Yes: 10 countries have deaths by coronavirus now. The case-fatality rate appears to be a valuable information to compare the situation in the countries. Xenagoras (talk) 19:37, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
No: Unless all the CFRs are supported by citations that comply with WP:MEDRS. I would not support the addition CFRs that have been calculated from the data by Wikipedia editors.Graham Beards (talk) 19:59, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
Oppose Even if reliable sources support, CFRs at current stage are very preliminary estimations. Also calculations of Death/Cases are WP:OR at this stage. We may have a small section to discuss CFR with reliable sources in main articles.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 20:30, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
We would use the numbers of deaths and cases from the table and apply them to definition of the CFR: "deaths / diagnosed cases" in percent. Xenagoras (talk) 00:16, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
CommentWHO has made CFR ambiguous - see page 12 of today's report. I've been proposing naive case fatality rate, but that doesn't count as an RS. WHO now says CFR = crude fatality rate. Could/should we adopt WHO's definition of CFR to mean crude fatality rate without risking a conflict/confusion with uses of CFR = case fatality rate? Boud (talk) 22:35, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
No, we should not. That WHO report defines the crude fatality rate to be deaths among laboratory confirmed cases. (This excludes the clinically diagnosed cases.) Directly below that number they display the graph for the case fatality ratio which they define as deaths among total cases. These appear to mean the same. Xenagoras (talk) 00:16, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
No I too agree with Graham Beards. I think there's enough misinformation out there, and we shouldn't risk the integrity of the project to put forward our own calculations, even if we are using numbers sourced from reliable sources. Moksha88 (talk) 03:07, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
Oppose The outbreak is still ongoing, fatality rates calculated at this point in time do not hold any value as they are not representative of the entire epidemic. Manually calculating the fatality rates without citing reliable sources that directly support the numbers is also against WP:OR. Hayman30 (talk) 05:44, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
Oppose for the reason's offered by others - the figures are too provisional and the calculations too OR-y to be of much value.Pincrete (talk) 08:51, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
No as it would be misleading, as for many places there is little testing, and so the apparent fatality rate is high, but it is just an artifact of the records. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:12, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
STRONG YES as long as the caveat that the initial calculations have an (unknown) margin of error and that the data shall harden up over time. Part of this is the nature of tracking in the epidemic in the early stages, but too politics and/or poor public health monitoring systems and going to generate soft numbers -and THAT'S part of the mix too. Hard numbers don't automatically land on computer screens, y'know; there's a GIGO element. kencf0618 (talk) 15:44, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
NOOOOO. CFR is only relevant for well advanced and non-expanding epidemic area, namely, China ALONE. It would be utterly misleading for any other area. Yug(talk)18:26, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
The Swiss federal authorities corrected the number of confirmed cases on 28 Feb afternoon/evening. The official number now, 29 Feb. in the morning, is: 8 confirmed cases (Source: Federal Office of Public Health).
NZZ currently also reports 8 confirmed cases plus 5 cases which have been tested positively, but not yet confirmed by the Swiss reference laboratory in Geneva. 1 confirmed case has since recovered (the Ticino patient who was the first confirmed case in Switzerland).
Background: As far as I know, the Federal Authorities have not made transparent why there was a spike in reported cases on 28 February, with numbers that had to be corrected afterwards. What has been communicated though is that in the course of this week, testing capabilities have been rolled out to all the regions of Switzerland. I would assume that this has led to a situation where various labs are testing suspected cases before sending a sample to the reference lab in Geneva for confirmatory testing. So there are three classes of cases now: (a) suspected cases (temporarily quarantined); (b) cases that have been tested positively by one of the labs; and (c) cases that have been confirmed positive by the reference lab. Since Friday afternoon, the official numbers published by the Federal Authorities seem to include only (c), whereas on Thursay and Friday morning they included both (b) and (c). This is my current working hypothesis, which still needs to be confirmed by official sources. --Beat Estermann (talk) 07:38, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
Done NZZ reported 15 yesterday, I noticed earlier today that they've updated the story, but I wasn't sure about it. Thanks for clarifying. Hayman30 (talk) 07:57, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
NZZ Online currently reports 13 confirmed cases for Switzerland. They specifically mention that these cases have been confirmed by the reference lab in Geneva, as communicated by the respective Cantonal authorities. Further cases are awaiting confirmation. So far, the Federal Authorities have not updated their numbers since yesterday. --Beat Estermann (talk) 16:25, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
I believe it's just been updated: As of February 29, 2020, 5.45 p.m .: The Reference Laboratory for Emerging Viral Diseases (NAVI) in Geneva has confirmed infection with the new corona virus in 18 cases in Switzerland.Hayman30 (talk) 01:00, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
Yes, absolutely. Thanks for keeping an eye on both sources. By the way, I have added the March 1 numbers (17:30 CET) directly in the table, since the page protection seems to have been removed/eased. When updating values, do we need to sort the table manually or is this done in some automatic fashion? --Beat Estermann (talk) 18:13, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
In this edit and this edit, sourced information was twice reverted by the same user, with the edit comments Fixed Iran footnote. We don't care about estimates. and This table is for confirmed numbers, not estimates. Such information should be included in the article for Iran.
These arguments are bureaucratic absurdity. Researchers at a well-recognised university estimated (based on evidence) that there should be about 50 times more would-be-confirmed cases than are officially reported. The information that was not reverted is a non-Iranian-government estimate of the number of confirmed cases by BBC Persian. In this context, our table, which presently describes the official Iranian values as "confirmed", is absurd, given the WP:RS that we already have cited. A footnote does not replace the values in the column, it adds notable information which is otherwise hidden, ambiguous or otherwise misleading or confusing to someone reading the table.
