Template talk:2019-20 Wuhan coronavirus data/Archive1

Mobile ?

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived.

@Orangewarning: : Hey, can you tell us more ? Yug (talk) 15:07, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

I added some class to the header. Is it still ok on mobile ? Yug (talk) 15:16, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

I can see it on my phone, if I know to tap the box that says "More information: Country/region, Confirmed cases ...", at the top of the Geographic diffusion section. Jw 193 (talk) 17:20, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Yeah it is visible now. Orangewarning (talk) 14:37, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Fatality rate

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived.

It's premature and inaccurate to have a fatality rate that is literally just (currentDeaths)/(currentCases) when the epidemic is at such an exponential growth phase. The true fatality rate takes a long time to emerge. There is a reason researchers have been hesitant to release concrete numbers on this matter. --Charsum (talk) 19:28, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

@Charsum: I messaged the user who made the addition, so he understand our choice. Yug (talk) 23:22, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Unique source for the whole data ?

@Jw 193:,@Graeme Bartlett:,@BegbertBiggs:,@Tezakhiago:,@Nguyen QuocTrung:

AP has a table with cases, deaths, and date of first case. This UNIQUE source could be helpful for us. The 3rd information could be interesting to store for later (animated map). I'am just a bit embarrassead, the page is a feed, so I don't find any stable link to cite this table properly. NYT is also starting a tracker. Yug (talk) 23:22, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Naturally, if one country has fresher data, we can use multiple sources as well. Be we will move from 60 sources to 4~6 sources. Yug (talk) 23:45, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

You'll note that AP is a full day behind, for China. If we want data with days of lag, the daily WHO situation report is more authoritative, and looks slightly more up to date. Jw 193 (talk) 23:53, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

@Jw 193: I read Chinese, the Chinese Health Commission dropt that 20mins ago. (Google Translate). It report everyday at 8am local time the stats of the 00:00am to 24:00 for the previous days, new and cummulative. Google Trans and I can help with this, and the daily report are on the same exact model everyday. ;) Yug (talk) 00:26, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

I took out the note to editors on the template, as it was far too prominent, and as it is out of date, it is best to only use it for non-time-sensitive information (like first report). Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:43, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

I think on the contrary that we could use it for most cells, and complete the cells which are outdated by relevant sources. Could help us to drop most sources and ease our work. Yug (talk) 00:47, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Use it if you want, but make sure it is the most up to date at the time you use it, before removing other figures and references. Since it does not stay current, it's best to have several useful references listed. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:57, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Chinese numbers

Hello Jw 193 ! Do you think HK, Macao, Taiwan should be substracted ? My Chinese source (CHC) isn't clear on this side. I can be interpreted both ways. Yug (talk) 00:31, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

That is why you need to use a source where it clear where the numbers came from. You would need to subtract numbers that that source uses. It may be 23, but that source may also be using out of date numbers, so you have to check every time before subtracting. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:46, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

The source I'am citing is the National Health Commission of the People's Republic of China's official daily report. I don't think we can do fresher, litterally : their daily reports are THE source. So who decides/decided if the 8 of HK are included or excluded ? I really don't trust news media to make the decision. Yug (talk) 00:51, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

We have decided here to list them separately, but you will have to check those sources used for their numbers per region/province. National Health Commission will include the three extra administrations figures, but do they list the numbers used? I like DXY as they have everything subtotalled per city. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:55, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Is it too late to save the world from the virus now?

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived.

As of this time! 19 countries are officially containing the infecting Corona Virus rise. With over 6000 infected people and over 130 deaths, it may be a chance but it may be too late to cure it if it continues among the next month. Which means we only have little time until the World is no longer a safe place to be!

Will Vaccines save us before the End of our lives?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AustroHungarian1867 (talk • contribs) 08:29, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes. Yug (talk) 12:23, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

There are encouraging signs. Yesterday, for the first time, mainland China had fewer new cases, than the day before.Jw 193 (talk) 18:30, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

AustroHungarian1867 Please only use this talk page for constructive comments relating to this article.BigRed606 (talk) 23:45, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Suspected Zambia case

An editor added one Zambia case today. The source was a South Africa radio station. This radio station didn't call it a suspected case, implying it was confirmed. Mascow noticed that the article was dated way back on January 24, and undid that edit.

