Template talk:COVID-19 pandemic data/Archive 7

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 March 2020
Argentina has 225 confirmed cases.

Source: https://www.infobae.com/sociedad/2020/03/22/confirmaron-67-nuevos-casos-de-coronavirus-en-la-argentina-y-el-total-de-infectados-asciende-a-225/ 190.245.94.183 (talk) 02:50, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ Thanks. Mgasparin (talk) 03:21, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 March 2020
Honduras has now 26 cases instead of 24. https://covid19honduras.org/?q=dos-nuevos-casos-en-cortes-news Allancalderini12 (talk) 03:58, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Someone updated it already. Thank you. --MarioGom (talk) 10:14, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 March 2020
+27 new cases in Poland, +2 more deaths (total of 563/7) Natanieluz (talk) 12:13, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Someone updated it already. Thank you. --MarioGom (talk) 15:21, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

San Marino on 22 March 2020
Please update 🇸🇲 San Marino confirmed cases count to 175 (151+20+4), according to latest official report: http://www.iss.sm/on-line/home/aggiornamenti-coronavirus/articolo49014149.html 😷 gary C Z E k 📢 ✍ ｛🧒👧👦🚲💻🚗🍣｝ 14:04, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅. Thank you. --MarioGom (talk) 15:19, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Notes on Jersey and Guernsey
Someone recently added notes to the Crown dependencies of Jersey and Guernsey stating "Not recognised as independent. (NAME) is a Crown dependency of the United Kingdom.". This is unnecessary as readers can simply read about those locations on their respective pages. If we do agree to keep those notes, we should add similar notes to Hong Kong and Macao: "Not recognised as independent. (NAME) is a special administrative region of China.". JMonkey2006 (talk) 08:10, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
 * See . --MarioGom (talk) 15:23, 22 March 2020 (UT 2020 (UTC)

Another column
Another another column is a really big deal as it makes this way wider. Were is the discussion and consensus? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:09, 19 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Link to previous column discussions. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 04:48, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I will have to put up the edit notice to say no new columns Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:36, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I have put up an edit notice here: Template:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data. Please discuss any changes to the rules included, and then administrators or template editors can update based on any consensus. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:55, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Does anyone have any serious disagreements with it? If there is no serious disagreement, that is consensus. "It makes it too wide" would rarely if ever be considered valid on any other 4-6 column chart on Wikipedia. Mr G (talk) 09:43, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

In case anyone needs me to explain the reason that this column is useful: per 10 million capita deaths gives people an idea of both the risk of mortality and the prevalence of the problem in each country, and allows a comparison between different countries. It is also a better measure of the prevalence of the disease than the number of confirmed cases, because the testing of non-serious cases varies widely between countries depending on their testing regimes, while the number of deaths is closer to proportionality with the actual number of both diagnosed and undiagnosed cases. A per 10 million capita confirmed cases might also be helpful, but if we are only going to allow one per capita column, per 10 million capita deaths is the best for comparison of both mortality and prevalence of infection across countries with very different populations, testing regimes and health systems. Mr G (talk) 10:01, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I would like to add that although proposals for different columns were rejected, a deaths per capita column has not been discussed, and the best arguments against those other columns do not apply to the column that I added. Thanks. Mr G (talk) 10:11, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The consensus at the moment is no new columns, even if information is useful. Also rejected is the currently active cases column. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:18, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

So grateful for this chart, thank you. But not sure where the "Consensus" on an extra column is coming from and I agree that a per capita mortality rate column would be an important and useful addition. Otherwise, how can we know, for example, how the UK is 'doing' compared with The Netherlands, the US compared with Canada, etc. Infections and deaths must be running at a much higher rate per capita in The Netherlands than in the UK, for example, but that isn't clear. Yet nobody is saying the Brits are doing a better job - perhaps they should be feeling better about what they have or haven't done! To add another column, the first column could be reduced in size (especially by calling one country St Vincent and the Gs). Jamaistroptard 10:41, 19 March 2020 (UTC) Wikischpedia
 * We are having a lot of trouble fitting the width of the table onto telephone small screens. Even the WMF have been assisting to get this table working with screen readers and assisting accessibility. I was looking at a javascript solutioin for those that want to add extra columns with calculated values, but don't hold your breath. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:59, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Another column makes it less accessible. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 23:29, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

We could use these maps.


 * Confirmed cases per million


 * Confirmed deaths per million Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 01:45, 20 March 2020 (UTC)


 * We have an interactive tool but it is not nearly as nice as Our World in Data's. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 01:46, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay added. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 03:13, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

The main culprits in adding width are the headers. Maybe use icons with a tooltip, acronyms or vertical text. Per capita numbers (for both cases and death) is a better indicator of the situation on the ground. These two additional columns are really worth it. Also values for the world row should be filled. Doub (talk) 15:48, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
 * There are lots of ways to look at the situation on the ground and each has their benefits and weaknesses. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 14:49, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Scrolling
I saw that User:Koavf recently removed the scrollbars out of WP:ACCESSIBLE concerns. However, the WP:ACCESSIBLE page simply states that "Wikipedia articles should be accessible to readers using browsers and devices that have limited or no support for JavaScript or Cascading Style Sheets". Browsers that don't support CSS would simply display the full table. Additionally there is a toggle button where people can disable the scrollbars if they don't want them. The scrollbars were also tested to work on the mobile site and app. There is also an accessibility cost to showing a very large table all at once. Anyways, i don't think the rationale behind WP:ACCESSIBLE applies here, and I don't think that the scrollbars in practice introduce any accessibility issues for anyone. I'd like to suggest the scroll bars be added back in. Bawolff (talk) 22:24, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks User:Bawolff. Have reverted them. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 22:25, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , Per MOS:SCROLL and Help:Scrolling list says to not use scrolling lists in article space. "This includes reference lists, tables and lists of article content, image galleries, and image captions." We cannot use scrolling lists in a table in the article namespace. ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:28, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
 * We also have WP:IAR. Lots of people here are supportive of scrolling. Your first link does not work.
 * I assume you mean Manual_of_Style Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 22:32, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm having trouble finding the rationale behind that page or any sort of source for the accessibility claims, or what "devices" the concern is about. The closest i could find is Template:Scrollref TfD, where the concern was about printing, but that doesn't apply here as the full table is shown when printing due to a print stylesheet (You can test with print preview in browser). Bawolff (talk) 22:35, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I did, thanks. IAR is not an acceptable excuse for making inaccessible content. I'm frankly shocked that a medical professional would make that argument. ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:37, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
 * You have not described how this makes the content inaccessible. In fact not doing it makes the page less accessible. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 22:39, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

So it says "When such features are used, take care that the content will still be accessible on devices that do not support JavaScript or CSS, and to the 45% (and climbing) of Wikipedia readers who use the mobile version of the site,[o] which has a limited set of features. Mobile ability to access the content in question is easy to test with the "Mobile view" link at the bottom of each page.[p]" Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 22:36, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , "Scrolling lists should not used in article space. This includes reference lists, tables and lists of article content, image galleries, and image captions." is very explicit. I don't know why you are trying to argue around it. If it's a bad rule, then let's get rid of the rule. Nothing is special about this article. ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:38, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Also removing scrolling is interfering with solving https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T247702 problem, by making an unstable target to work on. We have previously agreed on having scrolling, and have bypassed some of the negatives. So any bold changes here will need a consensus first. One point of the scrolloing is to make it more accessible. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:39, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
 * That is the Help:Scrolling list not the MOS on scrolling which makes no such claim. And yes their can be exceptions. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 22:40, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

