Talk:COVID-19 pandemic by country and territory/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 → Archive 5

Should the summary table of casualties be moved here?

Seeking comments since the casualty counts are closely related to countries and territories affected. Thanks PenulisHantu (talk) 02:55, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Moved or copied. Both sound good to me. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 03:21, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Israel and Saudi

Where are the reports about cases/suspected cases in Israel and Saudi Arabia?--180.129.83.227 (talk) 07:10, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

WP:SOFIXIT. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:42, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Sri lanka and Canada confirmed cases

http://www.adaderana.lk/news/60461/chinese-female-at-idh-tests-positive-for-coronavirus Nickayane99 (talk) 15:46, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

And Canada https://news.ontario.ca/mohltc/en/2020/01/ontario-confirms-second-presumptive-case-of-wuhan-novel-coronavirus.html --180.129.83.227 (talk) 16:30, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
Already added Sri Lanka case. – NirvanaTodayt@lk 20:17, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Portugal

Portugal had a suspicios case that turn out negative, is shoud be aded here. Miglix519 (talk) 23:43, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Peru susp. case added

Added the news regarding the coronavirus possibly reaching Peru. Will update once they finish testing the guys. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hamingjusamur (talk • contribs) 02:27, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

False alarms

I've again removed reports that turned out to be false alarms. Please only add positive or currently-suspected cases. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:21, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Colombia

I don't know how to make a new section on the talk, but there is a suspected case in Colombia, and someone could write about it on here and add it to the map at the top, that would be great. https://www.eltiempo.com/colombia/cali/chino-que-llego-a-cali-proveniente-de-wuhan-esta-aislado-por-dolencias-455690 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Josh Theta (talk • contribs) 15:44, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Done.   Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 17:52, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Map of countries with confirmed human to human transmission

I think adding a category to the world map of countries with h2h would be informative. If not maybe a separate map. --Colin dm (talk) 19:59, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Unnecessary stuff in the Sri Lanka column

Can someone edit it with new information, I heard there's more than 10 suspects cases in Sri Lanka rn Nickayane99 (talk) 19:52, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Do you have a source? To add any new information you have to have a credible source. Also what would you change? The list of suspected cases has its own page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019%E2%80%9320_Wuhan_coronavirus_outbreak_by_country_and_territory --Colin dm (talk) 19:57, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

https://www.newsfirst.lk/2020/01/28/container-ship-sailing-from-china-reported-6-crew-with-fever/, https://www.newsfirst.lk/2020/01/28/the-corona-virus-what-has-gosl-done-about-it-thus-far/ Nickayane99 (talk) 20:37, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Updating transmission maps

Given that cases keep coming in daily, would someone be able to edit the maps to reflect new changes? Thanks. TheGreatSG'rean (talk) 01:59, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

WHO Situation Reports

Currently, the World Health Organization is releasing daily reports on confirmed cases in the countries that report to them. It lists that China has 5997 confirmed cases (including 8 from Hong Kong, 7 from Macau, and 8 from Taipei. I think we should use this for the table data because if any source should know confirmed cases, it should be the WHO. It also has other countries like the US, Canada, Japan, France, Germany, Etc. Thanks for reading. Mase268 (talk) 20:49, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

United States - Should Suspected States be Removed if Results Turn Out Negative?

Colorado was colored blue after the CDPHE announced a case in northern Colorado, as well as Lakewood, Colorado. Both have resulted in negative tests now. Should the blue color on Colorado be removed, or should a new color be added to represent regions with suspected cases that were later confirmed negative? Codered999 (talk) 14:17, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

IMO - If it has been reported that no confirmed or suspected cases exist in a state, it make sense to remove the blue color. I would leave the red. The high level details should be in the article. It would be nice to see all the blue states slowly change back. Zygerth (talk) 15:03, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

It should be removed because it is outdated infomation Vonwin (talk) 00:47, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Check this out - Tracking coronavirus: Map, data and timeline

https://bnonews.com/index.php/2020/01/the-latest-coronavirus-cases/ Nickayane99 (talk) 02:00, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Suspected case in Sudan

Should be added to outbreak map? https://aawsat.com/english/home/article/2105306/sudan-suspects-2-infections-new-coronavirus — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yannkemper (talk • contribs) 19:46, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes Vonwin (talk) 02:12, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Removal of suspected cases that turned out negative

I wanted to confirm what should be done about suspected cases (with valid news sources) that turned out negative (based on updated sources, and not just in the maps as a previous discussion mentioned, but the article text as well). I think they should be removed as it would no longer be relevant, and would look awfully bloated and silly especially in the long term, but it also leaves the possibly awkward situation where sources are needed for the absence of content. Should we just delete the entire entry and cite the source in the edit summary then?T.c.w7468 (talk) 03:48, 30 January 2020 (UTC) edited 03:49, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

I believe that we should keep the countries that have reported suspected cases as blue in the world map, and keep them listed in Section 2 with sources to show that there is no absent content like you mentioned. I think it's too tricky to designate a third colour for "Countries with suspected cases that turned out negative", which will require constant updating, and may then have to be reverted back to the initial blue colour if a new suspected case is to appear. Overall I believe it's easier to keep the reports of suspected countries the way it is, as well as making sure the map is updated. We can always decide later down the line if a countries that have had negative cases of the virus should be designated a new colour. Polar bear garlic bread (talk) 04:13, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
I raised this in Negative news. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:59, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Supposed 2nd Nepal case

Hi folks. This article claims "On 27 January, an American national who had arrived from Wuhan was confirmed as the second case" in Nepal. WHO's January 29 situation report disagrees; it still only shows one case in Nepal.