Despite the date displayed, it appears that this news report really was from today, as it mentions Wednesday, and cites an announcement by South Africa's Minister of Health. That statement, dated today, can be found here. But the Minister's statement actually says "there is a suspected case under investigation in Zambia".

I can't find anything from Zambia itself. Zambia's Ministry of Health has a web page, but it's rarely updated, with no press releases in over a year. So it's unlikely they'll post a confirmation themselves. The first confirmation on this case, if it's ever confirmed, may come from WHO's daily situation report.
Jw 193 (talk) 20:40, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Fastest-updating sources for mainland China updates

Watching this unfold over the past few days, the quickest update to mainland China's case count and death count seems to come from qq.com. Within an hour or two, dxy.cn catches up. And within a few hours BNOnews.com catches up.

As best as I can tell, almost all this information is from the official reports from the thirty-some provinces, which get posted online within two or three hours of each other, every morning. Well before the national government rolls them up into its daily report.

More than once, when I've posted an update from qq.com, it's gotten reverted, because that number doesn't match what's on dxy.cn. (Yet.) I'm not familiar with either source, but at face value, neither seems any higher quality than the other; one just seems to be updated more quickly. If somebody is more familiar with these sources, is there any reason to think dxy.cn is more accurate than qq.com? If not, can we stop reverting the updates from qq.com? Jw 193 (talk) 22:17, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

@Jw 193: hey, nice finding ! :) I can add that the NHC's daily report is published around 00:00 ETC (in 30 mins), daily.

Also, I don't see the need to race. We aren't here to BREAK THE NEWS, wikipedia is notorious to lag behind for most topics... is the principle of an ongoing knowledge base. I still favor using APnews, which is simplier, even if we loose some hours of scoop, which is not our mission. Yug (talk) 22:33, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

We, as a crowd of volunteers, are losting lot of energy on this petty race, tiny calculations, and mutual corrections. Volunteers' time and brain is has value, and would be more helpful elsewhere rather than in this tiny edits. Yug (talk) 22:59, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

I created a section #CORE SOURCES above. I let you add your qq, dxy sources with which I'am not familiar. Yug (talk) 23:38, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Columns title are failing on mobile

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived.

See Talk:2019–20_Wuhan_coronavirus_outbreak#Reporting_something_wrong_with_template. Yug (talk) 23:32, 29 January 2020 (UTC) (must sleep)

Fixed by removing a class which doesn't display in mobile because navboxes are omitted there.[1] PrimeHunter (talk) 02:08, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Add recover data

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived.

Please add how may recovered, it's quite helpful Neutrinium 12:11, 30 January 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neutrinium (talk • contribs)

@Neutrinium: Hi! Thanks for your message. The present page is a lighter format. For detailled counts, please consult Template:2019-20_Wuhan_coronavirus_data/China_medical_cases. Yug (talk) 20:41, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Well that's just for China case, what about other country? Neutrinium 05:40, 31 January 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neutrinium (talk • contribs)

Japanese government's case count

If you go by the press releases being issued by Japan's Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare, the count of cases is low by two. That's because they aren't counting two people who are confirmed to be carrying the virus, but aren't showing symptoms—yet. This started with this press release (Google translated, "three cases of infectious diseases associated with the new coronavirus. One is a patient and two are asymptomatic pathogen carriers." But they only increased their case count by one.) The latest press release makes no mention at all of the two cases who aren't showing symptoms yet, creating a case count of 12, instead of 14. At least one press outlet (NHK World-Japan) is adding back in the two cases that the government keeps not counting.

I agree with NHK World-Japan; I don't see how you can say that a confirmed carrier isn't a confirmed case. --Jw 193 (talk) 16:12, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

+1. This 12 (+2) is BS political counting. True count is 14 identified contamined individuals. We, wikipedia, don't have to publish gov non-sense. We will publish the common-sensical sum : all individual confirmed as carrying the virus. Yug (talk) 20:38, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

I've added an explanatory footnote to Japan's case total. Hopefully this will prevent readers who've seen only the government's symptomatic total, from demanding that we "fix" the true total.--Jw 193 (talk) 17:46, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

I shifted the note, as otherwise I cannot add these numbers in a spreadsheet! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:22, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Chart date is incorrect when looking at historical pages

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived.

