Template talk:COVID-19 pandemic data/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 February 2020

please correct the total number of death Mk.vijesh007 (talk) 05:48, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

China count changed to match sources, it adds up now. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:14, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 February 2020

First death in US, please change 0 to 1 Reference: https://www.businessinsider.com/60-year-old-us-citizen-wuhan-died-from-coronavirus-report-2020-2?utm_source=notification&utm_medium=referral Keith chau yet (talk) 06:03, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

This won't count under US, as the death occurred in Wuhan, China, so it would be already in the China count. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:11, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, sorry about that, I meant add on count to Mainland China User talk:Keith chau yet — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keith chau yet (talk • contribs) 06:12, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Given that the person died on Thursday (Chinese and Australian time) and it is now Saturday 8th, I reckon that that case will already be in the count. So we should not just add 1. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:27, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Continued discussion on Mainland China, China (mainland), or China with footnote

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)

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

• @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)

• 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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

Okay let us say I even agreed with you, could you point to the formal state or region of "Mainland China" on either the List of sovereign states, List of regions of China, or Provinces of China? Krazytea(talk) 18:53, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Have you been living under a rock? Do you have any idea how many people know the country of China enough to know that "Mainland China" is "China"? It's a lot more than you think. Admanny (talk) 19:10, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

• 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)

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)

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)

Actually it is a list of countries and territories, as is shaped the World Health Organization in their reports, which is a far more credible source than BNO News. Again this is not the first global outbreak of a virus in the history of this fair planet. There has long been a precedence before these events in China over the last 17 years. Krazytea(talk) 18:43, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

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)

Obviously I agree. As per the post by the IP address above, I would not be opposed to a table of Chinese cases by province, the WHO does provide this information as well, so it would be easier to corroborate. It may also appease the 'mainland' lobby, I am not sure. *shrug* Krazytea(talk) 18:43, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

average reader is not familiar with the term “Mainland China” this is false, mainland China is linked in the lead of 2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak and repeatedly appears throughout the article

"The 2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak, formally the outbreak of novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), is an ongoing virus epidemic primarily affecting mainland China, along with isolated cases in 27 other countries and territories." Akira CA (talk) 00:23, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

• @Krazytea:, Okay Okay so if "Mainland China" is soooooooooooo confusing and unfamiliar (as you've described) Why "Using the term mainland China is extraordinarily useful in the body of an article"? If "it is a list of countries and territories" so Why cases on the Diamond Princess is in the list? Is it in the list of sovereign states? If we are to stick to the WHO report so Why Hong Kong, Macau, and Taiwan is out there separately?
  The thing is, you can't be triple standard here simply because you dislike the term "Mainland China". Akira CA (talk) 00:14, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Of Mainland China versus Continental United States I would say the first is easier to understand. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:00, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 February 2020

S. Korea : Another 2019-nCoV patient discharged from hospital after full recovery, bringing the total number of patients released to 2 (Link below) http://yna.kr/AEN20200208001157320 Editor en jefe (talk) 13:49, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Ref says "The KCDC said two patients, both Korean nationals in their 50s, have mostly recovered, though there are no patients scheduled to be discharged later in the day."

User:Editor en jefe what text are you looking at? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:47, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Doc James In the 4th paragraph, it says: "Despite the rise in people undergoing tests, the number of confirmed cases of the novel coronavirus here has remained unchanged at 24. Of them, two patients have been released after full recovery so far."

One more case confirmed in S. Korea, the total now 25.(Link Below) http://yna.kr/AEN20200209000751320 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Editor en jefe (talk • contribs) 02:50, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 February 2020

In South Korea, there are three recovered patient case, not just one.

Patient No.2 ( Korean / Man / 55 / https://news.joins.com/article/23698776 )

- Confirmed on KST Jan. 24.
- Recorvered on KST Feb. 5.

Patient No.1 ( Chinese / Woman / 35 / http://news.kbs.co.kr/news/view.do?ncd=4376479&ref=A )

- Confirmed on KST Jan. 20.
- Recorvered on KST Feb. 6.

Patient No.4 ( Korean / Man / 55 / https://news.sbs.co.kr/news/endPage.do?news_id=N1005640356 )

- Confirmed on KST Jan. 27.
- Recorvered on KST Feb. 9. 39.115.93.106 (talk) 06:20, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Reference in English : http://world.kbs.co.kr/service/news_view.htm?lang=e&Seq_Code=151189 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Editor en jefe (talk • contribs) 09:03, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 February 2020

Hello. Since I've got less than 500 edits, I can't edit this page, but I would like to bring this to attention that an American has died from coronavirus, according to these sources:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/coronavirus-china-live-updates/2020/02/08/4fcbd584-49f5-11ea-9164-d3154ad8a5cd_story.html https://www.cbsnews.com/video/first-american-citizen-dies-of-coronavirus-in-china/ https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/american-coronavirus-died-wuhan-china-embassy-says-n1132946 https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/08/world/asia/china-coronavirus-american-dead.html TWD 16:41, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 February 2020

"Region where death occurred. Citizenship maybe different."

change to:

"Region where death occurred. Citizenship may be different." 47.54.145.153 (talk) 18:07, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

 Done AntiCedros (talk) 21:49, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 February 2020

Hong Kong total cases = 36

Source = https://news.rthk.hk/rthk/en/component/k2/1507602-20200210.htm?spTabChangeable=0 Hkfreedomfighter (talk) 17:10, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

 Already done AntiCedros (talk) 00:19, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Update Vietnam

Please update recoveries for Vietnam: 6 ref: https://vnexpress.net/suc-khoe/ba-benh-nhan-viem-phoi-corona-xuat-vien-4052882.html title: Ba bệnh nhân viêm phổi corona xuất viện meaning: Three patients with coronary pneumonia were discharged from the hospital So totally already 6 recoveries so far. Thank you. Mặt trời đỏ (talk) 08:41, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 February 2020

The United Kingdom now has 8 cases, up from 4. Conker The King (talk) 10:11, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

The number already is updated. Starzoner (talk) 14:52, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 February 2020

UAE now has 8 cases, up from 7. Conker The King (talk) 18:14, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

It was updated by Nguyen QuocTrung several minutes before your request. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:46, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 February 2020

For the United Arab Emirates, the number 1 under the Recoveries section should be black, not grey Alpha Centauri 5932 (talk) 04:46, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

It is black by now. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:49, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Main source of this template

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)

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

Well these WHO reports will be issued once each day. (They may also be corrected later on). They would be more useful for the animated map rather than an up-to-date total that BNO attempts to present, and that this template is maintaining. When editors lose interest in continuously updating, then the WHO historic figures will be useful. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:28, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree 1,000%. BNO News does provide an earlier update, based on Chinese national reports. I still think the most credible source is the WHO which does provide an update every day at approximately 2:00 pm Eastern Standard Time. Krazytea(talk) 19:02, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

We should NOT be attaching sources to content they do not support. I have removed the WHO from a bunch of stuff. We have two choices. We can either provide older data and use the WHO as the source or provide newer data and use BMO. If We decide to provide older information we will need consensus and we will need to fully protect this page because people will continously try to add newer data. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:49, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Where does BNO get it's news from? Strongly suspect it is: https://ncov.dxy.cn/ncovh5/view/pneumonia . We should include at least include the original source. The original source has additional info, like breakout by city under province. For example you can see stats for Shenzen. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 00:25, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 February 2020

Why not using this flag for non-country cases count, i know that not all country is part of the UN but for most people, the UN represent the world !?

