Template talk:COVID-19 pandemic data/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

RfC: Default sort column

The table is currently sorted by confirmed cases (by default). There are recurrent discussions about changing it to deaths (e.g. 1, 2, 3). The table is sortable by any column, but this is about the default sort column. So the question is simple:

• What should the default sort column be? --MarioGom (talk) 11:16, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Options

• A. Alphabetical
• B. Confirmed cases (status quo)
• C. Deaths

Survey

Add your !vote here.

Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject COVID-19. MarioGom (talk) 11:20, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

• (Changed position, see below) C but B is acceptable. Deaths might be a better representation of the stage of the epidemic in a country beyond early stages. It might have the positive side-effect of relative order being more stable and requiring less reorders (this is just a guess). --MarioGom (talk) 11:37, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
• B as most sources also sort on cases. Any changes will require a lot of editor effort. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:40, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
• C for the reasons posted in the discussion below. Metropolitan (talk) 12:10, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
• B for right now. A change might occur over the course of the disease (6-12 months) but I don't think it is warranted to change the organization of such an important chart 2 months into this crisis when the main metric that has been tracked is confirmed cases. This would be a disruptive change to make right now. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:20, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
• C, as deaths are probably more representative of spread and effect at this point. Confirmed cases suffer from greater cross-country bias due to different testing practices and prevalence in different countries.--Eostrix (talk) 10:44, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
• B confirmed cases is fine and lets keep it there. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:05, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
• B, mainly because I registered to adopt USA as part of COVID-19 Case Count Task Force and it would throw me off if USA wasn't in the top row. Also, what Doc James said. RayDeeUx (talk) 01:52, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
• C, as it was correctly pointed out, deaths are definitely more representative and accurate. There is clearly a big cross-country bias due to different testing practices and frequency. I dislike the current sorting (B), but I would dislike even more A. --Checco (talk) 09:48, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
• B, as most sites use this method, and is most efficient. Also, WHO lists by this method, and previous epidemics (in Wikipedia) used this method, too. Luke Kern Choi 5 (talk) 23:57, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
• B. I'm changing my !vote after reading your comments and verifying that there is an overwhelming support by reliable sources for cases as main sorting key: World Health Organization, Johns Hopkins University, Financial Times, El País (world counts, not regions), Zeit Online (regions), Tagesspiegel (regions), Berliner Morgenpost (regions)... --MarioGom (talk) 06:54, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
• B for now. The most important information should be the sorting criterion, and for now that's cases. After the pandemic is over, I would support a change to C, which at that point would be more important information. I request that the closer attempt to close in a way that supports this potential future change. Adoring nanny (talk) 08:42, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
• A The figures are not comparable because different countries are testing and recording these numbers in radically different ways. To use them as a scorecard is therefore improper synthesis. Alphabetical order is more neutral. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:18, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
• B – Any other way of sorting would be confusing and would go against the cumulative sources we've been using. United States Man (talk) 14:34, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
• C There is too much variability now in the number of cases. This is simply a matter of sampling now, nothing more. This is also hiding how many smaller countries have been heavily affected. I believe we should really start sorting by the number of people that died (and ideally by a new column that take the polulation into account). (talk)

Discussion

I support Option C. The current stage of the crisis is of a different nature than what it was in january, requiring us to change our perception on this. Some countries such as South Korea or Germany have tested their population at a very large scale, even people with very mild symptoms or no at all [1]. However, in many other countries such as Italy, Spain, France or the UK, the testing capacity reached saturation. Therefore, testing is limited only to the most serious cases and healthcare workers [2]. As a result, the number of confirmed cases reported daily remains steady, not because we're nearing the peak but simply because there's no testing capacity to report more. Using this metric as the main one can easily lead to very fallacious conclusions about the maturity and intensity of the epidemics from a country to another.

Obviously reported deaths count has its own bias as well [3], yet, sadly, the number of deaths will never reach any saturation point like testing does. As such, it remains despite its flaws a more accurate metric to value the intensity of the epidemic in each country. Therefore, it would seem wiser to use it as the ranking by default on the table. Metropolitan (talk) 12:06, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

I tend to agree, except this: the number of deaths will never reach any saturation point like testing does. Counting deaths as caused by COVID-19 also relies on testing. Unfortunately, we have reports in Spain about hundreds of deaths suspected but unconfirmed. --MarioGom (talk) 12:09, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

It should be "C" but the table will remain inconsistent in any case because, for example, Italy is taking into account all the deaths "with" coronavirus, Germany only the deaths "due to" coronavirus. If I'm infected and I have an heart attack, I will be counted if I die in Italy and I won't if I die in Germany. Paolotacchi (talk) 13:35, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Paolotacchi: There is no metric that is universally comparable. --MarioGom (talk) 16:23, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Editors here may be interested in the related proposal about which map to use first. Sdkb (talk) 02:57, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Can we agree that 1) there is no consensus to change it and 2) there is an agreement to keep cases as the default sorting column at the moment? Any objection for listing at the #Current consensus section? --MarioGom (talk) 12:46, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

• Andrew Davidson: re to To use them as a scorecard is therefore improper synthesis. I don't think WP:SYNTH applies here because most reliable sources that publish worldwide figures (including the World Health Organization) sort territories per number of confirmed cases. --MarioGom (talk) 16:25, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Data on most-trafficked COVID stats in Google + sneak peek at stats card roadmap

tl;dr, Google is sharing some data with the community about which stats they're showing/planning to show, and which stats Google searchers are looking for most. Please see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_COVID-19#Data_on_most-trafficked_COVID_stats_in_Google_+_sneak_peek_at_stats_card_roadmap for more details if you're interested! MPinchuk (WMF) (talk) 17:08, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

US DoD

How should we incorporate cases reported by the United States Department of Defense? This is as cases, ever since March 31st,[4] have been only reported on a maximum granularity of the branch of military (e.g. air force, army, etc), no matter where they are deployed, whether domestically or internationally. Like this:[5]. Although with some domestic bases, cases are still reported and counted in the local health authority's numbers.[6] This means under/overcounting will be inevitable... Thoughts? --17jiangz1 (talk) 21:22, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

I think all we can do is add yet another note to United States to say there is undercounting of those in the military, and not try to add on airforce etc numbers. This will be a small number compared to the number of untested infections anyway. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:26, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Is there a careless typo??

Spain's CCF is 119,199 not 119,119, please amend that error. BlackSun2104 (talk) 22:38, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

References

Fixed, thanks. Capewearer (talk) 22:43, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Sorry about that! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:46, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

By the way, BlackSun2104, you can edit the template directly whenever you want without having to make new topics in this talk page. Edit protection for the template has been lowered to autoconfirmed users, which you are in. Just make sure to provide reliable and up-to-date sources, which you've been doing a good job of so far. Keep it up, and cheers. RayDeeUx (talk) 01:49, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Update Panama cases

Panama has 1801 confirmed cases, 46 deaths and 13 recovered. Source: TVN Panama https://www.tvn-2.com/nacionales/Caso-COVID-19-Panama-fallecidos-positivas_0_5548695122.html Webi0311 (talk) 23:36, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Sorry for the typo, formation is information. BlackSun2104 (talk) 02:31, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

 Done by Lucky102. Thanks. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:14, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Update Panama cases

Panama has 1988 confirmed cases, 54 deaths and 13 recovered. Source: TVN Panamá https://www.tvn-2.com/nacionales/coronavirus-en-panama_0_5549445053.html Webi0311 (talk) 00:09, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

 Done Amkgp (talk) 04:53, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Update Panama cases

Panama has 2100 confirmed cases, 55 deaths and 14 recovered. Source: La Estrella de Panamá https://www.laestrella.com.pa/nacional/200406/panama-registra-2-100-pacientes-covid-19-cierra-mina-mas-grande Webi0311 (talk) 23:25, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

It has been done. Thanks. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:59, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Updates for Germany

Germany's CCF has creep up slightly to 96,092, please update accordingly. BlackSun2104 (talk) 23:18, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

