Template talk:COVID-19 pandemic data: Difference between revisions

This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

China This template is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related Asia This template is within the scope of WikiProject Asia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Asia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject AsiaTemplate:WikiProject AsiaAsia Disaster management This template is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management Medicine: Pulmonology This template is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine This template is supported by the Pulmonology task force. Viruses This template is within the scope of WikiProject Viruses, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of viruses on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.VirusesWikipedia:WikiProject VirusesTemplate:WikiProject Virusesvirus

Archives

Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present.

Greetings, i'm a Malaysian editor. I can help with the update over Malaysian coronavirus cases, and also the recent recovered Chinese boy patient. Like this for example: http://www.astroawani.com/berita-malaysia/kanak-kanak-warga-china-positif-koronavirus-di-malaysia-pulih-sepenuhnya-229862 (Chinese kid positive of coronavirus in Malaysia has recovered fully, so the Recoveries should be 1 for Malaysia now) I'm also the creator of the Wabak koronavirus Wuhan 2019-20 in Wikipedia Bahasa Melayu (can check the history there) Thanks. Ricky250 (talk) 12:03, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

another editor have updated the count earlier. robertsky (talk) 10:20, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Since around 99% of cases are in China, I suggest putting the total number of cases outside Mainland China too in the table, between brackets, beside the grand total. like Total 24,584 (236 outside Mainland China). --وسام زقوت (talk) 13:36, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

S. Korea: 19th case confirmed & 1st release of a 2019-nCoV patient after recovery announced by the authority. Links are following: (Report on 19th case – http://yna.kr/AEN20200205002356320) (Report on 1st release – http://yna.kr/AEN20200205006252320 Editor en jefe (talk) 13:41, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Up to more than that now. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:50, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nimda01 (talk) 14:27, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thailand now have 9 people recovered, please update. (a number of confirmed cases remained the same at 25)

Source: Bureau of Information Office of The Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Public Health (Thailand) https://pr.moph.go.th/?url=pr/detail/2/04/138178/

The information is on "Report of confirmed cases of infection" section.

Best regards.

Done Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:48, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Change Finland recovered from 0 to 1.

https://yle.fi/uutiset/osasto/news/finlands_first_coronavirus_patient_released_from_hospital_symptom-free/11193661 188.238.55.52 (talk) 15:08, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:51, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Change case counts of Singapore from 28 to 24 (according to Ministry of health + cited reference) 217.77.82.81 (talk) 15:15, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Says 28 here https://bnonews.com/index.php/2020/02/the-latest-coronavirus-cases/ as does MOH Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:53, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

US cases are now 12.

https://www.cnn.com/asia/live-news/coronavirus-outbreak-02-05-20-intl-hnk/index.html MN (talk) 21:07, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:53, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I want to update the number of Chinese cases to 27,358 from 24,337 and US to 12 from 12. Conker The King (talk) 22:50, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Already above that Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:55, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Update the number of Chinese cases to 27,358 from 24,337 and US to 12 from 11 Conker The King (talk) 22:52, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Already above Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:56, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please include time of data in the '2019–20 nCoV outbreak by country[58]' table (date already included). data changing rapidly and this will help with tracking/plotting data. thank you for your consideration and all of your work on this. 71.220.1.68 (talk) 23:08, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how you recommend doing this? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:42, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Since Feb 3, the Chinese National Health Commission releases daily briefings on the spread of the virus in China, which allows you to draw a time series with the data: Feb 3 4 5 6 7. Earlier data are available from older press releases, which can also be found in the "News" section of the Commission's website. --83.137.1.218 (talk) 07:45, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please update USA confirmed to 12.

2019 Novel Coronavirus Case is Confirmed in Wisconsin https://www.channel3000.com/dhs-confirms-first-case-of-coronavirus-in-wisconsin-patient-tested-at-uw-health/ Jtreyes (talk) 23:26, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:40, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please add in North Korea for 7 case.

Source: https://www.cna.com.tw/amp/news/firstnews/202002060022.aspx

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.15.233.190 (talk • contribs) 03:01, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BNO pins the report as unconfirmed and unverifiable at the moment though. See: https://web.archive.org/web/20200206101649/https://bnonews.com/index.php/2020/02/the-latest-coronavirus-cases/ (archived since this page is being updated as and when there is fresh information). robertsky (talk) 10:18, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Taiwan's CDC has confirmed the 13th case of coronavirus in Taiwan. Please change 11 under Taiwan’s row into 13.
Source = https://www.cdc.gov.tw/Bulletin/Detail/NXDgwOfx8WDoXHrXHPIzAw?typeid=9
This source is in Chinese, please go to the English website of CDC to check for an English version. Andrew20070223 (talk) 07:04, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Other editors, feel free to revert the reference to BNO when BNO is updated. robertsky (talk) 10:13, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Taiwan's Centers for Disease Control has published the same press release in English now. Maybe changing the source of the row "Taiwan" from the Chinese version into an English version source will be more suitable.
Source = https://www.cdc.gov.tw/En/Bulletin/Detail/wn02wbpI_2YrRLcxS_pZnA?typeid=158 Andrew20070223 (talk) 12:14, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare of Japan has published a new report of the novel coronavirus in Japanese. It says 4 patients have been discharged in Japan.
Source=https://www.mhlw.go.jp/stf/newpage_09360.html --そらみみ (talk) 13:58, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please update the number of case in Singapore to 30.