This article is probably why somebody changed the table of cases this evening, to show Nepal having two. Can you folks either confirm this second case, or remove it so it doesn't cause further confusion? Thanks. --Jw 193 (talk) 05:58, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Fixed.--Jw 193 (talk) 16:56, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Sweden confirmed case

Sweden case confirmed (https://www.thelocal.se/20200131/first-case-of-coronavirus-confirmed-in-jonkoping-sweden). Can anyone update the map, please?--138.75.57.153 (talk) 16:16, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Suspected cases in Kazakhstan

So, as of 31 January 2020, there are 41 people that are suspected to have coronavirus infection in Kazakhstan. I hope somebody can make a map - the suspected cases were reported in Nur-Sultan and Almaty cities, which are territorial subdivisions on the same level as regions (oblasts). I think the map might be needed, but you can tell me if it shouldn't be in the article. Lockenhart (talk) 16:59, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

North Korea's suspected cases illustration

I have added the map of united Korea - both because there does not exist a blank map of the DPRK of the appropriate template, and because it is one country de jure. May it be? Nobody had mentioned the cases in Sinuiju on this page before my addition, so I saw this fitting.--Adûnâi (talk) 00:38, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm thinking either show North Korea only, or delete the South Korea only edition and just replace it with your version as the location of the article seems more fitting. I personally find your edition better and prefer the latter option. - Supy

@Pigsonthewing Why do you keep deleting the specifics of the information of the article I am referring to (the fact the suspected cases were intended to be quarantined for two weeks)? And why are you reformulating my sentence? What is wrong with my "cases were suspected and promptly quarantined"? The only iffy thing to me is that I am unsure whether patients/people can be called "cases" - but that's the way the article gives it. At the same time, my construction tries not to quote the said article verbatim, whereas yours does ("suspected cases in Sinuiju were quarantined"). Also, lol at the reason: "Ungramatical and malformed date" (January 23d is one of the options, although I concede that 23 January is the standard in this article, but gramar? Is my gramar wrong here?)--Adûnâi (talk) 17:21, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Oddly enough, I did so for the reasons I gave in the quoted edit summary. Furthermore, "promptly" is vague and not in the source; the "two weeks" statement is in violation of WP:CRYSTAL, and in any case the article says "at least two weeks", and your claim to be reverting to avoid a copyright violation appears bogus, not least as the phrase "suspected cases in Sinuiju were quarantined" does not appear in the cited source. Naturally, if there is consensus here that, despite all these issues, your wording is better than mine, then it will be restored. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:56, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Trusted sources for portuguese (Portugal) news - I offer myself to translate PT«»EN as needed and requested

Hi! I'm ready and available to translate news/titles/content from PT-PT to EN or EN-PT as needed and requested:

I will share with you some sources I believe to be very trustful :)

Eco

[Nice website with simples and short news and/or more indepth ones; most news comes from Agência Lusa*]

  1. eco.sapo.pt most recent news:mainly economic/financial news, some focused on Coronavirus impact.
  2. eco.sapo.pt search results for "China"
  3. eco.sapo.pt search results for "DGS"# eco.sapo.pt search results for "OMS"
  4. eco.sapo.pt search results for "vírus"

Agência Lusa

[Lusa Agency* in English, is a state owned but independent and trusted News Media Corporation. I believe that quite a lot of news from portuguese websites are copypasted and/or adapted from this news agency to said websites]

  1. lusa.pt search results for "coronavírus"

Others

  1. https://observador.pt live feed about Coronavirus [super simple to read in portuguese and really fast to divulge news
  2. publico.pt search results for "coronavirus"

What do you think?

I'm also available to any feedback, for I to give or receive! Thank you very much for reading this, keep up the good edits coming!

:)

FranciscoMMartins (talk) 20:28, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Unsourced content on ‎Singapore removed, should we ?

I've just undone a large IP edit to the ‎Singapore section, which was entirely uncited. It looks plausible, so someone may want to try to find sources. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:58, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: Hello. Originally, sourced citation on wikipedia is required for dubious claims. Like... it smells weird.
Common sense things were accepted, it's indeed counter productive to remove new, legit content by good willed new users, simply based on "no source", while reading that content indicate legit contents. Best is to use various template such "citation needed" {{cn}} : [citation needed]. This template is literally made for such cases of legit content missing sources, so we wont lose the hard work of new users. Secondly, find out who are these anonymous authors secretely adding valuable content to wikipedia and reach out to them. With some light and playful on-boarding, you can convert someone from positive amateur IP into an methodical wikipedia editor citing his/her sources. Oh Victory !! :D. Yug (talk) 19:28, 31 January 2020 (UTC) (PS: check my edits in the user talk namespace to see such example. I love to do onboarding ! and such Outbreak situation is perfect for that !) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yug (talk • contribs) 19:33, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
Tell you what: for the time being, I'll keep removing uncited claims from this article, which has already been the target of multiple vandalism and fake news attempts, and covers a medical topic, and has a notice saying "updates without valid and reliable references will be removed" at its head; and meantime you can see if there is support for allowing such uncited claims. If there is, I'll stop. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:03, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Presentation of data

