Template talk:COVID-19 pandemic data/Poland medical cases by voivodeship

Where's the bug?
- what makes you think that there's a problem? There are refs in all of the individual boxes in this table. Anyway, say what the problem is and we'll see if we can debug it. Boud (talk) 11:03, 12 March 2020 (UTC)


 * There isn't any, i was looking at outdated data, my bad, at this moment we have 47 cases so everyting is accurate. Natanieluz (talk) 11:09, 12 March 2020 (UTC)


 * OK. Boud (talk) 11:42, 12 March 2020 (UTC)


 * ok, apparently there is 1 case missing because, when you add all of the "total per voivodeship" cases together there will be 50, so one is missing, and I have no idea where. Natanieluz (talk) 19:43, 12 March 2020 (UTC)


 * See if it looks OK now: I fixed WP 1+1+3=5. :) Boud (talk) 20:16, 12 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks, everything is great now. Natanieluz (talk) 10:30, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Situation when someone died.
when somebody dies then total cases is reduced by 1? Natanieluz (talk) 11:21, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
 * No. The case count for per WHO and ECDC definitions is the total number of confirmed cases, independently of whether they are ill or healthy, or whether they have died or recovered. Being SARS-CoV-2 positive doesn't mean that you're ill - tests are supposed to be done on anyone who might be a carrier. Boud (talk) 11:39, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Bad English is much, much better than a copyvio
(and anyone else) Don't be embarrassed by adding sourced content in non-perfect English here; native English speakers will generally be able to guess the intended meaning and tidy things up. Non-perfect English is acceptable - this is a wiki, not a final text. Copying and pasting to try to get good quality English is unacceptable (unless quotes are used, when a quote makes sense). Paraphrasing is also not accepted - see WP:PARAPHRASE for a good explanation. There are a huge number of native English speakers who edit the en.Wikipedia - you can ping a few if you feel that nobody is tidying up your wording fast enough, or add a comment in your edit summary, since some people keep an eye on these and will notice them quickly.

Bad but understandable English summarising the info from a source does not justify a revert; an unsourced or copyvio edit does justify a revert. Boud (talk) 13:29, 14 March 2020 (UTC)


 * oh... I wasn't aware of that, sorry, now I will know that, thanks. Natanieluz (talk) 13:39, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Table headers
Wouldn't it be better to have only one balky header with voivodeship rather then two? BartłomiejN (talk) 13:56, 14 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes (at least for the moment), but I couldn't get that to work without sabotaging the sortability. I think it's useful to have sortable columns: even if we change the default order that we have now, with dates increasing downwards, there will be some people who want the reverse, and there may be some who want to choose a single województwo for the sort parameter.


 * In a month's time, which is probably the shortest realistic time scale to get past the peak of events (and I'd be sceptical, because this is a problem of European timing, and to a lesser degree, world wide timing; two months sounds more realistic with gradual lifting of the various restrictions), both tables will be much longer. Feel free to see if you can re-merge the tables while retaining sortability (when I tried, I got two '13 March' rows sorted together, from the confirmed cases and deaths).


 * Alternatively, if nobody feels that the sortability is needed, and we're not bothered about the tables getting really long and staying as a single table, we could sacrifice sortability. It's also possible that as the numbers start piling in, people stop maintaining the table(s). Boud (talk) 18:43, 14 March 2020 (UTC)


 * I am sorry maybe I was not clear. For me it is ok to have separate tables for different informations with voivodeships. By headers I was referring to 1's (2'nd in "New confirmed cases") row and the last row. I agree with . In case we will have large tables it is probably wiser to stay with current state.
 * BartłomiejN (talk) 23:51, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
 * BartłomiejN (talk) 23:51, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Bug discussion on main page
See Talk:2020 coronavirus pandemic in Poland/Archive 1. Boud (talk) 12:36, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

COVID-19 deaths on 24 March
Looking at so we know which refs we're talking about, I see: So:
 * ref [74]:
 * ref [67]:
 * ref [75]:
 * 71-year old, number 10, died in hospital in pl:Cieszyn (ujednoznacznienie) [74]; biggest Cieszyn is in SL; village Cieszyns are in LU, WP, ZP;
 * 68-year old, number 9, died in hospital in pl:Puławy [in LB (3 towns/villages called that) or PK or WP] [75];
 * person 9 hospitalised this morning in Poznań [WP], official residence in WP, but effectively lived in ZP for some time, for official statistics removed from "that voivodeship" [which one? WP or ZP?] and removed from the WP statistics [so probably removed from WP].