---

---

Thanks, --Eric1212 (talk) 19:36, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

I think the choice of the Lima flag as is, is more suitable for the purpose. All the countries under the UN have their own flag anyway. Non-counties are not really in the UN. Anyway its open for discussion. I was advocating including the count under the country where a ship is docked or where the patients are. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:17, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Lima flag wasen't used when i suggested it. --Eric1212 (talk) 23:10, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Every ship has its country of registration. DouglasHeld (talk) 08:11, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Split Hubei from Rest of China?

Given the concentration of cases in Hubei, would it make sense to split off that province from the rest of the country in the table? Hong Kong and Macau already are, for other reasons.
—WWoods (talk) 08:05, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Disagree, I think we should keep the table simple. Nguyen QuocTrung (talk) 11:56, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Definitely keep the table as simple as possible, country and territory. I would not be opposed to a separate table of cases by state/region in China though. Krazytea(talk) 21:38, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Restore the Locations row

Time has come to restore it. Yug (talk) 18:54, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

And what is that? Can you point to a revision with it in? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:49, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

"International conveyance" (Diamond Princess)

WHO terms cases occurring in international waters / spaces as "Cases on an international conveyance". For our own sanity sake, it could be interesting to count them as such, as a special row, and thus avoid the current weird situation with Japan's cell containing 3 different numbers : Japan ; Ship ; Japan+Ship. Yug (talk) 13:59, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Hzh, thanks for the line break. Yug (talk) 14:44, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Yug. The current presentation is very messy and it is not immediately clear which number we should be looking at. Readers may have difficulty determining which is number is which, e.g. 26 cases on the cruise ship and 135 local cases, or vice versa? If we are following The Who's approach we should give Diamond Princess its own row and separate it from Japan's count, if we decide to combine them then we should just remove "(incl. Diamond Princess)" and the other two numbers, the note alone would be sufficient. Hayman30 (talk) 16:44, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

 Done. But i didnt know how to split the 4 recoveries. Yug (talk) 19:18, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

However I do not like the term "International conveyance" as it obscure to many of our readers. Even "diamond princess" would be better as it is the only one. Otherwise perhaps you could use "ships". Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:52, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

A ship is not a country, this is a list of countries, and the ship's patients are all hospitalized in Japan. People who were flown out of Wuhan by respective governments, are also counted among the numbers of that country, and not as a China patient anymore. As an inhabitant of Japan, I saw the need to come back to my former life as a heavy Wikipedia user to make a strong point about including the ship in the total of Japan numbers (as it was 4 or 5 days ago). Too bad that even my Wikipedia veteran status doesn't grant me right to make this change myself, so i am making my case here> A ship is not a country, and this is a highly tailored exception to meet the demands of the Japan government that obviously doesn't want to show second in this questionable medal table with almost 300 infected patients and counting. WHO is obviously also going along with Japan's request, as it is a big contributor. But Wikipedia is neither an official WHO or Japan page. All "Diamond Princess" patients are hospitalized on Japanese territory (the ambulances are roaring by several days on the street in front of my house, as we live close to 2 of the hospitals treating those patients). So please revert to the previous version where Japan number included the ship's patients.--Neumannkun (talk) 03:11, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, a ship is not a country, but I think it sort of qualifies as a territory if you think about it? Maybe not, and a lot of other sources combine the numbers, but the two official sources (Japanese government and WHO) do have a separate count, so we're just following their approach. I don't know if the WHO or the Japanese government is pushing an agenda here, but that's not up to us to decide. It's fair to compare this situation to the evacuation of citizens from Wuhan by various countries, but those other countries willingly include the numbers in their official count. I agree that the existence of this table is questionable and the way we're sorting it almost seems like it's some sort of competition, but this is what we had with SARS and MERS too. Anyway, the ship is currently not included in the total number of territories, and we have a detailed footnote explaining why the cases on board are not included in Japan's official count. I agree that it's not a great solution, but it's probably the best one we could come up with right now. The previous presentation, in which we combined the two numbers and showed how the math was done in addition to having a lengthy footnote, was probably more confusing to readers and destroyed the tidiness of the table (yes I'm being overly pendantic). Hayman30 (talk) 11:44, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

thanks for the detailed reply and the attempt. I still think the Japan/WHO counting method is purely politically motivated (as inbound tourism is already dwindling, population slowly starts to panic and Tokyo 2020 is only a few months ahead), while any common sense and best practice arguments point to including the ship numbers in Japan. I almost hope that we will see more and more cruise ships (or planes or whatever) with infected people so maintaining the current approach with this table will look more and more questionable. --Neumannkun (talk) 12:49, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm perfectly fine with combining the two numbers. I too think that it's nonsensical to have a separate count when the ship is literally in Japan and the Japanese government is the one who's handling all the infected people on board. I'm just trying to say that we typically rely more on official sources (government announcements, WHO, etc.) when it comes to these epidemic statistics. Third-party sources (newspapers, etc.) are somehow regarded as less trustworthy or reliable. The core source of this template, BNO News, also sources most of its stats from government announcements. I was just so disgusted by the previous approach where we literally had a mathematic expression in the confirmed cases column showing how the math was done by adding up the two numbers, and in the country and territories Japan was written as "Japan + Diamond Princess", which was really weird because if it was so important to make such a distinction then it'll probably be better to put them in separate rows, which is what we have right now. If there is consensus I see no problem in reverting to the old version, but Japan should be written as Japan, not "Japan + Diamond Princess", "Japan + international conveyance" or any variation of that, the footnote is there to do all the explaining. Pinging Yug, Graeme Bartlett, Nguyen QuocTrung, Krazytea and TheGreatSG'rean for additional input. Hayman30 (talk) 20:56, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

My first preference on how to deal with this is just to include the Diamond Princess numbers with Japan. Do not put any formula in the column, instead put a footnote on the "Japan" name and explain it at the bottom of the table. Already the People who came off the Westerdam are counted in the country they are in, so this will not be a precedent. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:25, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more, this is exactly my view. Pinging more people: Darylgolden, Akira CA and Admanny. Hayman30 (talk) 17:46, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

I am not looking to actively partake in this discussion however my first thought is to leave "International Conveyance" the way it is without it being combined with Japan since I feel the numbers are large enough to warrant its own row. Admanny (talk) 13:33, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

@Graeme Bartlett, Hayman30: Diamond Princess is not country, but it is in Japanese waters now, and a reference of table also mentions it. So, we should write "International conveyance (Japan)" like WHO. --Garam (talk) 18:37, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

We should not use small text though. Small could be used for something not relevant, eg a joke on a talk page. But if it is important enough to include in an article it should be readable for those with tiny screens. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:45, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

You mean, is "China (mainland)" on the article also joke? And normally it can read in mobile, too. --Garam (talk) 01:50, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Was that a joke? I am sure the writers were serious. See Wikipedia:SMALLTEXT. I am saying it should be normal-sized text. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:41, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

