File talk:COVID-19 Outbreak World Map.svg/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Suspected cases

What does "suspected cases" mean? In Latvia there is 20-30 new people every day that is waiting for test results. I think in every European country there is suspected cases. So I don't understand why Poland and some countries are so special, that they remain in other colour on map for days. I don't think this category is needed at all, it's misleading. --GreenZeb (talk) 17:20, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Seems like a good point. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:51, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Ratherous removed the blue-coded suspected cases. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:34, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Deaths

Hello. I think, that there should be some color for deaths. Maybe black?

 

deaths

And what about countries with 100–999 confirmed cases? There are colors only for 1–9 confirmed cases, 10–99 and 1000+. Can you add a color for countries with 100–999 confirmed cases? Thank you --Robins7 (talk) 19:49, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

I think there should be no coloring for deaths. The cases are most indicative of the risk of further spread. We know that the deaths would be something between 1% to 7% of cases, so the number of deaths does not give us much additional information. When I learn of an additional death, I do not learn all that much: I already knew some of the infected cases were going to die. But when I learn that there are now confirmed infected cases in Czechia, that tells me a lot. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:54, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I also strongly oppose adding a death color to this map. A new map can be made on the number of deaths though. --Ratherous (talk) 20:24, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Stop modifying the color scheme

Seriously. This map is used in 100s of places. Leave the color scheme and in particular, the kind of information it is tracking as is, instead of having Wikis indicate 100s of deaths all over the world. --MGChecker (talk) 21:05, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

The map was changed in accordance to consensus on the discussion. If your Wiki prefers not to use this map with the color variation, you can user File:2019-nCoV Outbreak World Map-Confirmed.svg. --Ratherous (talk) 21:47, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Problem was legend got misaligned in other pages edited by Mikael Häggström mentioned above. I've fixed a couple but not sure what to do about all the other languages (sorry first time doing this).186.89.128.207 00:36, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

I have no opinion about what this map should show exactly. I just wanted to point out you should not change the color scheme again without very good reasons. Otherwise, this map might lead to misunderstandings and panic. --MGChecker (talk) 11:34, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

French Outre-mer.

Three cases have been confirmed in the French Outre-Mer territories of Saint-Martin and Saint-Barthélémy. They should be added on the map (but I don't know which one of the dots they belong to). --2A01:E0A:599:BB40:4C58:D3F0:CEE8:74F4 21:57, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

French overseas regions are integral parts of France the very same way Alaska and Hawaii are integral parts of the United States or the Canary Islands are integral parts of Spain. They are not autonomous territories as would be the Falklands or Guam. As such, they should be coloured the same as the country to which they belong. And if people "find weird" that a part of South America is French, then it would be an opportunity for them to educate themselves. Metropolitan (talk) 01:58, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

More importantly considering the object of the map, the authority reporting to the UN WHO the number of confirmed cases of coronavirus coming from French overseas regions is the French Ministry of Social Affairs and Health, including those to the overall French figure. Currently, the map is made even more wrong as the two circles which are portrayed are Guadeloupe and Martinique, whereas there is technically no case on both islands.

I strongly advise sticking with official sources and group all French regions as France. Metropolitan (talk) 12:04, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

In Reunion Island, there is no case at present...

This is just preposterous. Not one case has been reported for Mayotte or Réunion Island and they are now in brown (meaning more than 1,000 cases). Thus your map is 'statistically' correct but geographically totally misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 2A01:CB18:882:5F00:6545:9BE0:4A74:1876 (talk) 07:41, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

In map guide

Who supports this? @Metropolitan, MGChecker, Ratherous, Xenagoras, Dan Polansky, and Robins7: Bill497 (talk) 14:24, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Map is too blank when opened full screen, had to keep switching tabs to see the guide, this way its all in one shot. Bill497 (talk) 14:24, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

 Oppose @Bill497: I think, that every wiki, has a legend template. The map maybe looks blank, but it's useless to have a legend at a page twice. --Robins7 (talk) 14:51, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

 Oppose I agree. The map already looks quite busy and there's no need to add a legend when most Wikis most likely already have one. --Ratherous (talk) 18:59, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

• I support an in-map guide (legend) like in File:COVID-19 cases in Greater China.svg, without English text, merely indicating the number ranges. An advantage of an in-map guide is that it locks the ranges independent of what the including location does. And indeed, the legend is useful when you open the map full screen, or when you open the map image outside of the context of an including page. If we provide a number range in the svg, the including locations will be able to drop their own legend and only provide meaning of the numbers, here the number of confirmed cases. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:57, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Senegal

Please add Senegal to the map. https://www.dakaractu.com/Urgent-Le-Senegal-enregistre-son-premier-cas-de-Coronavirus_a184675.html Numizmatyk123 (talk) 15:55, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Added. Bill497 (talk) 16:12, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Can we auto-archive the older sections?