I propose either restoring the deleted part of the footnote, or changing the head of the Confirmed column to Government-<br />confirmed. Otherwise, this table is misleading. Boud (talk) 09:13, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
I made two reverts because you restored your changes again after being reverted, which contravenes WP:BRD. You seem to think that as long as the information you're adding is well-sourced, you have a golden ticket to add them anywhere, which is not true, especially when the stuff you're adding is not even remotely related to what is being presented in this table. I did not revert your edit because what you're adding was unsourced or unnotable, but because it's totally irrelevant. Estimations have nothing to do with this table. Footnotes are used to provide explanatory information, not to add more information, that should be done on the article. The current footnote for Iran contains an explanation for the contradiction of confirmed numbers (BBC vs. Iran gov), but what you're adding doesn't really explain anything (not even related at all), not to mention that a footnote is supposed to be short and concise.
Nothing suggests that this table is misleading. Adding information about estimated numbers would be pretty confusing, though. Hayman30 (talk) 10:03, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
Estimating and confirming are relative, not absolute, procedures of checking whether information is true. We have some numbers in the table - for Iran - that are absurd given the available sources. None of the values in the table are confirmed in the sense of nucleic-acid test results being publicly available with anonymisation for personal privacy. It's likely that none of the counts are confirmed in the emerging scientific standard of reproducible research. None of the national health authorities' data, even if suspicious in some cases, has been as clearly (based on sources) inconsistent with independent estimates as the Iranian case. This is why, until now, nobody has seen a need to warn readers in this table about more realistic figures. So if we avoid referring to the University of Toronto values, then we are being bureaucratic rather than presenting encyclopedic information. In other words, the values are heterogeneous rather than homogeneous in terms of SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19, even though they are homogeneous in terms of representing governmental opinion. This is why an alternative option is to clarify that these are governmental opinions.
@Boud: Hi, the footnote "BBC Persian reported 210 deaths in Iran by 28 February 2020, citing hospital sources. The Iranian government rejected this report." does not make sense in the context of this table, as it tends to be out of sync with the table - or do you want to update it on a daily basis in the future? What could be done however, is setting up an article specifically describing and discussing the different estimates for Iran. If there is sufficient evidence that the government numbers are utterly wrong, we could add a footnote here, saying that the official data is contested, with a link to that separate, explanatory article. There you could also properly describe the various methodologies and definitions that were used to arrive at the numbers. I tend to agree with Hayman30 that the footnote is not the appropriate place for this. --Beat Estermann (talk) 16:39, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
Just so you know, I did not add the footnote about the BBC report, I think somebody just felt the need to acknowledge that there are different, contradicting numbers floating around. I do feel like it’s kind of pointless though since we already “chose a side” by displaying the official government count as the confirmed number. I’m not against removing the footnote entirely, I didn’t remove that part at first because it held more weight than irrelevant information about estimates. Hayman30 (talk) 20:10, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
Why don't you properly sort the country names in the table?
I don't exactly know what you mean, but the current sorting method for the table is: a) Countries are arranged in descending order according to their number of confirmed cases. b) Countries with the same number of confirmed cases are sorted by the number of recoveries (the country with more recoveries goes under the one with less recoveries). c) Countries with the same number of confirmed cases and recoveries will be sorted alphabetically. In the recoveries column, the value of "–" is assumed to be zero. Hayman30 (talk) 12:08, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
@178.122.112.181: Already done. The table is sortable; clicking on the "Country or territory" header will sort entries alphabetically descending or ascending. --Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 17:31, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
Since different countries report their number of cases at different time even on the same calendar day, and some may report more than once every day, it would be helpful to add a column on the right-hand side. 1.64.48.26 (talk) 15:39, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
Australia Numbers
Note in Australia health is primary the responsibility of the States instead of the Commonwealth.
Please add your sources to the template, don't just point to the talk page in your edit summary. Talk pages should not be used for references. Hayman30 (talk) 18:52, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland all have cases. All could be considered independent territories. Do we separate out, or bundle? Ultimograph5 (talk) 19:51, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
For the exact same reason you use "Mainland China", you shall refer to "Mainland France" and separate cases from the french territories like Martinique (2 confirmed cases), and Saint Barthelemy (1 case), these territories are thousands miles away from mainland France. FMichaud76 (talk) 08:07, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
We didn't separate the Chinese count based on personal preference, it's just because the core source cited on page uses this approach (Mainland China, Hong Kong, Macau, Taiwan). BNO News does not use "mainland France". Hayman30 (talk) 08:11, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
WHO is the one and only formal reference. BNO is not an official reference, it is just one of many news agencies, like Reuters, France Press Agency... Therefore if you don't separate France's territories, there is no reason to separate Chineses territories. And as you separete chinese territories, you shall generalise the rule to other countries. FMichaud76 (talk) 08:38, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
WHO is not even used as a source on this template, and no it is not "the one and only formal reference". They don't have the most updated numbers in situation reports. Just because "BNO is not an official reference" doesn't mean we can't use it. National Health Commission daily reports also separate the numbers. None of the sources (not even the WHO) separate cases in France. Hayman30 (talk) 09:23, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
Tribune de Genève reports 27 confirmed cases for Switzerland as of Sunday, 1 March, 19:00, after communication of new confirmed cases by the Authorities of the Canton of Geneva.
At the time being, neither the Federal Office of Public Health nor NZZ Online are reporting these new cases; but when updating the data, keep an eye on these sources as well as further increases may be announced during the day.