User:Koavf describe how this harms accessibility and we can work to address that. I would argue that it improves accessibility. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:43, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , For whom is accessibility improved, James? Internal scrolling is difficult for users with particular needs when it comes to interfacing with the content: e.g. if they have difficult controlling a mouse and so may use voice commands or a specialized browser that is not going to be able to scroll internal in a page. How could internal scrolling increase accessibility to anyone, particularly these users? ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:46, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
 * so you are specifically looking at people who use screen readers and you want to make sure that this works for that group of individuals?
 * Or just those who use "voice commands or a specialized browser"? If so we should reach out to these individuals and see what they need. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 22:50, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , That is my understanding, based on my limited understanding of accessibility. I am not an expert, so I defer to what I know are the best practices. Rather than try to find everyone to post screenshots on Phabricator and hope that we aren't missing anyone (the sort of person who can't actually read this article is probably not going to be the sort of person who takes all of the extra effort to post why/how and tell everyone else how to fix it), I'm asking you as a fellow Wikimedian who has provided a lot of value to this site for years, an admin who is trusted to have best judgement about how to enforce the norms of this community, and a medical professional whom I am sure wants nothing better than the best outcomes for everyone to please revert yourself for the benefit of those persons who will be impacted by your decision to ignore the best practices about internal scrolling. Additionally, I have asked you questions that you ignored and I would appreciate you answering them. ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:58, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Additionally, I just realized that there is pre-collapsed content and a button to "show all". As MOS:SCROLL points out, this is the exact opposite of what should happen: the content should be rendered and then have the option to collapse it. ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:00, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
 * if you are not an expert who do you suggest we reach out to? User:RexxS does a lot of work around accessibility. Rexx you have thoughts? As User:Graeme Bartlett states not having scrolling is also an accessibility issue. We really want this to work for everyone. We currently have technical support helping to solve any issues with respect to this. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 23:01, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The show-all button just gets rid of the scroll bars. Nothing is "collapsed". Bawolff (talk) 23:03, 17 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Your question was "how does scrolling improve accessibility for anyone"? Well with the table at nearly 200 rows it creates a great deal of white space on a narrow screen pushing content lower in the article and thus making it harder to get too. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 23:01, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , That may be a usability issue but I'm not seeing an accessibility dimension here to there being white space. It's an annoyance and not aesthetically pleasing but it doesn't prohibit access to anyone based on a different cognitive ability, etc. ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:40, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , Thank you for asking and for seeking some feedback: I respect that you're putting in effort into this. I don't collaborate with anyone on accessibility here and in fact, I frequently have to fight solo over and over again to get basic accessibility into articles and templates (e.g. table captions). It seems like WikiProject Accessibility is a good place to go shopping. ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:39, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
 * User:Koavf okay I will ask there. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 23:46, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Note, from googling, the internet seems to say, scrollable things are ok, as long as they have tabindex=0 (so they are focusable and scrollable with keyboard) and label-aria. Which User:Volker E. (WMF) (indirectly via editrequest) got added to the template. Edit: The tabindex doesn't work due to MW banning that attribute (T247910). However firefox still considers it a focusable element, so its all ok in firefox at least. Bawolff (talk) 23:10, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
 * User:Koavf my request of you is to help us solve the accessibility issues of scrolling so that they are no longer an issue. Would you not agree that this would be win win? Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 23:14, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay I have reached out to people on FB for someone who uses voice commands. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 23:39, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , I don't know that there can be internal scrolling that is accessible. I do think that a broader best practice should be considered but that's not on the level of this one single template but the level of the MOS and help page mentioned above: that way, it's applicable to the whole encyclopedia. ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:41, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I think we should give the tech folks a chance to work on it. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 23:46, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

First of all, can I request that we don't go back-and-forth editing the CSS in and out while this is under discussion, please? It would be helpful if we can see the template with scroll bars just for the purposes of checking whether we are creating accessibility problems by adding them.

The way I would usually tackle accessibility concerns is to try to simulate the experience of a possible disadvantaged user: That leads me to suggest that there probably isn't any class of disadvantaged user that those scroll bars cause problems for. I'm coming round to the view that our guidance at MOS:SCROLL is being taken rather too mechanically at Help:Scrolling list. MOS:SCROLL requires us to "take care that the content will still be accessible on devices that do not support JavaScript or CSS, and to the 45% (and climbing) of Wikipedia readers who use the mobile version of the site". It looks to me like the template developers have done their due diligence in this case, and I believe that we don't need to invoke IAR to show that this template is a reasonable exception to the general injunction not to use scrolling lists in article space. Of course, that's just my opinion, and someone may yet find a group of users that I hadn't considered, who are disadvantaged by the scroll bars, so perhaps we should keep the issue under review for a while, and await any reports of readers finding problems with the template before coming to a final decision. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 23:54, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I can confirm that none of the screen readers I use to check have any problems with the table, which is expected, as they generally take no notice of CSS and the table is properly marked up with column and row headers and scopes. We could be more certain if we asked to have a look at Template:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data and make sure that he can read the entire table and the accompanying notes.
 * I can confirm that on Chrome and Firefox, I am able to focus the links in the table using just the keyboard, and so am able to read the entire table and notes without the use of a mouse.
 * I can confirm that on my mobile phone (a fairly generic Android device), I see the entire table without scroll bars, so there is no issue for me there.
 * RexxS: Just to confirm, are you talking about the mobile site or mobile app? There should be scrolling on mobile website, but not the mobile app . Bawolff (talk) 23:59, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Voice readers don't work here.....and mobile view is not readable.-- Moxy 🍁 00:12, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
 * User:Moxy what issues are you seeing with mobile view? I am able to scroll right an left on my android phone. With respect to voice readers are you talking about the ones built into your phone? Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 00:31, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I use NVDA.....as for scrolling in mobile view both horizontal and vertical are there. This template is not  abnormal in this type of function. Don't see a solution....just pointing out a fact that very few of us deal with.-- Moxy 🍁 00:48, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
 * User:Moxy you say "mobile view is not readable"? You means that screen readers do not work on this table when on mobile? Does it work for this table without scrolling? Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 01:59, 18 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Screen reader cant begin in the right place because vertical and horizontal side-scrolling is in effect thus the template is mostly hidden from the reader. File:Screen shot of pandemic template.jpg. But again this is a normal problem and why we recommend prose text.-- Moxy 🍁 02:09, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
 * User:Moxy so this reads fine with a screen reader? Template:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data(nonescroll). What about it you hit the "show all" button to turn off the scroll does it work than? Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 03:39, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, using mobile view on a desktop machine often does not accurately reflect what is seen when viewing a Wikipedia page on a mobile device. I agree that viewing https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:2019%E2%80%9320_coronavirus_pandemic_data using Chrome on my desktop machine shows scroll bars. However, actually viewing that page on my Android phone using 'Chrome for mobile' shows no scroll bars as they are particularly pointless on mobile phones. --RexxS (talk) 00:18, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Interesting. For me, chrome version 80 on my android phone - area is scrollable. Scrollbars only show up during dragging (Seems to be generally how the ui works on my phone. Bawolff (talk) 01:04, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, there's no screen reader problem with scrolling. The mobile view doesn't work at all well with desktop screen readers. Graham 87 03:46, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
 * User:Graham87 thank you. So would you say this is sufficiently accessible than? With respect to mobile does it work when there is no scrolling? Or does it not work regardless of whether there is scrolling or not? Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 04:24, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's accessible enough. Re mobile, I'm not very familiar with that environment at all, but I'd say it wouldn't make any difference re scrolling. Graham 87 06:14, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Such a problem for editing we have a script Editing on mobile devices....that should be implemented all over.Manual of Style/Accessibility/Data tables tutorial.-- Moxy 🍁 06:35, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
 * What is needed to "implement all over" User:Moxy? Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 22:29, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think that script is relevant to this situation. Bawolff (talk) 04:34, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Here is some research by Jakob Nielsen:
 * In any case, all key information should be visible on the initial screen because scrolling can cause accessibility problems:

And the W3C:
 * The additional action that scrolling requires can be difficult for users with motor skill impairments.
 * Low-literacy users can't easily reacquire their position in the text after it moves.
 * Elderly users often have trouble getting to the right spot in scrolling menus and other small scrolling items.
 * Avoiding the need to scroll in the direction of reading in order to reveal lines that are cut off by the viewport is important, because such scrolling significantly increases the effort required to read. It is also important that content is not hidden off-screen. For example, zooming into a vertically scrolling page should not cause content to be hidden to one side.

I think that these are best practices we should follow. ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:14, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
 * You can try a RfC to get further input. I agree with User:Graham87 who states "Yes, it's accessible enough" Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 17:41, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Netherlands and other countries which have no recoveries data
Can I add recoveries data from John Hopkins University (https://www.arcgis.com/apps/opsdashboard/index.html#/bda7594740fd40299423467b48e9ecf6) for countries such as Netherlands, etc? Dede2008 (talk) 02:28, 21 March 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure. Data about recoveries is sometimes questionable. For example, our main source for Norway explained explicitly that they do not track recoveries because there are no official reports about it, so they can only get some of them from local news outlets, and those are just anecdotal evidence. Other countries have some kind of official reporting of recoveries (e.g. China, Germany, Spain), but we already have reliable sources for them. --MarioGom (talk) 22:56, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Kyrgyzstan update
In Kyrgyzstan 14 cases confirmed I am resident of Kyrgyzstan please update — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shabir hussain72 (talk • contribs) 12:53, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
 * source?--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:38, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/#countries — Preceding unsigned comment added by Foxtail286 (talk • contribs) 16:00, 21 March 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.70.152.26 (talk) 20:28, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Just added it, take a look and see if I did it right. Thanks! RayDeeUx (talk) 23:09, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

RfC: Explanation for Netherlands: added, removed, added, removed, etc.
I have understood that - de facto - the figures presented for Netherlands are an aggregate for the Kingdom of the Netherlands, consisting of the a) country of the Netherlands, b) Aruba, c) Curaçao, and d) Sint Maarten. Since, however, the sole name Netherlands is ambiguous, I plead for at least adding - and keeping added - as a note that Netherlands as mentioned in the table is to be understood the whole kingdom consisting of the four countries each with their own responsible authority. I think this is essential for a good understanding of the nature of the figures. This is a matter of both geography (one country lies in Europe, one in the southeastern Caribbean, two in the northeastern Caribbean) and politics (since it concerns the political division of one kingdom into four countries). Notes to this end have been added and removed several times. Why and by whom they have been removed, I cannot seem to retrace in the edit history, either because the rate of edits is rather high or because no comment was added from which I succeeded to understand that it concerned a change with respect to Netherlands. Those who like to have such a note removed, please provide arguments.Redav (talk) 14:24, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Redav: what is your exact proposal and options being discussed? --MarioGom (talk) 15:40, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
 * If you mean you would like to see a more concrete proposal, I propose either of the following, at the risk of (partially) repeating what I wrote before, either above or in Talk pages or with my previous edits to the table:


 * Treat the four independent countries in the Kingdom of the Netherlands separately, i.e. give each of them their own line in the table, to be filled with data from reports from the four respective public health authorities, being RIVM (country of the Netherlands), Directie Volksgezondheid (Aruba), Volksgezondheid Instituut Curaçao (VIC), and Department of Public Health (Sint Maarten). I would prefer this, particularly because the countries and authorities are (politically) independent, and because they are geographically separate.
 * Treat the Kingdom of the Netherlands as a unit, and at the same time put and keep in place an explanation about of what the kingdom consists of, e.g. in the form of the note Redav (talk) 16:16, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I would prefer to split overseas/autonomous territories. Political issues aside, the spread of the pandemic in these territories is usually completely different. Sources like the John Hopkins University keep them split too. However, we should consider if we have reliable sources to keep the numbers updated per territory. --MarioGom (talk) 10:27, 19 March 2020 (UT