There is a date at the bottom of the chart (to the left of a hyperlink) which is always showing January 30th, even when looking at history. Dayindaveout (talk) 17:34, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

I checked the code. It's hand writen text changed daily by wikipedia editors, not a {today} template. So It seems it has been fixed. Yug (talk) 20:33, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Fix the table

 Done (under test) Yug (talk) 20:34, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Can someone fix the table so that the total affected territories are beneath the territory column? Mr. Cuckoo (talk) 18:20, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Mr. Cuckoo : I implemented it. Waiting the feedback of other users (=testing). Not sure we keep it but thanks for this idea ! :D Yug (talk) 20:29, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, we'll see how it goes. I think it's a no-brainer to keep all values under the appropriate columns. Mr. Cuckoo (talk) 21:23, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Confirmed cases

Coronavirus confirmed cases increasing fast Nickayane99 (talk) 23:42, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes ^^ --Yug (talk) 18:26, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Was it worth it to build Hospitals in China?

If the virus is unstoppable and they didn't found a cure yet, does this mean that its worth it to build 2 mega hospitals in China? So far its been 4 days since the construction started and I feel like they should have started earlier when the virus was on its early stages of infection. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AustroHungarian1867 (talk • contribs) 06:05, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes. --Yug (talk) 18:22, 31 January 2020 (UTC) (aka Welcome !)

Chinese Confirmed Cases increased to 9811

According https://3g.dxy.cn/newh5/view/pneumonia, the confirmed cases in China has increased to 9811. Thanks! --ActualJoe ❯❯❯ Talk 18:27, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

(I won’t edit the template, unless I have your thoughts!) —-ActualJoe ❯❯❯ Talk 18:31, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Subtract 29 for Macao, Hong Kong and Taiwan = 9782. But perhaps number in table comes from an alternative source. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:58, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

I have updated based on QQ source, but a major update will come soon. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:21, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Total of cases displayed on the bottom vs. sum of the values on the column

Current values:

• Total cases displayed on the bottom: 9,948
• Sum of the values on the column: 9,935

Is there a reason for these values to be different? —CamiloCBranco (talk) 19:35, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes- Wikipedia editor error. When people add to the column entries, they should add to the total. Some may have forgotten or made a mistake in arithmetic. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:54, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

I suspected this. Thank you for letting me know. —CamiloCBranco (talk) 05:01, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

yesterday jan 30th at 9pm there were 214 deaths. Yeat this morning it reads 213. Did someone come back alive, ie zombie, reincarnation etc.. (?)

yesterday jan 30th at 9pm there were 214 deaths. Yeat this morning it reads 213. Did someone come back alive, ie zombie, reincarnation etc.. (?) 50.100.215.60 (talk) 21:56, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Add Suspected cases

I was thinking of adding a suspected cases table by each country showing the amount by numbers DanielTheKing05 (talk) 00:34, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

We need this to actually be based on the refs supplied

Will switch a bunch to [2] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:30, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Agree. We need to simplify the references. See top of this talkpage for some help. Yug (talk) 06:55, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Updating numbers

When people update the numbers please make sure you remove the old reference that supports the old numbers and add a new reference that supports the new numbers. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:25, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Blocked

All of a sudden the table for confirmed cases has been blocked. What has happened? Jacobayoub (talk) 05:55, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

I protected the page because there were too many unsourced or poorly-sourced additions being added. El_C 05:59, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

@El C: please lets find another way. Lets add guideline in a noinclude sections. This template is latgely edited by a group of new account and it s great. Let s rather do some onboarding. Yug (talk) 06:32, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I am not inclined to lift the protection at this time. Wikipedia is not a social experiment — our reputation of being a source of reliablly-sourced information is at stake. El_C 06:36, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

@El C: dont flip it. I ask that a crowd edited wikipedia stays a crowd edited wikipedia when it s possible do do so in an orderly maner. We dont have vandalism here, we have an active page which need more order. Simply communicate the new objective with editors would work. Yug (talk) 06:48, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

This is a decently watched page. People can place new numbers here with references and I imagine the table will get rapidly updating with said references and hopefully the no longer supporting references removed.