I think patient number 10 in SL is a reasonable guess. Patient 9: my guess is that this is Puławy in WP, and that patient 9 is officially assigned to ZP. Boud (talk) 21:42, 24 March 2020 (UTC)


 * right but also when you look at "Infections per voivodeship (in total per)" you see 900 - there should be 901. Natanieluz (talk) 21:48, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
 * . Boud (talk) 00:10, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I also saw that /onlyinclude/ (ofc which <,>) was wrongly placed below "timeline" and "Main article: 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Poland" isn't working. Also according to MOHPL yesterday was 900 cases total, but should be 901 - according to there own stats today we have +57 new cases and in total we have 957 but should be 958 because yesterday was 901 cases??? Natanieluz (talk) 13:30, 25 March 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm first trying to solve the 'onlyinclude' bug... Boud (talk) 13:59, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅. Now I'm trying to find who/how the error got there... Boud (talk)
 * It was someone who is trying to systematically add missing things to the medical cases charts, who made a mistake. Boud (talk) 14:41, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

ZP 24 March 5+5=9?
Right now we have 5+5=9 for ZP for 24 March, which gives a total for 24 March of 151, and a total total of 900 for 24 March. Since this seems to give consistent results with the MOH counts for 25 March so far: 31+26 = 57 new, and 900+57 = 957, I'm not going to try to chase up the explanation for the 5+5=9 for ZP for 24 March puzzle. Boud (talk) 16:13, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
 * "zachodniopomorskie – 31 przypadków, w środę potwierdzono 5 nowych, jednocześnie resort zdrowia poinformował, że wyłącza ze statystyk jeden przypadek, który był zdublowany." and "Jednocześnie informujemy, że wyłączamy ze statystyk zdublowanego wcześniej pacjenta, co oznacza, że łącznie w woj. zachodniopomorskim jest 29 osób zakażonych koronawirusem." (pl), they wrongly dubled one case in ZP 24 march  Natanieluz (talk) 20:14, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Nice find. ✅ Boud (talk) 20:35, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Death reports offset by a week?
See the detailed counts section. OKO.press claims a 19 March and a 24 March COVID-19 death in an MSWiA hospital. It seems that the 19 March case could match the 26 March 78-year-old (same age, same city) officially announced. The other case, ,,pacjentka psychiatryczna" on 24 March is harder to match to the MOH announcement of ,,84-letnia kobieta" - neither OKO.press nor MOH give enough info to really suggest that they're the same or different people. The dates disagree, but if the MOH gives a date 7 days after the date of death stated by the family, then the dates claimed by the MOH will have to be considered as "later-than-or-on-the-real-date-of-death".

Any more sources? Boud (talk) 01:08, 27 March 2020 (UTC)


 * If there are no denials from the Ministry, then I think we will have to count these as a 19 March MZ death and a 24 March MZ death. If there are denials, then we may have to have two totals, according to the two POVs, in order to satisfy WP:NPOV, or we have to decide which report is more credible, and the other POV will be a note. Boud (talk) 20:37, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Sources text-align:left
Hey, do you maybe know how to make that sources to be ?, so right now there are in centre in these cells, but I think that better will be on right side :). Natanieluz (talk) 12:19, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Good question: none of the obvious things I tried worked. (I actually like the centre alignment for the refs, but that's just a question of style; I don't think anyone will object to you doing right alignment if you can get it to work.) Try asking for help at Help_talk:Table. The more detail you give (explaining what you tried), the more likely you are to get an answer; see Simon Tatham's classic essay. Boud (talk) 15:25, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Yea, I have tried too, and I was thinking that Iam the only one who likes/prefere that "centre" position, so if there's also people who like that (like you) I'll stay with what we have now Natanieluz (talk) 20:45, 11 April 2020 (UTC)