 * , : instead of edit warring, you may want to participate in this discussion. may be interested too. --MarioGom (talk) 22:41, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The Channel Islands (Guernsey and Jersey) are internationally independent (as ratified by international agreements between the islands and the UK), not subject to British Administration (they legislate entirely independently; the UK cannot do so even in extreme circumstances without the island's consent) and have an entirely separate healthcare system (mostly privatised with no NHS nor any reciprocal agreement for visiting UK citizens). No government sources (or any that I can see referenced in the article) include the Channel Island statistics in their data for the UK, nor are they reported on with the UK number of cases. I’m far less familiar with BOTs, but it is my understanding that they have somewhat less independence, particularly on an international level, than the Channel Islands, and so I'm agreed that they could probably be included in the UK's total, but certainly not with Guernsey and Jersey. Previous discussions on the matter (which appear to be being entirely ignored by u|RandomIntrigue) can be found here, here and here—all of which clearly lean toward Guernsey (and by extension of the rationale, Jersey) not being included within the UK.
 * Semantics aside, it remains an indisputable fact that Guernsey and Jersey are not part of the UK, and therefore their inclusion is totally wrong in the most basic sense. "British Islands" would be more appropriate and technically correct, but it also suggests that the response to the virus is perhaps co-ordinated which is manifestly wrong. Guernsey and Jersey's respective governments are co-ordinating responses entirely independently of the UK government and furthermore point to why they should be separated. —Formulaonewiki 22:57, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
 * OK I will include Guernsey and Jersey in the edit notice. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:03, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
 * You can't change the fact they aren't independent. It's silly to try and argue so because no nation recognises the islands as such. They are dependencies of the UK. It is silly to try and dispute their status. RandomIntrigue (talk) 23:33, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The only one who believes that is a 'fact' appears to be yourself. I've already pointed out (which you've already decided to ignore entirely because it rebuts your 'fact') that in 2008, Guernsey and Jersey signed an agreement with the UK including a number of clarifications regarding the international identity of the islands which expressly stated that each Crown Dependency has an international identity that is different from that of the UK.
 * You can protest all you like, but you are choosing to disregard justified and built consensus. Also, your insistence on defining 'independence' in as subjective way as you can entirely misses the fact that they are simply not part of the UK by any definition. —Formulaonewiki 23:54, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
 * If you separate Guernsey and Jersey from the UK, then all territories should be separated from their 'ruling' country. It is silly to just have Jersey and Guernsey on their own! RandomIntrigue (talk) 23:41, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually we currently have Hong Kong and Macau separated from China. There is also ongoing discussions to do the same for Netherlands, Denmark, USA and France (this thread and ). --MarioGom (talk) 23:45, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
 * That is a huge oversimplification of the discussion. Each territory has vastly difference geographical, constitutional and political arrangements which require their own respective assessments. This discussion concerns Guernsey and Jersey; to start trying to expand any conclusions from this to apply to all arrangements between territories and Sovereign States is absurd and unhelpful. —Formulaonewiki 23:52, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
 * It's equally as absurd as your silly nationalistic proposition! Internationally, Jersey and Guernsey are recognised as dependencies. If you include them separately then where do we stop? Stop making silly propositions based on your own views! RandomIntrigue (talk) 00:00, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
 * : It's not a nationalistic proposition; its a constitutional fact. Your argument of 'where does it end!' doesn't make sense; those other countries and territories require separate discussions. I am not making propositions based on my own view, but on facts backed by reliable sources.
 * NB, Pktlaurence is repeatedly removing Guernsey and Jersey without any explanation. Have recently reverted but stopped short of 3RR and left message on their talk page. —Formulaonewiki 00:10, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Edit: this is ridiculous! They have now reverted it again put added the edit summary "the channel islands are still 'not independent/separate entities' from the United Kingdom" which is complete rubbish. They are most certainly separate from the UK by all definitions. They are 'Dependencies' of the Crown but certainly not of the UK. They've also now changed it to say Guernsey and Jersey are BOTs too. Clueless. —Formulaonewiki 00:16, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Their sovereignty belongs to UK and your argument is completely rubbish. Pktlaurence (talk) 00:20, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

And your source is unreliable either. So much for a nationalist.Pktlaurence (talk) 00:21, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Talk to me when theyre having armies and diplomats.Pktlaurence (talk) 00:22, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
 * "Your argument is completely rubbish" yet you fail to even begin to explain how or provide any sort of counter. Is ad hominem all you have? And does each country or territory on this list require an army or state sovereignty? No, look at Hong Kong and Macau. Also, how can a literal government publication be an unreliable source? Where is your source? At least try and engage in discussion here. —Formulaonewiki 00:26, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, Guernsey has a diplomat: its Chief Minister, who also clarified recently that the Channel Islands are not dependencies of the UK in an open letter to the UK government. —Formulaonewiki 00:37, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Btw, im not trying to say the Channel Islands are BOT. Thats exactly why i use the term 'Dependency' to include everything. Pktlaurence (talk) 00:24, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Your last edit says "Includes all cases in the British Overseas Territories of Akrotiri and Dhekelia, Bermuda, the Cayman Islands, Gibraltar ,Montserrat, (sic) Guernsey and Jersey." BOTs are not dependencies, they are BOTs. —Formulaonewiki 00:28, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Well, i already made a further edit to it right after the first, so please make sure you aleays check thr latest version of edit. From now on, i will incorporate channel islands and isle of man, using the accurate term 'Dependencies'.Pktlaurence (talk) 15:13, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

I would really so much prefer and I would expect it to be so much more helpful for the exchange of arguments if judgments about persons and about contributions, as well as orders, would be left out. As the exchange now runs, I feel sad and demotivated to try and find any understandable arguments that are between the judgments. please consider using wordings like e.g.: Could it be the case that some of you are using definitions that differ and are distinct from those that another may be applying? And for the goal of the description of the progress of the pandemic over / around the earth, would it perhaps be helpful and practical to consider using:
 * 1) "I do not understand your argument." instead of "Your argument is rubbish."
 * 2) "I would like to see your source but cannot seem to find it. Could you help me?" instead of "Those are silly propositions based on your own views."
 * 3) "Please lay out for me the arguments and sources you consider relevant, so I may be able to review and consider them." rather than "Stop making silly propositions."
 * divisions (e.g. countries, territories, provinces) that consider themselves, or are de facto, independent with respect to measuring and reporting the progress of the epidemic, even if there is no consensus about that outside of the region? [I admit, if (with respect to the) inside a region there would be no consensus about the, or more than one, de facto measurer and reporter, the practicality gets reduced for that particular division.]Redav (talk) 18:13, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Voting
At the moment this is a very confused discussion containing personal attacks. I would like to redirect it into a vote/consensus between three options for French and Dutch territory inclusion.


 * A: Include all territories of whatever type within the totals for France and the Netherlands
 * B: Separate territories that are formally ruled separately. This will include for France: French Polynesia, Saint Pierre and Miquelon, Wallis and Futuna, Saint Martin, Saint Bartolemy, and New Caledonia; and for The Netherlands: Aruba, Curaçao, and Sint Maarten.
 * C: Separate all overseas territories, whether or not they are directly part of the main country. This includes all of the above territories, as well as for France: Guadeloupe, French Guiana, Martinique, Réunion, Mayotte; and for The Netherlands: Bonaire, Sint Eustatius, and Saba.
 * D: Other.


 * I vote C. I think all of these territories have little enough human traffic between them, and different enough locations, that they should be listed separately.— Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 18:50, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Additionally these are all listed separately by Johns Hopkins, Worldometers, and KFF.org.— Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 18:51, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
 * While I appreciate the effort to drive discussion to a more focused end to achieve consensus, surely this discussion is dependent on the RfC below for the inclusion/separation of all autonomous territories? —Formulaonewiki 18:58, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Then maybe we can resolve the other discussion for whether it should generally include dependent territories, then do this one afterwards.— Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 19:03, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh absolutely! I support taking a decision here as you've suggested but only once the RfC has ended, as one potential outcome might render the need for another vote her invalid. Let's just give the RfC time for any other responses. I'll leave it up to the starting user to coordinate the conclusion of that discussion. —Formulaonewiki 19:07, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