References

And it has increased since you posted here, so it was updated by someone. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:18, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Additional supporting formation

The additional supporting information is in the reference. https://www.fr24news.com/a/2020/04/french-coronavirus-death-toll-reaches-new-record-as-retirement-home-count-increases.html BlackSun2104 (talk) 02:28, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Apology for typo

Formation is actually information, apologize for that. BlackSun2104 (talk) 02:32, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Apology for missing reference

Apologize for missing reference. https://www.fr24news.com/a/2020/04/french-coronavirus-death-toll-reaches-new-record-as-retirement-home-count-increases.html BlackSun2104 (talk) 02:38, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

BlackSun2104: Please, don't create multiple consecutive sections for the same topic. You can write additional comments in the same section. Thank you. --MarioGom (talk) 08:51, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Outdated recoveries when there is no official data

Some countries publish official data for recoveries (e.g. China, Italy, Spain), others have reputable newspapers tracking them (e.g. Germany) and others do not have any up-to-date data about it. That is why we don't have recoveries column for Norway or the Netherlands. In some cases, like the United Kingdom, we have a really outdated figure coming from early news reports (stuck at 135). Isolated news reports might be ok in early stages, when recoveries can be tracked easily, but I don't think it makes sense to keep a completely outdated value as the pandemic advances in a country. Do you think it makes sense to remove the recoveries column when there are no official sources or when reliable sources stop reporting about it? I'm thinking about the United Kingdom, but it could apply to some countries that will probably be in the same situation soon. --MarioGom (talk) 23:51, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Changed by Smjg ([7]). I support keeping this change until an up-to-date reliable source for recoveries appears. --MarioGom (talk) 08:52, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Arcgis

Click on United Kingdom, under recovered 179. As far as I can tell this is reliable. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 15:03, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm not so sure. What is the underlying source? JHU and Worldometer have relied on isolated press reports for recoveries in some countries. These isolated reports are sometimes about a single city or hospital, and may be misleading. For example, in Norway, the main source tracking cases in the country, Verdens Gang, stated that they do not track recoveries because there is no reliable underlying source for this exact reason. I think the same can be applied to other countries where the pandemic has advanced the most and we should be looking for the underlying sources, whether they are official reports, national newspapers, etc. Anyway, I'm ok if there is consensus to use any recovery count, that's why I opened this discussion. --MarioGom (talk) 15:11, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Maybe we can keep recoveries from JHU as long as they keep updating it? --MarioGom (talk) 15:16, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

According RS it appears we can use the figures from arcgis, however as far as I know the UK does not update this as much as US or South Korea. It should be usable though. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 15:20, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Where is "recovered 179"? I've looked at that page and can't find it anywhere. Furthermore, I see now that it contradicts itself. The box on the map shows the very outdated 135, but the 'Total Recovered' panel on the right gives 191. The fact that the page contradicts itself surely goes to show that it can't be relied on. Furthermore, I can't see an 'as of' date for either figure. The death count has increased tenfold since the 22nd, which is when the 135 figure is from. As such, the recovery count must be much higher than 135, or even 191, now. — Smjg (talk) 17:07, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Smjg (talk · contribs) Look harder, click United Kingdom top right 191 recovered. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 17:12, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

@Valoem: Huh? "The box on the map shows the very outdated 135, but the 'Total Recovered' panel on the right gives 191." The rest of my message still applies. — Smjg (talk) 17:32, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Bryn89: could you point where in the UK govt website is the number of recoveries? (re [8]) I cannot find it. If there is an official source, we should add it in a reference. --MarioGom (talk) 17:47, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Not should, must. It's a basic principle of Wikipedia that the information must be sourced, and this is especially important here. — Smjg (talk) 19:09, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Smjg: Of course. I was just being polite ;-) --MarioGom (talk) 00:23, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

There is a source pointing to the UK's recovery rate on this page. It isn't hard to see. Bryn89 (talk) 05:19, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

@Bryn89: You mean the source that contradicts itself that we're already talking about? Or some other? The table gives [9] as the source for all three UK figures. Where on that page is the recovery figure? — Smjg (talk) 07:44, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Between "Confirmed cases" and "Deaths". Bryn89 (talk) 08:11, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

@Bryn89: Huh? Not as I look. This is what I see:

UK Cumulative Totals

33,718 cases

2,921 deaths

And by clicking on the map:

England

In England, there are a total of 28,221 confirmed cases.

No other instances of the phrase "confirmed cases" to be seen, and no sign of the number 191 anywhere or any other reference to a number of recoveries. — Smjg (talk) 08:29, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Unless something has changed, there are just no official figures. JHU CSSE are probably taking the figure from some news pieces, but I could not find any yet. Worldometer does not cite a source for the figure either. --MarioGom (talk) 08:12, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

The UK government said that 'a new process for collecting numbers of recovered patients is in development' days ago, but now it appears that they simply give up on counting. Not sure if the 'new process' would actually be developed. Chbe113 (talk) 21:58, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

I think we should leave the data for the UK recoveries blank or 135 until further updates from the UK government show up. The figure 135 can be found in the document 'Access historical data from the dashboard' on this website "Total UK cases COVID-19 Cases Update". Public Health England. Chbe113 (talk) 13:25, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

In that case, let's just not give a figure at all. The figure must be much higher than 135 now; as such, no information at all is better than information that is very out of date. — Smjg (talk) 16:05, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 April 2020

Change China(Mainland) to China, I have created an App that takes the Data from Wikipedia and already uploaded it. 2 days ago everything worked fine but then suddenly China was chnaged to China(mainland) and no data can be pulled from China. 84.226.174.208 (talk) 12:16, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

We have listed China as China (mainland) for way more than two days. There is currently no consensus to change it. --MarioGom (talk) 12:55, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Whoever changed China (mainland) to China managed to do so without much notice from other editors. For now, we plan to keep the row listed as China (mainland). u|RayDeeUx^{talk page} 15:26, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for restoring. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:43, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Consensus: No more columns?

We have systematically rejected requests for new columns. See Template talk:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data/Archive 8#More columns or Template talk:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data/Archive 9#Google using Wikipedia pages to power sidebar stats panel in search. I would like to add the following item to #Current consensus:

• No more columns.

What do you think? Any objection? Better wording? Do we really need a RfC for this? --MarioGom (talk) 08:22, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

MarioGom A hyperlink to the discussion that reached this consensus should be added, then it would work. RayDeeUx (talk) 15:58, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

RayDeeUx: I don't think there was any- discussion that is appropriate for linking. There are just dozens of threads, many by unregistered users, asking for this, and rejected by someone. That's why I'm bringing it up here before adding. --MarioGom (talk) 16:02, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

MarioGom: Maybe a search link of this talk page's archives can work? RayDeeUx (talk) 16:04, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

• I support and we can then link here for consensus. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:34, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

I believe it might be interesting to add columns with the "confirmed deaths per million people". after the end of the pandemic as it will allow proper comparison. Even though introducing this column now might be useful because a debate about how affected Belgium is has been taking place around this figure and maybe in other countries? (https://plus.lesoir.be/291697/article/2020-04-01/le-vrai-ou-faux-la-belgique-est-elle-le-troisieme-pays-le-plus-touche-par-le )

"We could have a narrow base version. And than we could have a button people could click to see a wide version with more details. Is this possible to make? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:42, 26 March 2020 (UTC)" I think this would be a good solution to mitigate any negative effect on mobile. Lespetitsruisseaux (talk) 14:03, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Lespetitsruisseaux: Proper comparison is not so simple. Confirmed cases represent very different realities in different countries depending on testing criteria, test availability, etc. You can even observe tendency changes within a single country depending on policy changes over time. --MarioGom (talk) 14:55, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

