Talk:COVID-19 pandemic

RfC on map of infected cases

Which is better, a map of Greater China or a map of Mainland China?--Jabo-er (talk) 01:07, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Per discussions above (#Image of Map and #Greater China map), I have replaced the map of "Greater China" with one of Mainland China, and my edit got reverted. Let me explain why I think a Mainland China map is more appropriate here:

• "Mainland China" is a clearly defined and commonly used term, while "Greater China" is a vaguely defined and a less commonly used one, and not without disputes.
• "Mainland China" is itself in the table of confirmed cases, so a Mainland China map can be seen as a breakdown by first-level administrative divisions. "Greater China", as its articles suggests, is an informal term used to refer a geographic area that shares commercial and cultural ties dominated by Han Chinese. A commercial and cultural concept is not quite relevant to an article concerning a epidemic.
• If the rationale to use "Greater China" over "Mainland China" is because Taiwan is infected too, then there is no reason to exclude South Korea, Thailand and Vietnam since those countries report confirmed cases too. It would be good to have a map that shows the first-level administrative divisions of the respective countries so that we are comparing apples to apples, i.e. Incheon, South Korea: 2 compared with to Hubei, China: 1096.

User:Ratherous kept reverting my edit without ANY explanation, so I am requesting a Request for comment to avoid embroiling myself in an unwanted edit war. IMHO a Mainland China map is clearly more relevant to the ongoing epidemic outbreak.

• 
• 

--Jabo-er (talk) 00:49, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Jabo-er, you were editing without any consensus. That discussion was originally started by a sockpuppet account which was then banned, so not many people took it seriously to begin with however you did not attempt to reach any consensus whatsoever. These reasons that you are giving would be a lot more appropriate for the original discussion section rather than here. Plus I’m not sure why you keep saying i was reverting without explanation as I clearly have a very specific explanation as to why your edits were reverted. Stop edit warring to POV push and reach consensus. --Ratherous (talk) 00:55, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Maybe you can try to give your arguments rather than attacking a blocked sockpuppet. That would be more productive to the discussion. --Jabo-er (talk) 01:06, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Please note that your second map has already violated NPOV as stated in #Image of Map: Indian controlled disputed land is in exactly the color of India in that map while PRC-administrated disputed land are in a different shaded color, thus unbalanced.

For the issue you mentioned, Greater China has no such ambiguity - few people (I've never heard any) would call South Korea a part of Greater China. Please give some source about the ambiguity you mentioned. --173.68.165.114 (talk) 10:55, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree with you on the Indian controlled dispute land - the updated map is neutral on this part now. Thank you for pointing it out. On the other hand, since "Mainland China" is in the table of confirmed cases, readers can refer to a Mainland China map for a breakdown by provinces in Mainland China, where most cases are reported. A map of Mainland China + Macau + Hong Kong + Taiwan does not serve a clear purpose here, because "Greater China" is a coined term that serves economic and cultural purposes. If a map of all infected areas is expected, then a map of East Asia ( Mainland China + Macau + Hong Kong + Taiwan + Thailand + Vietnam + South Korea + Nepal) would be preferred over one excluding some countries. --Jabo-er (talk) 16:34, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

No one can explain why a map of Mainland China + Macau + Hong Kong + Taiwan (but not + Thailand + Nepal + Vietnam) makes sense. It is only here because no one else has produced a more proper one.

Sadly, I have also removed File:2019-nCoV Confirmed Cases Animated Map of China.gif, which is itself a very good animation, for violating NPOV as it depicts Taiwan as part of China rather than a claimed territory. On the other hand, counting the cases by province in Mainland but by the whole country of Taiwan is an inappropriate comparison - only the infected Taiwanese cities (Taipei, Kaohsiung; first-level administrative division in Taiwan) should be coloured.

• 

--Jabo-er (talk) 00:52, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

• FYI the reason why Mainland China + HK + Macau + TW makes more sense than Thailand + Nepal + Vietnam is the former four all claims to be China themselves, and all countries (including the UN) in the world recognize one of the four as a representative of all the four, which is part of the definition of a sovereign nation in international law. While Thailand + Nepal + Vietnam don't have that property. If you are so enthusiastic, you can actually make a map of Novorossiya + Northern Cyprus + Islamic State + Saharawi + Somaliland, but it simply doesn't make sense. --173.68.165.114 (talk) 09:56, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

• • That is only true about TW. Macau and HK do not claim to be all China, only Taiwan does.

• How about a map of "East Asia", including the subdivisions of Chinese provinces (or other national subdivisions) depending on the data available? This would bypass the territorial NPOV issue. A viral epidemic doesn't care much about territorial claims: it's enough for one carrier to pass a border and propagate the infection. Boud (talk) 06:36, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

• Replace map I would go for either a map of China broken down by province and a map of East Asia or just a map of China broken down by province. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 06:57, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

• The animated map in question does not even mention China, it is merely a colored version of an existing Wikimedia Commons map (standard/latest go-to blank province map of China) and has been restored. It took a lot of work to produce and does not make any political suggestions. prat (talk) 09:26, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Please be advised that the original map had Taiwan drawn in a different outline color. This was not visible under the previous coloring. With the new coloring (see image talk page) as requested, it is more visible. I believe this matter can now be fully put to rest. prat (talk) 11:18, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
    • Dear prat, I really appreciate the great effort that you have made in creating and updating the animation and taking actions in response to feedbacks — despite the inappropriately threatening tone in the message you left on my talk page. I hope more Wikipedians can work to resolve disputes like what you did. That said, I still propose a map of Mainland China by province or a map of East Asia would be more relevant and NPOV choices that bypass the irrelevant territorial disputes, as User:Boud suggested above, and look forward to a community consensus on this issue. --Jabo-er (talk) 14:53, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

• Replace map Including Taiwan violates NPOV. Ythlev (talk) 15:14, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

• Replace map remove File:2019-nCoV Confirmed Cases Animated Map of China.webm as it is POV (like why does the PRC map also show Taiwan without any explanation?) It also doesn't serve a purpose as the grouping is arbitrary. For statistical purposes, mainland China is represented separately with provincial level number. I prefer having one map of mainland China (divided by provinces) and another map of the standard world/territories with numbers in each.--DreamLinker (talk) 05:05, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

• The problem is: Mainland China + HK + Macau + TW all claims to be China themselves, and all countries (including the UN) in the world recognize one of the four as a representative of all the four, which is part of the definition of a sovereign nation in international law. --173.68.165.114 (talk) 10:08, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

• Thats wrong in so many different ways... At this point your contributions are starting to feel more tendentious than here to build an encyclopedia. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 12:12, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

• Would you please point out in which way is that wrong? It is just a routine universal practice applied by the international communities, such as sovereign states, international organizations, etc. --173.68.165.114 (talk) 12:42, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
• Your practice, by separating all provinces of China, sounds also good. But that needs major works to be done. However, separating all provinces sounds a bit China centered, as the only other practice I've found is maps published in the US which separated all US states by treating them equal as sovereign states. --173.68.165.114 (talk) 12:46, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

• Mainland China is relevant as it has the highest cases and is the origin. For the rest, a world map with country/territory is sufficient. On Wikipedia, we follow how major news reports are reporting it (like maps at [1]). The term Greater China is a political term like Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere. It's not useful for defining geographical boundaries.--DreamLinker (talk) 16:38, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

• Mainland China is probably more relevant as long as this is mainly in PRC and Taiwan is de-facto governed separately. But I don't think either way is a big issue, if there is a better map (up to date, graphics) with or without Taiwan with a license, then inclusion or exclusion of Taiwan is a minor issue in relation to the map being up to date. I also suspect a China specific won't be relevant for long as this is spreading world wide and fast.--Eostrix (talk) 08:53, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

• I wonder what the detailed Wikipedia policy about de facto governance: is Northern Cyprus included in a Greater Cyprus map? Is Islamic State drawn differently from Syria? Could you please quote the corresponding Wikipedia policy concerning this issue? --173.68.165.114 (talk) 10:08, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

• I don't know if there is. But even if there is policy for geopolitical issues, I don't think it is relevant for health and epidemics. Viruses don't respect borders. We should be illustrating on a map according to what demonstrates the epidemic best. If Taiwan is part of the epidemic and illustrates the point, it should be in. But the same is true for North or South Korea. Xizang (Tibet) so far has been so far not so affected, so inclusion on the map is not so important. This is about health and people, not politics.--Eostrix (talk) 13:20, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

• Replace with map of East Asia divided down to top-level administrative regions – the underlying locus of this dispute is the political bias that is brought by the choice to use Greater China rather than Mainland China, which could imply endorsement of the PRC's territorial claims over Taiwan. Using a map of East Asia would not require that much of a zoom-out and would retain the benefit of also knowing what's happening in Taiwan. Jancarcu (talk) 20:05, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

• This whole discussion is nonsense. First, if the concern is Taiwan NPOV, then fix the reference map I reached for when creating the visualization on commons instead of hassling people who are contributing to current articles with high levels of effort. Second, it appears there is already a consensus in that design to render Taiwan differently, a difference which is visible on the current version of the animation after the colors were enhanced. Third, the map doesn't say anything about being China, it's just a square-looking area around the epicenter. The frame of reference is the caption, which currently reads "... in China" but did not yesterday. That is a quick fix. prat (talk) 20:41, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