You should now start to present the data in tables for each countries. Reading all the text is quite long and this would also be easier to find logical problems. FMichaud76 (talk) 13:50, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

What do you mean "present the data in tables"? Mase268 (talk) 15:19, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
A table for each country, for example, in France :
Date Confirmed Victims Recoveries
24/01 3 0 0
28/01 1 0 0
29/01 1 0 0
30/01 1 0 0
Total 6 0 0

FMichaud76 (talk) 09:35, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Makes senses. Yug (talk) 19:23, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

I think this will be hard to manage as the days go on and the amount of countries that have confirmed cases expand. Mase268 (talk) 00:20, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Map showing Human to Human transmission

The map showing all countries with infections should have a color demonstrating that human to human transmission has occurred there (Eg. Japan, USA, Germany, and Thailand). Syryquil1 (talk) 20:31, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Have you made a typo? Do you mean the Chinese to non-Chinese transmission? Because that would make sense as there are relatively few confirmed cases abroad, and the majority had so far been spread by Chinese nationals.--Adûnâi (talk) 00:41, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
I mean that the map should have a separate color denoting that 1 human passed the virus to another in that country. This would include Japan, South Korea, Thailand, the US, Japan, Germany, and France. Here's an example of how it could look, though I dont know how you are editing your maps https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Coronavirus_Map_With_Human_to_Human_Transmission.svg Syryquil1 (talk) 03:44, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Do we need to highlight regions on maps of small countries?

I don't think it is meaningful to highlight on maps the regions where suspected and confirmed cases were found when we are talking about very small regions or countries like Macau, Hong Kong or Singapore.--138.75.57.153 (talk) 05:33, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Angola

On the map Botswana is coloured in instead of Angola Lyndaship (talk) 08:47, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Why "Low-importance" given by/to WikiProjects: "Disaster management", "Geography" and "Medicine / Pulmonology"?

Hi! Why does it not state "High-importance" or at least "Medium-importance"? I really do not understand why... What is the reasoning?

Any way of changing this and/or voting for a change on said importance of this article? Thank you! :) FranciscoMMartins (talk) 00:38, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Discuss this on the talk pages of the respective projects. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:33, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

I wonder why Italy still shown in Prevention List

While actually, there 2 confirmed cases although not Italian national. Should we put description about Italian's prevention to above/ confirmed cases bar? Wisang17 (talk) 16:27, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Iran?

No sources or information About the suspected case(s), maybe it shouldn’t be blue Or a section should be added? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.70.152.26 (talk) 15:13, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree, there are more than nothing to mention about Iran in this page. Such as the flights to and from China are temporarily canceled from Friday (according to Iranian media here. And then the ambassador of China in Tehran had a kind of complain about this decision and here. Hovakhshatra (talk) 12:33, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Excessive detail

The number of cases, outside China, is now so big that we need to start summarising sections, and trimming excessive detail, from this article.

Also, the article now has 199,545 bytes of markup. The largest section, United States, alone has 18,575 bytes, while Singapore has ~24Kb in two sub-sections. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:53, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

But it will be hard to ccompare as the table will be spilt Vonwin (talk) 01:21, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
Which table? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:00, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
If you break it up merely make the info of each country be its own page.while still having overview info on the main page Mascow (talk) 04:32, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Totals

Please correct the total case number and add 1 more to canada with source, total is now that 23,865 but Canada is 5 not 4 What math is this, correct those total cases numbers thank you. --Roi Johnson (talk) 00:10, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Historical data

When I look at earlier pages, I still see current data for the number of infected or dead. Is it possible to see historical data, i.e. data for earlier days.

I ask this since it is interesting to see the growth of the number of infected. Current growth means that the number of infected doubles every five days. It is too early to study this outside China, since many of these cases are people who have visited China, but eventually the growth rate is of great importance...

So in short I suggest that a table with historical data is inserted or an explanation is included how earlier data can be seen.

213.67.241.199 (talk) 03:59, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi, there has is the article Timeline of the 2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak. Does it include what you seek? WikiHannibal (talk) 09:14, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Taiwan's line questions

In confirmed cases in Taiwan, there's written Taiwanese Nationalist in abroad Ship which currently in Japan got infected. Should we put person which infected outside their country? Wisang17 (talk) 01:50, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Request split

