Template talk:COVID-19 pandemic data/Italy medical cases chart

2020-03-10

I think it is better to highlight the date on 2020-03-10 to show that the data is partial, otherwise the reader can suspect that there is a trend change. I changed to italic but it was removed, then I added a symbol *, but @Alexiscoutinho: removed it as well. Can we reach a consensus on this? What do you think? --RicoRico (talk) 08:35, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I already added a note next to the number before reading this. I think having it signalled properly is better because it's an important number of missing cases. --Ritchie92 (talk) 09:30, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it's a good solution I think :) --RicoRico (talk) 12:31, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

As long as the change doesn't disrupt the alignment or the whole formatting, it is acceptable. However, I see that the standard template was dropped which is bad for all charts as they could become a zoo. That's an absolute NO NO. If you think you can't do something important in the new template, suggest changes or code it yourself (if you understood the idea and objectives behind the standardizing action). Alexiscoutinho (talk) 17:56, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Understanding an important detail (such as missing a large amount of data) is more important than the correct alignment of the numbers. The solution I implemented had no huge disalignment and was clear to read. Now to add such a detail on one day in the list of sources, like it's done now, I think is very ugly and not clear instead. --Ritchie92 (talk) 18:05, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

If you still want to add that note, it either has to go on the left side of the total or right side of the change (note that numwidth might need to be changed because of this 1 exception). However, note that the Chinese chart had many more strange and 'difficult' to understand bars and it was still clear by just using the caption. The only difference is that in that chart the 'abnormal data' was clearly spottable, but in this chart the inconsistency will be more hidden, without the italics for example. Alexiscoutinho (talk) 20:38, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

@Alexiscoutinho: Excuse me, could you change the number of case color using   (#F46D43), which was the color that we use until today. I sincerely don't know how to do it... -- Nick.mon (talk) 20:01, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

@Nick.mon: That color is currently being used by the 5th classification, which I think is only used by the Chinese chart. I agree that the colors should prioritize making the 3 color chats look good rather than the rare 5 color charts. However, such change would still need discution in {{Medical cases chart/Bar colors}}. Alexiscoutinho (talk) 20:50, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Ok Alexis, you're right, but who decided to change the color? We used #F46D43 for weeks, and then someone changed it without a discussion, so in my view, we don't have a consensus on the new color. -- Nick.mon (talk) 21:19, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

@Nick.mon: I created a colors table in {{Medical cases chart/Bar colors}} and you can put your suggestion for an alternate color for the 5th classification. I'll revive the color discussion in the talk page soon. Alexiscoutinho (talk) 22:12, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't know about the Chinese chart/problems, but I think it's important to show the inconsistency, since we know about it. Any solution is ok for me, but it must be made clear. --RicoRico (talk) 21:05, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

I think that the solution of Ritchie92 was good and it didn't disrupt the formatting. Please @Nick.mon: and @Alexiscoutinho: stop this edit war and discuss about the template version to use. In this way, you are also removing other edits and it's very annoying --RicoRico (talk) 21:07, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Excuse me, RicoRico, of which "edit war" are you talking about? I even thanked Alexiscoutinho for his explanation, and we are talking about it. -- Nick.mon (talk) 21:17, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

For example, my edits and the edit of Ritchie92 on the note we were discussing at the beginning of this section. Please try to reach a consensus before deleting something. --RicoRico (talk) 07:02, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

@RicoRico: Don't you think it's better to put the note icon on the right of the percent change?! Alexiscoutinho (talk) 17:28, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Ritchie92 did it previously, but someone removed it. --RicoRico (talk) 20:32, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

I mean, guys, the point is: if there is a format problem, fix it, please do not delete the information... I cannot see any of the format problem some of you are telling us, so I cannot fix them... --RicoRico (talk) 20:34, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

I'll put the icon on the right side then. By the way, increasing the width of a number could break the line as seen here [1]. If this happens, you need to change the numwidth. I'll take care of it this time. Alexiscoutinho (talk) 23:51, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

@RicoRico: I'm not sure if moving them to the right looks better though. What do you think? Alexiscoutinho (talk) 00:09, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

It's ok! Probably the line break is browser-dependent or device-dependent because I've never seen it ;-) --RicoRico (talk) 09:36, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

question: What happened to the percentage change column? Most useful to see how growth is evolving/whether containment is working? Mackinaw (talk) 16:08, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Invert The Column Order

The current column order is

1. deaths
2. recoveries
3. existing cases

I think what would make so much more sense is

1. existing cases - those are what matters for the outbreak dynamics
2. recoveries
3. deaths

You can flip deaths and recoveries around, but the graph is so much more informative if we show all the existing cases first, that way you can see when the slope of existing cases approaches zero, a peak and when it goes down. If you put the recoveries and deaths first, you completely lose this crucial visual information.

How do I change this template? I can change the data columns, sure, but I don't see everything about this template, I can't even find where the data labels are defined.

