This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
COVID-19 pandemic data/Italy medical cases template. |
|
This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Perhaps the disaggregated cases should be added when the total number of cases are also added? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaxjaxlexie ( talk • contribs) 18:16, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
Which date format should be used in the table? I think the options are either "dd Month yyyy" (as in 31 January 2020), or the European one "DD.MM.YYYY" (as in 31.01.2020) or "YYYY-MM-DD" (as in 2020-01-31), but currently there is some kind of mix between the last two. -- Ritchie92 ( talk) 19:35, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
There is an ongoing discussion at Talk:2020 coronavirus outbreak in Italy#data consistency in table. -- Checco ( talk) 16:20, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
Italy government seems to release the total number of swab tests performed everyday. Right now it is only mentioned in the first few paragraphs of the article and is being overwritten every day. Should we add these numbers to the template so that we can keep track of them? Llull juny ( talk) 05:57, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi all. This has been already mentioned in Talk:2020 coronavirus outbreak in Italy but I think it deserves its own discussion. Recently Facquis proposed a change on the calculations that I do not approve. I think that the two cases of Piedmont that have been detected negative should be striked as it's done now, because we know that exactly those two cases were actually negative. In the edit of Facquis instead one reports the wrong number, that has been corrected – not by newspapers – by the Protezione Civile itself! In the other cases like in Sicily or Liguria, we do not know which ones were wrong, so the only option is to insert a (bad-looking) "–" negative number in the table. However whenever possible I would use the strike, because it's easy to signal and understand as an error that has been corrected (i.e. if one clicks on the given source and finds a different number they don't have to worry about Wikipedia's errors, but will understand that it's been corrected later). However regarding the striked-through totals on the subsequent days (24...26) I am neutral about whether to remove the strikes and just give the real number or not. -- Ritchie92 ( talk) 11:33, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
I think not to use only the data of the civil protection bulletin released at 18:00 CET since 23 February 2020 is senselesswell, this already happens for the data on the 26 February, per talk discussion, where it was decided to use the regional data for Lombardy that was not reported in the PC bulletin. If you disagree with that you could contribute to the discussion. On the contrary, in this case the PC bulletin itself corrected the data a posteriori, the correction does not come from a non-PC source; so I don't see any discrepancy if we remove the two Piedmont cases from the count, instead it would be dishonest to just report the number for that day that we know for certain (and the PC confirms) it was wrong. Regarding the other issue, I moderately disagree with showing the cumulative number instead of the daily number per region: I know that it is more complicated to keep track of the daily increments, but that's what's important in the statistics for epidemics. Also, such a change would require a new consensus on this talk page, since until now I thik this version with the increments and the full total only in the last row is quite an established version. -- Ritchie92 ( talk) 13:09, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
I've created WikiProject COVID-19 as a temporary or permanent WikiProject and invite editors to use this space for discussing ways to improve coverage of the ongoing 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic. Please bring your ideas to the project/talk page. Stay safe, -- Another Believer ( Talk) 18:14, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
In the tables of cases by sex the percentages per age don't add up to 100% -- ChaTo ( talk) 09:12, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
@ Ritchie92: This template is modelled after the South Korean one, and the rationale there to include the tables included there was that those are all the tables reported by the KCDC. There's no consideration or implication of whether the inclusion of more information would be too much -- if KCDC had reported the gender by-age break down it would have appeared there too. I've noticed that this template seems to assume that the presentation in the South Korean article is some sort of a standard, from the arrangement of age to the inclusion of parentheses for the percentages -- it is not. The whole reason why the age is arranged as old to young and parentheses enclose the percentages is that that is the official layout by KCDC, and us editors merely copy-pasted the tables and didn't bother changing anything. Considering how the South Korean article includes much more information than is presented here (e.g. epidemiological info of clusters), I disagree that the information is too much in any sense. We have also not reproduced the entirety of the study; far from it, it's just one of the nine pages. Rethliopuks ( talk) 09:31, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
I added charts and stacked charts to have a better visualization of the data in the source. -- Ritchie92 ( talk) 18:03, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
Coronagr ( talk) 11:38, 29 March 2020 (UTC)Hi from Greece Please, could I have the previous version of the table? It is very useful to have all the numbers by day for every region, because I use the data for prediction models. Thank you in advance and I wish you the best! Coronagr ( talk) 11:38, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
@ Ritchie92: The added region row is for readability -- most people's screen cannot accommodate the entire table, so without the row it will become confusing which cells are which to the human reader, especially when each row of this table is two lines tall on screens horizontally <=1790 pixels or around 1920 pixels. Rethliopuks ( talk) 18:32, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
Are we only updating once a week now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.243.220.61 ( talk) 20:20, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Apparently we aren't updating at all anymore? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.254.103.202 ( talk) 17:22, 26 March 2021 (UTC)