The issue was people were simple adding new numbers and not changes the reference to support it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:51, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Neither the first nor the second protection request contended that there was vandalism. The protection request stated that there was a [h]igh level of new editors and IPs changing numbers without providing sources. If you wish to see the protection lifted or reduced, the place to do so would be at Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#Current_requests_for_reduction_in_protection_level. El_C 06:55, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

@El C: I am saying your action exceed your arguments. You apply a brutal total block as if there was vandalism without consultation of the active team of editors for a situation which doesnt require such level of block. Adminship doesnt allow you to WP:OWN. Community have its say. Yug (talk) 07:03, 1 February 2020 (UTC) (ex admin on fr, commons)

I am not sure I follow. I attended to a dozen or so requests today at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection — this was one of them. El_C 07:06, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

User:Yug what do you suggest? We had a bunch of edits like this[3][4] were the two sources said 9 and good faith users are changing it to 10. It took some time for someone to provide the reference to support the change. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:11, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

@Doc James and El C: Fix it ( Done), reduce the number of sources ( Done from 57 to ~15 now), discuss better practices (keep low number of sources to ease maintenance : on track ; watch out ; mentor newbies ; others ?), make these agreed recommended practices obviously visible via a ribbon on top of the page. Continue onboarding. Iterate. Aka the wiki way. Yug (talk) 15:10, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

What total should we use

Wondering peoples thoughts here?

Talk:2019–20_Wuhan_coronavirus_outbreak#Conflicting_numbers_of_confirmed_cases

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:52, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Ongoing sources cleanup

Probably better to avoid www.worldometers.info

Many rows of this table use www.worldometers.info as the source. It would be safer to use reliable sources directly, since Worldometers is not a Wikipedia-notable source. The chance of references used by Wikipedia being corrected and archived (to avoid wrong use of information from the source, for avoiding volatile unarchived sources that are no longer available after 5-10 years' time, and so on) is higher than from a mystery site that looks good but is otherwise unknown in terms of method and quality. Boud (talk) 14:00, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Agree, I’m so surprised that someone using Worldometers as source for this current events article. Maybe we should remove that unreliable source from table. Nguyen QuocTrung (talk) 14:09, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Agree. We have a section above, #CORE SOURCES, with good sources which are under-used.

Also at the core of this issue is the ongoing useless race for the news. Do we really need publish asap based on weird unknown-but-hypereactive news-sites ? I don't see the point in it. Yug (talk) 15:11, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

With respect to sources:

• AP does not support our content https://apnews.com/VirusOutbreak (at least that I can see)

The main thing is we need to use sources that actually support our numbers here. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:28, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

We could switch to this one instead if people wish https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/world/asia/china-wuhan-coronavirus-maps.html

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:34, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

How to count evacuees from Wuhan?

Counting the evacuees from Wuhan in China and their countries at the same time will exaggerate numbers. As far as I know, till now, all evacuees who turned to be infected were discovered in their countries, not in China (i.e. they showed symptoms only after their departure). However, some countries may begin soon to evacuate infected cases too, which creates the question of whether we want to count them in China figures or in their respective countries figures.--138.75.197.32 (talk) 16:22, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

We don't make that choice. Which will be very marginal.

We use the numbers provides by our sources. Yug (talk) 16:26, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Looks legit to me. Mascow (talk) 18:17, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 February 2020

Change the UAE case count to 5 and cite this reference Bitbyte2015 (talk) 17:21, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Seems reasonable :)  Doing...... Done All the best: Rich Farmbrough (the apparently calm and reasonable) 18:13, 1 February 2020 (UTC).

References

Update template

I have set the update tag to only show if the template hasn't been edited in a day. HTH. All the best: Rich Farmbrough (the apparently calm and reasonable) 18:16, 1 February 2020 (UTC).