If it is in Japanese waters right now, we should include the numbers on the Japanese count. Or else just leave it as is, the footnote is more than sufficient. There's no point in adding "(Japan)" after "International conveyance", it'll be really confusing for the reader when they see both "Japan" and "International conveyance (Japan)". Hayman30 (talk) 06:38, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

@Hayman30: Merging the numbers, without a reference to back it up, contravenes WP:SYNTH and WP:NOR. The Japanese count and the international conveyance count should remain separate and faithful to the WHO original source, until an alternative source combining the numbers is provided. EP111 (talk) 12:33, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Merging the two because they are in Japanese waters is WP:OR. WHO separated the two because they are epidemiologically different regions. The epidemic in the ship never spread into the land of Japan except for limited persons working closely with the infected persons on the ship. Also CDC doesn't count the 14 confirmed cases returned to the US as cases in the US.[1] It leaves them as WHO's "International conveyance".―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 12:49, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Here are two sources that combine the numbers: SCMP, NHK World. Anyway I have reverted the change for now, and I'm not getting involved in this anymore because clearly I'll get stabbed either way. Hayman30 (talk) 13:24, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

When confirmed cases leave the ship to go in an inland hospital, they shall be removed from the Diamond Princess count and added to the host country. Otherwise they will be accounted several times (for example the 20 US confirmed cases that have been transfered to US are accounted on the DP ship and in the US, this is not correct). FMichaud76 (talk) 13:13, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 February 2020

Please consider this source as a new, potential reliable source. There are map and statistics made or gathered by John Hopkins University of global cases.
Source: https://gisanddata.maps.arcgis.com/apps/opsdashboard/index.html#/bda7594740fd40299423467b48e9ecf6
Please update the number of cases if you consider the source above as reliable Andrew20070223 (talk) 05:51, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

It is probably as trustworthy as our table here, as they are using many of the same sources. It does look pretty up to date and is consistent with DXY. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:17, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 February 2020

In the table with the CoronaVirus deaths, cases, recoveries I'd like to add a total number of cases, where all of the deaths, recoveries and cases are added together so it would show how many people have been infected, regardless of if they died, recovered or are still infected. Canvas2005 (talk) 17:55, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: I don't think this is appropriate. Adding all cases together wouldn't make sense as the number of confirmed cases already includes deaths and recoveries. The current presentation is fine. Hayman30 (talk) 13:06, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 February 2020

The BBC has just confirmed a ninth case in London, Link as proof: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-51481469 Qertyooq (talk) 18:53, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Edit has been made by another user. MadGuy7023 (talk) 19:34, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

clinically diagnosed cases

As of February 13th, China is now also including clinically diagnosed cases, meaning people who are showing symptoms but haven't been tested yet are also included. Something should be done about this. Poklane 00:11, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

I inderstand that they will stop doing laboratory test in a near future. I also understand that clinically diagnosed cases are diagnosed by one of the "easy test" we been told on a few newspaper. --Eric1212 (talk) 01:12, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

The standard of clinical diagnosis is CT imaging features of the pneumonia, as described by the fifth national diagnostic criteria. I've heard nothing about stopping lab tests though. Rethliopuks (talk) 05:57, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 February 2020

For the category "International Conveyance" according to the WHO reports, should it be 174 or 175?
Source: https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/situation-reports/20200212-sitrep-23-ncov.pdf?sfvrsn=41e9fb78_2 Andrew20070223 (talk) 02:01, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

 Already done I believe the number is now 218. The WHO report does not update as frequently as other sources, so it is always outdated in this regard. Hayman30 (talk) 13:06, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 February 2020

Replace the notes in the deaths and recoveries column ("—" denotes that no data is currently available for that territory, not that there are zero cases.) with ("—" denotes that no data is currently available for that territory, not that the value in this column is zero.) for clarity. Leaving these notes as they are wouldn't make sense as deaths ≠ cases and recoveries ≠ cases. RayDeeUx (talk) 02:13, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

 Done Hayman30 (talk) 13:06, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 February 2020

International conveyance now has 218 cases, up from 174. Conker The King (talk) 04:49, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Done by The Lord of Math Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:35, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 February 2020

Cases in Vietnam have increased from 15 to 16. Conker The King (talk) 05:32, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

 Already done Hayman30 (talk) 13:06, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 February 2020

Japan Interlepus (talk) 12:21, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Hayman30 (talk) 13:06, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 February 2020

There has been one death attributed to the Wuhan coronavirus in Japan, bringing the total from 0 to 1. Conker The King (talk) 12:26, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

 Already done Hayman30 (talk) 13:06, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 February 2020

The death in Japan was a new case, and there was another new case there as well. They bring the total up from 30 to 32. Conker The King (talk) 12:30, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

 Already done I believe the number is now 33. Hayman30 (talk) 13:06, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 February 2020

New case in Japan, total is up from 33 to 34. Conker The King (talk) 13:24, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Hayman30 (talk) 13:56, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

The source is BNO: https://twitter.com/BNODesk/status/1227937471549386758 Conker The King (talk) 14:51, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Actually, as per the source, you are correct Hayman30. 33. Conker The King (talk) 14:56, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 February 2020

56 cases in Hong Kong http://news.tvb.com/instant/5e465ac0335d19a5656f7b62/%E7%8F%BE%E5%A0%B4%E8%A1%9E%E7%94%9F%E7%BD%B2%E6%9C%AC%E6%B8%AF%E6%96%B0%E5%A2%9E%E4%B8%89%E5%AE%97%E6%96%B0%E5%9E%8B%E8%82%BA%E7%82%8E%E7%A2%BA%E8%A8%BA%E5%80%8B%E6%A1%88-%E7%B4%AF%E8%A8%88%E5%85%B156%E5%AE%97 Please tell a Chinese person to read it, thx Keith chau yet (talk) 08:43, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

 Already done Darylgolden^(talk) Ping when replying 13:28, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 February 2020

Trying to parse this data daily as it seems to be updated often, however changing columns, and moving to th instead of just using td is really annoying. Can we please just use td tags. Brrojas (talk) 09:09, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

The country names use th in the output html, but in the Wikitext they are marked with "!". When I want to parse it, I just highlight the part of the table and past it into an excel spreadsheet. I dont see particular problems with th vs td. (But formulas and footnotes in the number columns stuff up adding up!) Do you have a particular reason for requesting a change? At this point I am not changing it unless there is a clear reason. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:32, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 February 2020

Please update recoveries count in Thailand from 10 to 13. Source from official Ministry of Public Health site: https://pr.moph.go.th/?url=pr/detail/2/04/138663/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nimda01 (talk • contribs) 09:10, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

 Done Darylgolden^(talk) Ping when replying 13:27, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 February 2020

Hello, a person from Spain has recovered. Here is the source: https://www.lavozdelanzarote.com/articulo/canarias/paciente-afectado-coronavirus-gomera-recibe-alta-segundo-resultado-negativo/20200214143730147239.html and https://www.lavanguardia.com/vida/20200214/473552852633/coronavirus-primer-paciente-espana-la-gomera-alta-medica.html --Jarl93 (talk) 16:21, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

 Done Hayman30 (talk) 18:54, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 February 2020

They are now 29 territories, not 28.--138.75.123.124 (talk) 17:53, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

 Already done Hayman30 (talk) 18:56, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Canada number

It should still be 7. There does not appear to exist an 8th confirmed case. Michael Lee Baker (talk) 22:31, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

The core source of this template says 8. Hayman30 (talk) 02:46, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

First death in Europe

Death case in France https://www.bfmtv.com/sante/coronavirus-buzyn-annonce-la-mort-d-un-patient-en-france-le-premier-en-dehors-de-l-asie-1858467.html .--138.75.18.133 (talk) 10:30, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

 Already done Hayman30 (talk) 11:06, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 February 2020

As per latest reports all 3 confirmed cases in India have recovered.