C for bloody sure. And that's not just for France and Netherlands, but should also be applied to every country who has at least one dependency. Universal Consistency übers alles. Pktlaurence (talk) 19:13, 21 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Although I don't care that much as long as the numbers are shown in notes. If I were to choose 1, then I would choose C because it's how WHO does.Luke Kern Choi 5 (talk) 01:24, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Threaded discussion
I'm not sure this vote for France and the Netherlands makes sense concurrently with. --MarioGom (talk) 20:21, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Let's just start a vote in the main rfc thread right now so we can conclude this. Pktlaurence (talk) 20:55, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Totals at head of table
How are the totals at the top of the table arrived at? Because they do not correspond to the actual sum of figures. I have transcribed the countries, cases and deaths figures into a spreadsheet, and keep it updated, and use sum and count formulae to arrive at totals. Country count at this time is 167, not 163. Cases sum is 275,694, not 276,007. Deaths sum is 11,382, not 11,401. So I ask, are there no formulae in this table to automatically sum the columns, and count the countries? Are editors just adding on their revised figures? If so errors will be inevitable with different editors at perhaps the same time making changes. Ptilinopus (talk) 04:06, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
 * There are notes that say to use to WOMC data, which is what I've been using. However, I don't believe it makes any sense to be doing so. United States Man (talk) 04:11, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I have changed it to addition, not WOMC. I suppose I could see it both ways. Hard to say what is the most reliable way. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 04:43, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I think that is a good move. In a Wiki table, I've always thought it was better to have a total based on the figures in the table instead of an outside source. Especially here since not all countries are using the WOMC data. United States Man (talk) 04:46, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The data can be extracted into a Google Sheets spreadsheet with the formula =IMPORTHTML("https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:2019%E2%80%9320_coronavirus_outbreak_data","table",0) and then totaled. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 07:04, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
 * It looks as if consensus was reached above. However, it seems not all editors are implementing. The figures still don’t add up, and by similar margins. And with East Timor added, the country tally is 168. Ptilinopus (talk) 09:09, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
 * With so many countries and number increasing so quickly, if our addition is less than that by WoM than we should use WoM. And than work on updating the rest of the table. If our addition is greater than WoM than we should go with our addition. But it looks like we are falling behind. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 14:45, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I created a template to keep track of totals, but making the transition was difficult, because things were constantly changing and I was working. I am now looking at the current state of the template to see if I can actually implement it.
 * It will still need new territories adding to the layout part of the template, but this should be infrequent compared to the changes in numbers.
 * All the best: Rich Farmbrough  (the apparently calm and reasonable) 15:40, 21 March 2020 (UTC).


 * I agree that the totals should be from Wikipedia's own sum, as we continue to depend on various sources. Also, WOMC could have wrong data too, sometimes. Luke Kern Choi 5 (talk) 02:06, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Australia
Why is the total still that of March 19 (official numbers less the 10 from Diamond Princess)? The figure on cases from March 20 is 875 - less the 10 from the ship this should be 865, not 699. Check the "2020 coronavirus pandemic in Australia" page, section "Total Cases" for daily cumulative figures and sources. And shortly there will be an update for the 21st. Please can this table be kept current? Ptilinopus (talk) 21:04, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Did you find a source for the current total? Thank you. --MarioGom (talk) 23:18, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Check https://www.thecourier.com.au/story/6687088/coronavirus-how-many-confirmed-covid-19-cases-and-deaths-in-australia/ Ptilinopus (talk) 00:41, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The problem with the official government department of health figures is that they are always a day behind. This is because they have to wait for each state department to forward their figures, and given office hours, this means the data released each local morning are from the previous day. Media are much faster! Ptilinopus (talk) 01:34, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I updated to the a more recent figure. WOMC appears to have correct figures, but someone did not trust it and used an old reference from more than a day earlier. The 10 from Diamond Princess are counted as Australian, as they were not diagnosed on the ship. By the way, another 45 Victorian cases should be added on, once we find a source with an updated total. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:39, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Australia’s case load went up to 1347 as of now. See 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Australia, section 4, Total Cases, for latest update with sources. Ptilinopus (talk) 06:13, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Missing data
Please modify the template in order to show the following: Sorry if I don't follow the protocol. I'm just trying to convey a suggestion to the page-manager Mnatiello (talk) (talk) 12:21, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Deaths dayly and total
 * Detected cases dayly and total
 * Recovered cases dayly and total
 * Cases in intensive care (dayly)


 * There is an ongoing discussion about this here: . --MarioGom (talk) 15:06, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Case Count Task Force
Editors contributing to this article may be interested in the following discussion:. Best, --MarioGom (talk) 15:48, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Request for Wikipedia page to extend this template
As also mentioned here there is an ongoing need for data that can not be in the template (the "columns" debate). Why not do both,
 * 1) have a more terse template, used as a box in multiple Wikipedia pages (this), and
 * 2) a Wikipedia page extending the template with the extra columns

Proposal: Extending the template
While I see the need to keep this template compact, as it is used in multiple pages, I also see the need for a Wikipedia page WITH these extra columns.

The question then is: Is it possible to EXTEND, as opposed to merely EMBED, a template? Basically this is what I have been doing manually in a spreadsheet for a dozen days now, but it would be better in a Wikipedia page, maintained and quality checked by Wikipedia editors. (I copy/paste from this template daily, but the work is expa nding with the reach of the virus.) jax (talk) 07:24, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Example spreadsheet
For two weeks I have maintained a spreadsheet with data from this template, data I think would be useful for Wikipedia users:


 * 1) Countries and territories (as in template)
 * 2) Population
 * 3) [Confirmed] Cases / Deaths / Recoveries (as in template)
 * 4) Active (formula: cases-deaths-recoveries)
 * 5) % recovered (formula: recovered/cases)
 * 6) % died (formula: dead / cases)
 * 7) % active (formula: active / cases
 * 8) running fatality rate (formula dead/(dead+recovered). Note: this is based on confirmed cases, real fatality rate will be much lower as unconfirmed cases are not included
 * 9) Cases per million (formula: cases *  1,000,000 / population)
 * 10) Active per million  (formula: active *  1,000,000 / population)
 * 11) Δ Cases (formula: today's cases - yesterday's cases)
 * 12) Δ Death (formula: today's deaths - yesterday's deaths)
 * 13) Δ Recovered (formula: today's recovered - yesterday's recovered)
 * 14) Δ Active (formula: today's active - yesterday's active)
 * 15) Δ Cases % / Δ Deaths % / Δ Recovered % (as above, but as percentage, making sure not to divide with 0).

World row: Sum of above columns


 * Whatever is decided, please, do not duplicate the source code. Updating data both in this template, in corresponding per-country articles and answering to edit requests is already a lot of work. --MarioGom (talk) 10:20, 20 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Absolutely, that's why such a page should extend the template, not just copy/paste it (as I have to do, since there is no such page). jax (talk) 10:56, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

I would actually reduce the template by removing the "recov." column on recoveries. Not all countries keep that record. "Cases" and "deaths" is quite enough. I would also order the template by deaths not cases, as those are safer figures: countries adopt different policies on tests. --Checco (talk) 10:48, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
 * That would be a bad idea, increasingly so as this epidemic progresses. E.g. China, and increasingly South Korea, is in a different state than Italy, as most of their cases have recovered. The recovery numbers are not directly comparable between countries, but arguably more comparable than the Cases and Deaths columns. jax (talk) 10:56, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I support the idea of keeping the recov and the fatality rate. It is an important information that should not be missing. Also, many countries report the number of patients in intensive care. This information is important as well.Mnatiello (talk) (talk) 15:28, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Intensive care numbers are better real-time data (earlier data and less sensitive to age structure) than death rates, problem is to find those numbers. Something similar goes for tests, but that at least has got a Wikipedia page . 17:25, 22 March 2020 (UTC)jax (talk)