  Can you post the map you used as a reference? Its entirely possible you just started with a bad map. You have to be careful with images on commons as they aren’t required to meet high standards of accuracy or verifiability. On a side note given that the map's title is "2019-nCoV Confirmed Cases Animated Map of China” saying that the only place "being China" is mentioned is in the caption is disingenuous. The description also states "Animated map of confirmed 2019-nCoV cases spreading across China from 2020-01-25.” Wouldn’t you have written both those things yourself? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 20:57, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

  I am sure Dear prat, a long-contributing Wikipedian and an administrator, will understand the discussion here serves the purpose of improving the article in respect of the Neutral Point of View policy. Nothing in the discussion so far is intended to undermine the contribution of you and other fellow Wikipedians either here or on Commons. First, File:China blank province map.svg is not a bad map. It's useful when showing administrative divisions in PRC's point of view with its claimed territories shown differently, but in an article of the epidemic, an NPOV and more relevant approach would be to show a map of Mainland China broken down by province, as "Mainland China" is a statistical unit of the infected cases. Second, it would be helpful if you could provide the link of such a consensus either here or on Commons for us to refer to, as the folks commenting here appear to provide some useful thoughts that can contribute to the consensus. Third, the filename "2019-nCoV Confirmed Cases Animated Map of China" is implicative, so is the fact that it's a square-looking area around the epicenter that excludes many countries. --Jabo-er (talk) 07:27, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

  Replace with map of East Asia divided down to top-level administrative regions Absolutely Agreed. Please also note that all daily statistics released by the Chinese Health commission ( http://www.nhc.gov.cn/xcs/yqtb/list_gzbd.shtm ) also include Taiwan and those Taiwanese figures need to be excised from the China overall total which is released daily at that location. First we need a proper map though. Wikimucker (talk) 09:16, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

• Replace map. Replace with: Mainland China excluding Taiwan; or replace with a map of South-East Asia, including other countries in the region. -Mardus /talk 10:17, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

• Replace map Replace or relabel the map as East Asia. This prevents any unnecessary political rhetoric warring on Wikipedia. Additionally this virus has now spread well beyond China at this point with notable cases in Thailand, Vietnam, etc. Krazytea(talk) 17:23, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

• Replace map with map of mainland China or broader region (i.e. East Asia). There is no such country as "Greater China" and the coupling of Taiwan with the PRC seems to be POV-pushing. Citobun (talk) 00:24, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

• Replace map with map of mainland China as current map does not respect npov (for Taiwan) and is even non-POLA (for colored parts in India claimed by China). Fleet ch (talk) 09:43, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
  • The India part is rendered with lighter colours to show disputed territories. Being widely accepted by the Wikipedia community (see China. India, Ukraine, and Russia), it should be nowhere surprising and doesn't violate WP:POLA. Akira CA (talk) 13:03, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Keep the map with Taiwan. Taiwan is recognized as part of China by the United Nations. And apparently, Wikipedia treated Crimea as part of Ukraine in all maps, despite the fact that Crimea is not under Ukrainian control, as did in the cases of Moldova/Transnistria and Georgia/Abkhazia. We should not have double-standard here. Taekhosong (talk) 00:34, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

• UPDATE. Someone has removed the map. This is ridiculous. I have asked for the commons file to be renamed without the word 'China'. The open source code that generates the map now uses the term 'greater china regions' instead of 'province'. Can we put this political crap to bed now, please. prat (talk) 02:13, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
  • I have removed the 'China' mention in the caption, and in the description on both the GIF and WEBM versions of the media, and restored the animation. prat (talk)

Still has Taiwan as part of the PRC though. If you want to insist on using this map just take Taiwan out and the political crap ends immediately. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 02:36, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree. The reason why a map of PRC should be included is that it has 98.50% of current cases. If Taiwan's 0.11% of world cases should be included, it may as well be a world map.50.237.218.250 (talk) 19:01, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Incorrect. There is currently no mention of the PRC, China or any toponym whatsoever. I have again reverted someone else's caption change to yet again remove the word China. This does not assert anything and is therefore NPOV. prat (talk) 02:52, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

I’m sorry but thats ridiculous, this would be *extremely* confusing to viewers. I note that there is clear consensus to make it a map of East Asia and/or a map of China, this map is neither. What is it a map of? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 05:22, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

You just intentionally side-stepped Pratyeka's argument, with nakedly bad faith that is characteristic of your "discussion" style. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 18:35, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Statue of Chiang Kai-shek on Daqiu in Wuqiu, Kinmen with a map of China

Greater China includes the Outer Mongolia region, hence I have added a mention that the map excludes Mongolia to this page. cf. the picture of Chiang Kai-shek and his map on Wuqiu Island in Kinmen on the Greater China page. Geographyinitiative (talk) 08:53, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Without even mentioning the case of Taiwan, it is, to say the least, "surprising" to see, on this map, coloured regions on the territory of India... It's totally non-npov. Fleet ch (talk) 09:33, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Singapore is considered part of Greater China by some as well, hence it could be a valid candidate for inclusion in this map.

some analysts see the Greater China concept as a way to summarise ‘the linkages among the fair-flung international Chinese community’, thereby incorporating Singapore and overseas Chinese communities in their usage of the term (Harding 1993, 660; also see Wang 1993).[2]

Geographyinitiative (talk) 09:48, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Geographyinitiative Your statement is divorced from reality. Singapore is not considered by any reliable metric a part of the Sinosphere, let alone a part of the geographically contiguous "Greater China" bloc, which strictly refers to territories historically under the fold of the Chinese imperial state and its later republics. If Singapore is a part of the Sinosphere, then so are Malaysia and Indonesia by virtue of having large ethnic Chinese populations. Your insistence on pushing ethnonationalistic agendas on other articles has been a cause for concern with other editors, and this statement of yours does not inspire confidence in your ability to remain an NPOV editor on Wikipedia. Tiger7253 (talk) 19:06, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Replace the map with one of the People's Republic of China, showing the territory they actually control. There is no country called Greater China, and it is incredibly annoying seeing the stupid "disputed" tag on the map for more than a week. If the current map is used, "... in the People's Republic of China, Hong Kong SAR, Macau SAR and Taiwan" is a neutral discription. But an article about a disease is not the place for disputes about the political status of the island of Taiwan, neither is it the place to try to force through terminology that noone uses IRL. Wikipedia is made for its readers, not its editors. And the man on the street will refer to these areas as the PRC, Hong Kong, Macau and Taiwan. Valentinian ^{T / C} 16:11, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

• Keep map, either with caption to state "across Mainland China, Hong Kong, Macau, and Taiwan", or none at all per Pratyeka. The definition of mainland China is not contested anywhere, and its usage is mandated by relevant naming conventions. The issues with South Tibet / Arunachal Pradesh that Fleet ch are tertiary to this discussion. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 18:35, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
  • As this is the current status, there is no need to do anything. I consider this issue resolved. prat (talk) 19:46, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Replace the map This map needs to be replaced. It’s absolutely taking the political position of the PRC, and implies that Taiwan is a province. If this were a political neutral map of “Greater China”, the map should include Singapore and the Republic of China’s administrative divisions, to make it uniform with the PRC’s provinces. Taiwan/ROC does not have provinces, but instead counties and major municipal divisions that should have been included on a non-political map. It needs to be clear that the Chinese government does not and cannot represent the people of Taiwan, like some might assume with this map. Eclipsed830 (talk) 20:40, 30 January 2020 (UTC) — Eclipsed830 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Summary of discussion and actions to date

A concern was raised regarding NPOV because Taiwan was not visually distinct from China in the original map. This has been resolved by changing the map colors. Taiwan is now visually distinct, as with other disputed areas. Subsequently, in addition, the following actions have been taken: remove any mention of China from the caption, remove any mention of China from the file name, remove any mention of China from the file description, rename variables and files in the generating software from 'provinces' to 'greater-china-regions'. This has been a substantial effort. The current situation is that there is no suggestion, implied or otherwise, about Taiwan's relationship to China. The true reason it is included in the current animation is simply that the map I sought on Wikimedia Commons had it included (as with other disputed areas), and that the data source had it included. I am not going to put in any more effort to remove Taiwan, since it would (a) reduce the information conveyed; and (b) waste more time. I consider this discussion concluded. Please close the RFC. prat (talk) 21:45, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Chinese state media propaganda video as content on Wikipedia

In the Confirmed cases > Hong Kong section there is a video file from China News Service titled 'File:香港确诊两宗新型肺炎个案 机场火车站加强体温筛查.webm'. It's enough to take a glance at the lead of the China News Service article to see that it's a PRC state owned media company run by the United Front Work Department of the Chinese Communist Party. Why does Wikipedia relay propaganda content from a media outlet of an authoritarian party? I understand that the Creative Commons license is enticing enough to grab every piece of content from the Internet, but where is the critical approach? This is highly questionable, especially when Wikipedia is very critical about which US news sources it accepts are reliable/trusted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.2.87.212 (talk) 08:27, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