And any further column is going to be unmaintainable unless it is computed automatically. --MarioGom (talk) 14:57, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you very much MarioGom for your answer. You are right, confirmed case represent very different realities. but deaths per Covid-19 are already more comparable. And there is a proper disclaimer on the exactitude of those number. Regarding Automatique update, we can wait till the end of the crisis to establish death/million column if it can't be done automatically. in any case, it is mostly to remind readers to put things in perspective Lespetitsruisseaux (talk) 09:05, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Lespetitsruisseaux: Yeah, it makes sense. I guess this consensus should not be assumed to be indefinite. However, it would be useful for a while for the recurrent requests to add columns for all kinds of metrics (active cases, lethality, cases per million, hospitalisations, etc). --MarioGom (talk) 09:13, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

A country can misrepresent the actual deaths just as easy as they can misrepresent the actual numbers. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:46, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, and it is actually happening. Whether you just call it misrepresenting or just different reporting criteria. Some countries have wildly different criteria. Even within one country, different periods use different criteria after policy changes. --MarioGom (talk) 16:53, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Luhansk and Donetsk

Luhansk and Donetsk seem to be included in Ukraine's official figures ([10]). Reliable sources that publish worldwide numbers do not split it (e.g. WHO, ECDC, Reuters, The New York Times, Financial Times, Bloomberg, BBC and Berliner Morgenpost). --MarioGom (talk) 21:42, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Ping 17jiangz1. --MarioGom (talk) 21:43, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

MarioGom The Ukrainian gov's figures only seem to include the non-occupied territories of the Luhansk and Donetsk Oblasts (states), distinct from the Russian-occupied Luhansk and Donetsk People's Republics, whose numbers are reported by their respective news outlets and Russian sources (and both currently stand at one from what I can find). --17jiangz1 (talk) 21:48, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Meanwhile, the notes under Ukraine still say Donetsk and Luhansk PRs are excluded, and they are both still missing from the table. Ptilinopus (talk) 21:53, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

This is since only parts of both regions are under occupied control, while other parts are under Ukrainian control.--17jiangz1 (talk) 21:56, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

You’ll notice I specified PR - Peoples Republics. The two non-Ukrainian controlled parts, in other words. They were listed in the table, have been removed, but are still stated in the notes as excluded from Ukraine. So, either the notes should be corrected to included, or they should be restored to the table. Ptilinopus (talk) 22:22, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

17jiangz1, Ptilinopus: Sorry, my bad. I didn't realize that Ukraine numbers did not include territories outside Ukraine's control. I guess it makes sense to include them if they are not counted under any other entry. --MarioGom (talk) 22:27, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Lugansk, Donetsk, Sevastopol and Crimea are 4 Ukrainian territories that are all occupied by Russia, but Russia counts cases in Crimea and Sevastovpol for itself, but does't want to do the same with Donetsk and Lugansk. All 4 territories should be counted in one column with the name - "Ukrainian territories occupied by Russia! Because Ukraine does not control them, but all 4 territories are legally Ukrainian.--Olmi (talk) 18:56, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Olmi: Adding these territories together as Ukrainian territories occupied by Russia is improper synthesis. As far as I can tell, there is no reliable source publishing aggregate figures with such denomination. --MarioGom (talk) 12:54, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

But this is true! Wikipedia's main rule is "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it.". And what is the correct synthesis? To kill 15,000 Ukrainians in Donetsk and Lugansk and say that we didn't kill them? Russia is guilty of occupying all 4 territories, so Russia is responsible for all deaths from the coronavirus in all these 4 Ukrainian territories also. Ukraine cannot control the pandemic in Donetsk and Lugansk as well as in the Crimea and Sevastopol for the same reason, the reason being the Russian army. Of course, there is no common source for all 4 territories, but everyone can add here.--Olmi (talk) 13:55, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Olmi: WP:IAR is not a valid reason to completely ignore reliable sources policy (WP:RS), WP:SYNTH and WP:GREATWRONGS. Best, --MarioGom (talk) 14:59, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Occupational sources cannot be reliable. All these 4 territories are Ukrainian, you can read about it in all UN documents, this is a reliable source. So Ukrainian sources about these territories are authoritative, but not Russian at all. The Ukrainian law says, that all 4 territories are "Ukrainian and temporarily occupied by Russia." So they should be combined in one column and signed as: "Ukrainian territories occupied by Russia"--Olmi (talk) 17:22, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

-Olmi, why do not you listen to what other try to tell you? Nobody is arguing here that LNR and DNR are not parts of Ukraine. What people try to explain you is that sources give Russia together with Crimea and Sevastopol, and LPR and DPR separately from Ukraine, hence they have to be listed in this way, following the reliable sources. This is not really the appropriate place to make political statements. If such statements are really needed they should be made as notes in the article. This is perfectly possible without going to original research.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:30, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

ok, this is a dispute to nowhere, I "deleted" myself --Olmi (talk) 19:10, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

1Point3Acres update – recoveries column added for USA states and overseas territories

Hi, just want to update everyone here that the source I'm using to update all figures in the USA and its overseas territories (1Point3Acres, as the title of this topic implies) has now added a recoveries column. As such, I've added the same sum template nested within the formatnum template for the recoveries cell for the 50 states of USA, and have replaced the darkgray "–"s or dashes with the values I've found on 1Point3Acres.

As such, there is no need for the notice saying that there are a lack of sources for recoveries in USA's overseas territories.

Cheers, u|RayDeeUx^{talk page} 19:31, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

RayDeeUx: Great! One less country with clumsy sourcing for recoveries. --MarioGom (talk) 20:09, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Urgent updates for France and Germany

France and Germany's CCF should be higher now, please update accordingly. BlackSun2104 (talk) 19:34, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Please note about the data for France : Worldometers wrongly adds confirmed or probable cases in retirement homes (EHPAD) to the total of confirmed cases (which already include confirmed cases of EHPAD). For example, for April 4, they add 21 348 and 68 605. This is a mistake. Similarly, JHU CSSE considers that the total of deaths (7,560 to April 4) only concerns Metropolitan France and adds Overseas deaths which are already included. These are therefore counted twice. Buisson (talk) 20:54, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

USS Theodore Roosevelt

Why the hell wasn't it's numbers incorporated into the American statistics? It is definitely not like those cases of cruise ships. Cruise ships are something international and serves tourists all around the globe, but Theodore Roosevelt is a ship of United States Navy and definitely does not belong to and affects any other parties. I'm making a motion for it to be incorporated. Pktlaurence (talk) 22:10, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Firstly, it's currently docked/disembarking at Guam and not in the US mainland, so if anything, should count to Guam's numbers. Secondly, the DoD's numbers are not published to much granularity, and are currently in the footnotes of the US. I alternatively propose adding the Theodore Roosevelt to the footnotes for the US, as a subcategory of DoD's numbers. --17jiangz1 (talk) 22:28, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

17jiangz1: I think it makes sense to add it to the US footnotes. And let's watch closely if they end up being counted as Guam cases. --MarioGom (talk) 22:44, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

17jiangz1: Totally agreeing with you, so :MarioGom let's just incorporate them into the main US entry or footnote before so. Pktlaurence (talk) 23:09, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

17jiangz1: BTW, although they disembarked in Guam, all US military personnel should probably still be deemed as US mainlanders as the military is administrated from US federal government from mainland instead of by local governments of dependencies/territories. Pktlaurence (talk) 23:13, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 April 2020

The Canadian sources are incorrect due to a change in the CTV making a change in the way they report on the Bar graph. What is identified as confirmed is the active cases. Total confirmed is 14018 2607:FEA8:C31F:D2B0:599F:2CFE:6325:64A6 (talk) 13:01, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

 Done. I don't think CTV changed, but someone updated Canada's figure without including recoveries and deaths. As you say, CTV News excludes them from their confirmed case figure. It is fixed now. Thank you. --MarioGom (talk) 14:05, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Amkgp: Note that Worldometer and JHU CSSE include presumptive cases in their figures for Canada. We try to list only confirmed cases to the extent that reliable sources allow it. CTV News reports the exact figures for each type. --MarioGom (talk) 14:10, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