Because this article was too long for reader to read the case in their country, I suggested that this article split into 3 articles according to the regions, which for example as 2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak in Asia, 2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak in Europe, and 2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak in Americas. The main article will still like this, but the sections needs to trim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.137.171.220 (talk) 00:44, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Alternatively we could lump all country data into one section , with different subsections for suspected, confirmed, etc. I'm also o.k. with the split as proposed. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 02:50, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
Please be aware that there is an active discussion regardind renaming 2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak happening here: Requested_move_2_February_2020, which will impact this topic's title. - Wikmoz (talk) 04:53, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
I would oppose splitting it. This is a global topic, and wiki is covering it from an encyclopedical point of view, not as a newschannel feed, though some probably use it like that ("to read the case in their country"). WikiHannibal (talk) 16:36, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
I would also oppose this split for similar reasons. The 2009 flu pandemic was structured in the same way as we're currently structuring the 2019-2020 novel coronavirus. See 2009 flu pandemic by country. --Codered999 (talk) 00:30, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
Why oppose? it is 2020 and not 2009. Arguments that you oppose the split because similar structured as 2009 flu pandemic by country isn't relevant today. Information was more advanced and social media and many online news are used to report the situation than was happened in 2009. As long as information can be changed and can be added, this article can be split at least 3 articles according to region, for example Asia-Pacific, Europe-Middle East, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.137.171.220 (talk) 05:27, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
I have collapsed Singapore's cases, since someone else had created and updated a table listing each case and their details. For Singapore, all of the cases so far were imported infections. Other than this commonality, there is no other significant new facts. Maybe that can be adopted for the other countries' cases section. Significant cases, i.e. first spread within country or super-spreader if any, can still be written in prose since these would be pivotal points of infection spread in the country. robertsky (talk) 21:04, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
With no Oceana equivalent? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:56, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
Oceania section of case will include in Asia sub article of this if this article was split, then will become separate article about outbreak in Asia-Pacific. But for Middle East, despite it part of Asia, will including in European case article as well as lesser-extent Africa in separate article about the outbreak in EMEA region. This separate article, it happens, will fit definition of Asia-Pacific and EMEA in economic sense and "separation" of Middle East from Asian continent. But for Americas it will still be same in separate article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.137.171.220 (talk) 21:21, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
Oppose. The information is interesting to read in gestalt. Breaking up the description of the outbreak will make the outbreak itself more difficult to understand. It is not at all challenging to navigate to the section for a particular country. DouglasHeld (talk) 05:26, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong support because this article was too long for readers. For any opposer of the split, the reason is illogical. Information can be changed and any information regarding the situation can added and changed. I support for many user to split article to 3 articles according to region (Asia-pacific, emea, americas). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 36.69.56.176 (talk) 12:00, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
Oppose. per reasons above. Movies Time (talk) 14:20, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Proposal to split according to notable countries

Because there already have a split article about the outbreak in Mainland China, why not have separate article about the outbreak in certain countries. Chinese wiki now already have separate article about the outbreak in Japan [1], Hong Kong, [2] Macau, and Taiwan. Why english doesn't? The purpose of the split is to more get in depth info about their case in certain countries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 36.69.53.68 (talk) 02:28, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Split by country. Fungchilong (talk) 01:55, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

At least for Singapore, there are more details to the outbreak then it is shown in this article here (top of my head, panic buying). This article here seems to be more of a summary as the timeline gets dragged out. I am inclined to split Singapore out as an article on its own. @TheGreatSG'rean:, any opinions on this? robertsky (talk) 02:00, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
I think we can, but with only the main details of Singapore's pointed out like the number of cases. Details of cases can always be displayed in the split page. We can do the same for other countries. TheGreatSG'rean (talk) 03:25, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support splitting off notable countries. Darylgolden(talk) Ping when replying 06:30, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
I suspect that the case in Singapore to split into it's own article first because how large the coronavirus cases has counted outside Mainland China and how much impact had in Singapore (not to mentioned cases in Japanese Diamond ship, which don't count in Japanese government data), according to section sizes, Singapore and Thailand are two largest section in this article (28kb for Thailand and almost 34kb for Singapore). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 36.76.224.32 (talk) 07:02, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
How do you define what a notable country is? --Mr. Vernon (talk) 07:09, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
You can see in section size of the article, in this article for example, Singapore has much large section (15kb in main section and 19kb in sub-section prevention in Singapore with almost 34kb in total from currently almost 300kb in size total) not to mention how much impact of coronavirus had in their country as information about the cases in Singapore and other countries can be changed and sometimes information about increase of coronaviruses in Singapore as well as many countries can be added. You can see that case in Singapore (not including Diamond Ship which happened in Japanese water but not counted by their government) was second most reported outside Mainland China. You also see that Singapore are notable to have it's own Article because it continues to have coverage by international media, also notable for Hong Kong, Japan, etc.36.76.224.32 (talk) 08:41, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Mongolia

Some of the refences in the Mongolia section have |last=iKon.mn |first=Г. Өлзийхутаг. what should these be? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:59, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

This is still an issue. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:57, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:2019 novel coronavirus which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 10:49, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Canary Islands

CI is two provinces, not one. Only the western has a case.Menah the Great (talk) 08:56, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

north korea

how do we resolve this? South Korea says there are 5 cases, NK says nothing. Surely we should mention the source and in the table? If the source is not reliable then do not mention it at all. If it is reliable a note explaining this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.115.204.102 (talk) 20:16, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 11 February 2020

 – – Thjarkur (talk) 23:20, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak by country and territory → Talk:COVID-19 outbreak by country and territory – new name by WHO 70.21.192.44 (talk) 21:57, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:2019 novel coronavirus which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 23:48, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Data table update

The United Kingdom now has one recovery as of yesterday. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-51459210 I tried to update the table but, could not figure out how the data is stored or imported. DouglasHeld (talk) 08:00, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Singapore