I moved the content because it appeared to be a report about the cases diagnosed in Hong Kong. I don't speak Chinese, and posted a note on the Chinese talk page of this article asking anyone who can to provide captions for the video so that it can be translated and understood by others. My intent was not to propagandize. If the report is not of value, or counter to value, please remove it from the article. I did say the source of the news report in the thumbnail under the video so that it is clear who had produced it. Victor Grigas (talk) 13:12, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Putting this upfront: I understand, read and write Chinese, as a byproduct of the education policies of Singapore. I am a Singapore citizen and have no affiliations to China. I have watched the video. The content is purely a news piece on how populace in Hong Kong is dealing with the onset of the virus in the society: More people are putting masks on; Station crew disinfecting the areas where a suspected infected was moving about; Measures which authorities have adopted to detect suspected cases, i.e. temperature screening at arrivals; People comparing this to SARS and previous epidemics, and them saying that lessons learned will be apply for this event; Some also expressed confidence in the Hong Kong government in the dealing of this matter; How masks are being sold out at pharmacies and where there are stocks, there is a markup of prices with about HKD30 increase in the prices for masks. If there are propaganda in here, I would say that it is simply portraying how optimistic the Hong Kong residents are at this early stage of epidemic (in the Hong Kong society) in dealing with the virus. robertsky (talk) 16:21, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

This is exactly what we need: someone who knows the territory. Thanks! kencf0618 (talk) 18:48, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Whether or not this particular video is factual or not doesnt really speak to the larger point that China News Service cant be used as a citation for anything other than the opinion of the Government of China. Its not anywhere near a reliable source. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 08:32, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

There was a reliability discussion about Chinese news sources in general, and there was no consensus that they should or should not be a reliable source. At this point, in my opinion, CNS can be used as a source, but we editors, especially those who can read Chinese, would have to help to see if the article referenced is a factual piece, or a propaganda spin. robertsky (talk) 09:47, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

The question asked there was "Are Chinese state media sources like Global Times, People's Daily, China Daily, Xinhua News Agency, China Central Television or China Global Television Network reliable sources on the Chinese government perspective?” which is a lower standard than general reliability. There is consensus Chinese sources are unreliable because they have no editorial independence and therefore cant ever be WP:RS, if you think you can make an argument for China News Service having editorial independence go ahead and make it. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 11:21, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

And where states the consensus? robertsky (talk) 06:41, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

There is no requirement that I provide anything of the sort, you however are required to demonstrate that China News Service is a WP:RS if you want to include it as proposed. As I said before good luck establishing editorial independence as required by Wikipedia:Verifiability. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 13:04, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Conversely, you provided no proof of consensus. I am merely interested in the prior discussion(s), if any.robertsky (talk) 02:08, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes and I’m trying to tell you how these conversations all end rather than searching for a hundred different conversations all over wikipedia, establishing editorial independence is the massive stumbling block they all come to. Generally a local consenus is made to simply find WP:RS for the information (generally not too hard) or to limit Chinese state media to attributed statements about the government (for instance information about a new law). Perhaps in this case information about government actions vis-a-vis the virus should be permitted but not the random interviews. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 03:53, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

As WP:QUESTIONABLE states, those sources suspected of such can still have limited use, despite them being potentially biased or partisan. If the source discussed here satisfies Verifiability, as Chinese-literate editors have attested above, the use of it to cite an innocuous fact falls within those guidelines. To clarify, the only sources that will be subject to blanket editorial prohibitions are those discussed in the RfC on deprecation or on the spam blacklists. With others, guidelines follow WP:RSP on applicability. Sleath56 (talk) 17:25, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

robertsky has *not* attested that the source satisfies WP:VERIFY although they have argued in favor of using the source. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 22:43, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

My position is clear. The source can be used. I do not get the argument that because it is owned by the Chinese government, it is not reliable. By that logic, most, if not all of the Singapore media being used as sources should be subjected to the same position, but we have been using them throughout Wikipedia. Why the discrepancy? Because the Chinese media is in Chinese while most of the Singapore publications are in English and editors can't understand the Chinese articles? robertsky (talk) 08:16, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

The logic has little to do with the state owned part, outlets such as the BBC are WP:RS. The difference is the state media of Singapore has a reputation for fact checking and some degree of independence. Media in China doesn't have either and is regular used to spread misinformation and propaganda. Seriously, just peruse Media in China, Propaganda in China, and United Front Work Department (the group directly in control of the media company in question here) and see if you can see were all these other editors are coming from. I am also correct that you have yet to attest that CNS satisfies WP:VERIFY’s very specific criteria, your position is currently based entirely on personal opinion rather than policy or guidelines. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 08:34, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

I also note that yes in some situations using a Mediacorp owned paper for an objective take on a controversial Singaporean topic might not be appropriate. For a good general metric of how much undue state influence there is in a country’s media landscape check the Press Freedom Index which Singapore scores reasonable poorly on but on which China scores much much worse. Above only Eritrea, North Korea, and Turkmenistan in fact. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 08:47, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Idea: Deaths chart?

Todays update has shown this disease is, unfortunately, likely not slowing down. A death chart would be a decent way to measure deaths and a quick glance of rough mortality rate by day.--Colin dm (talk) 01:54, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

• I'd say hold off until if/when the disease becomes more global. Right now, the only deaths occurring are in China. Aqua817 (talk) 06:08, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

• I'd like to see deaths graphed by age to see if it continues to be the elderly primarily affected. http://www.scmp.com/news/china/society/article/3047399/wuhan-virus-killing-mostly-elderly-those-previous-health

Good idea, but warn readers not to draw a conclusion from cumulative deaths / cases during rapid growth phase. There's a lag in case progression. Elsewhere 2-3% is quoted, but of the first 41 confirmed cases, 15% died. Deaths are currently running at over 15% of # confirmed cases 5 days earlier. 14-15% was also the SaRS fatality rate per WHO (from the most reliable data, i.e. longitudinal survival analysis of identified patients).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wmcdonnell (talk • contribs) 19:49, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

It's worse if you take a look at the recoveries data. This comes from the same sources as the fatalities data. That's 187 recovered and 213 died. This gives a death rate of 212/(213+187) = 53%. These numbers are beginning to be a statistically meaningful sample. Mike Young (talk) 14:44, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 January 2020 : May I add this plot

Log-linear plot of confirmed cases and deaths to 27 January with linear fits.

Strongly suggest epidemic remains in exponential growth.

The "deaths" line looks as if it could be better fitted by a curve. Mike Young (talk) 18:12, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Logarithm plot of confirmed cases and deaths indicates the epidemic is in an exponential phase.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Galerita (talk • contribs) 03:39, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Galerita (talk) 03:42, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Can we also add a note to the graph caption that confirmed cases almost double every two days?--وسام زقوت (talk) 11:32, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Is this slipping into WP:OR? Have reliable sources interpreted the data in this manner? Bondegezou (talk) 17:15, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Do we have any information that suggest that the amount of tests is not the cause of this ? 67.68.202.134 (talk) 19:53, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Further to the note request of this graph for:'cases doubling every two days', would it would be relevant and much more clear to simply toggle the graph for a user to view both STANDARD plot and LOG LINEAR axis plot? On initial viewing, it is difficult to grasp the exponential growth of this, and your average viewer will appreciate this RAW, extreme growth curve, and I think this is the reason for this section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TeeCeeNT (talk • contribs) 02:44, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. A standard plot is much more readable to the target audience than a log plot. The log plot does not convey the growth rate to the average reader. --92.195.229.216 (talk) 13:39, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Disagree I think this by far the most helpful plot I have seen on the progress of the disease. If you don't use a log graph you can't read any data except the last couple of the largest data set. Mike Young (talk) 14:37, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Suspected cases - somewhat misleading

I think that the term suspected cases is somewhat misleading. For instance, Sweden has had suspected cases, but all suspected cases have been found negative. According to the National health authority in Sweden, a test is analysed within five hours. So to put Sweden permanetely as a place with suspected cases is misleading since our vigilance is high.

Or to put it differently. There ought to be a table of confirmed cases per nation. It could have (perhaps later) a column with last date of confirmed case.

Another table could be over nations where suspected cases have been reported and the date for the report. As long as there are no confirmed cases, the country could remain in the list.

213.67.241.199 (talk) 12:11, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't think we should include "suspected cases" at all given the paucity of accurate information and expert consensus on any such numbers. We should stick to confirmed cases only, IMO. Global Cerebral Ischemia (talk) 16:25, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree, it is essentially meaningless information and any attempt to collate the information will be incomplete and flawed, which strays into original research. If the WHO get involved and start publishing such information globally then it would be worth considering. |→ Spaully ^~talk~  21:35, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Please consider removing the reference to a "mortality rate" of less than 5% from the end of the section on Epidemiology : just imagine the expectations of some person just confirmed infected, then confronted with some "bad" estimate like that of 63,85 % given above in this discussion. Or add some hint to the bias - giving a much too optimistic impression here - inherent in fatality rate numbers during an expanding epidemy, as alluded to by https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Case_fatality_rate . Hal19 (talk) 12:19, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 January 2020

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived.

Suspected case in Denmark: https://www.bt.dk/samfund/dansk-patient-undersoeges-for-coronavirus-havde-vaeret-i-udbruddets-epicenter 188.228.48.155 (talk) 18:05, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: false positive Goldsztajn (talk) 21:43, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Fatality Rate

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived.

The way we currently calculate fatality rate is very wrong. We are using current death to the confirmed case count. Confirmed case aren't in same state of progress, somes of them could be infected since 1 day, other since 20 days.

Fatality rate should be calculated from people dead vs (dead+Recovered) but this would also give bad rate (63,85 % Fatality Rate for 106 / 166.). Actually, fatality rate can only be calculated if we have a good way to be sure of the total quantity of infected and quantity of death wich we can't have.