Isn't there one place where all these templates are defined and where the column order could be changed so it will be effective for all those bar charts in all the country specific pages? Gschadow (talk) 15:28, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

I think it makes much more sense the way it is now. The important information for statistics and the evolution of the epidemics is the total number of cases, not the current one. Another important piece of information is the growth of deaths (total deaths). So this way, with the deaths first, and the cumulative in the end, one can visualize both very nicely. --Ritchie92 (talk) 16:04, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Furthermore, putting the confirmed cases first wouldn't work well for Mainland China (which is the 'big boy' of these templates) as it has alternate case definitions which should go together. Switching the order would require consensus from all other people involved in the other charts and since this is a such well established order, there's hardly any way it would be accepted. By the way, the definition of the High-level template is here {{Medical cases chart}}. Alexiscoutinho (talk) 17:15, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

WikiProject COVID-19

I've created WikiProject COVID-19 as a temporary or permanent WikiProject and invite editors to use this space for discussing ways to improve coverage of the ongoing 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic. Please bring your ideas to the project/talk page. Stay safe, --Another Believer _(Talk) 18:14, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Width of the last data column

The last data column, change in deaths, is too wide so that it wraps on mobile view[2] (and distorts the whole chart). You need to pick either absolute or relative change and use the appropriate 'numwidth' after the choice. Alexiscoutinho (talk) 08:27, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Can confirm on iOS official Wikipedia app. So currently the last columns is formatted as X(+Y +Z%), and only two out of three variables would currently fit on the allocated column width. Data is practically unreadable on mobile app unless desktop website is compared to it.

I tried fixing it, for desktop, where it was also too wide. (Narkstraws (talk) 20:19, 21 March 2020 (UTC))

The absolute value is not difficult to calculate from the totals to date whereas very few of us can do percentages in our head. So, if we are going to reduce the amount of data to be displayed here, please can we revert to the relative value, as this is far more meaningful relative to a situation where exponential growth is to be expected as 'the norm'? Yadsalohcin (talk) 07:19, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

I see someone has made an adjustment whereby the % figures are showing again. One unhelpful inconsistency is that the figure for total deaths is aligned with the bottom of the cell- it would be clearer if set to the middle (rather than either top or bottom). Any offers? Yadsalohcin (talk) 14:20, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Number of positive tests accurate?

Is the number in the "active cases" column accurate?

Per the Italian press release from yesterday:

"At Civil Protection Department Headquarters, the Operational Committee keeps working to ensure the coordination of all operations by the components and operational structures of the National Civil Protection Service. As per health monitoring activities related to the spread of Coronavirus across national territory, at present 54.030 people have tested positive. To date, the total number of assessed cases in Italy is 69.176."

This would seem to indicate that the proper number for confirmed cases is 54,030 and not 69,176. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.135.81.85 (talk) 11:00, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Post-expand Include Size

Wikipedia has a limit on how much data can be included in pages that comes from template. This is called the Post-expand include size. Using the {{Medical cases chart}} template in this template causes its post-expand include size to increase from 575kB to 711kB, which makes 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Italy exceed that limit, which causes templates at the bottom of the page (including citations) to not be rendered properly, and causes the page to show up in the error category Category:Pages where template include size is exceeded. Do not revert any edits or modify this template page without first previewing it on 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Italy to make sure that the "Template size exceeded" error message does not appear at the top. If there is objection to using {{Bar box}} instead of {{Medical cases chart}}, the only other option is to remove the chart from 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Italy altogether or replace it with a PNG image. The {{Bar box}} format, while taking up slightly more room in the source, is just as editable as the {{Medical cases chart}} without causing other pages to have fundamental errors. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 16:44, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

What happened?

Alexiscoutinho, Ritchie92, could someone explain me what happened with this template? -- Nick.mon (talk) 18:34, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

@Nick.mon: I don't really know. Ahecht is probably more suitable to answer this. However, the sandbox version works fine though. I linked it in the main article in the meantime. Alexiscoutinho (talk) 19:21, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

@Nick.mon, Alexiscoutinho, and Ritchie92: It's part of the growing pains we transition over to the Lua version of Medical cases chart. {{#invoke:Medical cases chart|buildBars}} is looking for a stylesheet that's included in {{Medical cases chart}}. An easy fix for templates that use {{Bar box and {{#invoke:Medical cases chart|buildBars}} is to replace {{Bar box with {{#invoke:Bar box|box|css=Template:Medical cases chart/styles.css. However, the best solution is to just switch to using {{#invoke:Medical cases chart|chart}} for the whole thing, as I did here. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 20:19, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Percentage or absolute option for new infections?

I started a discussion on that topic here Project COVID-19, Medical cases charts - change type. My personal opinion is that absolute change display suits much better in an epidemic's second wave. But also the status quo ante should be kept until some agreement is reached (locally or possibly a consensus in linked discussion). -- Kohraa Mondel (talk) 15:29, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

404 Response

... for https://www.protezionecivile.gov.it/web/guest/media-comunicazione/comunicati-stampa within the template "Sources".

Maybe it could be replaced by https://opendatadpc.maps.arcgis.com/apps/dashboards/b0c68bce2cce478eaac82fe38d4138b1???

E.g. today the pdf vers was updated some minutes/seconds earlier... — Pietadè (talk) 17:01, 30 September 2021 (UTC)