My byte count in this shift to a template is wrong by a factor of two: it's about 23 kb, not 50 kb; but I think the arguments for splitting are still valid - the remaining article is still 308 kb according to the history function. Boud (talk) 21:38, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Japan / 14 February 2020 / Updating cases number

I updated the number of others cases in Japan from 8 to 10. Reference: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/14/us/coronavirus-hawaii-japan.html Pudvecc (talk) 01:11, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Splitting

I've moved the Philippines and Singapore sections to their own articles, leaving behind very short summaries. Malaysia, Thailand, Vietnam and the United States should be next, based on size. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:47, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

  • Many split articles are subject to spelling according to WP:ENGVAR, for the articles about the outbreak in Singapore, that article should used Singaporean English, see in the Singapore COVID-19 talk page notice. The same notice will applied to the United States if that section split to the own article, which use US English. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 36.69.53.66 (talk) 14:47, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Malaysia, Thailand, United States & Vietnam now done. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:32, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: Hong Kong, Japan, and South Korea should be next. –hueman1 (talk) 02:10, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
@Pigsonthewing: @HueMan1: This splitting case should not only more focused for events in Southeast Asia and America. But for the coronavirus outbreak in Hong Kong, the splitting article should use Hong Kong English according to WP:ENGVAR conventions, same as articles about the outbreak in Singapore, which should use Singaporean Standard English. 36.69.53.66 (talk) 07:32, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 22:04, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:2019–20 coronavirus outbreak which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 22:19, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Suspected Cases

Map showing many out-of-date "suspected" cases.

There are currently ~37 countries marked as "suspected" on the map. By contrast, there are only 16 countries listed as suspected on this wiki page. The practice on this page seems to be to remove countries if the suspected cases turn out to be negative. I agree with that practice. However, it appears that suspected cases are not being removed from the map. For example, Switzerland reported two suspected case on the 26th, confirmed negative on the 28th, and yet they still appear on the map five days later. Yesterday, I tried to update the map to make it match what has been reported on this page, but User:Eray08yigit reverted, apparently not caring whether out-of-date suspicions remain on the map.

Because of their transient nature, knowing which countries have reported suspected cases isn't actually very encyclopedic. However, if the map is going to include the suspected cases, then I think the map should definitely be kept up-to-date and remove those countries that are determined to be negative.

I also raised this issue at Talk:2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak#Suspected cases on map, though it got archived without any reply. Dragons flight (talk) 18:59, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

@Ratherous: Can we maybe talk about this? Dragons flight (talk) 09:08, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
The map needs to be updated daily based on sources in the article or removed as unsourced. Also the description makes it seem it is current, while it is not. (+I suppose there is no encyclopedic value in showing cases no longer suspected, but if I am wrong, old refs need to be added to the map anyway, listing all countries where a suspected case was reported.) Alternatively, only show confirmed cases when unable to update all of it. Same holds for the map showing the cities: some of the suspected cases cannot be pinpointed to a specific city, and now what? WikiHannibal (talk) 10:45, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
UPDATE: I have removed the map; edit summary: "Removed map (outdated, unsourced info; the map compared with sourced info in the article is confusing for the reader). Out of the 11 European countries the map shows as suspected, 6 are not sourced in the article as suspected (Switzerland, Portugal, Czech Republic, Bulgaria, Greece, Latvia)." A map accompanies the article and presents sourced info in that article in a more reader-friendly way, not the other way round. Please discuss here how to keep it up to date or prevent confusion before adding the map again. Thanks, WikiHannibal (talk) 19:12, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

The suspected cases are useless information. Anyone who has traveled from China and has flu like symptoms is a "suspected case". Most suspected cases do not end up being confirmed. The map should stick to confirmed cases instead of suspected cases popping in and out of it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pestilence Unchained (talk • contribs) 07:04, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes I definitely agree that suspected cases that were determined to be negative should be removed. I'll remove the ones I know about, if anyone else has sources for other countries testing negative, it would be great if you could share them. --Ratherous (talk) 07:29, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