I suggest Fatality rate to be removed untill the epidemy is ended. --Eric1212 (talk) 18:41, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Agree with removing the "Fatality %" column from the cases chart. It's too early to get a reasonable estimate by doing simple division. However, I would support including estimates of the fatality rate in the article that have prepared by professional researchers, the WHO, etc. who are looking at this more closely. Professionals can plausibly have enough details about case progression to make useful estimates of the mortality rate. Dragons flight (talk) 18:55, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Agree with Dragons flight. Tezakhiago (talk) 19:38, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

I removed it from the template. The true fatality rate will take a long time to emerge, and the method being used in the table is flawed and borderline OR --Charsum (talk) 19:41, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Not "borderline" completly OR. Fatality rates need to be calculated with the total cases, not only the CONFIRMED cases, based of severe symptoms and whether or not you come from Wuhan. There is still no evidence to even say that the fatality rate is any different from other coronavirus. 67.68.202.134 (talk) 19:51, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Agree with Charsum. The suspected fatality rate must be stated (we cannot claim there is no fatality rate) but very discrete as of now, since it is really not reliable with only one-month-old epidemic and the bulk of cases still in hospital. And there is no reason to showcast it all around in table for each country. Yug (talk) 08:31, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Agree, we can't calculate it from the numbers of infections and deaths, at least not in today's situation. Removed from the body also. Adoring nanny (talk) 02:19, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Overlap with Virus Article

I'm merging content from the virus article. See talk page. Moksha88 (talk) 03:15, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Moksha88:, I tried my best yesterday to revamp the article. Sections were a mess, with duplicated informations, 3 sections were overlapping each other in this main article alone. It's better now, but we must keep things tidy. Yes, there is duplication as well between 2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak and Novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) (virus). Notably the "Background > Genetics, reservoir, ..." and the "Charateristics" sections. These section must be in 2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak, but stay SHORT. Hidden comments should direct editors to rather edit Novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) (virus). This kind of thing. New editors need some clear hint so the needed clean up / tidy up is intuitive. I revamped the current sections, added {main|Novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV)}, but better hints can be added done. Yug (talk) 08:55, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Yug Excellent, thank you. It does look better. Moksha88 (talk) 03:34, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Ok sure. Could I have a look at the poor references, so I know your expectations? Wuhan2019 (talk) 09:51, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Wuhan2019 and Moksha88: to be more explicit, "Background > Genetics, reservoir, ..." and the "Charateristics" sections can be in both articles. BUT!

• In 2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak it must but stay SHORT, a summary pointing to...
• Novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) (virus) where people can edit, add extensive and detailed contents.

The current situation is kind of fine. People with content and sources hould be directed to the later article (virus). Yug (talk) 13:42, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

PS: Wuhan2019... given your name.... I hesitated a LOT before to talk to you ! XD Yug (talk) 13:43, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Alternative to the bar graph of confirmed cases

This was a barplot [replaced with line plot below] of data downloaded from the JHU page that might be preferred in place of the orange-colored horizontal barplot. It excludes Taiwan and Hong Kong (I could include them, whatever. I think there's some opposition to including Taiwan with mainland China). The orange chart includes Taiwan, hard to tell, there's no description and it hasn't been uploaded to wikimedia in the usual way. I think repeating exact numbers in tables isn't necessary. A line graph might be better, like on the right side of the JHU page. I could do that also. JuanTamad (talk) 04:25, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

• Confirmed cases have already topped 6,000, making the chart obsolete. Not to mention if we're including total infections it's worth it to include every country. Aqua817 (talk) 05:40, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
• Two thoughts, one on chart type, one one data. On chart type, I think that the current vertically oriented graph is counter-intuitive and very non-standard. Your column chart is an improvement. A line chart would probably be best, as this is a time series. On the data, I think following the JHU approach of "Mainland China" and "Other Locations" is good. Charting the total of all cases might even be better. Chris vLS (talk) 08:10, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
  • We would also need to endeavor to keep it up to date daily... perhaps we could load a common file for generating the chart every day as data are available. Chris vLS (talk) 08:12, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
  • The JHU do keep it up to date. The current bar chart also includes a problematic projection as well as claims on Taiwan, the NHC data includes Taiwan , eg todays version > http://www.nhc.gov.cn/xcs/yqtb/202001/1c259a68d81d40abb939a0781c1fe237.shtml (use Google Translate) Wikimucker

Confirmed cases 2019-nCoV acute respiratory disease for mainland China and Taiwan and rest of the world (ROW).

I can update this line plot at noon China time everyday since I’m in Thailand. By the next morning in Europe and the Americas it will be showing that day’s date. This is mainland China and Taiwan from the same source as the JHU, a Chinese news site. The numbers for the rest of the world are still so low it almost work on the same plot. A more complex plot is going to difficult to maintain daily. It going to become obsolete at some point anyway.JuanTamad (talk) 10:01, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

The horizontal chart had some projections on it that must have been original research (WP:NOV), but looks like they’re gone.JuanTamad (talk) 10:01, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Looks great! I think that having a graph of the total for all countries is ideal because 1) no politics, 2) is important. Doesn't hurt anything right now, because the numbers are so close, but that may change. A minor style point... I think your graph would look even better if it didn't have the minor gridlines. They don't help much and when the graph is small, they detract from its looks. Let me know if you ever need to skip some days an need someone to cover for you updating it! Thanks! Chris vLS (talk) 16:43, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

If you include other countries in the same line, you can't see them (if that's what you meant), the number is such a small fraction of those in China. This is like the JHU graph, showing other countries in a separate line. The minor gridlines are removed. I do this in R. If you know how to regenerate a graph in R after adding the additional data, you could also update. The information from the Chinese government is available here, so can use this data rather than the news websites. JuanTamad (talk) 03:37, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

SO now will have to propose replacing the horizontal thing.JuanTamad (talk) 03:44, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Ok.Could you give me an example of a link that you are not satisfied with, then give me another link that you are satisfied with,so I know your expectations and can provide good links. Thank you! Wuhan2019 (talk) 11:09, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Recoveries

Should we put back the recoveries column? Wuhan2019 (talk) 10:21, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

That would really help Mike Young (talk) 12:20, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

I totally agree with Mike Young! Thank you for the feedback Wuhan2019 :) FranciscoMMartins (talk) 14:24, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Before this was removed I looked at the references used and they were few and of poor quality. This meant adding them up was too much Original Research for a WP article. I suggest this is not added back until this comes from a more reliable source covering all the countries, such as the WHO if and when they get more involved. |→ Spaully ^~talk~  21:29, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

International case : Finland

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived.

Please move section and report about new international cases to 2019–20_Wuhan_coronavirus_outbreak_by_country_and_territory (talk, {template}). Yug (talk) 13:10, 31 January 2020 (UTC) A coronavirus case was detected in Rovaniemi, Finland: https://yle.fi/uutiset/3-11181717 MaxPlays (talk) 15:32, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Here is a source in English: https://yle.fi/uutiset/osasto/news/finlands_first_coronavirus_case_confirmed_in_lapland/11182855 — Preceding unsigned comment added by HHTT1 (talk • contribs) 15:37, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

It's been added --Colin dm (talk) 16:43, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Yeah that Confirmed cases and Death header at the top of the template missing, but if you try to edit it it's there, so i guess there's some bug causing it, hope can solve it Nickayane99 (talk) 23:15, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

bunny suit??

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived.

surely the doctor is wearing a Hazmat suit to deal with a medical hazard and NOT a bunny suit made for keeping dust out of electronics? Can someone verify and correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.115.204.102 (talk) 18:02, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

The terms are synonymous. kencf0618 (talk) 05:01, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

A bunny suit is a cleanroom suit. A cleanroom suit is not the same as a hazmat suit. Please adjust wording for clarification. --92.195.229.216 (talk) 13:35, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

When you follow your own link to bunny suit it goes to a differentiation page with both clean room and NBC suits, the latter of which would be used in this situation. 50.237.218.250 (talk) 19:36, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm wondering now what the Chinese calls theirs. And what's with the teal...? kencf0618 (talk) 12:17, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

This map

https://gisanddata.maps.arcgis.com/apps/opsdashboard/index.html#/bda7594740fd40299423467b48e9ecf6 Nickayane99 (talk) 18:24, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

wuhan-seafood-market-may-not-be-source

Thinking about how to incorporate this into the article. https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/01/wuhan-seafood-market-may-not-be-source-novel-virus-spreading-globally The history section is already presuming the market and animals was the source, while this article says otherwise. Quote:

... the first human infections must have occurred in November 2019—if not earlier—because there is an incubation time between infection and symptoms surfacing. If so, the virus possibly spread silently between people in Wuhan—and perhaps elsewhere—before the cluster of cases from the city’s now-infamous Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market was discovered in late December. “The virus came into that marketplace before it came out of that marketplace,” Lucey asserts.

What do you think? Take a knife to current assertions that it was animal and market started? Or at least tone down significantly?   Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 22:08, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

It's not contradicting, it's just stating there was transmission before we grabbed the current early node at the sea market. Yug (talk) 23:08, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

---

I suggest to add a sentence about the statement from Daniel R. Lucey, an infectious disease specialist at Georgetown University. About a significant finding. About the first human infections must have occurred in November 2019 and maybe earlier. How about the draft paragraph below? With notable source.