1 - https://weather.com/en-IN/india/news/news/2020-02-14-kerala-defeats-coronavirus-indias-three-covid-19-patients-successfully

2 - https://www.newindianexpress.com/states/kerala/2020/feb/14/three-people-who-tested-positive-for-coronavirus-in-kerala-fully-recover-2103292.html

Mayankj429 (talk) 12:53, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

 Already done Hayman30 (talk) 20:58, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Change link in template because separate article

Please change both links in the template from 2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak by country and territory#Singapore and 2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak by country and territory#Philippines to 2020 coronavirus outbreak in Singapore and 2020 coronavirus outbreak in the Philippines because they are now have separate article from main country and territory article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 36.69.53.66 (talk) 15:33, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

 Done Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:51, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 February 2020

Change the 'Recoveries' for Belgium from – to 1

The Belgian patient has been cured, tested negative on the virus the past 2 days and therefore left the hospital.

(Dutch language sources, haven't found any English sources so far) https://www.vrt.be/vrtnws/nl/2020/02/15/ziekenhuis-verlaten/ and https://www.hln.be/nieuws/binnenland/enige-besmette-belg-mag-sint-pietersziekenhuis-verlaten~aaa29faa/ Kef274 (talk) 03:34, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Has been updated, BMO confirms in English. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:14, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 February 2020

Change France's number of confirmed infections from 11 to 12 74.51.11.217 (talk) 03:51, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

 Done Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:16, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 February 2020

Newly reported death of Taiwanese taxi driver; brother of driver also confirmed case. Total number of confirmed cases now 20. 2001:B011:3000:40AA:28A3:94A7:4736:9EEA (talk) 10:36, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

 Done by Hayman30 Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:43, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 February 2020

Please update the number of cases of Taiwan to 20 and 1 death
Source:https://www.cdc.gov.tw/Bulletin/Detail/C7SfkryzIXWf0eF_1O03hw?typeid=9 Andrew20070223 (talk) 10:58, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

 Done by Hayman30 — This is a duplicate request, but thanks for providing a reference. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:43, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 February 2020

South Korean cases are now 30. Sources(Yonhap news, Hankyoreh) Monochromy (talk) 23:53, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

 Already done Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:44, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 February 2020

Current Active Cases 211.16.115.139 (talk) 02:05, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

The quick answer is that we are not going to include such a column on request. But if you place a more complete argument for having it, a discussion could decide on whether to include it. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:47, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 February 2020

Please the total recoveries, it's not the sum of all countries'. Peterwu2019 (talk) 12:16, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Fixed. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:49, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 February 2020

Please update Thailand's recoveries count from 15 to 17. Here is the source from official health ministry: https://pr.moph.go.th/?url=pr/detail/2/04/138823/ Nimda01 (talk) 08:13, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for providing the source! Hayman30 (talk) 10:56, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 February 2020

Please update the number of recoveries in Vietnam from 9 to 14, thank you! Source from the Ministry of Health: https://ncov.moh.gov.vn/ Casper1220kkz (talk) 07:49, 19 February 2020 (UTC) Casper1220kkz (talk) 07:49, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for providing a reliable source. Hayman30 (talk) 08:23, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 February 2020

2 new cases in Iran https://twitter.com/khabaronlinee/status/1230073182767452160 Conker The King (talk) 10:51, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: As the tweet says, these are only initial test results. Subsequent tests will need to be carried out (and return positive) in order for these cases to be considered “confirmed”. Because of this, I’m declining this request for now. Hayman30 (talk) 11:01, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Recoveries

Not sure why they were removed in this edit?[2]

User:Almaty yes they are not perfect but I still think they are useful. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:23, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

I did so because whilst we can list recoveries, we shouldn't list them right next to the deaths and cases, because this draws undue comparison to the general reader. This isn't done in outbreak communication usually not just because its unreliable but because the immense lag leads public to overestimate the severity of the disease. --Almaty (talk) 21:40, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

User:Almaty I saw it as very reassuring actually as we have a fair number of countries with no current cases. ::There was a fair bit of discussion for its inclusion. I have restored for now as people were asking about it.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:08, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

By the way at least 10 of the countries listed no longer have any cases... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:20, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Ok that's fine. However, the wiki article as it stands overall to a generalist reader looks like the outbreak is worse than it is - based on graphs and recoveries. If we want to include recoveries here, this is althemore reason for the graph needs to be changed to an epidemic curve, esp for this particular outbreak we can see that its very readable to the general reader (namely graphically showing that the "new case rate" peaked in china weeks ago). I'll give it a shot are you able to help? I can easily make it on excel but I want it in wiki code. would appreciate a comment on the RfC. --Almaty (talk) 05:59, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Here is a csv to media wiki converted Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:53, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 February 2020

First death in South Korea https://twitter.com/BNODesk/status/1230407347899641859 Conker The King (talk) 08:34, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

 Already done Hayman30 (talk) 08:54, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Recoveries: Remove or Keep?

Sourcing for recoveries is a lot harder to find than new cases. As such the data is iffy. Do we keep it, or not? Ultimograph5 (talk) 21:07, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

• I would say keep, as it is useful to know for our readers. There is sourcing to cover most of it, so it is informative. A footnote can note the existence of missing or out of date information. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:25, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Agree with User:Graeme Bartlett Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:54, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
• Comment: I don't really have an opinion on whether to keep or remove, but reliable sources for recoveries are quite hard to find. The core source of this template, BNO News, is slow to update their recoveries count (they even have the wrong number sometimes), so we always need to find additional sources to verify the latest number. I try my best to find these sources, and a lot of other users, including IPs and auto confirmed users who cannot edit the template, will post them on the talk page too, so it's not too bad I guess. An interesting note: the "confirmed cases" table for SARS and MERS do not have a "recoveries" column, instead there's a "fatality" column in its place, but from my understanding the fatality rate could only be determined after the outbreak has ended. Hayman30 (talk) 07:41, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 February 2020

ITALY CASES ARE 4 86.138.27.255 (talk) 00:25, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Done Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:57, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 February 2020

There are 2236 deaths in China and 11 deaths outside, so the total number of deaths is 2247, not 2245. This has to be changed in the summary as well as the table. Ntthung (talk) 02:10, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Done Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:56, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 February 2020

Change total number of deaths from 2,245 to 2,247. RedRamage (talk) 02:44, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

 Already done Hayman30 (talk) 07:04, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 February 2020