MarioGom Yes, understood. Thanks Amkgp (talk) 14:12, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Belize: one false alarm case

I noticed Worldometer is counting 5 confirmed cases in Belize. Please, do not update to that figure unless there is a reliable source. It comes from a rumor that has been retracted by the initial source: Міnіѕtrу оf Неаlth ѕауѕ rumоr оf 5 саѕеѕ оf Соvіd-19 іn Ѕаn Іgnасіо іѕ fаlѕе аlаrm; 1 реrѕоn оnlу іѕ іn ѕеlf іѕоlаtіоn. Еаrlіеr tоdау, Вrеаkіng Веlіzе Nеwѕ rероrtеd thаt оnе реrѕоn whо rесеntlу trаvеllеd frоm Сhіnа wаѕ іn ѕеlf іѕоlаtіоn іn Сауо аѕ а рrесаutіоnаrу mеаѕurе. [11] --MarioGom (talk) 15:10, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

MarioGom: I have updated with gov. FB: [12] linked by official site [13]. The news article you've linked is from March 4. --17jiangz1 (talk) 15:35, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

17jiangz1: Thank you. --MarioGom (talk) 15:38, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Åland Islands merged back

MSG17: Please, take some time to read the #Current consensus section. The current consensus is to split Åland Islands and you should not change this unilaterally ([14]). While I agree that Åland Islands should be merged into Finland, doing this kind of changes unilaterally leads to edit wars that disrupt the usual work on this table. Thank you. --MarioGom (talk) 10:03, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

I didn't merge the Åland Islands and Finland. I de-merged the figures by deleting the sum and only including the Finland count in the row, thus avoiding redundancy by counting the same figure twice (as the Åland Islands has a separate row). The Åland Islands figure in the Finland column that was added to the mainland's cases was erroneous anyway. MSG17 (talk) 14:27, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Sahrawi PDR

I have no issue as to whether Sahrawi PDR should or should not be included here. But some 15+ hours ago it popped up on the table with 4 cases. It linked to the 2020 COVID19 in Sahrawi PDR page. Now it is gone again. Whether these cases referred to the Moroccan controlled region, I don’t know. The SPDR page identified a location presumably under their control. The thing is this. It popped up without any mention in Talk (which is common enough), and it disappeared with no explanation either. We had a discussion earlier about the status of the region, and as I recall, the concept was that cases in the Morocco controlled area were to be under Morocco, and any that came up in the SPDR controlled area would have separate listing, since not included in Morocco. Methinks some clarity and explanation are warranted. Ptilinopus (talk) 14:31, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Ptilinopus: Latest MINURSO report ([15]) states that the 4 cases are in territory controlled by Morocco. There are currently no confirmed cases in SADR-controlled areas. I think we can expect future updates from MINURSO, since they are in direct contact with both the Moroccan government and the Polisario Front. Once that happens, we'll see in ~24 hours how it is reported by WHO and reliable sources, but my guess is that then it will get its own entry for SADR-controlled territory. --MarioGom (talk) 14:53, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

I added a note to Morocco clarifying this until there are confirmed cases in the rest of Western Sahara ([16]). Hopefully that solves clarity concerns until cases are confirmed in other areas. --MarioGom (talk) 15:04, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Lack of clarity and double counting. The same old debate on dependencies

Moved from Talk:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic by country and territory § Lack of clarity and double counting. The same old debate on dependencies

 – MarioGom (talk) 08:44, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

In so happens that there was a debate on whether the figures for each country should include all the cases of that country or if the dependencies of that state should be treated separately. The issue was mostly about the Channel Islands where some channel islanders wanted to make sure that their insular hamlets were counted separately and they eventually won. The rule was thus applied to all countries for the sake of coherency. Fine.

Now, once they have won, the great secessionists/freedom fighters/independence leaders/fathers of the nations, seem to have forgotten that it was up to them to make sure that the template remains clear and devoid of double counting. Unfortunately that doesn't seem to be the case.

I'll take an example that I know very well of. France.

First clarity or the lack of it. The vast majority of wikipedia users who want to know what the figures are for France won't bother, out of ignorance mostly, to go look for the individual figures of French Polynesia, New Caledonia, French Guiana, Guadeloupe, Mayotte, Reunion and Martinique. Some might even not even stop at Martinique, French Polynesia and New Caledonia because, for reasons unknown to me but I'm sure the great secessionists do know of, Martinique, New Caledonia and French Polynesia are the only French overseas territories to currently have their own local flag while all the others have the national French one. French Polynesia and New Caledonia have constitutionnally specific statuses but how is Martinique any special when compared to Guadeloupe? I guess the Guernsey and Jersey islanders who fought so well might shed some light on the issue.

Secondly, double counting. The current figure for France is, at the moment I'm writting these words, at 7560 deaths. The only problem being that the official French source "santé publique france", doesn't make any distinctions between metropolitan France, Corsica, Overseas Departments, Overseas territories and Overseas etc. So the 7560 figure includes ALL deaths on French soil even those in its overseas territories. The problem is, these territories have their own death figures leading to, well, double counting.

Now, of course, I can already hear the great independence leaders of Guernsey and Jersey saying that it's up to us to make sure that that doesn't happen. But actually, it's up to them to do so, because those who fought for including only states and not their dependencies didn't want this mess in the first place. So how to solve this and especially who has to?

I rest my case Manish2542 (talk) 01:13, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Manish2542: The the great secessionists/freedom fighters/independence leaders/fathers include the World Health Organization, Reuters or the BBC. --MarioGom (talk) 08:50, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Buisson, Manish2542, MarioGom: British press bodies such as BBC or Reuters are not competent on the matter. See #Flags of dependencies (especially those French ones) for a detailed explanation. This topic won't just die out and there are very good reasons for that. Metropolitan (talk) 09:20, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Probably could use Template:Sum for French figures as we already do with the US. --17jiangz1 (talk) 11:34, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

17jiangz1 Not really. As of 26 March, France does not publish split statistics for all regions. So reliable statistics for metropolitan France excluding overseas France are only available from WHO Situation Reports with a delay of up to 24 hours. --MarioGom (talk) 11:48, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

MarioGom We could use the statistics published by the overseas territories themselves which are usually updated daily. --17jiangz1 (talk) 12:12, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

17jiangz1: That works for the rows about the overseas territories themselves. But I've noticed a few times that statistics published by territories are sometimes, but not always, ahead of those that are accounted for in France totals. So it is really hard to know for sure whether a territory count is older, consistent or newer than France totals... so it is not entirely reliable. --MarioGom (talk) 12:22, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

I find this frustrating. We had a long debate, an extended RfC, and everyone had their input. Everyone had a chance to indicate the way they thought this should go, and the majority consensus was to treat the outlying dependencies/territories/regions separately. For some of us it wasn’t the issue of politics but of geographical spread. Manish2542 had an extended say at the time. Now because he is objecting rather stridently yet again, we are going to scrap that decision and reopen the whole can of worms? No system is perfect. This system may have some double counting - though editors work to avoid it. In the previous system we had records being omitted because the main country did not include them. The consensus system has worked as well as any other system we have had. And geographically it is much more indicative. Can we just get on with the job? None of the arguments are new. I see no reason to reverse a majority consensus because one individual is stridently rehashing arguments he presented before. Ptilinopus (talk) 14:43, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Ptilinopus: Note that this is not just about Manish2542 claims. If you look at the last 3 pages of archives you will see a lot of discussions about territories, as well as issues with some sources, that we did not consider at the time of the initial RfC. I think after last RfC we moved to a more stable situation, but it is still not a comprehensive solution. --MarioGom (talk) 15:41, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Data for UK

Some people keep copying the UK data from JHU, which includes the BOTs and CDs and doesn't match our consensus. Also, it seems that the UK government has stopped releasing data for recoveries. They said that 'a new process for collecting numbers of recovered patients is in development' days ago. Given that there is no information on recoveries to be found on the website, I wouldn't be surprised if the UK government simply gave up on counting. Chbe113 (talk) 11:46, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Sorry that I probably didn't make myself clear. This section is to discuss how to deal with the data for UK recoveries. Chbe113 (talk) 11:55, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

• See #Outdated recoveries when there is no official data. --MarioGom (talk) 12:56, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

I just checked the data from JHU. The data it has for the UK recoveries excluding the BOTs and CDs is also 135, which matches the official stagnant data. So I don't think there is any source to update the UK recovery data now. Chbe113 (talk) 13:17, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Chbe113: Thank you. I have reworded the footnote a bit and added a reference ([17]). --MarioGom (talk) 20:03, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. I've just added up the recovery figures shown on the map [18] for the UK and its Crown Dependencies and Overseas Territories.