Sources

Francewhoa (talk) 23:32, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

---

As noted above the article calls into the question of animal spread. I removed references to animal spread. I'm not sure the article should add speculative sources that are called into the question be a notable article. Some question the deletion saying the article above is ambiguous. I don't know what is ambiguous about it. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 00:59, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

The article title includes the caveat "may not be", yet on that basis alone you saw fit to remove a large, well-cited section of the article, without waiting for consensus here to do so, and when reverted, to edit war to remove it again. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:17, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Reporting something wrong with template.

Hi just reporting that Template of the 2019 coronavirus, in Geographic distribution section of the article is missing Confirmed cases and Death header at the top of the template.BigRed606 (talk) 22:36, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

BigRed606, can you tell us more ? are you on mobile ? Can you put a screenshot somewhere online and share the link ? Yug (talk) 23:05, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

• https://share.icloud.com/photos/06Bu7NCDBlfwAdKpicGbFudbQ BigRed606 (talk) 23:19, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
• https://share.icloud.com/photos/0neZ-Zh73mLX-9LwQlwvhv3vgBigRed606 (talk) 23:22, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
• Compared to Template:2019-20 Wuhan coronavirus data/World https://share.icloud.com/photos/0pAr8gzpbZFrQ3-TPw2ytFyxwBigRed606 (talk) 23:27, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Oh snap ! Can someone debug that {{2019-20 Wuhan coronavirus data/World}} wikitable ?? It's 1 am here I go to bed. Thank you BigRed606 ! Yug (talk) 23:30, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

I have removed a class which doesn't display in mobile because navboxes are omitted there.[3] PrimeHunter (talk) 02:04, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Found a great website that keep tracking about coronavirus death and infected cases

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived.

bnonews.com > Tracking coronavirus: Map, data and timeline Nickayane99 (talk) 23:06, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Oh god, this is a nice catch. I report it to the team working to keep this data up to date on {{2019-20 Wuhan coronavirus data/World}}. Thank you Nickayane99 ! Yug (talk) 23:13, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 January 2020

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived.

Data from total infected chart is not possible. Thailand has 1,000+ China has 7,000+ but the total written is only 7,792 76.78.225.140 (talk) 01:51, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Please supply a reliable source for the Thailand number you suggest. The table says 14. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:04, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

I suspect vandalism by 75.140.174.50. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:11, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Thailand?

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived.

Uhh can someone confirm the 1800+ cases in Thailand that someone put, or if that's just a troll. Thanks. SushiGod (talk) 01:52, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Troll news. Should we event archive such section ??? I'am in favor of deletion. Yug (talk) 13:28, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Transmission of pathogens from human to human

I would add the sub-subject above, and possible cause of infection from bat to human with references. I could understand why some Chinese people eating bats and live mouse as per the goals of medicinal and aphrodisiac benefits. However, I believe that now it's time to ask them to consider to stop eating the natural reservoirs of many types of pathogens - especially live mouse or bat which is currently confirmed pathogens of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) and Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS). Goodtiming8871 (talk) 02:11, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Please refer to the draft below and let us know your feedback
Please also note that eating habits of wildlife are still common in some countries. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 13:26, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

There are also concerns about potential infection case due to some countries people's eating habits of wildlife including bats as per the goals of medicinal and aphrodisiac benefits.

Intro animated gif wasn't updating for me

Was it updating for you? Tried on two different browsers. Replaced with another image that was updated. Feel free to revert if you don't like it, or discuss further.   Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 02:17, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Does someone can clarify this bug ?? Otherwise we close this section. Yug (talk) 13:23, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Just uploaded this from the CDC if it's useful

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived.

Symptoms

Victor Grigas (talk) 02:47, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Please add it to the main article as it is useful info Goodtiming8871 (talk) 03:21, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

I disagree; images of text are not, generally, useful; and country-specific resources for an international epidemic, likewise. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:20, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Differences between fatality rate in epicentre City of Wuhan and overall fatality rate in China

According to the official figures released by the Health Commission of Hubei, as of 23:59, 29 Jan, the fatality rate of City Wuhan stood at 129/2261 ≈ 5.7% while the overall fatality rate of China is about 2.2%. This discrepancy, Jiang Rongmeng, an expert from National Health Commission, alluded during a live interview on CCTV-13 (see the footage at local time 10:30:50, CCTV-13 is the state run live news channel) on 30 Jan, might be due to mishandling of the outbreak initially by the local hospitals. He said "there was room for improvement" which implies Wuhan medical staff should have used better methods to contain the virus at early stages. Swoopin swallow (talk) 06:09, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

References

@Swoopin swallow: The spreading is still fresh. So each region (Wuhan > Hubei > China > Abroad) and their cases are at different stage of the epidemic and disease. Also, people abroad are active international travelers, likely in their 30-60, which are not the people dying of this coronavirus (the +65 and sicks are). So all is quite as expected so far. Yug (talk) 12:10, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

The reported death rate is considerably less in the rest of China than in Hubei province. Hubei has 116 recovered and 204 died. This gives a death rate of 204/(204+116) = 64%. The rest of China has a 63 recovered and 9 died for a death rate of 9/(63+9)= 12.5%. Both of these numbers are beginning to be statistically meaningful samples. Can anyone find a reliable source that discusses this discrepancy and suggest reasons for it? I can speculate that those outside Hubei are well monitored and the death rate is more accurate, but that’s just my idea. Mike Young (talk) 14:24, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

In order to preparation to GA nominee, semi-protected pages need to time expand

Hello folks, it is so interested to read to outbreak. IMO, this article is eligible to nominate as GA nominee. Yet in order to preparation of this article to GA nominee, semi-protected pages needs to indefinitely until the cases is ended. It is urgent because when semi-protected was expired on 3rd February, many IP users edited it again to featuring rumours, hoaxes, etc, like India CAA protest about the outbreak and this is also the medical article that needs a indefinite semi-protected. Chinese and French wikis have indefinite semi-protected to they version of the article, at least until the outbreak ended. Why English is not get a indefinite semi-protected for this article like articles of 2011 Tohoku Earthquake and Tsunami and Indian Ocean tsunami of 2004? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 36.76.226.238 (talk) 10:24, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

I guess we will cross that bridge when the protection expires. If there are anon edits made in bad faith then, admins can always extend the protection then, hopefully longer or indefinitely. robertsky (talk) 10:39, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

At this point, the main focus of this article needs to be recording information of this emerging situation. We can focus on GA nominations and the like after the end of the viral outbreak. Aqua817 (talk) 19:35, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Hoax and Misinformation

As there is increasing evidence of malicious actors and internet trolls spreading fake news and misinformation across countries about the coronavirus to induce panic or agenda-pushing, an expansive amount of RS have reported such occurrences. With that, it satisfies my reservations on WP:NOTADVOCACY to begin a section on "#Spread of misinformation on social media". While it does not necessarily fit under "#Reactions to prevention effort", I don't feel it appropriately deserves its own top level section as of yet. However, I am open to suggestions on its placement nonetheless. Sleath56 (talk) 17:34, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

There are always those that are after clicks and use click bait titles and other misinformation on trending events. This event is no different. I'd rather this article not have a section on false sensational articles to attract advertisement revenue. Would likely play into the hands of the trolls. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 22:24, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

The citations as provided on the subject are all secondary RS. Sleath56 (talk) 23:38, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

References

New templates : {{2019-20_Wuhan_coronavirus_data/China}}

 Closed

Cases of 2019-nCoV in mainland China by provincial division ()

Type	Last Updated	South Central						East							North					Northeast			Southwest					Northwest
		Hubei	Hunan	Henan	Guangdong	Guangxi	Hainan	Shanghai	Zhejiang	Jiangsu	Shandong	Anhui	Jiangxi	Fujian	Beijing	Tianjin	Hebei	Shanxi	Inner Mongolia	Heilongjiang	Jilin	Liaoning	Chongqing	Sichuan	Yunnan	Guizhou	Tibet	Shaanxi	Gansu	Ningxia	Xinjiang	Qinghai	Imported	National
Current active	2020/06/29	0	0	0	4	0	0	26	1	1	0	0	0	5	317	1	10	0	0	0	0	6	3	12	0	0	0	10	21	0	0	0		418
Daily confirmed	2020/04/05				8			5	1		1				1				1	20				1									38	39
Daily deaths	2020/04/05	2																																2
Total confirmed		68135	1019	1276	1637	254	168	536	1264	651	780	990	937	350	587	180	327	138	118	524	98	142	579	559	184	147	1	256	139	75	76	18	951	81,708
Total recovery		63623	1015	1254	1625	252	162	383	1230	633	755	984	935	305	443	144	310	133	74	469	92	128	570	540	172	144	1	246	132	75	73	18	258	77,078
Total deaths	2020/06/29	4512	4	22	8	2	6	6	1	0	7	6	1	1	8	3	6	0	1	13	1	2	6	3	2	2	0	3	2	0	3	0		3,331
Population		59M	69M	96M	112M	49M	10M	24M	57M	80M	100M	63M	46M	39M	22M	16M	75M	37M	25M	38M	27M	44M	30M	83M	48M	36M	3M	38M	26M	7M	25M	6M		1.4B
Provincial Sources

New Confirmed Cases of COVID-19 in Mainland China by Province-Level Divisions ()