User:Rich Farmbrough thanks Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:14, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Finnish case has recovered from the hospital, please update it thank you url= https://www.is.fi/kotimaa/art-2000006396665.html%7Ctitle=CA Wuhan coronavirus patient has left the Central Hospital of Lapland (translated to english) |date=05 February 2020 |publisher=Iltasanomat |location=Finland |accessdate=05 February 2020 --Roi Johnson (talk) 16:39, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 February 2020

8th case confirmed in the US. https://www.nbcboston.com/news/local/first-reported-case-of-coronavirus-in-massachusetts/2070535/ Mascow (talk) 18:16, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Done. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:32, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 February 2020

Update Germany cases to 8 with this citation Bitbyte2015 (talk) 19:39, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

References

 Done Ombresuvenere (talk) 19:56, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 February 2020

The cases/death data for Mainland China is not reflected by the cited source for those figures. Not sure where those numbers came from. If you're using a different source it needs to be cited. --Charsum (talk) 23:00, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

• DXY (https://ncov.dxy.cn/ncovh5/view/pneumonia) count mainland China and Hong Kong, Macau, Taiwan together. So we have to minus the number of Hong Kong, Macau, Taiwan from the total number. Ombresuvenere (talk) 23:30, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

"Mainland China" or "China (mainland)"

What should China be listed as? My vote is for "Mainland China" because 1) that is what that region is commonly referred to as 2) the news websites with charts that I've seen have referred to it as "mainland China" 3) if mainland China were to be listed as "China (mainland)", then it would only make sense to put Hong Kong and Macau as "China (Hong Kong)" and "China (Macau)". ParadiseDesertOasis8888 (talk) 23:50, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Hello, this needs to remain China (mainland). Referring to the region of mainland China is a differentiating statement. There is no formal region of "Mainland China", there is only a mainland China who also governs the Special Administrative Regions of Hong Kong and Macau. While maintaining an international list of nations, there must be an extraordinary reason to list a region rather than a formal state. The first preference should be China, however, some people seem to oppose that, so China (mainland), which has been used in previous outbreaks, etc has also been chose. This is the measure that has been selected. My first preference is to just put China there, but since some people would like to differentiate from Hong Kong, Macau, and Taiwan, the brackets of (mainland) in small should be used.

Since there is no formal state of Mainland China, this terminology has no place in a list of states. Please refer to the List of sovereign states, there is no "Mainland China". One of these things is not like the other, if we are compiling a list of states, it should refer to actual states and not colloquial terms. There is actually a manual of style on this and the manual of style in this case indicates the term should be China, see WP:NC-CN. List of countries and dependencies by population also may provide some insight, if there is a precedence where a state of "Mainland China" is commonly used, then we should use such a term. I have not found it.

Because it is so important that people want to include mainland in this terminology though we have added it in small brackets, as was done in the 2009 flu pandemic by country. An asterisk was added to the Sars page, but the recent mainland lobbyists have added the term there as well, [5]. The terms should not be China (Hong Kong), since these are territories, for the same reason that Bermuda is listed separately and not as part of the United Kingdom. Personally I think using the asterisk is probably the best method to distinguish the states. Krazytea(talk) 21:18, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 February 2020

3 more cases of 2019-nCoV confirmed in S. Korea, making the total number 15. (Source : Yonhap News Agency.) http://yna.kr/AEN20200202000651320 Editor en jefe (talk) 01:48, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

 Done Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:48, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Update Philippines

https://twitter.com/cnnphilippines/status/1223798247166054401?s=19

Second case confirmed and first non China death Mascow (talk) 02:51, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

https://mobile.twitter.com/WHOPhilippines/status/1223797298477424641 Nickayane99 (talk) 02:56, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Here are the non-social media website sources that I could find with web pages already used in Wuhan_coronavirus_outbreak_by_country_and_territory#Philippines as of now.

• https://www.philstar.com/headlines/2020/02/02/1989762
• https://www.gmanetwork.com/news/news/nation/724482/philippines-confirms-2nd-novel-coronavirus-case-patient-dies/story/

LightNightLights (talk) 03:17, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Update Vietnam

7 confirmed cases, please update, thank you.

https://news.zing.vn/phat-hien-ca-thu-7-o-viet-nam-nhiem-virus-corona-post1041957.html

Phát hiện ca thứ 7 ở Việt Nam nhiễm virus corona (Detected the 7th case in Vietnam infected with corona virus)

https://vnexpress.net/suc-khoe/ca-thu-7-o-viet-nam-nhiem-virus-corona-4049017.html

Ca thứ 7 ở Việt Nam nhiễm virus corona (The 7th case in Vietnam is infected with corona virus)

Mặt trời đỏ (talk) 03:24, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

User:Mặt trời đỏ  Done Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:43, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Philippines death

There is a reported death in the Philippines, and no sources to confirm, nor is it standardized across other pages.