@Ratherous: Iran shouldn’t be blue https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-01-30/iran-quarantines-two-chinese-suspected-of-carrying-virus this was the source used in the file history however they have updated it and there are no currently suspected cases in Iran
Hi, Ratherous, the question is not about suspected cases which are in fact no longer suspected but about ALL suspected cases. My thanks for updating the map with confirmed cases etc. I suppose you know that when a country tested neagtive, it is removed from this article, usually with a source in the edit summary; the map accompanying the article should reflect that. I removed the map again and listed (some?) of the "mistakes". WikiHannibal (talk) 08:39, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
Hi, Ratherous, thank you for removing some of the out-dated suspected cases. At present, this article identifies the 15 suspected countries as: Angola, Ethiopia, Sudan, Brazil, Ecuador, Indonesia, Iran, Mongolia, North Korea, Pakistan, Austria, Poland, Slovakia, Romania, and Fiji. The map currently presents 21 countries as blue: Mexico, Ecuador, Brazil, Paraguay, Austria, Poland, Cyprus, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Mongolia, Bangladesh, North Korea, Iran, Fiji, New Zealand, Sudan, Indonesia, Ethiopia, Kenya, Angola, and Botswana. I've highlighted the 9 that appear on the map without appearing on the current wikipage. In addition, Pakistan, Slovakia, and Romania appears on the wikipage but not on the map. I think there is a general consensus that the map and the wikipage should be kept in sync. So either, we need to add 3 more countries to the map and subtract 9, or the wikipage needs to be promptly updated with corresponding sources to justify what is presented on the map. Dragons flight (talk) 09:50, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
As I have been updating the map over the past few days I have noticed that the Wikipedia article is not kept as up to date as I have been keeping the map. All of my edits for those 9 countries were sourced in my edit summary with a link supporting there being suspected cases, and after looking for updates it seems that they are still waiting for lab results. As for Slovakia and Romania, it doesn't seem that the Wikipedia article suggests any suspected cases for them either. The Slovak cases are not suspected as they are not showing any symptoms and are simply kept at the hospital due to travel history and the Romanian cases are either older, or only talk about a potential threat of the virus. The Pakistani sources were all old and I could not find any new sources supporting its place on the map, so it was removed. However, once again, all of the other 9 countries are sourced on my edit summaries on the map. I mostly focus on Commons and am not much of a Wikipedia editor, so it would be great if someone could go through the links I've provided to add those countries to the article. --Ratherous (talk) 15:29, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
Update - I will reinstate Pakistan as a country with suspected cases as per this source [3]. --Ratherous (talk) 15:31, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
I updated the article with your info. WikiHannibal (talk) 16:46, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
Also to comment on the source for Iran not being accurate. I have since found this source as well [4], so Iran was not removed. --Ratherous (talk) 15:42, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
Hi, it seems you say that the countries in bold are still suspected but, for example, I removed Cyprus diff as negative, and New Zealand based on link that was in the article some time ago. So your and my sources differ /outdated. As for the other countries in bold, I cannot say, but usually editors add a link to the edit summary when removing them. If you do no want to edit the article using your sources, could you perhaps list the change+link here so that other can do that? Once the map is in accord with the article, I would be happy to see it reinstated. WikiHannibal (talk) 16:41, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
Everything is already sourced on the map history, but to make it easier for the users participating in this discussion I'll list them below. Going forward I always cite my edits in the edit summary of the map, so users can always go and see the links I provide. Mexico[5], Paraguay[6], Kazakhstan[7], Сyprus[8], Bangladesh[9][10], Kenya [11], Botswana[12] and Myanmar[13]. The cases in Georgia tested negative this morning, so it will be removed, and New Zealand will be removed per the source you provided. --Ratherous (talk) 17:05, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
To be blunt, one of the virtues of keeping sources in the article is that multiple people have the chance to review them and remove ones that are negative. It feels a lot like an issue of OWN if you are expecting that you personally will need to be convinced about what should be included or removed. The article's content and sources should decide what appears in the image, not the other way around. Dragons flight (talk) 17:23, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
I actually am not the author of the map and definitely don't feel like I need to be convinced on any of the updates for the file, however I am a Commons editor, not so much a Wikipedia editor and it is important to remember that they are still different websites with different rules applying to them. The map is open for everyone to edit, it just so happens that I have been the most active recently. While the Wikipedia article is using the map from Commons, it does not mean that the map can only be updates with sources coming from Wikipedia. In fact Wikipedia itself can never be used as a source for Commons, which is why when there are in fact sources fixating suspected or confirmed cases, I will update the map based on that data. --Ratherous (talk) 17:36, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
If the map isn't going to be consistent with the article, then it should not appear in the article, since that will serve to confuse rather than educate readers. If you want to go off on your own with regards to curating the map, then I can't really stop you, but in that case I'd vote for removing it from all the Wikipedia pages where it appears. However, I do applaud your desire to keep this updated. I would be happy if you either consistently added sources to this article when updating the image, or at least added sources to this talk page if you don't want to edit the article itself. In either case, we also need people to be more conscious of the negative updates and ensuring those are also reflected on the map. Dragons flight (talk) 17:48, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
That is actually the general policy on commons. Files never have to be consistent with any articles as they are a separate item of work and are in general used by multiple articles all across the Wiki realm. English Wikipedia cannot dictate how Commons files should appear for all Wiki websites. The reason this issue is more prevalent with this file is due to the fast-paced nature of news regarding this topic. Usually in regards to other maps, sources find time to reach both Commons and Wikipedia editors. I suppose I can add sources to the talk page here, however I really don't see the point of that as they are very easily accessible on the File history, where either I or other editors add updates to the map, and I definitely cannot speak for other editors to add their own sources here if they update the map on their own. --Ratherous (talk) 17:57, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
I'm aware that Wikipedia can't dictate content to Commons, but Commons can't dictate what Wikipedias choose to use either. I would think this is a case where we'd want to be on the same page. Dragons flight (talk)
Of course, that's why Wikipedia chooses which files to use and which not to. --Ratherous (talk) 18:40, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
Map with the "suspected" category removed
Another option is to simply stop including the fast-moving and often problematic "suspected" category entirely. Dragons flight (talk) 18:35, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
I definitely see how this would be less controversial, however I'm not sure it's beneficial remove such large portions of information. I still think there is value to adding the suspected cases. To me it makes a lot more sense to be more mindful of news regarding negative results and updating the map accordingly. --Ratherous (talk) 18:40, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
Hi, Ratherous, sources for removals: Cyprus (sorr for bad diff earlier), Sudan Angola (same source as for Sudan, may also apply to Kenya but I am not sure). Did not search for the rest of the cases. WikiHannibal (talk) 20:05, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
WikiHannibal, Thank you! Cyprus will be removed! However, I don't see the other source mention anything about Angola or Sudan. --Ratherous (talk) 20:10, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, just Ethiopia in that source. WikiHannibal (talk) 20:28, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
Great, thank you! Ethiopia is removed. --Ratherous (talk) 21:05, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
Ratherous, Ecuador negative. As for Iran, the previous cases are negative but one new is suspected. Thanks, WikiHannibal (talk) 16:50, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
Removed. Thank you! --Ratherous (talk) 03:15, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
This article, which is updated irregularly, indicates in the 5 Feb update that Kenya and Botswana tested negative and have no suspected cases. The 6 Feb update says Ghana has 2 suspected cases. The lead of the article is rarely updated. WikiHannibal (talk) 11:09, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
WikiHannibal, So, from what I can tell from the source, Kenya, Botswana, Ghana - all negative? --Ratherous (talk) 21:48, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
Ratherous, thanks for the update. It seems I logged out just when you asked. Also Sudan is negative. UPDATE: Fiji negative, Pakistan seems negative by 5 Feb, all 25 suspected cases negative; have not found new sources. WikiHannibal (talk) 11:23, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the update! Sorry I couldn't fo it sooner, I was a little busy recently. I removed Sudan and Fiji but kept Pakistan based on this new source [14]. Also removed Paraguay as the results came in negative. --Ratherous (talk) 18:17, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! Austria negative but that may change; the source is updated daily. Also Angola negative. UPDATE, Ratherous, Iran negative (the patient probably died but results were negative). WikiHannibal (talk) 13:21, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
Ratherous, Kazakhstan negative as of 11 Feb. WikiHannibal (talk) 08:56, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
Thank you, they were all removed! --Ratherous (talk) 18:07, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
HI, based on an article saying "Some people were under observation for the virus across Pakistan. But all of their tests came negative,” from 13 Feb, it seems Pakistan was negative; did not find new sources. WikiHannibal (talk) 08:15, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
Pakistan removed, thanks! --Ratherous (talk) 23:02, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Possible vandalism