Date (CST)	South Central						East							North					Northeast			Southwest					Northwest									Additional Sources
	Hubei	Hunan	Henan	Guangdong	Guangxi	Hainan	Shanghai	Zhejiang	Jiangsu	Shandong	Anhui	Jiangxi	Fujian	Beijing	Tianjin	Hebei	Shanxi	Inner Mongolia	Heilongjiang	Jilin	Liaoning	Chongqing	Sichuan	Yunnan	Guizhou	Tibet	Shaanxi	Gansu	Ningxia	Xinjiang	Qinghai	National (confirmed)	Excluding Hubei	Wuhan, Hubei	Hubei: outside Wuhan
2020/01/11	41																															41		41
2020/01/12
2020/01/13
2020/01/14
2020/01/15
2020/01/16	4																															4		4
2020/01/17	17																															17		17
2020/01/18	59																															59		59
2020/01/19	77			1																												78	1	77
2020/01/20	72			13			2							5																		92	20	60	12
2020/01/21	105	1	1	12			7	5		1		2		5	2							5	2	1								149	44	105	0
2020/01/22	69	8	4	6	2	4	7	5	1	5	1	1	1	4	2	1	1			1	2	4	3		3		3		1			131	62	62	7
2020/01/23	105	15	4	21	11	4	4	33	8	3	14	4	4	12	1	1		1	4	2	2	18	10	1			2	2	1	2		259	154	70	35
2020/01/24	180	19	23	25	10	2	13	19	9	12	24	11	5	10	3	6	5	1	5	1	8	30	13	3	1		10	2	1	1		457	264	77	103
2020/01/25	323	26	51	20	10	12	7	42	13	18	21	18	19	15	2	5	3	5	6		5	18	16	6	1		7	3	1	1	1	688	365	46	277
2020/01/26	371	31	45	48	13	9	13	24	16	24	10	12	27	17	4	5	4	4	6	2	5	35	25	8	2		13	7	3	1	3	769	398	80	291
2020/01/27	1,291	43	40	42	5	7	13	45	23	24	36	24	17	12	9	15	7	2	9	2	5	22	21	7	2		11	5	4	5	2	1,771	480	892	399
2020/01/28	840	78	38	53	7	5	14	123	29	34	46	37	9	11	1	15	7	2	7	1	9	15	18	25			10	5	1	3		1,459	619	315	525
2020/01/29	1,032	56	72	70	20	3	21	132	30	24	48	53	19	20	3	17	8	3	6	5	3	18	34	19	3	1	7	2	5	1		1,736	704	356	676
2020/01/30	1,220	55	74	82	9	3	27	109	39	33	37	78	19	21	5	17	4	2	16		4	41	36	10	3		24	3	4	3	2	1,979	759	378	842
2020/01/31	1,347	67	70	127	13	8	41	62	34	28	60	46	24	24	5	14	8	3	21	3	20	41	30	11	14		14	6	5	1	1	2,101	754	576	771
2020/02/01	1,921	64	71	84	11	6	8	62	34	19	43	47	15	27	8	8	9	4	15	6	1	15	23	8	9		15	5	2	2	2	2,586	665	894	1,027
2020/02/02	2,103	58	73	79	16	8	26	63	35	34	68	58	20	29	11	9	10	7	26	8	9	50	23	15	8		12	11	3	4	2	2,827	724	1,033	1,070
2020/02/03	2,345	72	109	114	12	7	5	105	37	11	72	85	15	16	4	13	8	1	34	11	1	25	28	3	10		14	4	3	5	2	3,234	889	1,242	1,103
2020/02/04	3,156	68	89	73	11	11	25	66	33	28	50	72	11	25	9	9	7	7	35	12	7	29	19	5	8		23	2		3	2	3,887	731	1,967	1,189
2020/02/05	2,987	50	87	74	18	11	21	59	32	45	61	52	10	21	2	22	9	4	37	5	8	23	20	6	5		8	5	6	4	1	3,694	707	1,766	1,221
2020/02/06	2,447	61	63	74	4	11	15	52	35	36	74	61	9	23	10	14	6	4	36	6	5	22	23	7	6		11	5	3	3		3,129	682	1,501	946
2020/02/07	2,841	31	66	57	11	11	12	42	31	28	68	37	15	18	2	24	7	2	18	4	5	15	19	3	12		11	4	1	3		3,395	554	1,985	856
2020/02/08	2,060	35	53	45	12	6	11	15	29	28	46	41	11	11	2	11	12	2	26	9	6	20	23	2	9		13	8	1	3		2,567	507	1,378	682
2020/02/09	2,618	41	40	31	15	8	3	29	24	24	51	33	11	11	3	12	4	4	24	2	2	22	19	1	13		5	4	4	4		3,051	431	1,921	697
2020/02/10	2,097	33	32	26	5	6	7	25	23	27	30	32	6	5	7	21	3		29	1	1	18	12	8	18		6	3	4	6		2,478	381	1,552	545
2020/02/11	1,638	34	30	42	7	3	4	14	28	11	29	40	5	10	11	12	2	2	18	2	8	19	19	5	13		6		5	4		2,015	377	1,104	534
2020/02/12	1,508 12,289	22	34	22		12	7	14	27	9	21	28	7	14	6	14	2	1	17	1	2	13	15	1	4		4	1	6	4		1,820 14,109	312	1,072 11,451	436 838
2020/02/13	1,728 3,095	20	15	20	4		5	10	23	13	24	28	2	6	7	18		4	23	2	1	11	12	7	5		1	3	3	2		1,995 5,090	266	1,330 2,580	398 515
2020/02/14	1,282 1,138	13	28	33	9	5	8	7	11	11	16	12	4	3	1	8	1	3	7	2	2	8	7	6	3		2		3	5		1,503 2,640	220	1,001 922	281 216
2020/02/15	955 888	3	19	22	2		2	5	13	7	12	12	2	5	2	9	1	2	20	1	1	7	11	1	1		4			1		1,121 2,009	166	1,548	295
2020/02/16	1,933	2	15	6	1		3	4	9	4	11	5	3	1	2	1	1	2	12		1	7	14		2		4			4		2,048	115	1,690	243
2020/02/17	1,807	1	11	6	4	1	2	1	3	2	9	3	2	6	1	1	1	1	7			2	13	1				1		1		1,886	79	1,600	207
2020/02/18	1,693	1	5	3	2			1	2	1	4	1	1	6	3	4	1	2	6	1		2	6	1			2		1			1,749	56	1,660	33
2020/02/19	775	2	4	1	1	5		2		2	1	1		2	2	1			6	1		5	6	(-1)			3					673	45	615	160
2020/02/20	631	1	2	1	1		1	28		202	1			1	1	1			3			7	5	2								889	258	319	312
2020/02/21	366	2	3	6	3			2		2	1			3	2	1						5	1									397	31	314	52
2020/02/22	630	3	1	3			1			4					2	2			1			1										648	18	541	89
2020/02/23	398			3	2					1										2		2	1									409	11	348	50
2020/02/24	499			2	1								1	1			1					1	2									508	9	464	35
2020/02/25	401						1			1						1							2									406	5	370	31
2020/02/26	409	1	1				1						2	10		5							3						1			433	24	383	26
2020/02/27	318			1							1				1	1	1						4									327	9	313	5
2020/02/28	423	1		1										1															1			427	7	420	3
2020/02/29	570													2							1											573	3	565	5
2020/03/01	196			1				1		2				1															1			202	6	193	3
2020/03/02	114						1	7													3											125	11	111	3
2020/03/03	115													3															1			119	4	114	1
2020/03/04	134							2						1					1				1									134	5	134	3
2020/03/05	126			1			1							4														11				143	17	126	0
2020/03/06	74			1			3							4														17				99	25	74	0
2020/03/07	41													2														1				44	3	41	0
2020/03/08	36																											4				40	4	36	0
2020/03/09	17			1										1																		19	2	17	0
2020/03/10	13						2			1				6														1				24	11	13	0
2020/03/11	8		1	3																								2				15	7	8	0
2020/03/12	5						2							1																		8	3	5	0
2020/03/13	4						4							1														2				11	7	4	0
Total	67707	1018	1276	1352	252	168	342	1203	631	757	990	934	296	428	141	318	133	75	481	93	127	576	539	172	155	1	246	120	75	76	18	80813	12989	49,912	17,795
Date (CST)	Hubei	Hunan	Henan	Guangdong	Guangxi	Hainan	Shanghai	Zhejiang	Jiangsu	Shandong	Anhui	Jiangxi	Fujian	Beijing	Tianjin	Hebei	Shanxi	Inner Mongolia	Heilongjiang	Jilin	Liaoning	Chongqing	Sichuan	Yunnan	Guizhou	Tibet	Shaanxi	Gansu	Ningxia	Xinjiang	Qinghai	National (confirmed)	Excluding Hubei	Wuhan, Hubei	Hubei: outside Wuhan	Additional Sources
	South Central						East							North					Northeast			Southwest					Northwest
Provincial Sources
Notes: ^ The sum of the numbers may differ with the total mainland number, because not all province-level divisions report by the interval of 00:00-24:00. ^ When a cell contains two rows of numbers, the upper number is the number of cases confirmed with nucleic acid testing, and the lower number is that of clinical diagnosis per medical imaging features, as specified in the fifth pilot version of the national diagnostic guideline. Clinical diagnosis was used in Hubei exclusively during 12-18 Feb. This table keeps the two distinct for consistency; the sum of the two categories yields the reported total of Hubei. ^ On occasions, a number does not match the source for the day because cases were subtracted after verification the next day. An example is the 12 Feb data for Hubei (clinical), from which 1,043 cases were subtracted the next day. Hubei also subtracted 195 cases on 23 Feb for double counting. ^ For 15 Feb, Hubei did not release separate numbers for its city level divisions. ^ For 19 Feb, three provinces (Jiangxi, Henan, Yunnan) made corrections to their prior case counts by recording a reduction of 1 case each. ^ Since 19 Feb, clinical diagnoses have been excluded from the data as the sixth pilot version of the NHC guidelines removed the category. Case information:

New Deaths from COVID-19 in Mainland China by Province-Level Divisions ()

Date (CST)	South-Central							East							North					Northeast			Southwest					Northwest												Additional Sources
	Hubei	Hubei (clinical)	Hunan	Henan	Guangdong	Guangxi	Hainan	Shanghai	Zhejiang	Jiangsu	Shandong	Anhui	Jiangxi	Fujian	Beijing	Tianjin	Hebei	Shanxi	Inner Mongolia	Heilongjiang	Jilin	Liaoning	Chongqing	Sichuan	Yunnan	Guizhou	Tibet	Ningxia	Shaanxi	Gansu	Xinjiang	Qinghai	National (confirmed)	National (inclusive)	Excluding Hubei	Wuhan, Hubei	Wuhan, Hubei (clinical)	Hubei: outside Wuhan	Hubei: outside Wuhan (clinical)
2020/01/11	1																																1			1
2020/01/12
2020/01/13
2020/01/14
2020/01/15	1																																1			1
2020/01/16
2020/01/17
2020/01/18	1																																1			1
2020/01/19
2020/01/20	3																																3			3
2020/01/21	3																																3			3
2020/01/22	8																																8			8
2020/01/23	7																1																8		1	6		1
2020/01/24	15																			1													16		1	15		0
2020/01/25	13			1				1																									15		2	7		6
2020/01/26	24																																24		0	18		6
2020/01/27	24						1								1																		26		2	22		2
2020/01/28	25			1																													26		1	19		6
2020/01/29	37																							1									38		1	25		12
2020/01/30	42																			1													43		1	30		12
2020/01/31	45												1																				46		1	33		12
2020/02/01	45																																45		0	32		13
2020/02/02	56																						1										57		1	41		15
2020/02/03	64																																64		0	48		16
2020/02/04	65																																65		0	49		16
2020/02/05	70															1				1						1							73		3	52		18
2020/02/06	69			1	1		1														1												73		4	64		5
2020/02/07	81			1											1					2										1			86		5	67		14
2020/02/08	81		1	2		1					1	1					1			1													89		8	63		18
2020/02/09	91						1					2	1							1										1			97		6	73		18
2020/02/10	103			1								1			1	1				1													108		5	67		36
2020/02/11	94		1	1																			1										97		3	72		22
2020/02/12	107	27		2	1	1	1				1	1				1	1			1		1							1				119	146	10	82	26	25	1
2020/02/13	116	8		1								1								2			1										113	121	5	80	8	28	0
2020/02/14	139	34		2											1								1										109	143	4	77	30	28	4
2020/02/15	139		1																					2									142		3	110		29
2020/02/16	100			3	2																												105		5	76		24
2020/02/17	93		1	3													1																98		5	72		21
2020/02/18	132				1						1									1						1							136		4	116		16
2020/02/19	108							1			1			1			1								1				1				114		6	88		22
2020/02/20	115								1														1		1								118		3	99		16
2020/02/21	106							1									1														1		109		3	90		16
2020/02/22	96				1																												97		1	82		14
2020/02/23	149						1																										150		1	131		18
2020/02/29	34			1																													35		1	26		8
2020/03/01	42																																42		0	32		10
Total	2,803		4	22	7	2	5	3	1	0	6	6	1	1	8	3	6	0	0	13	1	1	6	3	2	2	0	1	2	0	3	0	2,912
Date (CST)	Hubei	Hubei (clinical)	Hunan	Henan	Guangdong	Guangxi	Hainan	Shanghai	Zhejiang	Jiangsu	Shandong	Anhui	Jiangxi	Fujian	Beijing	Tianjin	Hebei	Shanxi	Inner Mongolia	Heilongjiang	Jilin	Liaoning	Chongqing	Sichuan	Yunnan	Guizhou	Tibet	Ningxia	Shaanxi	Gansu	Xinjiang	Qinghai	National (confirmed)	National (inclusive)	Excluding Hubei	Wuhan, Hubei	Wuhan, Hubei (clinical)	Hubei: outside Wuhan	Hubei: outside Wuhan (clinical)	Additional Sources
	South-Central							East							North					Northeast			Southwest					Northwest
Provincial Sources

New Recoveries from COVID-19 in Mainland China by Province-Level Divisions ()

Date (CST)	South-Central						East							North					Northeast			Southwest					Northwest					National	Additional Sources
	Hubei	Hunan	Henan	Guangdong	Guangxi	Hainan	Shanghai	Zhejiang	Jiangsu	Jiangxi	Anhui	Shandong	Fujian	Beijing	Tianjin	Hebei	Shanxi	Inner Mongolia	Heilongjiang	Jilin	Liaoning	Chongqing	Sichuan	Yunnan	Guizhou	Tibet	Ningxia	Shaanxi	Gansu	Xinjiang	Qinghai
2020/01/11	2																															2
2020/01/12	4																															4
2020/01/13	1																															1
2020/01/14
2020/01/15	5																															5
2020/01/16
2020/01/17	4																															4
2020/01/18	5																															5
2020/01/19	4																															4
2020/01/20
2020/01/21	3																															3
2020/01/22
2020/01/23	3			2																												5
2020/01/24	1						1	1	1					1																		5
2020/01/25	10													1																		11
2020/01/26	2																															2
2020/01/27	3		1	2			2			1																						9
2020/01/28	33			1	2		1	2		2				2																		43
2020/01/29	10			1		1	1	1			2	1					1				1	1			1							21
2020/01/30	26	2	1	3			1	5	1	4	1	1								1			1									47
2020/01/31	50	1		1			4	6	3	2		1											2	1	1							72
2020/02/01	49	5	1	2			1	8	1	1	2	2		4				1	2			2		1								85
2020/02/02	80	8	10	2		3		13	1	8	2	1		3	1	3	1					4	9	1					3			147
2020/02/03	101	6	6	6	5			12	1	1	7	1	1	11								2	2	2			1	1	3			157
2020/02/04	125	13	21	12	3	1	2	15	5	8	6	6	6	1	1	1	2		2		1	5	9					1	1			262
2020/02/05	113	21	13	17	4	1	3	18	13	10	3	5	4	7		3	2	3	3	1	2	1	4		1			4	2		3	261
2020/02/06	184	35	14	19	3	3	10	17	12	8	11	13	4	2		9	6		1	2	1	9	10	2				5	3			387
2020/02/07	298	28	29	29		3	5	29	5	10	13	7	5	1		9	3		4		2	7	13	5			2	6				510
2020/02/08	324	40	34	28	1	4	11	46	8	17	12	12	4	3	2	5	6	1	1	1	1	8	10	5	1		10	3	3			600
2020/02/09	356	27	38	18		4	3	28	21	30	14	13	11	7		5	4		2	7	4	12	16					6	4			632
2020/02/10	427	27	29	38	12	0	4	50	12	25	15	8	4	4	4	6	1	0	12	1	0	15	6	1	3		1	5	5	0	0	716
2020/02/11	417	50	33	60	1	1	5	28	10	25	20	9	7	8	2	7	4	0	1	5	7	13	3	0	7	0	8	5	3	3	2	744
2020/02/12	802	49	27	43	2	7	4	48	37	18	20	18	8	12	1	6	3	1	3	4	3	23	8	3	3	1	2	6	7	0	4	1171
2020/02/13	690	40	55	48	2	3	5	40	6	17	38	13	5	11	10	15	3	0	6	3	2	26	12	4	8	0	0	7	8	3	2	1081
2020/02/14	912	37	45	54	5	8	28	42	23	23	32	28	7	18	11	17	2	0	11	0	7	24	10	5	5	0	3	4	5	0	0	1373
2020/02/15	849	41	42	50	6	1	34	28	30	29	34	25	11	8	5	14	8	1	11	3	3	32	12	7	4	0	6	16	5	5	2	1323
2020/02/16	1016	37	41	37	5	13	16	33	36	36	34	11	7	9	8	9	4	1	10	2	9	23	9	0	10	0	0	21	5	1	0	1425
2020/02/17	1223	34	67	57	7	7	21	44	37	35	27	18	7	8	1	14	3	0	5	4	2	18	27	5	19	0	2	5	4	0	0	1701
2020/02/18	1266	41	47	41	18	20	16	30	33	52	68	22	5	23	2	13	8	1	23	2	12	29	14	10	3	0	7	10	4	2	2	1824
Total	9398	542	554	571	76	80	178	544	296	362	361	215	96	144	48	136	61	9	97	36	57	254	177	52	66	1	42	105	65	14	15	14642
Date (CST)	Hubei	Hunan	Henan	Guangdong	Guangxi	Hainan	Shanghai	Zhejiang	Jiangsu	Jiangxi	Anhui	Shandong	Fujian	Beijing	Tianjin	Hebei	Shanxi	Inner Mongolia	Heilongjiang	Jilin	Liaoning	Chongqing	Sichuan	Yunnan	Guizhou	Tibet	Ningxia	Shaanxi	Gansu	Xinjiang	Qinghai	National	Additional Sources
	South-Central						East							North					Northeast			Southwest					Northwest
Provincial Sources