Worldometers/WOMC: we have a problem
Worldometers seems to be catching the highest number they can find in any source, regardless of its reliability. This is leading to multiple updates per day that are completely wrong. One thing is lagging behind official sources, I think we can cope with that. But adding higher numbers that are repeatedly proven wrong? This is way off Wikipedia's policy for WP:RS and WP:V. I've been thinking about this a lot these days, but the final trigger was their update on Angola, which is based on a viral WhatsApp audio about a case which authorities later denied. We cannot risk being a hoax amplifier. --MarioGom (talk) 10:04, 20 March 2020 (UTC)


 * I have removed Angola again. Please, see this thread and 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Angola. There is no officially confirmed cases (yet). --MarioGom (talk) 14:25, 20 March 2020 (UTC)


 * On the one hand I agree, I am not convinced that WOMC is a reliable source according to WP:RS - on the other hand mistakes happen and even reliable outlets sometimes make mistakes. These are hectic times and the question is whether there is another source that we can use instead that is as reliable but makes fewer mistakes. Should we use CSSE instead? --hroest 16:45, 20 March 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm using WOMC myself to prioritize countries to update. I'm also using it to find good sources when they cite them (in the Latest Updates section) but quite often they don't cite any at all. I think that, at the very least we should: 1) stop using it for countries that already have some reliable source with frequent updates, 2) for new countries that make it into the list, look for a reliable source to verify the inclusion. --MarioGom (talk) 09:02, 21 March 2020 (UTC)


 * By the way, in other talk page I've seen concerns about some of us denigrating WOMC. I think what they are doing is great. There is a trade-off between fresh and reliable data. WOMC chose to be on the edge of fresh data, sometimes at the cost of reliability. That is completely legitimate and even useful for us. But I think Wikipedia is supposed to give a bit more weight to reliability. --MarioGom (talk) 09:32, 21 March 2020 (UTC)


 * I totally agree, they are doing a great job and a service and each person has to decide how to balance reliability and up-to-date-ness of the information. At Wikipedia we should be on the side of caution and use reliable data wherever possible. It was never the intention of Wikipedia to be at the cutting edge, instead we have a reputation for being reliable and factually accurate and we should live up to that reputation. This means citing sources, choosing reliable sources and being transparent where the data comes from and not go for the "highest number possible" approach. Nobody is helped by that, neither Wikipedia nor our readers. --hroest 18:23, 21 March 2020 (UTC)


 * The worldometers.info site for COVID-19 case statistics for the United States does not correlate well with news claiming that hospitals are running out of supplies such as ICU beds. The Society of Critical Care Medicine, for instance claims the U.S. has "534,964 staffed (operational) acute care beds" (https://sccm.org/Blog/March-2020/United-States-Resource-Availability-for-COVID-19) which is over 700 times the number of COVID-19 critical cases of 708.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martypaulcombs (talk • contribs) 17:55, 22 March 2020 (UTC)


 * The Worldometer number for USA is currently ~7,000 cases higher than any other source I can find. Anyone know what it's based on? If there's no clear source, this would be another good indicator that it's not a reliable source. Eitan1989 (talk) 18:17, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 March 2020
+71 new confirmed cases in Poland (total of 634) Natanieluz (talk) 17:28, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Already done. Thank you. --MarioGom (talk) 00:10, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 March 2020
760 cases are now confirmed in Pakistan and 4 deaths http://covid.gov.pk/ NomanPK44 (talk) 17:31, 22 March 2020 (UTC)


 * This seems to have been accounted for, so I marked this as answered. Eliyili00 (talk) 19:36, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

5 deaths in Pakistan http://covid.gov.pk/. NomanPK44 (talk) 17:31, 22 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Already done. --MarioGom (talk) 00:11, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 March 2020
1 death iceland 50.48.174.162 (talk) 20:58, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Already done. Thank you. --MarioGom (talk) 00:12, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 March 2020
Panama has 313 confirmed cases. Source: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-panama-tally/panama-reports-nearly-30-jump-in-new-coronavirus-cases-idUSKBN21918V?il=0 190.219.162.190 (talk) 00:20, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ --MarioGom (talk) 00:24, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Separation of Autonomous Territories
I request that we separate the autonomous territories from their official country (similar to China's Hong Kong and Macao regions).

These include:
 * organised territories of the United States of America (self-governing territories)
 * overseas regions of France (some given greater autonomy, some autonomous)
 * overseas and Crown dependencies of the United Kingdom (some independent, some with a degree of autonomy)
 * autonomous regions of the Netherlands (mostly autonomous)
 * autonomous territories of Denmark (fully autonomous)

JMonkey2006 (talk) 10:16, 19 March 2020 (UTC)


 * So basically we can either separate ALL autonomous territories from their 'mainland' country, or we can combine all data into their mother country. But, we should not be considering these on a case-by-case basis (ie. separating Hong Kong from China but not separating Greenland from Denmark). This is pretty much what is happening right now.

Personally, I think that we should separate ALL autonomous territories from their mainland country. From the replies underneath, it looks as if we agree with this.

JMonkey2006 (talk) 09:52, 20 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Note this is also covering the same ground as for Netherlands, which proposes splitting into 4. Also a previous discussion decided to split off Guernsey and Jersey from the rest of the UK (as they are not in the UK). However this last decision is being violated. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:23, 19 March 2020 (UTTC)

If Guernsey and Jersey is not in the UK, so does the rest of all british dependencies. You either split all of their data away from those of their sovereigns, or you incorporates all of them like how thr Chinese Wikipedia does, instead of using the current contradictory measure. As for my opinion, I'm in support of the former measure, as not just the chinese Wikipedia, the John Hopkins statistics site (a very scientific and authoritative source) also breaks off all dependencies and manage them in separate statistics.Pktlaurence (talk) 23:40, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Also, as for issues about SLRs (States with Limited Recognitions), if cases emerged in places like Somaliland, Abkhazia, nagorno-karabakh, transdnistria, etc, how do we count them? We shove them into their internationally recognised sovereigns or we split them off? Pktlaurence (talk) 23:44, 19 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Very good point. We should also have criteria for those situations. Also, (and I may cause controversy) Taiwan would also be considered having 'limited recognition' since only fifteen nations officially recognise it. JMonkey2006 (talk) 01:01, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

We should either include all dependencies with their recognised states or include them as separate. We shouldn't mix and match. RandomIntrigue (talk) 23:56, 19 March 2020 (UTC)


 * It is quite common both in Wikipedia and reliable sources to split statistics for autonomous territories. John Hopkins University does it, and quite often Government sources do it too. For example, China government publishes its statistics for the mainland, and then it adds final addenda for Hong Kong, Macau and Taiwan. For UK, it looks like UK government publishes its statistics without including Guernsey and Jersey (correct me if I'm wrong). For the United States, I was really surprised to see Puerto Rico conflated with the United States. I think it makes sense to split these territories in the table. I'm not sure if there should be some exception (e.g. British Overseas Territories?) since I'm not fully familiar with how statistics are usually reported for those. --MarioGom (talk) 00:07, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Guernsey and Jersey publish their statistics and conduct their tests independently of the UK government count; the UK government do not include them in their statistics (them not being part of the UK). —Formulaonewiki 00:32, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Yup. Lets just split all Dependencies that at least have the slightest degree of autonomy. Besides, mixing dependency statistics with their sovereigns' is inaccurate in terms of geobiography. A french guianan is more likely to be infected by a brazilian than a frenchmen.Pktlaurence (talk) 00:18, 20 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Not again. These three crown dependencies should NOT be seperated. How do we actually enforce it though? M nurhaikal (talk) 14:37, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