Taiwan's Centers for Disease Control reported 2 new cases in Taiwan. Please change the row "Taiwan" from 24 to 26.
Source: https://www.cdc.gov.tw/Bulletin/Detail/-aJ2VX6yo1lkj-fCLzPB5Q?typeid=9 Andrew20070223 (talk) 06:39, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

 Done Hayman30 (talk) 07:04, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 February 2020

Italy cases are Now 6 2A00:23C8:2F84:C900:9879:EB1:E709:A1AD (talk) 10:03, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

 Already done Hayman30 (talk) 10:16, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 February 2020

Italy has now 6 cases 2A00:23C8:2F84:C900:9879:EB1:E709:A1AD (talk) 10:04, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

 Already done Hayman30 (talk) 10:16, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 February 2020

Iran cases from 5 to 18, deaths from 2 to 4 https://twitter.com/BNODesk/status/1230800894419140610 Conker The King (talk) 10:28, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

@Conker The King: Already done It seems like someone made that edit without your request or someone did not reply to your request Nevertheless, it's done. Can I Log In (talk) 14:48, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 February 2020

Hi, I report you the first recovery case in Italy, here the source http://www.ansa.it/sito/notizie/topnews/2020/02/21/coronavirusspallanzaniitaliano-guarito_eff4b3fa-ed87-4bcf-bc2a-9d27800cbd78.html. Please update the info in the template, thanks very much --Samuele Madini (talk) 16:51, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: It doesn’t seem to be an official recovery, and the patient hasn’t been discharged for the hospital yet. Even though the patient tested negative multiple times, the health director says that they will make a decision in the following days on whether to put him in another room for observation, although I may be mistaken by Google Translate. Hayman30 (talk) 20:32, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 February 2020

Italy now 11 86.138.27.255 (talk) 17:16, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Can I Log In (talk) 19:32, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 February 2020

Italy one recovered 2A00:23C8:2F84:C900:9879:EB1:E709:A1AD (talk) 21:37, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Hayman30 (talk) 12:06, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 February 2020

You have to split US confirmed cases into two numbers: United States: 14 and Repatriated: 21 "We are keeping track of cases resulting from repatriation efforts separately because we don't believe those numbers accurately represent the picture of what is happening in the community in the United States at this time," Dr. Nancy Messonnier, director of the CDC's National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, told reporters Friday. https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/21/health/cdc-coronavirus-update/index.html Also see US CDC count page: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-in-us.html

Otherwise it is not a true picture of what is happening and creates unnecessary fear and panic. And so goes for all countries that have Repatriated cases. Yegort (talk) 23:47, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: Uh, no. What constitutes "a true picture of what is happening" is subjective, and it's not our responsibility to prevent "unnecessary fear and panic", we're not a government body, we just present the information and people can have their own judgements. It's up to the US government to decide how to present their numbers, but cases in the US, repatriated or not, are still US cases. Even the CDC webpage is titled "Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) in the U.S.". The CNN news article is titled "CDC has confirmed 35 cases of novel coronavirus in the US" as well. The core source of this template, BNO News, does not have a separate count for repatriated cases either. And as you said, if we do this to US cases, we'll have to do it to all countries as well, which is quite a big change and would require consensus. For these reasons, I'm denying your request for now. Hayman30 (talk) 12:36, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Sources about Italy

Hayman30, here there’re some sources concerning Italy: SkyTG24, Corriere, laRepubblica, TheSpectatorIndex -- Nick.mon (talk) 09:30, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

@Nick.mon: You need to add the sources in the article, not your edit summary or the talk page. Hayman30 (talk) 09:50, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

@Hayman30: I've already added them here. -- Nick.mon (talk) 09:53, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

@Hayman30: You need to revert recent additions this one and this one.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 09:57, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm not going to revert any more edits as I'll probably violate WP:3RR. This situation here is quite frustrating: sources are being added elsewhere, either on 2019–20 coronavirus outbreak by country and territory (as Nick.mon did above) or separate articles for each country. However in this edit, the user didn't add the source on 2020 coronavirus outbreak in South Korea, or here on the template, he only added it to his edit summary, which is not acceptable. We should require everyone to provide a source and put it in the template upon making changes, or just remove all references altogether as they're being added elsewhere anyway. Hayman30 (talk) 10:16, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

The reason I didn't add a source is that a queer source system of the template: an integrated reference. We need a column for official sources for each country.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 10:33, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

We have a core source for this template (BNO News) because it'd be way too cumbersome to have individual sources for each country. Not all sources mention the 3 numbers (confirmed cases, deaths and recoveries), so we'll probably have 3 sources for each country in the worst case scenario. The core source has (almost) all the information we need, and if there's anything missing we can just add an additional, temporary source until they update. The problem here is that a lot of people don't add sources to the template when they're changing numbers (BNO isn't updated yet), but we don't know if they added it elsewhere. If they could provide a source in the edit summary, I'll help them to add it to the template if possible, but I'll have to check if the number has been updated elsewhere first, which is a really complicated process. And as you may know, there are a lot of people who come around and make totally unsourced changes (no source in article, no source in edit summary), even after the page has been extended-protected this is still happening. It'll be quite hard to catch these people. Hayman30 (talk) 12:23, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

• @Nick.mon: 2 recoveries in Italy, 1 in Spallanzani according to la Repubblica, how about the other one? Hayman30 (talk) 09:36, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

@Hayman30: They were both in Spallanzani. One is a Chinese tourist, hospitalized in late January, which now has been declared "negative" to COVID-19 test; the other one is an Italian university researcher back to Wuhan, who was quarantined into a barrack, hospitalized two weeks ago and discharged from Spallanzani yesterday. The Chinese tourist, even if it hasn't conoravirus anymore, he's still in Spallanzani (FattoQuotidiano in Italian). -- Nick.mon (talk) 09:47, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for this. I'll add this source to the template. Hayman30 (talk) 10:15, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 February 2020

Please update Thailand's recoveries count from 19 to 20. Source from official health ministry: https://pr.moph.go.th/?url=pr/detail/2/04/138989/ Nimda01 (talk) 11:52, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

 Done Hayman30 (talk) 12:06, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Ratios

I added a ratio row at the bottom, but using <noinclude></noinclude> tag. The row is visible here, but not in the article. These ratios information are interesting and mechanical result of previous absolute values. Yet i'am reluctant to include the row into the main article, because "ongoing cases" are still 70% of the cases, so the "recoveries" at 27% seems misleadingly scary. Using the noinclude tag seems a good balance. Yug (talk) 13:37, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

I removed it with the edit summary of "Remove ratios. WP:OR to even hint at a mortality rate that is not backed up by a citation to a reliable source." Any one cab just look at the numbers or use a calculator. Calculating a mortality rate of an ongoing epidemic is something left to experts and they should be nervous about doing it. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 21:37, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

This is more of a matter of WP:CALC. Nowhere was it stated that this was even hinting of a mortality rate, but simply showing which proportion of the cases have resolved into a definitive outcome. Furthermore, going by the idea that users can just use calculators, we shouldn't even have the totals in the last row. Pie3636 (talk) 21:42, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