Right above the map - "cas confirmés". As of 11:40:52 they are reporting a total of 28 cases, after adding a further case for the canton of Zurich. However, they also added a note below the table saying that they are not using the Federal Office of Public Health' definition of a "confirmed" case (requiring confirmatory testing by the reference lab in Geneva), but are also including cases that have been positively tested by other labs. It might be wiser to stick to the "conservative" definition of a "confirmed case", used by NZZ and the Federal Office of Public Health data, as we cannot ensure systematic coverage of the cantonal reports. I would also assume that over the coming days, the time lapse for confirmatory testing will decrease. I still haven't seen information about the exact testing procedure and the time required. --Beat Estermann (talk) 11:01, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
I checked all three sources. The first source appears to be paywalled, but the first paragraph reads: Five new cases of coronavirus were identified in Geneva this weekend, bringing to eight the total of patients treated at the University Hospitals of Geneva (HUG). ([1]) It didn't mention how many cases there are in Switzerland in total. The BAG source still says 24. NZZ reports 26 cases. Hayman30 (talk) 11:41, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
Here is the TdG article; I wasn't aware that it was paywalled - my employer may have a subscription. But as I said, let's wait until the Federal Authorities publish today's data, which they will probably do tonight around 17:30. The reporting by NZZ has become a bit messy as well: the last time I looked into it, they had conflicting numbers mentioned in the article; also, the numbers in the graphic did not add up to the total of confirmed cases reported. Furthermore, they are announcing new cases from Zurich that have not yet been confirmed by the reference lab. --Beat Estermann (talk) 12:05, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
It's definitely paywalled. Even if I try to bypass it, I could only see the article, the map widget is not visible ([2]). Anyway NZZ now reports 34 cases, and I've updated the table accordingly. BAG is still stuck at 24. Hayman30 (talk) 14:59, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
NZZ now reports 38 confirmed cases. Today's number communicated by BAG is 30 (as of 17:30). TdG currently reports 41 cases, including cases that have been positively tested, but not yet confirmed by the reference laboratory. --Beat Estermann (talk) 17:08, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
Updated to 38. Preliminary cases that are awaiting further testing are not considered confirmed cases, but the TdG article is paywalled anyway so there's no way to verify the number. Hayman30 (talk) 17:57, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
BNO core source??
BNO News is used extensively as a source for this template, [3] which in turn uses the most unreliable sources such as Facebook and Twitter. How can any of the data in this template be trusted.Graham Beards (talk) 12:23, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
Information on social media sites may or may not be reliable. Official announcements from government accounts can be regarded as reliable. Hayman30 (talk) 13:04, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
We cannot make use of review articles in a fast up-dating situation like this, and instead have to rely on reliable sources. We use sources that have traceable sources themselves. Figures are cross checked periodically with slower moving official updates to make sure that our sources correctly interpreted their sources. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:39, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
By sources that have traceable sources themselves, are you saying that official announcements by the government are not regarded as reliable? Don't get me wrong, I do understand the need to move away from using BNO News as a "core source", they make a lot of mistakes and are often slow to update some of the numbers. Having an individual source for every country is probably more ideal, even though it'll be less convenient when updating. Hayman30 (talk) 09:17, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
Whatever sources we use should indicate how they got their information. Government sources are counted as reliable, but are often a day out of date. So people use newspapers or tweets by experts. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:15, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
The data is unreliable. Wikipedia is not a newspaper and when should not try to emulate one. 'Fast up-dating situations' are not an excuse to ignore our core policies. WP:MEDRS does not preclude the use of review articles; it urges caution. Using a source that in turn uses Facebook and Twitter is not acceptable. Graham Beards (talk) 13:23, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
User:Graham Beards what do you suggest we use? Right now It is unclear were the number from Italy comes from.
User:Doc James I suggest we stop trying to keep up with news media in publishing these numbers. It is not as if Wikipedia is the sole, or central, source of this data. It is better to be out of date, and acknowledge it, than to be wrong. Why can't we wait for reliable sources? And just say as of such-and-such a date the totals were whatever. When this blows over—which it will sooner than observers think—questions will be asked regarding the sources of all the misleading information. As it stands, Wikipedia will be near the top of the list.Graham Beards (talk) 18:07, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
User:Graham Beards I would be fine with that but am not sure it is feasible. We would need admin protection of this template to achieve this. And will end up with 100s of requests for edits. We are struggle just to get a single reference to support the content we contain here. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:15, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
Well let me try switching to Johns Hopkins first. There are reliable sources. I will put the ref in the country column to get the ref closer to the data. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:24, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
Okay User:Graham Beards switch the references to be by the country in question. Found a bunch that were off (both too high and too low). At least it is possible to quickly verify changes now. Not sure if it will be enough. I think we need a rule of max one source. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:20, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
Well done James. Even Johns Hopkins acknowledge the difficulties (see their disclaimer). I agree with you regarding a one source rule. Graham Beards (talk) 19:27, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 March 2020
Not done: The article says: The young man will be tested again on Monday. If this test will also come out negative, and the man will not have symptoms, he will be discharged from Matei Bals Hospital, where he is hospitalized now. He is not discharged from the hospital yet and is awaiting a second test. Hayman30 (talk) 18:31, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
Diamond Princess count coinciding with United States count
The current 45 of the 100 count of U.S. cases coincides with the Diamond Princess count. Should the data of the Diamond Princess be eliminated since all Americans have been evacuated from the ship? —Wei4Green • Talk00:55, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
I think that any people relocated between territories should result in the first having its count reduced, and the second having it increased. However we may ask where the case was confirmed? Is it double counted? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:23, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