If any of you have any proposals to be listed in a proper RfC, I invite you to add them here:. --MarioGom (talk) 15:27, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

As again, im standing for neither sides, and i only stand in the side of unified standardisation. You either incorporate them all, or you split them all. That simple. For the current case, it seems it would be the easier option to go for the former.Pktlaurence (talk) 15:36, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not against unifying them under the term British Islands, but UK is so blatantly incorrect it makes no sense to include the Crown Dependencies in that. —Formulaonewiki 15:48, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Another practical angle that nobody seems to have considered is that combining them makes it a nightmare to update. As no sources provide data for the UK as well as the BOTs and CDs combined, they must be collated by the editor by checking six or more different counts every time it needs updating. Then, as has happened most of the time they have been combined so far, someone will come in and update or 'correct' it according to only the UK source and report an inaccurate value far lower than the correct figure. Therefore it makes more sense for them to be separated not only from a technical point of view, but also a practical one. —Formulaonewiki 16:10, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

You do get a point, though I probably take up the role to correct those 'morons with good intentions', since I got forced into home office since the plague broke out, and I'm pretty much online 24/7. And, I'm definitely not against of using the more romantic (and inclusive, if you think so) term of Britain either. Honestly, bruh, I can't understand what da hell you're trying to argue for, since the Islands' sovereignty belongs to UK and Her Majesty like how His Holiness is Catholic. Pktlaurence (talk) 20:26, 20 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Please see the following document from the UK government, where it explicitly states that 'the Crown Dependencies are not part of the UK but are self-governing dependencies of the Crown'. The Crown Dependencies belong to Her Majesty but not the UK. Chbe113 (talk) 23:29, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Well. That's basically the same thing.Pktlaurence (talk) 09:29, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Aaand, oh hey, I just did a bit of studies about what exactly are crown dependencies, and I just discovered that, although I'm very appalled to find out that you're actually right on that CDs are not a part of UK techno-legally, but they absolutely and definitely are the responsibility of UK no matter viewing from any aspects. 'Internationally, the dependencies are considered "territories for which the United Kingdom is responsible of".' That's what the Wiki page says.

So that is it. We incorporate BOTs data into the UK section because UK is responsible for them, and we're gonna do the same thing to all CDs because they're UK are actually also having exactly the very same responsibility over them too, especially on the public health issues. And I finally discover the reason why you're such an annoying royal pain in the arse—this is a public health article instead of a political one, yet you're still severely overpoliticising it, like insisting queen and Britain is different while such difference is totally unimportant in the actual issue of concern. And you're damn persistent on your politicisation and keep throwing out long legal documents and jargons, which probably scared off quite some editors with sense but doesn't know the topic relatively well. Fortunately my college degree was in aspects related to history, politics issues, therefore I can at least have ideas about what you're trying to say, and immediately notice the flaws in it.

BTW, since you're using my beloved hometown as an example, my argument of responsibility exactly defeats yours. The Commies are entirely not responsible for any of our businesses (at least supposedly), except for military and diplomacy. Like how the last plague went 17 years ago, we're entirely left on our own which the plague left a wake of death toll of 1,800 infections and 300 deatgs, including one beloved heroine doctor. And, for damn sure, we're also gonna duke it out on our own this time. Things works in similar mechanisms in that little Portuguese town the other side of the pearl river, but British dependencies definitely doesn't work on similar mechanisms as the British government has much more responsibilities other than military and diplomacy. Pktlaurence (talk) 09:47, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Really struggling to make sense of what your point is here? Where did I use your 'beloved hometown' (which is what?) as an example? The British government has no responsibilities over the Crown Dependencies other than the defence and international relations of the Islands. In every other regard, and importantly for this article, with regard to coordinating, legislating, enforcing and financing the response to the pandemic they are acting entirely independently and the British government bears them no responsibilities to help out (see 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Guernsey for the response there). —Formulaonewiki 12:01, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
 * There was a RfC on the issue, but it was archived. I am re-proposing the RfC below. --Checco (talk) 10:02, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
 * That is a severe misunderstanding of the arrangement. Also how is using such uncivil language ("And I finally discover the reason why you're such an annoying royal pain in the arse") and pomposity ("Fortunately my college degree was in aspects related to history, politics issues, therefore I can at least have ideas about what you're trying to say, and immediately notice the flaws in it") helpful to this discussion? You're twisting one line you've misunderstood to align Crown Dependencies to BOTs in a way that doesn't work. This isn't 'political'; its a technical, constitutional question of whether or not the Crown Dependencies are in the UK — they are not. Also, there is currently consensus based on previous discussions and a talk page notice for the separation of the Crown Dependencies, so stop persistently deleting them (without transferring the citations or editing the note) until you contribute to a discussion in a civil manner and any change in consensus is achieved. —Formulaonewiki 10:30, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

First of all, please respond to my suggested arguments, especially those about responsibility, as I failed to notice any of your response to any of them.

Next, well, I'm definitely not trying to be uncivil, I'm just getting slightly irritated by your actions, and just stating that as a matter-of-fact. I've restraint myself from using swearing and personal attacks, etc, and already attempting a civil manner of the utmost; Trust me, my dear friend, you definitely have never seen me going full rage and wrath. And then I'm definitely not twisting things, 'Technical, constitutional question of whether or not the Crown Dependencies are in the UK'— that sounds pretty much like politicising things—is this topic actually relevant to a public health issue like this one? No matter the CDs belongs to UK or HM, it doesn't make much actual difference towards this very issue, which is about public health instead of politics. OK, if you wanna say that 'they are not (in the UK)' (sic), fine, I will also agree with you, as it is what the Wikipedia says, but they are still responsibility of UK (or Her Majesty if you're so insistent on such irrelevant political point), and because of that we're still gonna incorporate CDs into the UK numbers like all dependencies.