There are sections from Early February and January talking about how some countries needed to be removed or added still. I think only relevent current discussion should even be discussions. 39cookies (talk) 07:59, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree. Can anybody do it? --Robins7 (talk) 13:53, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

I disagree with autoarchiving the talk page: the talk page has not become too long. Without archiving, it is easier to see what has been discussed. --Dan Polansky (talk) 06:53, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Updating

If you upload a new version of the map, please update the caption as well. Thank you --Robins7 (talk) 11:28, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Dependencies

Why in situation, when there is no confirmed case they are blank, and when they confirm case – they have not colour proper to number of cases but the same as controlling country? It is confusing (ie. Gibraltar, St. Martin). Why there is a different situation in Hongkong and Macao? Kenraiz (talk) 15:58, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, there is inconsistencies. I don't understand why Svalbard is coloured, but Faroe Islands blank. Maybe there is reason, but it doesn't look right. --GreenZeb (talk) 17:38, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

If these territories to allocate with a separate color that differs from the metropolis, then in a separate table in the English Wikipedia and others, these territories must also be specified separately. Or to allocate all the territories together as part of that country in the same color, regardless of whether cases of the virus were detected there or not. Stasyan117 (talk) 19:36, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Saint Martin and Saint Barthélemy

Please correct the colours for these two French territories to 1-9 each and not >100 like it is for Mainland France. Otherwise you should also colour territories like French Guiana, New Caledonia and French Polynesia as integral parts of France... but there are no infections on these territories... --Kachelus (talk) 23:16, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

@Kachelus: 5 Coronavirus cases have been reported in Saint-Laurent-du-Maroni, in French Guiana. I've modified the map so that France is represented as a single entity, considering official authorities report cases at national level. Metropolitan (talk) 02:42, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

@Metropolitan: Perhaps you can explain this on the map, that all infected French outer territories are treatet as Mainland France with the same colour. Perhaps this will lead to less confusion, thanks. Kachelus (talk) 13:19, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Epidemie coronavirus 2019-2020

Guyane cinq premières cas confirme Anonyme001a (talk) 22:09, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

French Guiana is fully part of France and it has 5 Coronavirus confirmed cases

There is someone constantly colouring French Guiana in gray on the map, considering that it doesn't have coronavirus confirmed cases. This is twice wrong:

• There are 5 confirmed cases of Coronavirus in Saint-Laurent-du-Maroni, French Guiana. Source: Cinq cas de Coronavirus confirmés en Guyane (France Info).
• French Guiana is fully part of France, its status is the same as Alaska or Hawaii with the US. It's NOT a semi-autonomous territories like would be Guam or American Samoa. As such, French Guianese cases are counted in the total of confirmed cases in France. There will NEVER be a specific line in WHO situation reports specifying "French Guiana" as a territory or whatever you guys imagine.

I insist on the fact that, just like Madeira and the Azores are part of Portugal, the Canary Islands are part of Spain, Alaska and Hawaii are part of the US, France can't be divided and the French regions of Guadeloupe, Martinique, French Guiana, Reunion and Mayotte should be coloured the same as the rest of the country. Because it's indeed at that scale that confirmed cases in France are counted, both in communications from French official authorities and from UN WHO reports. Metropolitan (talk) 11:33, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

From the edit history of this file it appears that a part of the problem was that you added French Guiana without mentioning that it had cases too, because the person reverting you noted that it was misleading because they had 0 cases (i.e., he/she was unaware of any cases and you hadn't said so in your edit summary). I've now posted a message on that person's talk page and I'm sure a solution can be found soon. In the future, when adding a new place, it's always a good idea to provide a source in the edit summary (e.g. edit summary: "grouping French Guiana and Metropolitan France together because they are reported together, and F.Guiana had cases: www.antiguaobserver.com/five-coronavirus-cases-confirmed-in-french-guiana-march-4-2020/"). This makes it easier for later editors to confirm that your edit was correct. 62.107.211.90 13:15, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes exactly. Just as the user above me has mentioned, you did not include any information or sources about cases in French Guiana. Now that you have of course I agree that it should be coloured in as well. --Ratherous (talk) 18:36, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

This is just preposterous. Not one case has been reported for Mayotte or Réunion Island and they are now in brown (meaning more than 1,000 cases). Thus your map is 'statistically' correct but geographically totally misleading. Shame! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Philippe-Pierre (talk • contribs) 18:10, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Virus in Alaska

As far as I know there are no known cases in Alaska yet this map shows red — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 2600:8800:2F00:1451:7C27:8DB7:79F1:D4FF (talk) 19:57, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Alaska is colored the same as U.S., since the coloring principle is per country. It is a little counterintuitive to have Alaska colored, I think, but we would have to invent a modified version of the coloring principle. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:10, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Colorblind Colors

The colors used on this image are terrible for many of the colorblind. If no body objects I’ll change the colors to be suitable to the colorblind, especially since this is a highly viewed document. Fluffy89502 ~ talk 19:52, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Extra color for 10,000?