Source:

https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/health/coronavirus-singapore-confirms-two-more-cases-bringing-total-to-30 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.15.233.190 (talk) 14:07, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'am really uncomfortable with this recovery column. So if an hospital or country do not properly monitor this, it will by subtraction suggest that all cases are deadly ? Yug (talk) 15:13, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No it's not what it's suggest, it's suggest that everyone is still sick. --Eric1212 (talk) 16:08, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Are we sure all recoveries and deaths will be counted or is trackung flawed ? Yug (talk) 21:08, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Previous talk "Mainland China" or "China (mainland)"

@Admanny, ParadiseDesertOasis8888, Jw 193, Akira CA, and Krazytea:

Akira CA (talk) 03:00 7 February 2020 (UTC)

It is absurd how much time is spent on this trivial issue however why are we needing to put mainland China as Mainland China or China (mainland). There is a manual of style at MOS:NC-CN and most formal lists such as List of countries and dependencies by population and List of countries by GDP (nominal) and List of participating nations at the Summer Olympic Games all have no trouble denoting mainland China, Hong Kong, and Taiwan by their separate titles with no edit warring. Yet virus and outbreak pages have consistent trouble differentiating these titles and people are having a ton of trouble differentiating and listing nations and territories.

The footnote method is the most accurate description and cleanest method for the listing of China vs the other nations and dependencies in this list. It is all the most commonly accepted method. Perhaps everywhere but here apparently. So we are trying to set a new unsightly precedent. Krazytea(talk) 02:55, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have referenced my discussion, yes. This is not an answer though. Krazytea(talk) 03:04, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @Krazytea: First, nothing to do with the MOS:NC-CN, as it states in the first part:

China
In many cases "China" can be used to refer to the modern state officially known as the "People's Republic of China".

and yet this template includes Hong Kong, Macau, which are controlled by PRC as SARs. Using "China" would cause confusion. Furthermore, two acceptable usage of "mainland China" is provided in the third part of the manual.

mainland China

it should only be used when a contrast is needed and when a simpler construction such as "China, except Hong Kong" is unworkable. For example, "Lo Wu is the most heavily trafficked border crossing between Hong Kong and mainland China," "Due to the relocation of many manufacturing and labor-intensive industries to mainland China, unemployment in Taiwan reached a level not seen since the 1973 oil crisis."

, both involves the juxtaposition of mainland China with territories controlled/claimed by the PRC. The template has this feature as well, so MOS:NC-CN indeed support the usage of "mainland China" instead of against it. Akira CA (talk) 03:16, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Second, the reference of this template uses "mainland China" and we should be consistent here. Given that no WP guidelines discourage such usage (MOS:NC-CN even encourages). Akira CA (talk) 03:46, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Third, you stated that "WHO does not use 'mainland China' in their event reports." but as I've said, WHO report cannot be the reason for removing "mainland", as their "China" includes Hong Kong, Macau, and Taiwan, which are list separately in this template. Replacing "mainland" with asterisk will decrease readability and make the number of "confirmed cases in China" inconsistent with that reported by WHO (as Hong Kong, and Taiwan are subtracted). Akira CA (talk) 03:39, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but unlike this virus, this is not a novel usage when comparing mainland China vs other nations and territories. Using something like Mainland China, absolutely has no place in this list since it would suggest there is a state of Mainland China which there is not. While China (mainland) can be used it is unnecessary and ambiguous, and more importantly distracting. There are dozens of territories like Hong Kong and Macau in the world. Puerto Rico, Bermuda, Falkland Islands, Cook Islands Faroe Islands, Greenland, Aruba, New Caledonia, and Sint Maarten for example. In no other place does there seem to be this confusion. The precedence has been to list China with the footnote.

Also MOS:NC-CN notes that ""When discussing geography, those places within the territorial control of the People's Republic of China should generally be said to be in "China". further Because of the ambiguity of the term (mainland China), it should only be used when a contrast is needed and when a simpler construction such as "China, except Hong Kong" is unworkable. As Hong Kong and Macau are already listed and the footnote added, the terminology of mainland China, Mainland China, or China (mainland) is ambiguous, unclear, distracting, and unnecessary. Adding Mainland China provides more ambiguity to the list and what the term is. Using the logic of adding Mainland China it would be like listing the United States as the Contiguous United States or Continental United States. It actually provides logical messiness. Most readers will probably not know what the difference of all these titles, territories, etc., are. It might also be useful to actual Wikilink each nation and territory. Using the term mainland China is extraordinarily useful in the body of an article, but very confusing when added to lists. This is why after much searching on Wiki there are few if any uses of China (mainland) and no uses of Mainland China in any lists by country and territory. Krazytea(talk) 03:55, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hence I made "(mainland)" small to avoid it being distracting. There's a reason for everything. I agree that mainland must be distinguished from China as a whole (including TW, HK, and MC), but it must be shown clearly and thus "mainland" must remain with China, not within a footnote. Admanny (talk) 09:32, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