Best regards, Pktlaurence (talk) 10:52, 21 March 2020 (UTC)


 * You can deny trying to politicise the article, but you don't need to be a professor to figure your motive is nationalistic. An article such as this need no politicisation. That means, keep your views to yourself. The UK is responsible for for all its Crown dependencies. Stop disputing! RandomIntrigue (talk) 18:26, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Agree All legal territories should be listed separately and in italics. For reference the list of List of countries and territories by population provides perfect guidelines for how this should be done. Territories like French Guiana, Greenland, and the Falkland Islands for example, have dramatically different demographics and geographies that separate them distinctly from their governing nations.  Krazytea  (talk) 00:30, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 March 2020
Finland needs a footnote saying " Testing is limited to the severely ill, at-risk, social and health care workers." Sources: https://yle.fi/uutiset/3-11259147 and https://www.mtvuutiset.fi/artikkeli/thl-n-paajohtaja-markku-tervahauta-ylella-suomessa-voi-olla-todellisuudessa-20-30-kertaa-enemman-koronaviruksen-saaneita/7762944 JMKaisar (talk) 22:09, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅. Thanks for the source! RayDeeUx (talk) 02:05, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 March 2020
Change USA cases to 31,057 and cite Johns Hopkins. I have been searching the internet and have been unable to find a single source supporting 38,000+ outside of Worldometers. Eitan1989 (talk) 18:50, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
 * . The case count is actually hovering at 35k, and the US is using a more reliable and up-to-date source–1Point3Acres. RayDeeUx (talk) 02:09, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Iran note removed
I noticed someone removed the note on Iran noting that WHO estimates a much higher toll due to lack of testing. I think this is important to note, because reports are that the official toll there is greatly lagging the actual toll, which makes the number especially unreliable relative to other countries. The numbers there are going up by the same absolute amount each day because that's how many tests they can run, not because they're reflective of the actual numbers. Titanium Dragon (talk) 20:32, 21 Ma20, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , The note is back when I saw it just 2 seconds before I typed this–albeit to some extent, as it now lacks a citation. Thanks for bringing it to my attention though! RayDeeUx (talk) 02:11, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Paraguay 1st death
Paraguay confirmed 1st death due COVID-19. https://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2020/03/20/world/americas/20reuters-health-coronavirus-paraguay.html

On March 21st at 21:00 (Local time of Paraguay): 22 cases confirmed and 1 death official. --Eltetelar12 (talk) 02:22, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Hello, I'm just here to let you know that the death and the source are now included in the table. Thanks for bringing it to our attention! RayDeeUx (talk) 02:12, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 March 2020
http://www.nhc.gov.cn/xcs/yqtb/202003/fbd8871d80574991a4913cd180f83402.shtml Update China data with 81093 cases, 3270 deaths, and 72703 recovered. 17jiangz1 (talk) 05:00, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

I did it. Thanks for the note. Luke Kern Choi 5 (talk) 05:53, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 March 2020
The numerous uses of the tertiary sources such as should ideally be replaced with respective secondary sources such as respective government websites and news articles, especially since many of which are linked on the tertiary source itself as per WP:TERTIARY. 17jiangz1 (talk) 08:04, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
 * ❌. Worldometer is not tertiary, it often relies on the same primary sources that we rely on. Given that all sources rely mostly on Government data, we're using the most reliable sources we can find even if they are primary. --MarioGom (talk) 10:01, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Poland
In Poland, 627 cases of coronavirus. Ysku (talk) 21:11, 22 March 2020 (UTC)


 * in total we have 634, need to be updated (+71) Natanieluz (talk) 21:21, 22 March 2020 (UTC)


 * On the Poland SARS-CoV-2 pages we have a careful method of sourcing. Please follow that pattern and check the existing references. If you disagree with the method, then explain why on the talk pages and propose an alternative method. Boud (talk) 11:44, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Czech Republic on 23 March 2020
Please update 🇨🇿 Czech Republic counts of confirmed to 1165, according to official source: https://onemocneni-aktualne.mzcr.cz/covid-19 😷 gary C Z E k 📢 ✍ ｛🧒👧👦🚲💻🚗🍣｝ 08:03, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ - - MrX 🖋 11:48, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 March 2020
+51 confirmed cases in Poland (total of 684), +1 death (total of 8) Natanieluz (talk) 12:30, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done  CAPTAIN MEDUSA   talk  15:43, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 March 2020
Although both https://gisanddata.maps.arcgis.com/apps/opsdashboard/index.html#/bda7594740fd40299423467b48e9ecf6 and https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/#countries (which is referenced in this template both claim Guyana has 19 cases, this seems to be an error from machine translation likely from Google Translate on their parts, as referring to their primary source (in French): 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 it is "Guyane" (French for French Guiana) which as 19 cases, not the South American country of Guyana. Guyana has 5 cases and 1 death from https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/685d0ace521648f8a5beeeee1b9125cd and https://newsroom.gy/2020/03/18/guyana-confirms-fifth-coronavirus-case/. I think we should rely less on tertiary sources, and if we do, cross-check with the WHO dashboard if possible.

Furthermore, the footnote count for French Guiana should also accordingly be updated from 18->19. 17jiangz1 (talk) 08:19, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ - (Someone else took care of it.) - MrX 🖋 11:51, 23 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks, but the case number for French Guiana in the footnotes still has to be updated from 18 to 19. 17jiangz1 (talk) 14:20, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅.  P.I. Ellsworth   ed.  put'r there 17:40, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Transnistria
There are 6 cases in Transnistria, should it be added to the table like Northern Cyprus? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Extended Cut (talk • contribs) 16:51, 23 March 2020 (UTC)


 * We should wait until the following discussion is closed: . Do you know if official COVID-19 statistics by the Government of Moldova includes cases in Transnistria or not? --MarioGom (talk) 18:30, 23 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Actually, I guess it does. On | this site Transnistria is highlighted and referred to as Teritoriile de Est ('Eastern Territories'), so I think that's settled. Maybe we should add a note to Moldova that it includes the breakaway region, since de facto they have different governments and count cases separately --Extended Cut (talk) 18:44, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Updates for Germany
Germany's CCF has shot up to 28784, please amend accordingly. https://interaktiv.morgenpost.de/corona-virus-karte-infektionen-deutschland-weltweit/BlackSun2104 (talk) 17:02, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
 * ✔️. Thanks for the reminder though! RayDeeUx (talk) 19:27, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 March 2020
+57 confirmed cases in Poland (total of 749) Natanieluz (talk) 19:54, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅. Thank you. --MarioGom (talk) 20:01, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Iran figure remain the same
Iran current CCF should be 23,049 not 21,638, can anyone please explain this. https://en.irna.ir/amp/83724859/?__twitter_impression=true BlackSun2104 (talk) 13:00, 23 March 2020 (UTC)


 * It has been updated by now. Do you need to know who changed the number in the table? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:38, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 March 2020
Panama has 345 confirmed cases and 5 deaths. Source: https://www.midiario.com/nacionales/panama-suma-32-casos-nuevos-de-coronavirus-minsa-adquiere-8-mil-medicamentos-usados-en-china/ 190.219.162.190 (talk) 23:14, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ United States Man (talk) 23:20, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Turkey numbers announced on 23 March 2020
Turkey: Coronavirus death toll climbs to 37 Health minister announces 293 new cases, bringing tally to 1,529 73.118.244.165 (talk) 23:05, 23 March 2020 (UTC)


 * ✅ United States Man (talk) 23:12, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
 * You did not update the reference tho, it is cited above. Thanks.73.118.244.165 (talk) 23:20, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I did update the reference. I just used a new article from the existing site that had the same numbers you provided! United States Man (talk) 23:22, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry for that. Just to note AA is the government agency, so it is "reliable" for official numbers. THanks.73.118.244.165 (talk) 23:26, 23 March 2020 (UTC)