MAINLAND CHINA	Cases	Deaths	Notes	Links
Hubei province
(including Wuhan)	4,586	162	711 serious, 277 critical	Source
Zhejiang province	428	0	54 serious	Source
Guangdong province	354	0	37 serious, 13 critical	Source
Henan province	278	2	37 serious, 4 critical	Source
Hunan province	277	0	38 serious	Source
Anhui province	200	0		Source
Chongqing	182	0	18 serious, 4 critical	Source
Jiangxi province	162	0

Like this, Can anyone create a template like this, here the link for this source https://bnonews.com/index.php/2020/01/the-latest-coronavirus-cases/ Nickayane99 (talk) 20:14, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

@Nickayane99: We have {{2019-20_Wuhan_coronavirus_data/China_medical_cases_by_province}}, but you want something more like {{2019-20_Wuhan_coronavirus_data/World}} I guess. You can go for {{2019-20_Wuhan_coronavirus_data/China}} and create it hopefully. Yug (talk) 12:05, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

@Nickayane99:  Done

Note: Having horizontal table such as Template:2019-20 Wuhan coronavirus data/China medical cases by province may be more practical to include in wikipedia article's sections elegantly. Yug (talk) 15:24, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Mortality rate

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived.

The mortality rate should stay removed from the table because when an epidemic is ongoing the mortality rate has a downwards bias by default. This is due to death occuring at the last phase of the infection. So for example as I write this 8000 people are infected. But the mortality rate is based on those who were infected weeks ago because death occurs chronologically much later. If there is a good counter argument against this removal we may dicuss it in this thread. Until then I think we shouldnt add the mortality rate before this epidemic ends or stabilizes for a few weeks. TheGroninger (talk) 21:18, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

How about adding it, with a note that it tends to change? Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 22:19, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

It's completely meaningless at the moment. Wait until one or more reliable source start giving estimates, then quote them. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:29, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Agree. This topics comes again and again, but is currently meaningless. Only Wuhan city is a the beginning of having meaningful data on it, but the large number of recent and still active cases again blur it all. The topic of mortality rate should stay discrete and very cautious for all January and February 2020. AT LEAST. Yug (talk) 13:22, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Spelling Errors

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived.

Under the WHO section, whoever wrote it misspelled Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus's name and left out the final s.

Fixed. Sleath56 (talk) 23:49, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Keep data updated - There are currently 9,171 confirmed cases worldwide, including 213 fatalities.

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived.

https://bnonews.com/index.php/2020/01/the-latest-coronavirus-cases/ Nickayane99 (talk) 22:55, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Source archive

Should we archive all the source used in the article and all articles highly related to the topic? Mariogoods (talk) 00:01, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Went through the articles. Will require periodic updates since still is current event. robertsky (talk) 01:34, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Map in infobox

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived.

I note this has recently changed to a global one, but I really don't think we should be including suspected cases, especially where they turned out not to be coronavirus. Something like the useful map that the WHO situation reports has been including every day would be much better, with red circles proportional in size to the number of confirmed cases. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:25, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Take a look at the line plot above, which I’m proposing as a substitute for the horizontal bars (not typically the way this data should be presented). I’m thinking about a bubble map like you’re suggesting, interactive with data in a pop up, but will take awhile longer. JuanTamad (talk) 05:27, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

@Jtamad: Sorry, I'm not sure which line plot you mean? Espresso Addict (talk) 05:31, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Item 18 above JuanTamad (talk) 05:36, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Treatment section

Can following information be added in the treatment section? Link: https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1232923/coronavirus-cure-china-virus-sars-nhs-hiv-protease-inhibitor-nelfinavir-spt -- Dr. Abhijeet Safai (talk) 03:56, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

The #Treatment Research section on this page seem like a deliberate stub to direct to the nCoV page, with only bullet updates on different vaccine research groups. Protease inhibitors seem like a temporary existing stop gap, so I'd say it's not appropriate for the section as it's structured currently. Sleath56 (talk) 05:53, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

TheGuardian reports donated masks in Hubei are distributed to private hospitals less in need of them

TheGuardian's live blog on coronavirus reports The Red Cross Society in Hubei has rerouted 36,000 donated medical grade face masks to two private hospitals, 12 times higher than that they sent to one of the hospitals hit by the virus the most. Those who need the protective supply the most are forced to improvise. Swoopin swallow (talk) 07:02, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

References

Suspected table

Have a suspected table by country and the number. Jacobayoub (talk) 08:10, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

International case : CMO confirms cases of coronavirus in England

Please move section and report about new international cases to 2019–20_Wuhan_coronavirus_outbreak_by_country_and_territory (talk, {template}). Yug (talk) 13:10, 31 January 2020 (UTC) http://www.gov.uk/government/news/cmo-confirms-cases-of-coronavirus-in-england Nickayane99 (talk) 10:36, 31 January 2020 (UTC) http://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/north-east-news/coronavirus-outbreak-uk-newcastle-hospital-17664530

The “Reactions to prevention efforts” section is not helpful.

To me it seems that it is not relevant who is congratulating or not-congratulating the CCP and its local offices in Wuhan; particularly when the infection is still growing at a rate so high that the official numbers are limited by the capacity of professionals to confirm new cases, rather than the actual rate of infection. Its only value at this point could be to prematurely congratulate the government in mainland China, which is likely to be a low priority for readers seeking information about the 2019-20 Novel Coronavirus Outbreak. Furthermore, it may be hard to control the impact that external interests have on the prominence, size, and form of the paragraphs. Given these points, I propose we ditch this section altogether. Aaron Muir Hamilton <[email protected]> (talk) 11:28, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

China map removal: Citation needed

@Yug: Rather than make bold accusations about the motives of other users as was done to me [4], I would like to ask the community to address a simple question: How many cases of the virus have there been in Arunachal Pradesh? What's the documentation on that one? Geographyinitiative (talk) 12:12, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

@Geographyinitiative: I did inspect the history and your summary edit, to decide to undo :

• removal #1 : Revision as of 2020-01-31T11:48:03 Geographyinitiative (→‎Geographic distribution: This map is 100% out of control, out of line and it can not be permitted on this page ever again. How many cases of the virus have there been in Arunachal Pradesh? What's the documentation on that one?)
• removal #2 : Revision as of 2020-01-31T12:19:06 Geographyinitiative (Removed map - see Talk:2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak)

The map likely requires a fix, not to be removed. Your removal based on data over the disputed region of Arunachal Pradesh sounds pretty much an Indian-nationalist move. If you aren't, then receive my apologizes. The section you refer to in your edit comment summary to justify the removal actually do not support removals, as far as I can see. A dozen of people have been discussing on how to improve it in order to keep it in the article, and found a consensus. Therefor it stays : don't unilaterally remove this map on which a dozen of editors contributed. Please show an acceptable rational for removing this map rather than fixing it, then only I will support removal. Yug (talk) 12:53, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Source data are accessible in {{2019-20_Wuhan_coronavirus_data/China_medical_cases_by_province}} and {{2019-20_Wuhan_coronavirus_data/World}}.

Trying to remove this figure a 3rd time via force without consensus would confirm an hidden agenda. Yug (talk) 13:07, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

@Yug: No no, you need citation for everything that's being presented to the eyes of the readers as of now. Non-negotiable. Arunachal Pradesh's infections need a source. I recommend fixing the map on Wikimedia Commons and then discussing adding it to this page. Geographyinitiative (talk) 14:30, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

@Geographyinitiative:Ok, digging in I identified you are very unlikely to be an Indian nationalist (rather the opposite side actually XD). Anyway, yes, this source and data on Arunachal Pradesh is weird on this map. Yet, it doesn't justify to remove the 23+ other valid, sourced informations which are carried by the map. I went to commons, on the map's talkpage to support your request for map-correction. This is the normal process to take here. It's unfortunate, but the data on Arunachal Pradesh can stay few hours there... It's fine. Wikipedia (LIKE ALL MEDIAS!) sometime display errors. Our promise is to correct those asap when we are notified of an error. The correction process has started thanks to you. All good. We continue ! Yug (talk) 15:34, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

International case : Death in Malaysia

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived.

Please move section and report about new international cases to 2019–20_Wuhan_coronavirus_outbreak_by_country_and_territory (talk, {template}). Yug (talk) 13:10, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

• https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/tripura-man-dies-of-coronavirus-in-malaysia-report/story-07kLEU6OV1jK8G2Y1k5BQK.html

Why is this case not in the statistic? Metron (talk) 13:06, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Because someone has to add it to {{2019-20_Wuhan_coronavirus_data/World}} ! :D It will come... Yug (talk) 13:08, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

It's a fake story. https://www.thestar.com.my/news/nation/2020/01/30/health-ministry-reports-about-coronavirus-death-in-m039sia-is-fake-news WWGB (talk) 13:13, 31 January 2020 (UTC)