• UK: 135
• Channel Islands: 27
• Bermuda: 14
• Cayman Islands: 1
• Gibraltar: 52
• Isle of Man; Anguilla; British Virgin Islands; Falklands; Montserrat; Turks and Caicos: 0
• Akrotiri and Dhekelia; British Antarctic Territory; British Indian Ocean Territory; Pitcairn; St Helena, Ascension and Tristan de Cunha; South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands: no marker on map

The total is 229, which matches with the figure shown for the UK in the box on the right. The trouble is that the numbers that have been added up are as of very different dates; for instance, the UK's figure has been stuck on 135 since 22 March, but Gibraltar, which as you can see has the highest recovery figure by far of all the BOTs, seems to be still reporting recoveries actively. As such, we can see that the 229 is a completely bogus figure. — Smjg (talk) 23:10, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 April 2020

FRANCE IS 98.010! 93.66.153.225 (talk) 08:48, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

 Remark: That is an error in the count at Johns Hopkins University and Worldometer. You can find a brief explanation here. --MarioGom (talk) 08:53, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Table font size

Table inline style now has "font-sizebel" which replaced "font-size". This change has resulted in font size increase. Can someone correct or remove the invalid property name? 86.31.125.137 (talk) 13:08, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

 Done. Thank you! --MarioGom (talk) 13:15, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Flags of dependencies (especially those French ones)

We probably should switch those dependency flags into localised flags even if they're unofficial. Using Tricoloure Français everywhere is just visually & graphically confusing and misleading. If there are dependencies other than the French ones who're still using sovereign flags, we probably should also do the same thing to them, too. Pktlaurence (talk) 22:10, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Pktlaurence: For territories that have an official local flag, I think it would be ok to use it. But, please, don't add unofficial flags. At least one of them (the snake flag of Martinique) is a quite politically contentious symbol and there is no reason for Wikipedia to take that kind of editorial stance. --MarioGom (talk) 22:28, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

@MarioGom: Problem solved. Besides, I don't really think that flag is actually controversial, since it was used as the current universal Unicode emoji🇲🇶.Pktlaurence (talk) 23:05, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Using flags is a cul-de-sac we've walked down before so let's be careful about making yet another unnecessary journey! I agree that the French situation is unique to them: the tricolour is mandated as the only official flag in many cases, which is in stark contrast to, say, the United Kingdom which permits either official flags or defaced ensigns. If the French dependency has the tricolour as its official flag (whether or not local feeling would prefer otherwise) Wikipedia should stick with the official situation. Better to focus on the accuracy of figures of people dying than causing edit wars over island flags. doktorb _words^deeds 22:33, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Doktorbuk: Grave objection towards your ad hominem uncivility. Making a proposal and I was trying to start an edit war? One more instances like this and you'll be reported. I was banned during that 'previous discussion' if there were actually any, so I might not be aware of those.
That you stated is true, tracing it's origins back to the difference between British and French colonial doctrines, but if you realise it is an unique situation, than we probably should do something with it. 'Wikipedia should stick with the official situation. (sic)' This is completely untrue if the official situation is or will become problematic. Pktlaurence (talk) 23:05, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

The Pandemic is NOT a sporting event. Using this flag for Martinique is so wrong ! The snake flag is very less political than some previous people mentioned. As a french geographer and amateur vexillologist I strongly recommend the use of the snake flag. --Monsieur le Baron de Toponymie (talk) 10:56, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

@Monsieur le Baron de Toponymie:: You're totally right, as I still think the snake flag is much cooler. Maybe you can help in implementing the change, and, well, I actually don't have much opinion over the appropriateness of either flags. As long as those dependencies are not using the same sovereign Tricoloure everywhere, I will be fine with either solutions. The sport flag or the snake flag, period. Pktlaurence (talk) 22:35, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Pktlaurence: That flag is not used as the universal Unicode emoji. Some fonts display the snake flag, some others the one for sports, some others do not display any flag. The tricolor is still the official flag and as other editor mentioned above: the one you added is used at sporting events, and healthcare is not sports. --MarioGom (talk) 17:28, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Pktlaurence: Please, see above for the objections to the flag you are reintroducing repeatedly ([19]). --MarioGom (talk) 22:27, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

MarioGom: Alright, then let's just switch back to the good old snake flag, no? Pktlaurence (talk) 22:37, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Pktlaurence: The tricolor is currently used in all territories where it is the official flag. Why would we use an unofficial flag for Martinique? --MarioGom (talk) 22:43, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

MarioGom: Because using that official Tricoloure everywhere is hell problematic. Please read my previous comments carefully. I did all of my edits out of very good reasons. Official solutions doesn't always mean they're good. We separated dependency data because of their distinctiveness & uniqueness, but now we're trying to impose the same sovereign flag over all of them again?! Pktlaurence (talk) 22:47, 5 April 2020 (UTC)Pktlaurence (talk) 22:47, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Pktlaurence: Yes, I have read your concerns. However, I don't think they outweigh the problem of going with unofficial flags. Specially when it is not feasible to do it for every territory, leaving the whole thing in a very arbitrary state. --MarioGom (talk) 22:50, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Pktlaurence: We separated dependency data because of their distinctiveness & uniqueness. Not really, that's a quite small part of the story. In my opinion, separating some entities make sense because of the way they are handled by reliable sources in relation to the COVID-19 pandemic. I don't think you can infer that using unofficial flags is somehow a logical consequence of the last RfC decision. --MarioGom (talk) 22:55, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Please list out some examples where you can't. I'm editing the Chinese Wikipedia and we have distinct flags for every dependencies, even for akotiri and Dhekelia. Pktlaurence (talk) 22:54, 5 April 2020 (UTC) MarioGom:Well, I've said the so called official measure is graphically both misleading and confusing, and I do think it outweighs your concerns. I asked you to provide example nicely, but it seems that you failed to produce any. Pktlaurence (talk) 23:04, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Pktlaurence: Sure. You can find an image for every territory if you pick any unofficial flag or any coat of arms. I don't think that is appropriate. --MarioGom (talk) 08:39, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Some clarifications regarding French regions

There is nothing unique to the situation of French overseas regions. On March 19th 1946, at the initiative of the Martinican deputy Aimé Césaire, supported by the Guianese Gaston Monnerville and the Reunionese Raymond Vergès a law has been voted at the French national assembly to make of Martinique, Guadeloupe, La Réunion and French Guiana French departments which are integral parts of the country, like any other French departments on mainland. Later, in 1982, the French governement created a new subdivisions, the Regions of France, and they subsequently became regions. In 1946, the islands of Saint-Martin and Saint-Barthélemy were parts of the created department of Guadeloupe. Later, in 2007, both islands became their own collectvities while remaining integral parts of France. Eventually, in 2009, the island of Mayotte held a referendum, won with 95.24% of votes, to obtain the same status and therefore became also integral part of France.