I am opposed to any such ratio as being misleading. If you look through the archives of the talk pages for the virus you will see others who oppose it. WP:CALC states Routine calculations do not count as original research, provided there is consensus among editors that the result of the calculation is obvious, correct, and a meaningful reflection of the sources. I do not think a ratio is meaningful reflection of the data. See https://academic.oup.com/aje/article/162/5/479/82647 to get an idea of the math involved to get a real rate, but if you did that math, it would be original research. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 22:58, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

My initial intent was not to display the virus mortality rate but make simple event rates so far. Not WP:OR, rather WP:CALC on routine calculations. And yes, i think it's meaningful reflection, for us editors. But needs cautious/informed reading, so the <noinclude></noinclude> makes sense. Yug (talk) 00:13, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 February 2020

Please change all links that related to all countries in Asia and Europe (other than having a separate article for each countries) from 2019–20 coronavirus outbreak by country and territory#Confirmed cases#India and 2019–20 coronavirus outbreak by country and territory#Confirmed cases#France to their separate articles according to that continent for example 2020 coronavirus outbreak in Asia#Confirmed cases by country#India and 2020 coronavirus outbreak in Europe#Confirmed cases by country#France. Thank you. 110.137.187.159 (talk) 23:57, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Sure and done. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:19, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

International conveyance 1 Recoveries

1 Recoveries Who is that? Is there any information? thanks

Moshirk (talk) 07:36, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Putting refs beside the numbers

Would make it easier determining what reference supports what number. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:29, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Please don't put the refs in the number column as it will stop copy and paste into a spreadsheet. I do that to make sure the totals add up. But a reference in the territory name column could be OK. Currently you would have to look at the edit summary, to match the reference from the given list. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:57, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Vandalism?

Just reverted User talk:IjonTichyIjonTichy edits, seems like vandalism for me, he/she insisted that more than 3,000 people dead but I can’t find any sources said that. Someone please take a look. this edit, and this edit

The source supplied did not support the change. However I think that IjonTichyIjonTichy was acting in good faith, as their other edits have been fine. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:55, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

The source supplied supported the change at the time the change was made. However, the source has been modified/ updated once again, and as of this moment, it no longer supports the change. Ijon Tichy (talk) 04:13, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Sounds like the author of https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/#countries realised their error and fixed it. Even the BNO source cannot add up at the moment. So we have to keep an eye on the sources we use to see if they goofed or are slack. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:25, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Graeme Bartlett. In my view, it seems like a good idea to use the data from the most recent update of the website of the Chinese National Health Commission (NHC) to always directly verify all the data from the usual sources (including e.g. BNO and worldometers.info). Ijon Tichy (talk) 05:22, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

New cases, Afghanistan, Bahrain and Kuwait

New first cases were just reported in Afghanistan, Bahrain and Kuwait.--137.132.212.137 (talk) 07:45, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Add column case-fatality rate

Since deaths have occurred in several countries, I suggest to add a column named CFR to the table "2019–20 coronavirus outbreak by country and territory".

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 February 2020

Adding the "Tested" column. The number of confirmed cases have strong relation with the number of tested cases, and many countries have shown limited diagnostic capability. China has performed nearly 200 thousand tests (77,150 confirmed; 38%). South Korea has tested 28 thousand people (763 confirmed; 2%) testing several thousand people a day, while the US has so far performed only 414 tests (35 confirmed; 8%) due to the country's limited testing capacity. Melsj (talk) 13:13, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: The number of tested cases is trivial information, not to mention it'll be really hard to find reliable sources for every single country on this list. Hayman30 (talk) 14:09, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Iran's official numbers are disputed

Iran's official numbers of cases and deaths are disputed by MP Ahmad Amirabadi Farhani from the city Qom, who said 50 people died in Qom so far. Most neighbouring countries of Iran reported their first cases, all of which were people coming from Iran: Oman, UAE, Bahrain, Kuwait , Iraq, Lebanon, Afghanistan . Oman, Iraq, Turkey, Afghanistan and Pakistan have closed their borders to Iran. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xenagoras (talk • contribs) 19:02, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

I do agree that we should express it somehow in the table. Theses data are certainly not good. Death rate, peoples quitting iran being detected as infected, critizing within the country, everything show that the data we do have are must likely to be manipulated. I suggest adding a note as we did for a China and internationals cruises ships. Eric1212 (talk) 20:28, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Mohammad Reza Qadir, dean of University of Medical Sciences in Qom got infected with coronavirus and said on television that "the situation in Qom is not good" and expressed concern about "the number of coronary patients being broadcast across the city". He asked the Ministry of Health for help and said that the government "told" the Ministry of Health to not publish coronavirus case statistics. Xenagoras (talk) 15:58, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 February 2020

Change number of US cases from 53 to 14 source:https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-in-us.html Senderov (talk) 08:32, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: Repatriated cases are still cases in the US. Hayman30 (talk) 09:48, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Double count of Diamond Princess cases

When confirmed cases leave the ship to go in an inland hospital, they shall be removed from the Diamond Princess count and added to the host country. Otherwise they will be accounted several times (for example the 20 US confirmed cases that have been transfered to US are accounted on the DP ship and in the US, this is not correct). FMichaud76 (talk) 18:44, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Confirmed cases on the ship that were later transferred to hospitals in Japan to receive treatment are still categorized as “international conveyance”, they are not added towards the Japan count. Hayman30 (talk) 20:19, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

But they are in USA, and some other countries... FMichaud76 (talk) 23:21, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Cases confirmed on the ship are counted towards “international conveyance”. If a passenger is tested positive after they’ve been repatriated to their home country, then they should be categorized as domestic cases in their home country. I believe this is the case with US cases, please refer to the WHO situation report. Hayman30 (talk) 00:25, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 February 2020

The link for Algeria currently redirects to the outbreak article in Asia. Please change it so it simply links to the section for Algeria in the main ...by country article, until an article for Africa (if necessary) is created. 2607:FEA8:1DDF:FEE1:74BF:CA24:72A6:7E95 (talk) 21:57, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

 Done Hayman30 (talk) 01:32, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 February 2020

Statistics by country should include a separate total for all cases outside of PR China, same as here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Severe_acute_respiratory_syndrome#Epidemiology (see the line close to the bottom that says 'Total excluding China'). Thanks! NoWikiNoLife (talk) 09:21, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: Please provide a valid reason. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a reason. Hayman30 (talk) 10:41, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Iran recoveries

@Mazdakabedi: According to Google Translate, the article says: “But among those hospitalized because of the illness, which sometimes did not go well, 5 were recovered and discharged in Qom last night, and one of our doctors in Arak was fortunately recovered. Three people have reportedly improved in Tehran.” Hayman30 (talk) 10:27, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

@Hayman30: Google Translate do mistake. according to original Persian text" "Untill last night 21 patient recovered and released in Qom, In Arak one of our doctors had been infected but fortunately cured, In Tehran according to reports 3 peopels improved". Its looks like you stuck on my edites by checking them with Google translator that in every revert that you did on my edites has lots of mistake even in numbers! so, I leave this page to your as you like. P. Pajouhesh (talk) 16:30, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

”Improved” doesn’t mean discharged, so those 3 from Tehran are not included. They even used the word “reportedly”, which means they’re not really sure. I’ll use the source provided by Nickayane99 below (21 recoveries). Hayman30 (talk) 16:37, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

@Sa.vakilian: Can you point me to the source that supports 24/25 recoveries in Iran? I read through both of the sources that you provided in your edit but I can't seem to find the sentence that mentions recoveries. I have restored to the old version (3 recoveries) for now. Hayman30 (talk) 15:14, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

@Hayman30: I guess they are re referring THIS article.

