image description. John Jones (talk) 20:12, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Link 1. No reference to any data on cases of COVID-19 in Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland.
 * Link 2. No link to population of each county, district...
 * : Cardiff: 1,930 cases; Glasgow City: 1,923, Belfast: 1,290. Maybe you are blind. Ythlev (talk) 02:37, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I've added the source for population. Do you require anything else, your majesty? Ythlev (talk) 03:15, 22 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Whether I have sight is not your business. Don't attack the editor! You've been warned about your behavious many times in the last few months. I'm here to improve WP, not attack anyone else. I see you have added a link on the image to the arcgis.com website, showing that the data contains info on Wales, N Ireland and Scotland. This data has been uploaded by you to arcgis, but is not the source! We need a link to where the data came from, so that it can be verified. Lastly, thanks for the link to the population. John Jones (talk) 12:31, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Don't start threatening other editors. Your behaviour on this page where you have accused multiple of editors of having a conflict of interest and working for the UK gov among other things is a disgrace. Take a look at yourself instead of threatening others. Plus your reaction is over the top to a sarcastic comment at worst. Comment on the article and not the user! Games of the world (talk) 13:22, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about? I didn't upload anything to arcgis. You need to admit you have no clue how the internet works and stop demanding what doesn't exist. Ythlev (talk) 15:28, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Stop it! I have not threatened anyone, Games of the world! I asked Ythlev not to accuse a person of being blind! Your comments here now is an attempt at provoking the situation. Cool head and stick to facts my good man! John Jones (talk) 15:05, 22 May 2020 (UTC)


 * In light of this, can we all agree and thank Ythlev for the work he has done on the maps?? Lets not fall out over all of this, Ythlevhas done amazing work on the maps, they're accurate to the situation. I believe the sourcing situation is okay, he as calculated it via a formula, if we add the devolved nations statistics to the image and the, it's an appropiate amount I believe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jxseph14 (talk • contribs) 15:38, 22 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Opps! Forgot to sign ahahaJxseph14 (talk) 15:42, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I would agree with you Jxeph14, should the sources of the data be on the image. I'm still awaiting direct links to the cases in each country.
 * - the data is one arcgis, but the source is not referenced. Or if it is, no one has explained exactly where it is. Clarity please! John Jones (talk) 15:59, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * the data is one arcgis. I don't know what you are talking about and won't respond until you start making sense. Ythlev (talk) 16:14, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes well done and thank you to Ythlev for their hard work on the maps and putting up with some of the stuff above. RWB2020 (talk) 16:01, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * If we agree that the maps stay, I can continue to update them. Ythlev (talk) 16:16, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I want the maps to say and your maps quality is great, if it is all okay with you all, in the (citation needed) main passage, just adding refs for the devolved admins COVID-19 cases and the arcgis link so that its referenced in the infobox? - Jxseph14 (talk) 16:23, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I cannot because I am blocked, thanks to John Jones. It's at Wikimedia Commons, so I don't get why you two can't add it yourselves. Ythlev (talk) 17:07, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Absolutely the maps are very good and should stay. RWB2020 (talk) 16:27, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The map looks good to me, I support keeping it. -- DeFacto (talk). 16:56, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Ythlev, well if its there, perfect! Once again thanks for making the maps! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jxseph14 (talk • contribs) 17:28, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I have these links which i will add to the map on Creative Commons. I believe this rectifies any issue with the sources:
 * England =
 * Scotland =
 * Wales =
 * Northern Ireland =
 * Links for shape and size of countys are already on the sources and more on the github website. Hope this fixes any issues :) -Jxseph14 (talk) 18:10, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, out of the above four sources, I only used the one for England, but hey, whatever makes John Jones happy. By the way, I changed England from counties to districts. Ythlev (talk) 20:09, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Exactly what was needed. Thanks Jxseph14! Re. Ythlev - your block had nothing to do with me. Check your facts! John Jones (talk) 19:19, 22 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Break

Going back to our earlier discussion: the boundary between all 4 Public Health agencies, all 4 NHS' and all 4 governments needs to be placed back into this map. It was there, but was later deleted when the new map was redrawn. Not adding the country border gives misleading information. For the large part, this disease is dealt with by 4 nations individually and the map needs to reflect that. John Jones (talk) 10:06, 23 May 2020 (UTC)