France is a unitary state. As such, being integral part of France means that the same rights, the same law, the same administration and the same representation applies there as it does on mainland. There is no different representation between the region of Martinique and the region of Nouvelle Aquitaine. Considering that France is part of the European Union, EU laws apply there as well and their currency is the euro. The Loi de départementalisation is the equivalent process as the Hawaii Admission Act or the Alaska Statehood Act which has lead both territories to become integral parts of the Union. The comparison with British overseas territories make no sense as those are crown dependencies, with a distinct citizenship (see British Overseas Territories citizen) and a legal autonomy. British overseas territories are considered separate from the rest of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

On the other hand, the status of New Caledonia, French Polynesia, Wallis and Futuna and Saint Pierre and Miquelon do belong to the category of autonomous territories. Citizens are French and they belong to the Republic, but they benefit of autonomous law which makes them indeed different from the rest of France. In the US context, their status could be compared to the one of Puerto Rico, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, American Samoa and US Virgin Islands.

For what it matters here and to get back on topic, The national French authority managing the Coronavirus crisis is the Agence nationale de santé publique which is competent over all French regions, each represented locally by their own Agence régionale de santé (ARS). Despite their status change, Saint-Martin and Saint-Barthélemy still depends of the Guadeloupe ARS. However, the other collectivites, having a more autonomous status, are managed through a different system. Therefore, it makes sense to me to add to the table the overseas collectivities of New Caledonia, French Polynesia, Wallis and Futuna and Saint Pierre and Miquelon if cases are reported there, however it doesn't to add overseas regions as well as Saint-Martin and Saint-Barthélemy, as that will necessarily lead to double counting. As a matter of fact, this is currently the case as the figures published for France already include them, yet they are still listed separetely.

In a nutshell, the confusion only comes from the fact some people believe that overseas regions mean "autonomous territories", "dependencies" or "colonies", whereas they are none of those. They are integral parts of the country in the very same way as the regions of Brittany or Normandy. Metropolitan (talk) 08:51, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Metropolitan: And despite all of this, French authorities report all overseas territories separately to the World Health Organization which lists them separately. Reuters or the BBC follow the same scheme. --MarioGom (talk) 09:15, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

MarioGom British press bodies such as BBC or Reuters are not competent on the matter. Now I would be very grateful if you would take the time to read carefully what I took a long time to write as we do have a problem of double counting which is emerging again. Your solution consisting in removing from the official national figures the older regional update is not satisfactory. Metropolitan (talk) 09:30, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Metropolitan: I agree that the current solution is not satisfactory. I also keep thinking about possible solutions like 1) using WHO Situation Reports for France (12-24h delay), 2) add a note warning of partial double counting or 3) merge. Also note that Reuters is headquartered in Canada and that Financial Times or Berliner Morgenpost follow this scheme too. Also, the World Health Organization is an international body and obtains its figures directly from French authorities. --MarioGom (talk) 09:40, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Metropolitan: What would be your proposal? I understand that one of them is merging overseas France territories except those that are not reported by French authorities (e.g. New Caledonia). Do you have any insight about other territories? I think it is about time to put together a new, more comprehensive RfC with different options, each of them with a good rationale and sources. --MarioGom (talk) 10:11, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

MarioGom: I've always supported the solution consisting in reporting figures as they are reported by national authorities. This being said, there is absolutely no legal basis to consider French overseas regions, which are integral parts of France, as belonging to the category of "autonomous territories and dependencies". They are not in any of those categories, see United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories for factual informations on the topic. So merging them with the country they are fully part of is not against the current RfC. Fundamentally, people from overseas France democratically struggled for their rights to be recognized in obtaining their current status. And I must confess that I'm amazed that on a website as serious as Wikipedia, it could even be advocated that foreign non-governmental sources supercede French governmental institutions on French matters, at the point to manipulate official figures in order to make it fit to a non-factual perception of the world. What is the incentive for that? Why considering French regions differently than US states or Spanish Provinces? Madeira and the Azores are officially autonomous regions, yet integral parts of Portugal but there's no problem there as well. So what is the problem with French regions? Let's just stick to facts. Metropolitan (talk) 11:17, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Metropolitan: I'm not disagreeing with a merge for French territories, but please, keep in mind that this split is not something that happens on Wikipedia alone and the World Health Organization, with direct reporting from France, splits these territories too. They have proper footnotes to clarify that the split does not imply any political claim of sovereignity (a clarification that we failed to do so far). I'm working on a proposal that would include the option to merge overseas France territories as long as they are totalized by French authorities: User:MarioGom/sandbox/COVID-19 Locations RfC. --MarioGom (talk) 11:34, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Preparing a new RfC for listing criteria

Hi! It is obvious that listing criteria for different territories and partially/limited recognized states is still a contentious topic where we did not reach a comprehensive agreement yet. I'd like to prepare a new RfC. You can look at the draft, including a proposal, here: User:MarioGom/sandbox/COVID-19 Locations RfC. Does anyone else want to make a different proposal for the RfC? Or an amendment to mine? Best, --MarioGom (talk) 14:00, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

MarioGom: I think for practical purposes, external territories not physically contiguous/connected with the mainland should be separate of reliable sources are available, as national statistics won't be representative of overseas territories and vice versa. 17jiangz1 (talk) 14:46, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

17jiangz1: I don't think that is very practical. There is no reliable sources following that criteria and we would find ourselves in a big mess trying to find reliable sources for counts for every island. Also note that many regions are archipielagos and there are no sources for the exact islands where each case is. That's just my personal opinion, but if you think it is worth investigating how it would be done in practice, feel free to make a concrete proposal. --MarioGom (talk) 14:57, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

17jiangz1: I agree with MarioGom that this isn't practical. That would mean to exclude Hawaii and Alaska from the US, Madeira and the Azores from Portugal, Canary Islands, Ceuta and Melilla from Spain. And what about Crete, Sardinia, Tasmania, Galapagos, Easter Island, Okinawa? What is mainland in Indonesia? Metropolitan (talk) 17:48, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

MarioGom: There haven't been issues with listing USA's overseas territories separately, so I think we can keep doing so especially considering that my main source (1Point3Acres) now has recoveries listed for said territories. Therefore, the exception for the US territories in your sandbox can be removed without much consequence. Cheers, u|RayDeeUx_contrib^{talk page} 15:41, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

RayDeeUx: That is my personal position too. However, I was considering to add it as an option to the RfC in some way, since it is still a contentious topic. On the other hand, maybe it makes sense to modify my proposal to 1) include the China exception by default, which has not been subject of any dispute so far, and 2) exclude the United States exception, since nothing has changed about it since last RfC. --MarioGom (talk) 15:44, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

MarioGom: I agree with your draft on the French case but I would approach it more as an amendment to the current RfC rather than as putting it totally into question. The RfC stipulates: "Autonomous territories and dependencies should be split as long as there are reliable sources.". I repeat that French overseas regions as well as the collectivities of Saint-Martin and Saint-Barthélemy are integral parts of France, they are neither autonomous territories nor dependencies. As far as I know, they are the only regions being integral parts of their country which are currently listed. This is certainly the reason why there is an issue specifically related to them. As for French autonomous territories which do exist and therefore could be listed separately, you could add to New Caledonia and French Polynesia the collectivity of Saint Pierre and Miquelon and the collectivity of Wallis and Futuna. Thanks for your work. Metropolitan (talk) 17:48, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Metropolitan: There are currently no cases in the Saint Pierre and Miquelon and Wallis and Futuna, right? I will add a note about them. Regarding the amendment to previous RfC, do you mean a change in background wording? It is not merely amending the previous RfC, it is also expanding it to cover quite a few territories that we did not really discuss enough at the time and were not included in the agreement (e.g. partially recognized states). --MarioGom (talk) 17:58, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

MarioGom: Sorry I had only read the green block of your proposal. Then I agree with your proposal as long as you would clarify that the regions and collectivities to be merged are integral parts of France, they are not dependencies or autonomous territories. There is indeed no case in Wallis and Futuna. However the French press reported a first case in Saint Pierre and Miquelon today: a traveller who arrived on March 16th and who was put then in quarantine [20]. I couldn't find yet any official source. On the Prefecture website, the last situation report is still dated on April 3rd [21]. However, I can confirm you that French autonomous territories (those actually qualifying to the RfC guideline) are not represented on Santé Publique interactive mapping: geodes.santepubliquefrance.fr. Only French regions are (no matter if located on mainland or overseas). Metropolitan (talk) 19:52, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