Cases identified on the cruise ship are counted towards "international conveyance", regardless of their nationality. Cases that are confirmed after they have been repatriated will be included in their home country's count and they are not included in "international conveyance". I read somewhere that there are a number of cases that were confirmed in Japan, but were later flown back to the US. In this case, they should be counted towards the US count, and I believe they have already been subtracted from "international conveyance". I may be wrong about this though. Note that WHO's situation reports have the same number as this table for the cruise ship (706). Hayman30 (talk) 09:02, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
Partly done: I believe the case in Gibraltar is included in the UK count. BNO didn't add Gibraltar to the list, instead they updated the UK number to 41. They wrote in the timeline section: 09:36: First case in Gibraltar, UK. (Source)Hayman30 (talk) 10:06, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
Incorrect again. Total cases is shown at 110041, sum of the column is 110067. Deathcount is shown at 3825, sum of column is 3828. Recoveries is shown at 61982, sum of column is 62253. Why not doing at automatic computation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:CB00:B44:1F00:A820:47D0:500E:668E (talk) 09:03, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
I've noticed that John Hopkins list both of them down. According to their figures, Ireland has 19 cases while Rep of Ireland has 21. Aren't they the same country? M nurhaikal (talk) 23:09, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
Many times, yes. Ireland could also mean Rep of Ireland plus Northern Ireland. Either way John Hopkins have this incorrect, and appears they duplicate reporting under two different names. All the aggregator sites I've checked appear to show countries/territories slightly differently when it comes to the detail. Sun Creator(talk)00:38, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
Currently, the case of Gibraltar is still not included in the cases of UK. The number on the website of the UK government is 273 cases, which decomposes as 244 in England, 4 in Wales, 18 in Scotland, and 7 in Northern Ireland, and which DOESN'T include Gibraltar. Please change the number 273 to 274 and make a note saying that the number by the UK government DOESN'T include Gibraltar if the editors would like to include Gibraltar in UK. Chbe113 (talk) 17:48, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
The note 'e' simply says that Gibraltar is included but it is NOT. The number of current cases in the UK including Gibraltar is 274. What I am saying is that people always copy the number from the UK government which DOESN'T include Gibraltar, so a note should be made in the edition part warning that 'the number from the UK government DOESN'T include Gibraltar'. Chbe113 (talk) 23:00, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
The note should have mentioned that figures from Johns Hopkins as well as the UK government don't include Gibraltar so editors should always add one to that. And btw, the number of cases in the UK has increased to 319, or 320 with Gibraltar included.Chbe113 (talk) 14:26, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
Already done. Please keep us informed of local sources too. While it may take a while to update, the local sources will give a further form of verification. Thank you, Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:09, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 March 2020
I request a change to the explanatory footnote (efn) [a] in Denmark, from 'Includes Faroe Islands, an autonomous territory of Denmark.' to 'Includes cases in the Faroe Islands, an autonomous territory of Denmark.'. Lorenzo Diana (talk) 17:55, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
We need to be mindful of the quality of the sourcing that is used.
'
Daniel.Cardenas removed existing sourcing for US numbers and replaced it here with "coronavirus.1point3acres.com/en". A review of the source suggests the numbers are maintained by "...a group of first generation Chinese immigrants in the United States...[who] built this real time coronavirus/covid-19 tracker for US and Canada to bring more transparency to the public and increase awareness about the global epidemic." How can it be said that this amounts to a reliable source by any stretch of the imagination? Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:42, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
The website list sources for the information. Seems well maintained to me. Information is more reliable than previous source. Thanks for asking, Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 15:51, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
Right, but it is a self-published source with no actual reputation for fact-checking. I will not attempt to figure out the basis upon which you say the information in this source is acceptable, let alone "more reliable" than the previous source, as the onus is on you as the editor who inserted the source. Re-inserting the source, as you did here, without building consensus to do so is plainly disruptive. If you want to continue using it, you can discuss it at the reliable sources noticeboard in the first instance or here. Thanks, Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:28, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
I would second Ncmvocalist. It's a Self Published source and by default should be considered as not suitable. At a later date it may end up being conferred some reliability but right now it's utterly dependent upon their ability to "fact check". Koncorde (talk) 17:27, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
I also oppose this source, this is clearly not a well-established source and should not be used by Wikipedia as a source. Clearly not WP:RS as its self published. We can use CSSE instead, which has been published in a peer reviewed scientific journal (Lancet) and is pretty up to date. --hroest17:31, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
Change confirmed cases in Poland to 17. [4]- Twitter of the Polish Minister of Health, [5] - information from the Polish media (TVN24) and worldometers.info [6]Natanieluz (talk) 18:17, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
this will likely not happen as, from a practical standpoint, it is too difficult to maintain. please search for "column" in the archives to see previous related discussions. regardless, thanks for the suggestion! dying (talk) 20:05, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 March 2020 - Fatalities in Germany
No sources are stating any fatalities in Germany so far, and the "no data" entry is pure speculation, in fact it is believable since both the outbreak in Germany and the infected people are comparably young. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.21.254.152 (talk) 12:21, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for giving the explanation, but i think you might be getting it wrong here. No data pops up if you click on the country on the left panel it says no data on panel below 0 deaths. I am not sure if that means there is no data on death counts. I think it just means there is no data on the locations of the deaths.
I think there is "No data", because what kind of data should they provide about 0 cases? It's showing "no data" in all countries with 0 fatalities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.21.254.152 (talk) 12:36, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
The number of cases is given as 0 for all of those countries but there is no further data in the space below the number of deaths - check China where the deaths are subdivided in that space! "No data" and "0" are fundamentally different informations (we have no data vs. we have data and no deaths have been reported), so using "no data" here is simply wrong and also representing the source incorrectly. This is what feeds conspiracy theories about meida hiding data... Please change this back! -- Cymothoa exigua (talk) 12:41, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
It should be changed back to 0 anyways, i believe this might be poor ui design that is a bit confusing. But the source clearly states 0 deaths, that is what we should list too.