"9 new cases were reported on 20 February by the Ministry of Health, all of them died the same day when they were reported."
Could someone check whether this is not vandalism? Surely seems like it.--Adûnâi (talk) 02:21, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Does not look like vandalism. I traced a twitter source linked to a previous version of https://iranintl.com/en/iran/exclusive-11-coronavirus-deaths-iran Not official numbers but reported in media. The decission to how trustworthy that mediaoutlet is, I rather defer to those who know iran a bit better. Agathoclea (talk) 07:34, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

The map of Iran is broken

Can someone fix it?--Adûnâi (talk) 13:20, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Possible double counting of international conveyance cases

The Diamond Princess is no longer quarantined. Most of the passengers have left to their countries of origin. Some of them carriers of the virus. It is possible that some infected individuals are are doubly counted both for the ship and for their country, as the US, for example, knowingly repatriated infected individuals. There should be some separation between cases in a country and cases from diamond princess that were imported into the country. E.g. in the USA, 18 of the cases are actually from Diamond Princess. In Israel the single case is from there. If they are counted for the US and Israel, then the 600+ infected individuals from the cruise ship that are treated in Japan should be counted in Japan. Possible solution is to assign all of these cases to Diamond Princess, another is to assign each of the cases to the country of treatment with or without separation in parentheses for cases from Diamond Princess. The CDC now have split the counting to cases discovered in country which originated from travel (to China), cases that originated from in country person-to-person transmission, and from repatriation (the groups from Wuhan and the group from DP). This probably gives the best picture of how well the virus is controlled in each country, and how much is "in the wild". Not sure that this can be done for each and every country, but the info is out there, and it may be the best table to have (with an unknown source column as well) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doubtanytruth (talk • contribs) 00:11, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

European cases need to split to own article

because there are more cases related to the coronavirus outbreak in Europe, can someone split European confirmed cases section to the own article named 2020 coronavirus outbreak in Europe ? Because there are more notable to deserve in own article. All suspected cases and prevention that happens in Europe also needs to moved to that split article. 180.245.214.207 (talk • contribs) 01:15, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

 Done
~Nick~{talk} 11:57, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Iraq "confirmed" case without trustable source

There is no official confirmation and Iraq denied reports. WHO also doesn't mention Iraq. https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/situation-reports/20200223-sitrep-34-covid-19.pdf?sfvrsn=44ff8fd3_2

and the linked source doesn't even load at least for me. tried with proxy. it displays empty page. google cache doesn't work either. I suggest removing the record until actual confirmation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bbb244 (talk • contribs) 02:57, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Recent splits