It seems there will be a second country at that level soon; can we update w/ a new color now? --SJ+ 23:57, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Dan Polansky, I've been meaning to ask you for your suggestion on this. What colour distinction do you think would be suitable for 1000-9999 and 10,000+?--Ratherous (talk) 16:48, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Ratherous, I would go by colorbrewer2.org and therefore:

 

10000+ Confirmed cases

 

1000-9999 Confirmed cases

 

100-999 Confirmed cases

 

10-99 Confirmed cases

 

1-9 Confirmed cases

--Dan Polansky (talk) 18:29, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Current scheme, for comparison:

 

1000+ Confirmed cases

 

100-999 Confirmed cases

 

10-99 Confirmed cases

 

1-9 Confirmed cases

It has a slightly different tone. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:33, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

I looked at that as well, but after trying it on the actual map, I fear that

 

100-999 Confirmed cases

looks a bit too orange, and doesn't really blend well into the map. --Ratherous (talk) 18:31, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

What about this:

 

10000+ Confirmed cases

 

1000-9999 Confirmed cases

 

100-999 Confirmed cases

 

10-99 Confirmed cases

 

1-9 Confirmed cases

I just added #330000 for 10000+, otherwise it is what we currently use. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:34, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Or this:

 

10000+ Confirmed cases

 

1000-9999 Confirmed cases

 

100-999 Confirmed cases

 

10-99 Confirmed cases

 

1-9 Confirmed cases

--Dan Polansky (talk) 18:38, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Or this:

 

10000+ Confirmed cases

 

1000-9999 Confirmed cases

 

100-999 Confirmed cases

 

10-99 Confirmed cases

 

1-9 Confirmed cases

--Dan Polansky (talk) 18:40, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

(Let me reiterate the advantage of placing a legend with number ranges but with no English text directly into the map: you automatically get it propagated to all the including locations. Otherwise, each change of color scheme needs to be propagated to all including locations manually by editing them. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:50, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

I think I am leaning closest to

 

10000+ Confirmed cases

 

1000-9999 Confirmed cases

 

100-999 Confirmed cases

 

10-99 Confirmed cases

 

1-9 Confirmed cases

As per the legend in the map, I'm still not sure that is the best idea. Most maps do not follow that format for visual purposes and I think I tend to agree with that practice. --Ratherous (talk) 23:34, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Channel Islands

There is a first case confirmed on the Channel Islands: https://www.itv.com/news/channel/2020-03-09/first-case-of-coronavirus-confirmed-in-the-channel-islands/

Could someone please add this to the map. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gyokuro-du-Rhin (talk • contribs) 12:37, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

South Korea

Please change the color for S.Korea because it has not reached 10000 cases however it is colored the deep maroon instead of just a plain maroon. --Humiebees (talk) 12:47 AM March 11, 2020 (UTC)

Per capita etc.

Thanks for your big work, Ratherous. Would it be possible to make a version with grouping by frequency (ie. cases per capita)? It is not surprising, that bigger populations like the US has more cases than smal islands in the Pacific.

And shouldn't there be a division between "zero cases known" and "no data available"?

--Madglad (talk) 14:26, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

I think a map like that definitely would be interesting, but personally I would rather stick to maps visualizing the basic numerical growth. If someone else would like to make a map like that though I would welcome it. As for the "no data available" I'm not sure which countries you're referring to where that category would be appropriate. The only option I can kind of see would be North Korea although it's less of the lack of data than the direct denial of the government to any present cases, so I don't think categorizing under such a description would be very accurate. --Ratherous (talk) 08:26, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

• A cases-per-capita version of the map would be an excellent thing. The present coloring per absolute number per region seems misleading to me, making regions use lighter colors only because they are small in terms of population. That said, the current map is still a very good tool. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:05, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Cases per country is not very meaningful. We need those maps with cases per capita. --Alexrk2 (talk) 12:14, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Cases per country is a bit meaningful as long as country borders are travel borders, which is not very true for Schengen, for instance. In any case, here is one source that has cases per capita: worldometers.info (search for "Tot Cases/ 1M pop"). --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:41, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Someone made File:March14 cases per-capita-COVID-19.png; we would ideally have a published script to create such an image. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:35, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Rename

Should the files associated with this topic be renamed to replace the word 'outbreak' with 'pandemic' after the WHO classification and the changing of the English Wikipedia article? I wanted to hear some opinions on this topic. --Ratherous (talk) 08:21, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't know. "outbreak" is accurate, and strong; wars have an outbreak. However, there could be desire to use the same nomenclature as Wikipedia articles. The nice thing about "outbreak" is that it does not care whether this is an epidemic, a pandemic or a war. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:08, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing. I think outbreak is still very appropriate, but at the same time I was wondering if it was best to keep titles consistent on this topic. --Ratherous (talk) 17:23, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Azerbaijan

Fix Azerbaijan's color please. --Без названия3445 (talk) 07:37, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

• P.S: change Iran's color too. --Без названия3445 (talk) 09:31, 13 March 2020 (UTC)