I take your point. It's ambiguous. In some territories 0 is because nothing has been reported. Perhaps leave cell blank? Sun Creator(talk)12:45, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
I would just change it all back to 0, now there is *empty* and 0 mixed in the table. I understand that the 0 might jsut be a lack of reporting. But the same could be true for any data, the number of cases and deaths are never 100% reliable as proven by the wide range of case fatality rates. nevertheless I think we should list the exact number from hopkins --Scisne (talk) 13:03, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
Not done and I want to insist, cases in Spain are growing very fast. Data at this moment is 1,220 cases 30 deaths 32 recoveries. Please update it. --Mcsmp (talk) 19:55, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
Done. by the way, in the future, your request is likely to be more quickly addressed if you either provide a source or mention which source we already use provides the updated information. i ended up using the el pais article already cited. thanks! dying (talk) 20:46, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 March 2020
Just to get consensus - should 'Active cases' be added to the table? It would be fairly informative - one would be able to see how many are actually in the countries. It's on here for sources. Sir Magnus (talk)
For this table I would say no. Although people could work it out, it will increase the work of the editors, who can't be bothered updating the total at the bottom either. So it would not be maintained. I would suggest you write a javascript to add the column and calculate the entries yourself. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:24, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
Japan Death Toll unreliable
The rise from 6 to 7 death persons yesterday to 17 today is unreliable.
Even the wiki itself says 9 if we look at the Article of the Corona outbreak in Japan.
I guess the 17 include the 7+1 Death from the Diamond Princess, which are listed separetely under "Diamond Princess" and "Australia".
North Korea....200 soldiers dead (according to DailyNK)
Yeah I get it that there isn't any "official" death-count but then again there probably won't ever be...it is a closed-society even in the best of times. And right now? Not the best of times... Shearonink (talk) 02:07, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
Number of territories doesn't match number of territories
For a few days I have kept a copy of this template in a spreadsheet, to calculate derived values like fatality rates and daily differences. I have noticed that the stated number of territories do not match the actual number of territories (it claims to have more than there are table rows).
Date
Stated
Actual
March 6
88
88
March 7
96
97
March 8
102
104
March 9
108
105-1
March 10
115
111-1
March 11
115
115-1
(Faroe islands were added March 8, removed later, but for internal consistency I kept it in my spreadsheet.)
Are there territories manually removed from some external list, manual counting, or some other reason for this inconsistency?
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 March 2020
UK, according to Wikipedia's article, is made up Great Britain, northern eastern part of an island of Ireland and a number of smaller islands which include Gibraltor and Guernsey - noting that the latter two are among the List of islands of the United Kingdom. However, these are (evidently) not included in figures here but that is a website specifically for England. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:11, 9 March 2020 (UTC)Inserted words inadvertently missed in italics. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:58, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
Actually not, @User:Ncmvocalist. According to Wikipedia, Gibraltar is a dependency/territory, like Hong Kong, Macau, Faroe Islands, Martinique, etc. All these places should be listed separately, consistently with other Wikipedia articles. User:Sun Creator is right. --Checco (talk) 22:00, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
I think we many need a proper RFC on this to have a proper conclusion. There are too many changes backwards and forwards, and uncertainty for other editors who don't have a strong opinion. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:27, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
Agreed 100%. I am in that latter category of editors, but expect more consistency (and clarity) across all of Wikipedia articles on this. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:01, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
Sadly, the wiki page List of islands of the United Kingdom doesn't list Guernsey and explicitly says that The Crown Dependencies (Guernsey, Jersey, and Isle of Man) are not part of the United Kingdom. Hence, I support the user above that Guernsey should be listed separately. Chbe113 (talk) 09:31, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
Yes - it is a Crown protectorate but it's own territory. Similar to HK or Macau in status, has actual bone-fida recognition unlike Palestine and never mind the minefield on ROC. I can see the scope for argument here but given the recognition of other less separate entities I think it should. (please forgive me for not signing this off, I have bought a Mac and they don't have the 'wavy button' to do so). --Mtaylor848 (talk) 01:07, 10 March 2020 (UTC) (Wikipedia has it so I'm fine and dandy).
Yes and No - If the answer is Yes, then French Guiana, Guadeloupe, Martinique, La Réunion, Mayotte, and so on shall also be listed separately. If the answer is No, then Macau, Hong Kong, Taiwan Palestine etc. shall be included in their right country... FMichaud76 (talk) 09:40, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
The reason I reverted the edit earlier was because the table doesn't appear collapsed by default when viewing on mobile. There is no option to collapse/expand it when viewing on mobile. Instead, it messes up with the table. M nurhaikal (talk) 05:37, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
Sorting was only added in the last day (by me). Collapsing is more important then sorting imo. Also sorting has a negative technical effect on autocollapsing, so sorting might have to go. Sun Creator(talk)06:25, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
@Sun Creator: Don't get your hype too high. Those buttons are only a temporary implementation. The proper way to do would be to use JavaScript to handle them. I wonder if there is any Gadget that handles button groups so that we don't have to create one from scratch. Alexiscoutinho (talk) 16:02, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
It doesn't appear as a collapsible table in mobile. Instead, it just removes the table rows and columns and compact them together. M nurhaikal (talk) 07:07, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
@Sun Creator as mentioned, It doesn't appear as a collapsible table in mobile. Instead, it just removes the table rows and columns and compact them together. It appears as a collapsible table on your side? M nurhaikal (talk) 07:14, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
The official Austrian governmental information is: https://www.sozialministerium.at/Informationen-zum-Coronavirus/Neuartiges-Coronavirus-(2019-nCov).html. Since it is in German it might be found unreliable. I personally find it unreliable to ignore this information. Since several days there are 2 recoveries which do not reflect on this site. Although one might not be able to read German I still hope one might be able to read German numbers.
Actual is: confirmed cases 157; Recoveries; 2
It's the combined, French ones (Includes cases overseas in French Guiana, Martinique, Saint Barthélemy and Saint Martin.), JHU/WHO/sources have them separately and Wiki editors want them together. Sun Creator(talk)09:38, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
Two sources happily cover it all or one source and edit conflict all day long.