~Nick~{talk} 16:25, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Whatever the numbers shown in the articles, the rates of recovery and death are very strange in Iran. People are recovering/dying far faster than in any other area in the world. The outbreak seems to be completely out of control over there and figures are lacking reliability. FMichaud76 (talk) 12:54, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 February 2020

Change 2019-20_coronavirus_outbreak_by_country_and_territory#Canada to 2020_coronavirus_outbreak_in_Canada → JJOlsen 15:39, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

 Done Hayman30 (talk) 15:47, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 February 2020

Romania and Pakistan should be added to the table, because there are confirmed COVID-19 cases. Links to the reference is add down below.

Links to the reference: Romania: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-health-romania/romania-confirms-first-case-of-coronavirus-realitatea-tv-idUSKBN20J290 Pakistan: https://dailytimes.com.pk/565454/coronavirus-case-confirmed-in-balochistan/ Eestlane321 (talk) 16:18, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

 Partly done: Pakistan has already been added to the table. Romania was added at some point but it was removed after the Romania’s interior ministry denied media reports of a confirmed case in the country. Reuters has published a follow-up article on this. Hayman30 (talk) 16:53, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

 Already done

~Nick~{talk} 21:34, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Italy update

Italian Health Minister, updates the data of coronavirus every day at 12:00am (CET) and 06:00pm (CET), you can find the data in their offial website: here [[3]]. --Yacine Boussoufa (talk) 18:21, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

@Nick.mon: Should we use this source for Italy? Hayman30 (talk) 18:49, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, definitely, it’s the official website of the Ministry of Health. -- Nick.mon (talk) 18:53, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

This lists 470 cases.[4] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:49, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

This lists 456 https://www.repubblica.it/cronaca/2020/02/22/news/coronavirus_in_italia_aggiornamento_ora_per_ora-249241616/ Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:12, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Worldometer seems unreliable. They don't always provide a source for their changes, and I noticed that they copy numbers from this Wikipedia template quite frequently. Hayman30 (talk) 09:09, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 February 2020

Swap United Arab Emirates and United Kingdom. --5.43.82.5 (talk) 21:37, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

I was wrong actually. Whole table needs rearrangement to have higher numbers in the last column above 0s and -s. --5.43.82.5 (talk) 21:41, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

3, 8, 2 in Recoveries for UAE, UK, Spain is inconsistent any way. And I think we can assume unknown - is rather zero or one than higher from let's say 8 so that it is above it in a potential case and table is generally sorted by higher incidence of sick and Recoveries can be separate or former Confirmed so total of those two would give higher total incidence of sick (that's why I propose first sorting Recoveries numbers and below that put -s). --5.43.82.5 (talk) 22:01, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

And update 81,406 to 81,391 as a correct sum. --5.43.82.5 (talk) 22:55, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

3 new cases in Russia

3 cases were diagnosed in Kazan, Russia yesterday. Please, someone, add data to the table. 46.158.249.244 (talk) 15:12, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Wrong data for number of cases in Italy

I can't modify it but the number is wrong, according to the most recent update in https://www.repubblica.it/cronaca/2020/02/22/news/coronavirus_in_italia_aggiornamento_ora_per_ora-249241616/ the number is 424. 470 is nowhere to be found. Please report correct information. Andremrys (talk) 22:56, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

This says 470 https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/countries-where-coronavirus-has-spread/ Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:57, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Based on

- Lombardy: 305 cases and 9 deaths [source] - Veneto: 87 cases and 2 deaths [source] - Emilia Romagna: 47 cases and 1 death [source] - Liguria: 16 cases [source] - Marche: 3 cases (all in the Pesaro area [source]) - Lazio: 3 cases - Sicily: 3 cases [source] - Tuscany: 2 cases: including a Norwegian student (first case of a student) at the University of Florence who had returned from Norway (via Munich) 5 days ago. [source] - Piedmont: 1 case (2 retracted as false positives) - Campania: 1 case [source] - Puglia: 1 case (a 33-year-old Taranto resident who had visited Codogno in Lombardy) [source] - Alto Adige: 1 case.

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/#countries

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:00, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

That website does not report official data. To be fair the confirmed number of cases (that have been double checked is equal to 190 at the moment see today's "Ore 10" update). Moreover the official data is communicated each day by the Protezione Civile at 12.00 and 18.00. The rest is speculation based on regional data as reported by local newspapers or websites. The 456 cases should be considered at this point as suspected but not confirmed since the tests are repeated in Rome at ISS and some have also resulted false positives. Andremrys (talk) 10:03, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Someone has changed it to 650. Not sure what source that is based on. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:42, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Likely this[5] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:43, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

References

The official confirmed case is 282. Why? Because of this| As you can read, the Thursday count of 528 cases came from regional reports. Only 282 cases were certified by the national health institute. World Health Organization insisted that only nationally certified cases are considered official, not regional. Thus we have to write down the official numbers according to WHO in this template. —SquidHomme ^(talk) 19:53, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

I would also add that the data reported is not even confirmed: Protezione Civile issues each day a bulletin at 12:00 and one at 18:00. For example today's last official update reaches 650 positive cases not 655. There is no need to include cases that are simply reported by local news websites. These are the references: http://www.salute.gov.it/portale/nuovocoronavirus/dettaglioContenutiNuovoCoronavirus.jsp?lingua=italiano&id=5351&area=nuovoCoronavirus&menu=vuoto and http://www.protezionecivile.gov.it/web/guest/media-communication/press-release Andremrys (talk) 21:23, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

There is no need to include cases that are simply reported by local news websites. I must disagree with this assertion. Wikipedia is editable because information is constantly changing and requires updating almost every second. This template in particular is frequently updated to reflect the latest figures. I see no reason to not include the most updated number if it comes from a reliable source, especially since the government is often slow to update the statistics (as you mentioned, there are only two daily updates). Just as a side note, Wikipedia is in no way a government mouthpiece, it is absolutely absurd to suggest that Wikipedia must only report "official" information from the government. Hayman30 (talk) 00:02, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

That is why you are misled and misguided, mate. We must not promote panic and/or causing the readers to panic. Let's just stick to official numbers.—SquidHomme ^(talk) 06:52, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Wow. Apparently presenting the most updated number is somehow “promoting panic”. This table is not, and should not be limited to showing “official” numbers (government = official? WHO is not a government body either), all confirmed numbers that are supported by reliable sources should be included. Of course, this excludes preliminary cases (e.g. first test positive, pending result for second test). Hayman30 (talk) 11:45, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