within the territorial control of the People's Republic of China this includes Hong Kong and Macau and dismisses the usage of "China". Furthermore, "China" is much more vague than "mainland China" as the status of Taiwan, which offically terms the Republic of China, is disputed. Pushing either side threatens the fundamental principle of WP:NPOV. And it's far better to use the well-defined "mainland China" to aviod such ambiguity. Precise terms also explain the geographical diffusion more clearly. As I've notcied, Chinese Wikipedia community has already adopted this principle of breaking down "China" into "mainland China", "Hong Kong", "Macau", and "Taiwan". Akira CA (talk) 04:26, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Fourth, in 2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak, the term "mainland China" is used in yellow bar chart above, the PRC+ROC coloured map, and the world map on the left. The word mainland appeared 40 times throughout the article. It's you who are making exceptions and provoking edit wars, not us. Akira CA (talk) 03:58, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have simply provided polemics. I agree the term mainland China appears in that articles dozens of times and it should! It is a differentiating term to be used in the body of the article not to list and compare countries. What we are arguing is the list of formally named states and territories. The term mainland China should not be used arbitrarily here. Any other complete international lists of nations and territories that do not arbitrarily use the terminology of mainland China rather than the formal names of the state of China would be beneficial to your argument if provided by yourself. Krazytea(talk) 04:06, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The template used to be about "Country or region", corresponding to its reference until you did this edit. This isn't an "lists of nations and territories" until you shaped it into. As the list was about "regions" not "states" (per reference and world map caption), mainland China need not to be a state to be included. Akira CA (talk) 04:26, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It would be best to split the Chinese cases by province, because there are more coronavirus infections in Hubei province than in Xinjiang province. China needs its own table (within a table), where Hong Kong and Macau could show up as subprovinces of Guangdong province. Until then it makes little sense to list them separately, because the number of cases is negligibly small compared to China. Just lump them together and spare some table rows, it would be accurate enough. --05:30, 7 February 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.137.1.218 (talk)

• I tweaked the footnote yesterday but my edit was later reverted by Akira CA, who referred me to this talk page. I didn’t follow the discussions, but after a bit of reading I propose restoring the footnote as it appears to be the most uncontroversial solution. I’d assume that the average reader is not familiar with the term “Mainland China” (and as others have suggested, there isn’t a formal, universally recognized definition of the term either), and I don’t think they’re necessarily informed about the special relationships between China, Hong Kong and Macau. In short, they may be confused as to what “Mainland China” means. The footnote "Figures for China exclude the Special Administrative Regions of Hong Kong and Macau, which are reported separately as individual territories." clearly acknowledges the fact that Hong Kong and Macau are indeed part of China, and it adequately explains why the figures for Hong Kong and Macau are not included in the figures for China. Of course, we can discuss and change what the footnote says, but I think having a footnote is a better solution. Hayman30 (talk) 11:39, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Currently the cases are counted as Japan. However WHO counted the cases as "Others: Cases on an international conveyance (Japan)" from its Situation report - 17 dated 6 February. I think we should follow the practice.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 05:58, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Since the ship is in Japan, Japanese health system is in control, and the patients were taken to a Japanese hospital, it is fair enough to count them in the Japan total. If the ship was out at sea then we could have an other category for that. It would be similar for the cruise ship tied up in Hong Kong, we should count that as Hong Kong. It should be similar again for evacuees from Wuhan that are diagnosed in their destination country, count them where they are, not where they came from. If a confirmed case moved from one country to another, then we can reduce by 1 and add 1. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:46, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the author of the animated map of confirmed 2019-nCoV cases spreading from 12 January 2020. For Chinese figures, I use as source the daily report of the National Health Commission of China (疫情通报) which are published daily at about 00:00GMT (08:00 Beijing time). As for other countries, I'm checking data on this very page at the same hour of 00:00GMT.

I need your advice though for Japan (and the Diamond Princess particular case). In the last couple of dates, the figure was updated here about an hour later, at 01:00GMT. Should 86 cases be counted as of 2020-02-06 or in next report on 2020-02-07? If so, do you have any advice on what rule should I apply to determine figures for daily updates? I thank you in advance for your help. Metropolitan (talk) 09:32, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For JP, I would suggest to the day before since these cases would have been discovered the day before. robertsky (talk) 10:01, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See above discussion. WHO classified the cases of Diamond Princess as separate cases to Japan. We should use the data published by WHO as a main source of this article.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 10:13, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Currently the main source of this template is BNO news. However WHO began to publish its daily report since 21 January. We should use the reports as a main source of this template.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 10:33, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

   Thank You
  ~  116.15.233.190  11:36, 7 February 2020 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.15.255.8 (talk)