By using only JHU another refs get added by local reports and then they get removed when out of date(hours!), but using both site it catches all local news and so no requirement-to add and remove references constantly. Sun Creator(talk)09:58, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
User:Sun Creator has added duplicates of the Johns Hopkins reference in the way of https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/. I have remove the redundant ones, or references that do not support the numbers. We should have just one good reference that supports the numbers, and not multiples, that will leave the reader guessing where the number came from. Already the Johns Hopkins University reference has been discussed and is supported as reliable. Worldometers may be useful for more up to date information, but we do not need both references. So do editors agree that we should have as few references as possible for each country/territory? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:00, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
JHU is not up to date for much of the 24 hour cycle, so local references get added then hours later removed, when they themselves are out of date. The two reference cover and end requirement to add local and remove them again. Sun Creator(talk)10:03, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
Our policies don't support limiting the criteria for inclusion because of editor inconvenience; sometimes information will come from multiple sources, which is only natural for an active issue. If the source is reliable at that time and verifies the content, it can be included at that time - but the source may no longer be necessary at a later time so it is removed. That is natural, though the number of times we will need to change a source will be limited if the updates appear more promptly in the most reliable sources we refer to. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:19, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
Guernsey (the island, the Bailiwick, and the remaining Channel Islands) are unequivocally not part of the United Kingdom.[1] In 2008, Guernsey (along with the other Crown Dependencies) signed an agreement with the UK including a number of clarifications regarding the international identity of the islands including, "each Crown Dependency has an international identity that is different from that of the UK".[2][3][4]
Just to illustrate how Guernsey cannot be likened to Gibraltar: Unlike Gibraltar, whose citizen's UK identity was affirmed by extending them the vote in the 2016 Brexit referendum, Guernsey citizens were not extended such a privilege. Additionally, the UK government may/will not legislate for Guernsey; the island has it's own legislative, executive and judicial bodies entirely separated from that of the UK. For UK legislation to apply, precedent suggests this is not possible without the island's consent. (NB Whether the UK actually retains any power to legislate, even as a last resort, is doubted now – the Attorney-General of Jersey suggested this power had fallen into 'desuetude').[5]
I should also add that the primary source used for most of the data, the JH Map, classifies Guernsey under 'Channel Islands'. While I personally think that's about as helpful as having Germany, France etc. listed under 'Europe' and Guernsey and Jersey should be separated out due to their constitutional independence, it's still more correct than including Guernsey within the UK! —Formulaonewiki10:31, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
Guernsey is not recognised internationally as independent. Therefore, it should not stand alone, in a list of fully recognised, undisputed sovereign states, as the only territory. Except for HK and Macau which are completely different issues. RandomIntrigue (talk) 11:22, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
Gibraltar is not part of the UK, it is a dependent territory of the UK. This is very different to French Guiana which is part of the French Republic, votes in presidential elections and has representatives in the French Parliament. Gibraltar has no representation in the UK parliament as it is self-governing. Gibraltar did vote in EU elections and the EU referendum because it was part of the EU. However, no other British overseas territories did so. I know there are constitutional differences between the crown dependencies and overseas territories, but they are all still dependent territories under the British crown. None are part of the UK and none are independent states. They should therefore all be included in the UK's total. Hong Kong and Macau are separated out for completely different and understandable reasons and the line for China has a qualifier added saying "mainland". Philip Stevens (talk) 12:59, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
Whatever you guys decide, we can't double count Guernsey in the UK numbers and then separately list the Channel Islands for a second time. As Philip Stevens has made the last edit in relation to this, I leave it to him to fix. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:50, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
@RandomIntrigue: did you completely ignore where I said: "In 2008, Guernsey (along with the other Crown Dependencies) signed an agreement with the UK including a number of clarifications regarding the international identity of the islands including, "each Crown Dependency has an international identity that is different from that of the UK".[2][6][7]" Guernsey is recognised in legislation as internationally independent, and should be separated accordingly. —Formulaonewiki14:21, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
Having an international identity is not the same as independence. The Crown Dependencies are not sovereign states. They may have an international identity that is different from that of the UK, but so do the British Overseas Territories by virtue of the fact that they are not part of the UK. But the UK still looks after the foreign relations of the Crown Dependencies. --Philip Stevens (talk) 16:18, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
@Formulaonewiki: The above user @Philip Stevens: has hit the nail on the head. Moreover, Guernsey is not a member of the UN and its people have British nationality. Therefore, it should be included in the UK article and included with the UK total in this article. It would be silly not to, given other territories e.g. Faroe Islands have a somewhat similar status. RandomIntrigue (talk) 16:41, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
@Philip Stevens: I don't think whether being independent or a sovereign state matters here. Hong Kong and Macau are not sovereign states either and yet they are listed separately. What matters is that Guernsey is lawfully not part of the UK (as Hong Kong and Macau are not part of the mainland China) and that is why it should be listed separately. Chbe113 (talk) 17:19, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
@Chbe113: makes a very good point. This should not come down to who has membership of the UN or definitions of being a sovereign state — Guernsey is lawfully not part of the UK, and importantly it acts (and is treated by reliable sources) as if it is an independent territory/state to the United Kingdom. Nobody considers them as part of the United Kingdom for any other purposes, why should we do so here? —Formulaonewiki17:39, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
Firstly, @Philip Stevens:, that is inaccurate: The UK is responsible for some but not all of the Crown Dependencies’ International relations; a distinct difference to BOTs. Secondly, @RandomIntrigue: your argument that “[Guernsey’s] people have British nationality ... Therefore, it should be included in the UK article and included with the UK total in this article” is nonsense. Being British and being a citizen of the British Islands =/= being a citizen of the United Kingdom; your conclusion simply does not follow. —Formulaonewiki17:35, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