• RayDeeUx, Metropolitan: Following your feedback and to avoid revising previous agreements unnecessarily, I have changed the RfC to two proposals (A and B) where China exception is assumed for both and exception for the United States was removed, keeping both to current consensus. --MarioGom (talk) 18:25, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

• Notified the covid-19-stats mailing list. --MarioGom (talk) 09:45, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

This table is now a huge mess

Moved from Talk:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic by country and territory § This table is now a huge mess

 – MarioGom (talk) 08:33, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Since a few days, this table has become a huge mess, with unrecognised states appearing and disappearing from day to day, outer territories coming from nowhere, this is ridiculous. Please be serious, stick to the official list of recognised countries and real outer territories (having no close border with the mainland state, for example Falkland Islands and UK, Taiwan, Macau and China, Hawai, Alaska and USA, French Guyanna, New Caledonia and France, Greenland and Denmark... list not exhaustive). All pseudo-country that was formed outside of the Montevideo Convention of 1933 IS NOT a recognised country. It means that only 206 entities are recognised, and disregard any politically correct consideration, or otherwise don't forget to add the self declared states like Republic of Saugeais, Principality of Sealand and many other or even Isil/Daesh ! FMichaud76 (talk) 08:09, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

FMichaud76: Note that the column is not "Countries" but "Countries and territories". The current status is the result of this RfC. Most territories are currently listed with a criteria very similar to the World Health Organization ([22]) and other reliable sources. There is an ongoing discussion to improve the listing criteria at #Preparing a new RfC for listing criteria. --MarioGom (talk) 08:37, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

FMichaud76: Please also note that there are some territories that are yet to report a COVID–19 case. As such, they will appear as per current or future RfC consensus. Cheers, u|RayDeeUx_contrib^{talk page} 14:22, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

1Point3Acres issue

(Insert tentative ping to MarioGom here, apologies for lack of notice)

So I'm reporting for duty as per the COVID–19 Case Count Task Force and I'm updating the values for USA and its overseas territories. Something odd happened with the Northern Mariana Islands (NMI for my convenience, apologies in advance).

1Point3Acres was reporting that NMI has 8 cases, 1 death, and 24 recoveries.

Proof: https://imgur.com/a/zrqO7HG.

How could this happen, and what should be the procedure for issues like this? For me, I just took the numbers at 1P3A as they are because this could be temporary. Thanks in advance.

Cheers, u|RayDeeUx_contrib^{talk page} 15:34, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

RayDeeUx: Oh, silly me. It took me a while to realize what the problem is! So they have way more recoveries than confirmed cases, which are supposed to include both recoveries and deaths. Here is the original source: [23]. 24 is not the number of recovered people. It is Cumulative Number of Persons Released from Quarantine. This is an indicator that many countries publish, and it means people who were put in isolation and then released. People put in isolation are not necessarily confirmed cases. They can be people who returned from travel to a risk zone or had close contact with a confirmed case. --MarioGom (talk) 15:57, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

MarioGom: So does this call for a footnote reporting the discrepancy? Cheers, u|RayDeeUx_contrib^{talk page} 16:03, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

RayDeeUx: I don't think so. Note that, since we are using 1p3a there to subtract NMI from their own total, it does not really matter that the figure for NMI is incorrect. The important thing is that whatever figure 1p3a added to the total, it is then subtracted. However, for the Northern Mariana Islands entry in the table, I would not use 1p3a and would stick to [24] or whatever official source or local press source. --MarioGom (talk) 16:05, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

MarioGom: Alright, I'll fix that now. Cheers, u|RayDeeUx_contrib^{talk page} 16:07, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

RayDeeUx: Thanks. I have blanked the recoveries value ([25]), since it is actually not reported at all. As far as I know, the "released from quarantine" metric is not something we are using as recovery for any country so far, even when available. --MarioGom (talk) 16:25, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

It now seems to be fixed on 1p3a's end. --17jiangz1 (talk) 03:20, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

"High Consequence Infectious Disease"

Moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject COVID-19 § "High Consequence Infectious Disease"

 – MarioGom (talk) 11:23, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Ptilinopus: You might want to move this to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject COVID-19 or Talk:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic. --MarioGom (talk) 07:32, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks MarioGom, but I’m not experienced enough to know how to do that. Would you be able to move it? Thanks. Ptilinopus (talk) 10:28, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Ptilinopus:  Done --MarioGom (talk) 11:23, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Update Panama cases

Panama has 2249 confirmed cases, 59 deaths and 16 recovered. Source: La Estrella de Panamá https://www.laestrella.com.pa/nacional/200407/dia-mundial-salud-panama-suma-2-249-casos-59-muertes-covid-19 Webi0311 (talk) 00:59, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

 Done same with official source. Thanks--Tensa Februari (talk) 02:48, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 April 2020

Change confirmed cases for New Zealand from 1210 to 969, as it currently erroneously shows total of confirmed + probable cases. Source is https://www.health.govt.nz/our-work/diseases-and-conditions/covid-19-novel-coronavirus/covid-19-current-situation/covid-19-current-cases 125.238.91.48 (talk) 22:20, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Someone updated it already. Thank you. --MarioGom (talk) 23:01, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 April 2020

Death Figures mentioned for Italy are erroneously entered wrong, please rectify. 5.30.203.157 (talk) 16:59, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. Unclear where the error is as the figures of Italy's deaths match the source Italy is citing. Cheers, {{u|RayDeeUx}}_contrib^{talk page} 17:28, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Update the data for Argentina

Number of cases is 1795, deaths 70, recovered 365 (Source).TheTrueGilben (talk) 17:50, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

TheTrueGilben:  Done. Thank you. --MarioGom (talk) 18:06, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

You're welcome. You can always check that site for constant updates. TheTrueGilben (talk) 22:12, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Common errors in aggregate sources

I added a list of common errors in aggregate sources (JHU, Worldometer, 1point3acres, etc) that may be useful for other editors: Wikipedia:WikiProject COVID-19/Case Count Task Force § Common errors. --MarioGom (talk) 08:00, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Non-human cases

Quick question: this table should be for listing human and only human COVID-19 cases, right?

I'm only asking this because there are rumors of dogs and cats in Europe who have been diagnosed with COVID-19, as well as a tiger in NYC's Bronx Zoo with COVID-19.

Cheers, u|RayDeeUx_contrib^{talk page} 00:21, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

This table, yes. But I think it would be appropriate to mention animals in the article. Adoring nanny (talk) 00:48, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

For the table, I agree we should stick to human cases. At least, until the World Health Organization, national authorities or reliable sources that track worldwide cases (e.g. Reuters, The New York Times) start including animals in their counts. --MarioGom (talk) 09:00, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Bringing this topic back because I felt that I needed to address this in the table itself. Would my recent addition (see below) work, or is further revision needed? (ping MarioGom)

Additionally, cases for pets or animals are not included.

Cheers, u|RayDeeUx_contrib^{talk page} 18:03, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

RayDeeUx: I agree with the inclusion. --MarioGom (talk) 18:30, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Recoveries

Moved from Talk:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic by country and territory § Recoveries

 – u|RayDeeUx_contrib^{talk page} 18:29, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

For some countries there is no information about number of recoveries in the table. But this information can be found here: https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/map.html May we use this page to complete the table? For example, about the Netherlands. --D.M. from Ukraine (talk) 18:20, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Hello D.M. from Ukraine, the Dutch government does not record recoveries officially. As such, there is no reliable source for recoveries in the Netherlands (not to be confused with the constituent countries of the Kingdom of the Netherlands).