Request to change total Philippine deaths to 0, based off of this.

I have found some sources that hopefully would confirm the death. (I have a very rough sense of WP:RS, please forgive me)

• https://www.philstar.com/headlines/2020/02/02/1989762/doh-confirms-second-case-novel-coronavirus-philippines
• https://www.gmanetwork.com/news/news/nation/724482/philippines-confirms-2nd-novel-coronavirus-case-patient-dies/story/

You can find the mention of the death from any of these. LightNightLights (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:20, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

User:LightNightLights Per WHO a second case and they died[6] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:40, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 February 2020

There should be a figure for the complete number of cases in the European Union, in addition to the currently existing figures for individual EU member states. Yinandjang (talk) 06:56, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

I think it worth keeping things simpler like we have it currently. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:46, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Hey

A big thanks to Doc James, replacing worldometre by higher reputation newspaper, the New York Times. Thank You ♡o♡ Yug (talk) 18:29, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

No worries User:Yug. We have our work cut out for us keep these numbers attached to a source that supports them... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:21, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 February 2020

The United States only has 8 confirmed cases, not 9, according to the New York Times. Please change the case number in the United States from 9 to 8. POTUF (talk) 21:56, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

This source says 9 https://bnonews.com/index.php/2020/02/the-latest-coronavirus-cases/ though the NYTs actually says 8. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:22, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 February 2020

Mainland China’s confirmed cases count is outdated. https://bnonews.com/index.php/2020/02/the-latest-coronavirus-cases/ GyozaDumpling (talk) 23:06, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

 Done Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:27, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 February 2020

Change the number of cases in the United States from 9 to 11 as 2 new confirmed cases have been reported. -lordsidious22- (talk) 01:05, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Done Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:51, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 February 2020

Change United States from 11 cases to 9 confirmed cases. The sources referenced only show 9, and every other news reporting agency is showing 9.

To be clear: 1 WA 3 CA 2 AZ 2 IL 1 MA 9 total Eddieyee (talk) 05:13, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

This source says 11. https://bnonews.com/index.php/2020/02/the-latest-coronavirus-cases/

Do not think the above inclues these two cases https://bnonews.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/222020Case.pdf

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:18, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

What should the template be sorted by?

The number of confirmed cases or the number of deaths? ParadiseDesertOasis8888 (talk) 07:07, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

I would go with confirmed cases. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:26, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

More reliable sources

This site is faster than BNO and it would be great if there's more than one source.

• https://news.qq.com/zt2020/page/feiyan.htm#rumor Nickayane99 (talk) 08:10, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

The problem is than we have two sources, one that supports the number present and one that does not support the number present. Best to stick with one source per number IMO.

Also our current source is in English which is nice. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:26, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

The absolute difference between values from source 1, 2 and 3 is not significant anymore. So, better we back ourselves with the most reknowned source, even if less reactive (also: we are not racing for breaking news). Yug (talk) 16:42, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

The NYT is hard to access. If people were willing to accept numbers a few hours old we could stick with more well known sources but they are not. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:57, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 February 2020

Hong Kong has just confirmed it's first death of a 39 year old man, it's on the news of Hong Kong, please change the death number from 0 to 1. Thanks! Evidence: https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/health-environment/article/3048839/coronavirus-hong-kong-confirms-first-death-39 User talk:Keith chau yet Keith chau yet (talk) 02:50, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

This was already changed with Special:Diff/939059882/prev. —Uzume (talk) 04:36, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Malaysia coronavirus cases has been increased to 12

5 Feb 2020: the coronavirus patients in Malaysia has been increased to 12 cases. Source

As above, the coronavirus patients in Malaysia has been increased to 10 cases, can someone update please? By Shengwei95 in 4 February 2020 08:19 Shengwei95 (talk) 08:20, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Singapore cases