@RandomIntrigue: It’s nothing I need to ‘take up’ with anyone. The British Nationality Act 1981 is ONE exception whereby citizens of the CDs have been treated as part of the United Kingdom *for British nationality law purposes only*. It is an exception made for largely practical purposes, to say it undermines the independence of the island and its citizens is a big stretch and not a valid basis for your argument for combining the territories here. —Formulaonewiki18:05, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
@Checco:I don't know about other territories, but I think it should be clear that Guernsey is not part of the UK, so I don't understand why they still want to include Guernsey in the UK. The figures from the UK government don't include Guernsey anyway. Chbe113 (talk) 18:10, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
@Formulaonewiki: At the end of the day, Guernsey isn't independent, no matter how you try to phrase your arguments, it won't change its status. It doesn't have the international standing to actual sovereign nations such as Japan or Norway and shouldn't be put into the same category. However, if we do decide that Guernsey should be listed separately then the same should be done with the Faroe Islands (and Greenland, should a case be reported) as they are different to other territories. Although they, just like Guernsey should be included in their sovereign states' total. @Chbe113: The same can be said for the territories of other nations, but everyone seems to be fine with that? Why should the UK be any different? RandomIntrigue (talk) 18:16, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
@RandomIntrigue: Like I said, Guernsey is lawfully not part of the UK (in contrast to Gibraltar which seems to be part of the UK). I have also checked the French territories and they are lawfully part of France. That is why I said I am not sure if we should list other territories. I believe that Wikipedia should record facts rather than opinions, and the fact is that the UK is different from other nations in that Guernsey is not part of the UK, so it should be listed separately. Chbe113 (talk) 18:36, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
@RandomIntrigue: Also, your argument that Guernsey is not a sovereign nation so it should not be listed separately is not valid given that Hong Kong and Macau are listed separately. The same question can be raised for China if you ask 'why should the UK be any different?'. Chbe113 (talk) 18:42, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
@Chbe113: Just to be clear, neither Guernsey nor Gibraltar are part of the UK. They are dependent territories of the British crown. Crown dependencies are clearly not independent, the clue is in the name. Philip Stevens (talk) 10:56, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
References
^Ogier, Daryl Mark (2005). The Government and Law of Guernsey. The States of Guernsey. ISBN978-0954977504.
A look on BOMC shows the source is this. That's why with JHU and BOMC you are covered, otherwise you would be adding a new ndtv.com reference to cover this update and later removing it because it is out of date again. Sun Creator(talk)10:54, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
country and territory, country or territory, territory
It's important to gray out single zeroes, because then it will be easier to spot non-zero numbers, such as deaths and recoveries. The table remains otherwise sortable. -Mardus /talk11:52, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
Guernsey, Hong Kong, and Macao are not sovereign states and should not be separate from the UK and China respectively. Otherwise, Gibraltar, French Guyane, Saint-Barthélemy, etc. should also be separated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.17.71.10 (talk) 11:58, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
Hong Kong, and Macao are definitely going to have separate rows here as per earlier consensus. For Guernsey, join in discussion at #Guernsey v. Gibraltar. For Gibraltar, French Guyane, Saint-Barthélemy we need to have a proper RFC to decide. I support separate rows. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:08, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
2 more new cases in Poland corfirmed (change from 18 to 20) [8] - Tweet from Polish Minister of Health and official GOV statistics update - [9]Natanieluz (talk) 13:28, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
Since 2 people who listed "recovered" there still in hospital, why we put it in recoveries tab?
Government will discarged both if 2x negative for coronavirus, and they still passed 1st test Wisang17 (talk) 14:05, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
i believe both sources listed currently have the number of recovered cases at 2. whether or not they're truly recovered is something i do not think is practical for us editors to determine. however, if you can convince our sources to change this value to 0, i'd assume we'd update our table to reflect the same number as well. dying (talk) 17:32, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 March 2020
26 cases in Palestine according to the Ministry of Health, the very used references and the local media. Where did the number 29 come from? --138.75.187.123 (talk) 14:23, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
If your comment has references in it, please put a blank line followed by <!--put new comments above this line--> and {{reflist-talk}}, like so:
Your comment goes here.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://example.com/url-goes-here.html|title=title goes here|date=2020-01-01}}</ref> ~~~~
<!--put new replies in this thread above this line. To start a new section, click on the "new section" or "+" at the top of this talk page as you usually would.-->
{{reflist-talk}}
This will put the references at the bottom of the discussion section instead of at the bottom of the page, and alert people who reply to put their comments above the {{reflist-talk}} line.
as far as i understand, this chart will never reflect the actual reality of the situation, much like statistics in general due to the nature of collecting statistics. i believe this chart merely reflects the data we can practically gather from reputable sources. i can see that this note can be helpful in certain situations. however, considering how this chart seems to be currently designed to give you the basic statistics with as little clutter as possible, and that we have been omitting a lot of other details, i doubt this note would be added to the chart at this time.
i won't close this request, though, as i would like to hear if anyone else agrees, or if i'm alone on this opinion.
i do appreciate the suggestion, though. also, from a personal standpoint, i liked learning that the netherlands does not require reporting of recoveries. dying (talk) 16:25, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 March 2020
Already done Aussie cases have jumped up to 116, reliable sources available. Please provide a better source next time. To reply, copy and paste this: {{replyto|Can I Log In}}(Talk)23:22, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 March 2020
Done. thanks for providing a source. i hadn't realized italy's civil protection department had created a public arcgis map. dying (talk) 18:24, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
Done. sorry. looks like another editor accidentally deleted an official source and then reverted the number to the outdated one. dying (talk) 19:13, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
Done Partly done. thanks. by the way, i found a message on pakistan's minister of health's twitter account to confirm, but did not cite it as we seem to be using worldometers instead as one of our main sources. personally, i would prefer using primary sources, but i don't know how many other editors would agree.
i forgot to mention that i didn't see an alternate source for the newly-recovered patient, so i didn't update that number. dying (talk) 21:30, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
Done. no idea why it was changed to 2. the official daily situation report from pakistan's ministry of national health services has this value at 1, and as of this writing, worldometers has still not provided a source for pakistan since 2020.03.06, so i think we should stop citing worldometers as a source. dying (talk) 12:08, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
Confirmed cases in Iceland are now 81. 10th of March
Confirmed cases in Iceland are now 81. It changed from 76 to 81. 10th of March.