Cheers, u|RayDeeUx_contrib^{talk page} 18:29, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

D.M. from Ukraine: You can also check the footnotes for the United Kingdom and the Netherlands. Figures reported by the Johns Hopkins University are quite old. See also: Talk:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic by country and territory#UK and the Netherlands. --MarioGom (talk) 19:38, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Sources for France

Hi, Data "cases" for France is false (shows 89953 where it is 68605) on 2020/04/05 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.98.252.161 (talk) 07:31, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Confirmed cases
Recoveries
Hospitalised
ICU
Deaths (hospital only)
Weekly reporting
Daily deaths in France (all causes) ; updated every week
daily summary

Buisson (talk) 18:17, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Ya, I'm noticing a similar thing as noted above (Currently 5:17 EST on 04/07/2020). Sources linked to worldometers.com are claiming over 109 000 cases in France, yet the French gov (https://dashboard.covid19.data.gouv.fr/) has less than 80 000. Not sure why there's such a discrepancy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.213.87.57 (talk) 21:19, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

As far as I see, this discrepancy is caused, because France does count the cases differently from hospitals and from EHPAD/ESMS (nursing homes). If you look for example at the dashboard data here (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) you see at the moment 82.048 confirmed cases (cas confirmés) on the dashboard and you see 30.902 cases from nursing homes (30902 cas en esms). So my understanding is, that the total number of cases in France is the sum of those numbers (82.048+30.902 = 112.950), and that is exactly the number that worldometers.info publishes at the moment (https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/france/) and very similiar to the current John Hopkins number (113.959). So may be someone more knowledgeable about how France counts their numbers could verify, if the total case count is actually the sum of those numbers. --Deconstruct (talk) 22:24, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Iran, Again

I added a bunch of new sources for this from the Iran article. The Iranian numbers are heavily disputed in the media, with a number of sources claiming the true count is being covered up by the Iranian government. This has been ongoing since at least late February, including with some Iranian officials (such as some in Qom) putting out higher numbers than the central government. Hamid Souri, who is part of the Iranian Government's National Coronavirus Combat Taskforce, said on April 6 that the true number of infected is 500k, though he blames poor testing rather than an official concerted cover-up, as have some WHO officials, such as Dr. Rick Brennan on March 16th. Titanium Dragon (talk) 06:51, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Almost every country at this point will have a higher number of infected than listed on the official stats since it is so easy to transmit and you don't show symptoms for a while, also there are testing shortages. For example, Italy [26] [27], USA [28] [29] [30], Ecuador [31], India [32] [33], etc.

About the deaths, sure if there are more recent sources but a source from when there were around 50 deaths (12 officially) is dated for such a situation and must be deleted. A source such as Reuters and France 24 should generally be reliable, but I would not consider Radio Farda and Jerusalem Post (one funded by a government hostile to Iran and the other based in a country hostile to it) to be reliable for such a situation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.70.152.26 (talk) 04:33, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Death-to-Case ratio column

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Now we are more advanced into the pandemic. For maintaining, it's just one more Ctrl+V for cases and deaths into the Percentage template (example: 1.00%). Just asking Feelthhis (talk) 20:49, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

The problem is that these numbers aren't necessarily comparable between countries; a lot of countries are underdiagnosing the number of cases and mostly getting severe cases recorded, which artificially inflates their deaths per case. I'm not sure if adding another column will really be informative. Titanium Dragon (talk) 06:48, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Also death-to-case ratio is hardly a serious metric when based on cumulative death count and cumulative confirmed case count at a fixed point in time. You can check realiable sources in medicine for a more in-depth explanation of this kind of issue (Estimating case fatality rates of COVID-19). There is also an informal consensus to avoid new columns on this table at the moment (Link to discussion (informal)). --MarioGom (talk) 10:45, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Also, no new columns as per current consensus. Cheers, u|RayDeeUx_contrib^{talk page} 13:49, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Agree no more columns. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:21, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Locations that may require an update (9 April)

The following locations have lower cases than Worldometer or BNO and may require an update. Please, do not update directly. There can be false positives. Look for a reliable source to use and verify that all figures are correct:

Outdated report.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Bahrain : 821 -> 823 (WOMC) 823 (BNO) Belize : 7 -> 8 (WOMC) Brazil : 15927 -> 16170 (WOMC) 16170 (BNO) Central African Republic : 8 -> 9 (BNO) Colombia : 1780 -> 2054 (WOMC) 2054 (BNO) Curaçao : 13 -> 14 (WOMC) Cyprus : 516 -> 526 (WOMC) Czech Republic : 5221 -> 5312 (WOMC) 5312 (BNO) Dominica : 14 -> 15 (WOMC) Ecuador : 3995 -> 4450 (WOMC) 4450 (BNO) Gabon : 30 -> 34 (WOMC) Greece : 1832 -> 1884 (WOMC) 1884 (BNO) Guyana : 33 -> 37 (WOMC) Haiti : 25 -> 27 (WOMC) India : 5274 -> 5916 (WOMC) 5802 (BNO) Laos : 14 -> 15 (WOMC) Lebanon : 575 -> 576 (WOMC) Libya : 20 -> 21 (WOMC) Macau : 44 -> 45 (WOMC) 45 (BNO) Mongolia : 15 -> 16 (WOMC) Montserrat : 8 -> 9 (WOMC) Mozambique : 10 -> 17 (WOMC) Norway : 6015 -> 6086 (WOMC) 6084 (BNO) Pakistan : 4187 -> 4263 (WOMC) San Marino : 279 -> 308 (BNO) Serbia : 2447 -> 2666 (WOMC) 2666 (BNO) Sudan : 12 -> 14 (WOMC) Vatican City : 7 -> 8 (WOMC) Venezuela : 166 -> 167 (WOMC)

--MarioGom (talk) 23:07, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

I think Cyprus is due to the subtraction of Akrotiri and Dhekelia. Chbe113 (talk) 20:36, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Chbe113: Yes, very likely. There's a few countries that are usually false positives (for this test): United States, Canada, New Zealand, France and Cyprus. --MarioGom (talk) 16:55, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Global CCF

Global CCF needs to be tally with JHU website, since that has changed a while ago. https://gisanddata.maps.arcgis.com/apps/opsdashboard/index.html#/bda7594740fd40299423467b48e9ecf6BlackSun2104 (talk) 01:22, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Tallies do not necessarily total up to what JHU has, since every location's case counts are always changing and uses different sources. Cheers, {{u|RayDeeUx}}_contrib^{talk page} 02:16, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Total counts are not edited in this template anymore. They come from Template:Cases in 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic. --MarioGom (talk) 08:12, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Very annoying, as the count in that template has often been overinflated and nowhere matches our total. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:46, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Graeme Bartlett: I think the main point that was presented for JHU-based totals is that figures cited elsewhere in the main article (2019–20 coronavirus pandemic) are consistent with the table. --MarioGom (talk) 08:55, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

By the way, I have contacted the JHU explaining their errors for France, New Zealand and Canada. Hopefully they can fix the most obvious ones. --MarioGom (talk) 08:56, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 April 2020

Malta 337 total cases 2 deaths 5 recoveries 77.71.201.131 (talk) 12:56, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done It is unclear what source you are getting those figures from. Please bring a source as soon as possible. Cheers, {{u|RayDeeUx}}_contrib^{talk page} 13:36, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 April 2020

Bolivia, contagiados: 275, Muertes 20 Fuente: https://www.boliviasegura.gob.bo/ DrEditador (talk) 04:29, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

 Done EvergreenFir (talk) 05:10, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Timor East

Page 2020 coronavirus pandemic in East Timor reports one recovered case. There is also a source.

--80.104.182.248 (talk) 00:57, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

 Done. That's good news! Cheers, u|RayDeeUx (contribs | talk page) 01:51, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Ecuador

Ecuador's president is claiming his country's figures to be wrong… should be included as a footnote

https://www.businessinsider.com/coronavirus-bodies-left-home-streets-city-ecuador-2020-4 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.70.152.26 (talk) 04:38, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Most territories numbers are underreported, it's just by how much. I think that would be more relevant to the page for 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic in Ecuador. --17jiangz1 (talk) 07:46, 9 April 2020 (UTC)