What is to become of th article? Now it has some outdated info about Americas and Oceania, with inadequate or no summaries of the other continents. It seems the discussion, now archived, was 3 in favour of the split, with 4 against it. Most of the content was moved by User:Nickayane99. The split should be made only when a suitable summary of the content stays in the article. The table 2019–20 coronavirus outbreak by country and territory and the map Map of the 2019–20 coronavirus outbreak are present in the main 2019–20 coronavirus outbreak article. The 2019–20 coronavirus outbreak by city is outdated, inaccurate, and now mostly unsourced (anybody adding/chaning dots without providing refs). There is hardly any useful info left; the article consists of a number of confusing sections. Without the splits, the article was perhaps too long and unwieldy, but useful. I feel like returning the sections back for the time being, until somebody makes a decent split. WikiHannibal (talk) 08:33, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Additional color for countries with zero active cases

Since several countries have no current infections anymore after all their cases have either recovered or died, I suggest giving such countries a unique color: perhaps cccc00   Xenagoras (talk) 09:58, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Hungarian with coronavirus

One Hungarian from stuff working on Diamond Princess cruise ship has a positive test, ref. in Hungarian https://index.hu/belfold/2020/02/24/olasz_koronavirus_kulugy_kkm_tajekoztatas/ the exactly same article has a translation in the same place in English: https://index.hu/english/2020/02/24/coronavirus_hungarian_case_covid_19_diamond_princess/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.131.236.166 (talk) 16:21, 24 February 2020 (UTC) So the main table should be updated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.131.236.166 (talk) 16:18, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Levels of detail

Today, I removed the sub-headings for continents as we now only have three countries' details listed (old version: [15]. Why have they been rested?

I also removed the summary for the United States, because we have none for any other country with its own article. Why is the US an exception? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:32, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

If no justification for these changes is offered, I'm going to reverse them. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:08, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
This is clearly supposed to be an overview article but also contains information with country-level details for countries where no specific article exists (e.g. Australia or Canada). I suggest to leave in the *very* high level description for each continent so that users can get a quick (very quick) overview of what is going on in each continent and country they are interested in. I think the goal of this article should be to i) inform users as quickly as possible and ii) guide them to the correct article that they would like to read for further info as quickly as possible. Grouping whole continents under "Other" seems like a horrible idea to achieve that aim. Providing a one-sentence overview of a particular continent will be useful to the user, as in the case of "Europe" for example. Whether to do that for the US can be questioned but due to the structure of the article (US and Canada the only countries currently under Americas) it makes logical sense. --hroest 17:18, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Additional table column for case fatality rate

Since deaths have occurred in several countries, I suggest to add a column named CFR[1] to the table "2019–20 coronavirus outbreak by country and territory". Xenagoras (talk) 09:35, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Case-fatality rate

I have/had a similar idea but since I'm not from a life sciences background I'm not sure so I mention it here ( correct me if I'm wrong about anything it's my first time doing this in Wikipedia ). In the table '2019–20 coronavirus outbreak by country and territory' it would be a great idea to see a column showing the number of deaths as a percentage ( or relative stat. ) of the 'Confirmed' figures as well as another column showing the number of 'Recoveries' as a percentage ( or relative stat. ) of the 'Confirmed' figures ( is CFR a sort of measure of this ? ). How can this be best done so that the percentages are autmated ( update themselves ) whenever the absolute figures are updated manually ( I presume?)? Given instructions I'd be willing to carry out the changes.Darbehdar (talk) 11:50, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Algeria

You can add Algeria to the map now. A new case has popped up, its an Italian man who is visiting Algeria. Bye now.180.150.114.118 (talk) 13:42, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

A first positive test in Mexico

A man has tested positive for coronavirus in Mexico City. Authorities are waiting for the results of a second test in order to verify it. https://heraldodemexico.com.mx/pais/coronavirus-caso-sospechoso-iner-cdmx-secretaria-salud-lopez-gatell/ --Jormtz (talk) 06:47, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

How to edit table "2019–20 coronavirus outbreak by country and territory"

how does one edit the table "2019–20 coronavirus outbreak by country and territory"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by LeMarsu (talk • contribs) 10:21, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

UK,19 people as of 28 February 2020 with coronavirus and first reported case in Wales,please update

UK, 19 people as of 28 February 2020 with coronavirus and first reported case in Wales,please update

See link: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/global-health/science-and-disease/coronavirus-uk-news-update-cases-latest-live/amp/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Giantsofnigeria (talk • contribs) 10:51, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Request for Comment on table of coronavirus cases

Please participate in the RfC on a change to the table of coronavirus cases + deaths per country. Xenagoras (talk) 19:48, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Misleading map

Not every state in the US, Australia, Canada & New Zealand has been infected. The current map is very misleading. They should use this US map, this canadian map, and this Australian map.--Chrysolophus pictus (talk) 01:02, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Painting Nunavut and Alberta red is absurd. --Chrysolophus pictus (talk) 01:04, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Mass deletion of low-quality maps

I invite everyone (especially infographic editors and map-makers) to participate in this discussion on Wikimedia Commons. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 06:37, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

New confirmed cases table

Might I suggest and request that the table have the latest date at the top. As it stands, an interested reader has to click the link to show the table and then scroll down to the bottom to see the latest new cases. The amount of scrolling required is proportional to the length of the table, which is only going to get longer and longer. Adding each new date at the top would make scrolling unnecessary. 92.25.47.124 (talk) 14:08, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:COVID-19_pandemic_by_country_and_territory/Archive_1&oldid=954739974"