Adding columns for infections per 100,000 people or infections per 100sq km
What do people think about adding columns for infections per 100,000 people (determined by that country's population), and possibly also infections per unit area? You can see that the number of infections per person is already much higher in Italy and South Korea than in China, just because China has so many people, and I think this statistic would be interesting and perhaps important. Also, in the main outbreak article under the "diagnosis" section there is a table of number of people tested by country, and there is a column there that includes ratio of tests to total population. picrazy2 (talk) 04:42, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
i agree that this information could be useful. however, this will likely not happen as, from a practical standpoint, it is too difficult to maintain. please keep in mind that the table you referenced seems to be updated perhaps a few times a day, while this template has been edited around 400 times in the last 24 hours. also, please search for "column" in the archives to see previous related discussions. regardless, thanks for the suggestion! dying (talk) 04:52, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
Someone already tried to add it, but it became out of date and unmaintained immediately, and then removed. So don't expect it back. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:40, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
It might be nice to view, but our editors cannot maintain it, and until a later date it is impossible to tell what the rate is. It also depends on what kind of people are tested, so for example in South Korea, there are 10,000 tests a day, so many more asymptomatic, or mild cases are detected, and the death rate appears lower. So what I am trying to say is it is not going to happen. You can see in the archive more on this. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:38, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
Data is updated by Spanish government. It is available from the same source used now ([12]): 2,083 cases (1,901 active), 47 deaths, 135 recoveries. --MarioGom (talk) 11:18, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
Done. interesting. i actually had the johns hopkins source open, and saw that it had updated with a lower number, so i'm assuming someone made an error that was eventually fixed. the rtve source actually had 2040 when i checked it, so i've updated with the newer number.
i agree that this information could be useful. however, this will likely not happen as, from a practical standpoint, it is too difficult to maintain. please search for "column" inthearchives to see previous related discussions. regardless, thanks for the suggestion! dying (talk) 13:19, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 March 2020
I would assume that their count would fall under Italy and UK respectively. Why are we still having issues with overseas or autonomous territories. M nurhaikal (talk) 16:01, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 March 2020
this will likely not happen as, from a practical standpoint, it is too difficult to maintain. please search for "column" in the archives to see previous related discussions, as well as this section to see the last time it was suggested. regardless, thanks for the suggestion! dying (talk) 02:53, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 March 2020
The wikilink to Diamond Princess cruise ship (currently under Japan's row) should be corrected to point from Grand Princess to Diamond Princess. Tiger Jr (talk) 16:41, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
The reference to the Italian Protezione Civile's map "COVID-19 ITALIA". opendatadpc.maps.arcgis.com. Retrieved 2020-03-11. was removed with no reason. It was just added a couple of days ago. Why was it removed?
Thanks Lorenzo Diana (talk) 17:45, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
Not done It appears to have been removed because the content is evidently not verified by that source. The reason for removal is sound. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:51, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
I'm sorry but I don't understand. The website is a completely reliable source, as it has been made by the Italian Civil Protection. All of the sources that state the numbers of cases in Italy get their info from the Civil Protection, which holds daily a live press conference where the new cases and methods used are discussed. Also Worldometer, the currently used source for most of the cases in the template, gets its info from the Civil Protection, and therefore I do not understand the labelling of this source as inaccurate.
If this has to do with the switch of primary source from JHU CSSE to Worldometer, which has been discussed previously in this talk page, please let me know, and I will acknowledge the deletion of this source from the Template, since the users editing this page are certainly more experienced than me.
Many thanks
Lorenzo Diana (talk) 18:42, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
i was the one who added the source and had requested that it only be commented out if another editor found a more up-to-date source available. not sure why it was removed completely in favor of worldometers, especially if worldometers uses italy's civil protection department's map as its source anyway. if that's the case, the official source was removed even though wikipedia's numbers were clearly verified by that source, as it was its primary source.
i'm sorry it was removed. i will restore the official source (replacing worldometers) if other editors comment below here and agree. dying (talk) 19:09, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
Thank you very much for the explanation, and sorry if I sounded a bit angry/arrogant, I just didn't understand the cause of the removal. I hope the support of all Wikipedians working on this page will make Wikipedia even better so that more people will be more informed about this ongoing global emergency. Thank you, Lorenzo Diana (talk) 22:04, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 March 2020
can you provide an official source? so far, i can only find a news release supporting the value of 7 on the ministry of health's web site, though admittedly my macedonian is very rusty. dying (talk) 19:42, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
Not done No source provided. The IP's usually don't respond to a request for sources. Best to just find the sources yourself and close this request. Mgasparin (talk) 23:01, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 March 2020
Love the new framed view on desktop but it shows up as a giant white area in the app (tested on Android). Once expanded, it's impossible to scroll left or right. - Wikmoz (talk) 22:36, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
I think that's just one of the limitations of using Wikipedia on mobile devices. I'm not sure what to do about that. Mgasparin (talk) 23:05, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 March 2020
split template in active countries and not active countries
is it the case to split template in 2? only active countries, and countries who has no cases in >10days?
not TODAY, but soon.--Dwalin (talk) 22:46, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
I don't know. The template is scrollable, so that the countries with small numbers of cases don't show unless you scroll down. This seems to be working just fine for the time being with the template size. Mgasparin (talk) 23:03, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha> tags or {{efn}} templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}} template or {{notelist}} template (see the help page).
![[2]](https://na.cx/i/pFeGjGJ.png){kind=link}