The cases are reported in Singapore media. Before changes are reverted, please check if they are reported first. We need this tab to be live for all countries. Thanks. TheGreatSG'rean (talk) 10:13, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Here is the evidence.

https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/coronavirus-spore-reports-first-cases-of-local-transmission-4-out-of-6-new-cases-did-not https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/wuhan-virus-coronavirus-singapore-community-spread-tourists-12389314 TheGreatSG'rean (talk) 10:16, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 February 2020

Case count is now 25 in Thailand

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-02-04/thailand-s-coronavirus-cases-jump-to-25-with-one-seriously-ill 173.18.96.109 (talk) 10:33, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Done Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:12, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Move, why ?

@MSGJ: there are half a dozen of 2019-20 Wuhan coronavirus data/{something} templates. Now, after the move, this present template appears as the father of the half-dozen-minus-one others. Weirder. Yug (talk) 16:18, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Belgium has one case already

In Belgium there is one case of Novel Coronavirus already, can someone please update it? Shengwei95 (talk) 18:50, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 February 2020

Change the number of Chinese cases from 20,493 to 23,649

[1] https://bnonews.com/index.php/2020/02/the-latest-coronavirus-cases/ Danpi3141 (talk) 22:35, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

@Danpi3141: These are not the definitive toll. Definitive tally is provided by the China National Health Commission, in about one hour. Yug (talk) 22:59, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

We have higher numbers already. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:14, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 February 2020

21 confirmed cases in HK now, SOURCE: https://news.rthk.hk/rthk/en/component/k2/1506776-20200205.htm Hkfreedomfighter (talk) 07:43, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Done Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:59, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 February 2020

Change 18 cases in Hong Kong to 21 cases

Source: https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/health-environment/article/3049141/coronavirus-three-new-cases-hong-kong-include Hkfreedomfighter (talk) 09:31, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

 Done Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:58, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 February 2020

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

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

Total number of cases outside Mainland China

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 February 2020

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

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 February 2020

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

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

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

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

Best regards.

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 February 2020

Change Finland recovered from 0 to 1.

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

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 February 2020

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

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 February 2020

US cases are now 12.

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

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 February 2020

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

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 February 2020

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

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 February 2020

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

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

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 February 2020

Please update USA confirmed to 12.

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

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

North Korea

Please add in North Korea for 7 case.

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

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

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 February 2020

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

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 February 2020

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

Given that the Chinese source appears to be superseded by other English sources, and the one you give is now out of date by a couple of days, we will not be using it any more. But you are welcome to find a new source if information is useful. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:24, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 February 2020

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

4 recoveries are now listed for Japan. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:20, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Singapore New Cases

Please update the number of case in Singapore to 30.

Source:

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

Recoveries column

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

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

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

Cases on Diamond Princess

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

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

Given that the WHO lists these as an other category, I think we should stick with that given their status as the top international organization working on this outbreak. The question is whether to keep Cases on an international conveyance in there or not. It does seem a bit worthy, perhaps I would leave it at other? I probably wouldn't put the harbouring nation or whatever in there. There are also other cruise ships with potential infections. Krazytea(talk) 19:20, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

The passengers are quarantined on board until February 19th according to NHK. https://www3.nhk.or.jp/nhkworld/en/news/20200208_03/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.98.212.225 (talk) 01:36, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Agree with User:Graeme Bartlett. They move the cases that are diagnosed off a ship to a Japanese hospital. This is no different than how we count cases that flying in from another country as cases in the country they land. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:51, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Rules for confirmed cases daily count updates

Animated map of confirmed 2019-nCoV cases spreading from 12 January 2020.

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

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

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

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

Note: regardless of whether Diamond Princess cases should be counted in Japan or not, Metropolitan is simply asking if cases reported by Japan should updated for the day itself, or for the previous day given that Japan publishes its update 1 hour after GMT 0 hours. robertsky (talk) 12:59, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks everyone. I've corrected all figures from January 21st to better fit to WHO situation reports. Metropolitan (talk) 16:05, 8 February 2020 (UTC)