I don't know why you hate WHO. But like it or not, they're the governing body. Thus their standards should be adopted/ratified/applied by UN members and it is official.—SquidHomme ^(talk) 10:22, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't know why you keep making assumptions about me. I never said or implied that I hate the WHO, I just pointed out that it is not a government entity and used it as an example to demonstrate the vague and subjective definition of the term "official". Calling me "misled and misguided" without directly responding to what I've actually said isn't particularly helpful either. You seem to have an unexplained personal grudge against me, but let's focus on the content. Hayman30 (talk) 10:49, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't know why you think that I have an unexplained personal grudge against you. Which I don't. It's just seem, to me, that you have something against the WHO. You said they're not a government entity, which is partly correct, partly wrong. Why? Because WHO is a subject of international law, which set it on par with any UN member state (which also includes the Holy See, etc.), plus the fact that it is an super-national entity that governs the health aspects of its 61 UN member ratifiers or other non-ratifying signatories makes them a de jure 'governing body' in this matter. You can read about the legal aspects here. Nothing personal, mate.—SquidHomme ^(talk) 13:29, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

It's just seem, to me, that you have something against the WHO. Again, this is an assumption, an unwarranted one. I never said, expressed, implied or hinted in any way or form that I dislike or am against the WHO. I simply used it to illustrate my earlier point: what qualifies as an "official" source? If official means government, then WHO is not official because it's not part of any government. Anyway, we've gotten off track entirely. You have yet to provide any meaningful reason as to why we should "stick to official numbers", besides calling me "misled and misguided" (which is an insult, not a valid reason) and that adding numbers not reported by the government can "promote panic and/or causing the readers to panic" (which is a completely unfounded claim). Hayman30 (talk) 15:32, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Okay, I take it you're somehow triggered like a sassy queen, by my opinion, but again, nothing personal. And I didn't meant to insult anyone. Mate, WHO is not part of any government, you're right. But once your government sign and/or ratify their clause, it binds your government to follow the rules. Of course there must be some bureaucracy and parliamentary passing inside these countries depending on their respective laws. And then, their protocol and guidelines about health is your country's law now. The reason as to why we should "stick to official numbers," is that local counts is not official per WHO. As for promoting panic, I'm not accusing you. Rather I'm suggesting that we should not add fuel to the fire.—SquidHomme ^(talk) 18:02, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Wow. Just wow. Calling me "misled and misguided" for no apparent reason, making all sorts of assumptions about me and then attack me based on those assumptions, but now I'm the one who's "triggered like a sassy queen". Excellent. Again, we're not here to talk about whether WHO is a government entity or official. local counts is not official per WHO Where did they say that? Who said we must follow whatever the WHO says? Who defines and what is defined as "official"? And again, having the most updated number "add[s] fuel to the fire" is a completely unsupported argument that came out of nowhere. Even if that is true, as in presenting the truth is somehow promoting panic, it doesn't mean we should lag behind and stick with old numbers. It is not our responsibility to calm the public or minimize panic. We're just displaying the most updated number, what people make of it is none of our business. Your suggestion that we should be silenced or oppressed in an attempt to prevent panic is absurdity to the highest magnitude. Hayman30 (talk) 18:21, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Whoa. Calm down, Pedro. No need to take it personally. Why should you assume everything negatively? By "sassy queen" is a compliment, don't you know? Everything recognized by the WHO is the one stated by the highest authority of a state, or country. For example, can Province of Lodi, acting like the central government of Italy, reporting or doing business with extranational entity directly? They can be labelled as a separatists. Where did they say that? Chapter XIV juncto Article 8 of The World Health Organization Constitution, whereas only "members" (which is a State) can submit reports and thus recorded by the WHO. Or alternatively you can read this article I've submitted before. And now you're blabbering about "silenced and oppresed".. Whoa calm down Diego.. What's your agenda? Topple a government? So you're suggesting that we'd rather panic than silenced? Obviously you're not getting my point, mate. Who cares about responsibility to calm the public or silenced and oppressed? You do realize we are building an encyclopedia, right? Ever read a legitimate encyclopedia that list something 'unofficial'? Isn't it misleading and misguiding?—SquidHomme ^(talk) 19:25, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

I’m not gonna respond after this because obviously this discussion going nowhere, you’re deliberately wasting my time. The most updated numbers, “official” or not, should be included in the table, as long as they’re supported by a reliable source. This excludes preliminary numbers, only confirmed numbers. This is Wikipedia, not WHOpedia, we’re not obliged to follow everything they do. Hayman30 (talk) 19:46, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Lost an argument, and then comes the "I’m not gonna respond after this... blah blah." Oh, how typical.—SquidHomme ^(talk) 19:51, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a news site so there is no need to update it every few minutes if the case has not been yet confirmed. 2 times a day I think is sufficient enough for an encyclopedia. Andremrys (talk) 09:05, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

I’m assuming you’re referring to WP:NOTNEWS. It does not prohibit the constant updating of information. In fact, the very first sentence says that editors are encouraged to include up-to-date information. Constant updating of numbers should be allowed so long as a reliable source is provided. Imposing an arbitrary limit on the number of times a page should be updated within a day is incredibly absurd and counterproductive. Hayman30 (talk) 11:53, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 26 March 2020

in the table, deaths and recovered are labeled in the wrong columns 146.115.172.226 (talk) 00:27, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

 Not done Duplicate of #Template-protected edit request on 26 March 2020 6 below. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:21, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 26 March 2020

Minnesota has number of deaths and recoveries mixed up. 94.180.132.192 (talk) 04:02, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

>>I found the error. See "Template Death numbers incorrect" below.SWP13 (talk) 04:49, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

 Not done Duplicate of #Template-protected edit request on 26 March 2020 6 below. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:21, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 26 March 2020

Minnesota data has a data entry bug. Should be 122 recovered, 1 death. Michaelrhanson (talk) 03:29, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

 Not done Duplicate of #Template-protected edit request on 26 March 2020 7 below. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:21, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

 Done Bucketsofg 21:12, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 March 2020

Change cases on 3/28/2020 to 104,256 and deaths to 1,704. Zacharytk72 (talk) 07:21, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Goldsztajn (talk) 12:26, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 April 2020

Two different charts are reporting different numbers for April 8th. This chart reports that there were 434,698 cases while another lists there being 425,504. I'd suggest either of these numbers be corrected if the actual amount was known 68.55.55.59 (talk) 03:04, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

 Already done I just compared both tables and they now reflect 425,746 cases for April 8th. Hope that answers your request. Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 01:41, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Big revert

Mayankj429, can you explain this revert? What bug was there? I am also unable to figure out which version you reverted to. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:23, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: Sorry for it. Now its fixed, it was after today's evening update by mohfw, i had edit conflict with another editor and that let to show all refernces under this templete in main article, so i reverted to the previous version where no data of 30 March was added and then added data of 30 mar again including your edit just before my revert. - Mayankj429 (talk) 22:35, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 April 2020

Please change the Andhra Pradesh statistics count to 365 cases, 6 deaths and 10 recovered! 183.83.40.87 (talk) 08:41, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done It will be updated as per mohfw.gov.in to avoid inconsistencies. If this numbers have been updated by state government in their bulletin, then kindly wait for the evening update by MoHFW to reflect it. - Mayankj429 (talk) 09:55, 10 April 2020 (UTC)