Talk:COVID-19 pandemic by country and territory/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 9

Semi-protected edit request on 29 June 2020

I'm not entirely sure what the real number should be, but there is definitely something wrong with Portugal's figures in the table, fairly sure there has being a typo there. Orange Flame (talk) 01:47, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Please be more specific, then other users don't have to guess what you mean. If you mean the long table close to the top, that's coming from Template:COVID-19 pandemic data. I think that edit fixed what you saw. --mfb (talk) 03:03, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Brazil

No expert on this but the numbers for Brazil seem to be incorrect. More cases and deaths in Brazil than world wide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 3wisemen (talk • contribs) 21:55, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

It doesn’t seem that way. The table currently says there are 1,578,376 cases and 64,365 deaths in Brazil, out of 11,187,193 cases and 528,364 deaths worldwide. — Tartan357  ^(Talk) 03:33, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, all good now. Someone must have updated the table as it had an 8-digit number for Brazil with an odd syntax of n,nnnn,nnn ;-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 3wisemen (talk • contribs) 14:19, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 July 2020

Sweetkind (talk) 20:58, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
In the article North Korea is in the category of countries that have suspected cases but have no official confirmation. This source however may change it: N. Korea's Kim Jong-un calls for 'maximum alert' over COVID-19

 Not done: Kim and his government have made statements about the disease (and I think they’ve now acknowledged its presence in the country), but it’s still accurate to say that they "have yet to report cases" because they haven’t released any data, nor are they likely to. — Tartan357  ^(Talk) 03:38, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

   Can't you change the side note of North Korea from "Cases are suspected, but none have been officially reported" to "Presence acknowledged, but no official cases reported"?

Sweetkind (talk) 15:40, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Grossly Overstated COVID 19 as an Epidemic

If an epidemic is the rapid spread of disease to a large number of people in a given population within a short period of time.

Let's start calling Covid 19 an epidemic when it hits 30% of the worlds population only then it could be deemed as a serious epidemic that is 2.3 billion people.

The world's population is currently approx 7.8 billion people. So let's do some calculations. 10 % is 780 million people. 78 million people represent then just 1% so we are talking 11 million cases of COVID 19 as of July 7th 2020 which is less then 1% of the worlds population so yawn...sorry but deeming it a serious epidemic is a gross miscalculation all coming from the media and the government. Csnu5 (talk) 02:52, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Website about COVID projections

Hey guys I have found a website which visualizes cases and death rates. It is called COVID-19 Loader. https://covidloader.com/ Esaïe Prickett (talk) 01:57, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

USA Stats -- Wrong or Lagged?

The tally on the big table on this page seems to be always 100k-200k ahead of the tally on the US main page (the one this tally links to). Which one is right? Are either of them right? The discrepancy (over 100k) is larger than the daily case increase (50k-60k). Is the US main page a few days behind? It's bar chart suggests otherwise -- no more than one day out or only out by the current date's tally. 76.67.126.105 (talk) 13:29, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Both are correct, but on the US COVID-19 pandemic article, statistics are usually updated slower than the main cases table. Nguyen QuocTrung (talk) 13:58, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

{{Excerpt}} failing to render map legend

For some reason, the {{Excerpt}} template being used for the North America section is failing to copy across anything beyond the first line of the legend of N.A. map. I can't work out how to fix it - anyone with better technical nous able to give it a look? Grutness...wha? 09:00, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Grutness, Done here - Timbaaa -> ping me 13:14, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 July 2020

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfpUkEaIEqo In this source, the goverrnment acknowledges the precense of coronavirus in the country. So can you change the side note of North Korea from "Cases are suspected, but none have been officially reported" to "Presence acknowledged, but no official cases reported"? Sweetkind (talk) 07:03, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: After watching the video, I'm not seeing where the NK government acknowledges the presence of coronavirus; Kim Jong-Un says in the KCNA clip we have carefully prevented an invasion of the deadly virus, which seems to say the opposite. The South Korean adviser who they talk about at the end claims that this means that there is a substantial outbreak, but that's not an acknowledgement from the NK gov't. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 15:39, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Who will update the table of "Confirmed cases by territory" for July 12?

Hi all. Can somebody update the whole table for July 12 pls? It still says July 11, and the data for most entries has remained the same for almost 24 hours. Titus III (talk) 00:33, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Cases and deaths per million

Sdkb. At the request of myself and other editors, on 17 June you commented out the table for cases and deaths per million, because is was inaccurate, at [1]. I am not a technical expert, but this table seems so simple and useful on a subject of crucial importance that it seems very unsatisfatory that it has not been possible to restore it. Does it not require just a table of the populations of countries linked to a table of cases and deaths for each country? Of course, I realise that you are not personally responsible for the problem, but can you advise the situation please? Dudley Miles (talk) 12:57, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Dudley Miles, thanks for following up about this; it's been on my mind as well. (Here's the link to the prior discussion, just for reference) Where things stand currently from my view is that the per capita table wasn't receiving updates, so Naypta and I set it up to update automatically from Wikidata. However, we subsequently discovered that, for many smaller countries, the Wikidata data was outdated and not being updated by any automatic process as might be expected, thus the commenting out. There was a discussion at wikidata:Wikidata:Requests for permissions/Bot/CovidDatahubBot that made it seem like a bot was forthcoming, but I followed up two weeks or so later, and was told it's a complex enough task it'll take some time, and another two weeks have now passed without further update. I'm going to post at WT:COVID-19, which might help get some attention on it. We're wasting a lot of editor effort continuing to try to update the totals table manually, so it'll benefit from this too. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 16:50, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Sdkb thanks for the update. I find it strange that in Template:COVID-19 pandemic data the totals are not sums of the individual figures, but are taken from John Hopkins, and raised this at Template talk:COVID-19 pandemic data/Archive 15#Totals. My preference would be to dispense with manual updates of the country figures and set up automatic updates from John Hopkins, as this would eliminate manual errors and some countries being neglected, but I realise that this may not be technically possible. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:15, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Agreed on using Johns Hopkins data for most countries, although there may be some countries where it'd be better to get it from another source; I'm not an expert on all the considerations. I've posted about the Wikidata bot at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject COVID-19#Help needed creating Wikidata bot to update statistics. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 17:22, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Out of the case

Add No of active cases

UN member states

States with no active cases

#	Country	Population	Continent	Start Date	End Date	Ref.
1	Laos	7,275,560	Asia	2020/03/24	2020/06/09
2	East Timor	1,318,445	Asia	2020/03/21	2020/05/15
3	Brunei	437,479	Asia	2020/03/09	2020/06/16
4	Grenada	112,523	North America	2020/03/22	2020/06/18
5	Dominica	71,986	North America	2020/03/22	2020/06/18

States with limited recognition

Partially recognized states with no active cases

#	Country	Population	Status	De jure	Continent	Start Date	End Date	Ref.
1	Vatican	801			Europoe	2020-03-05	2020-06-06

Dependent territories

Dependencies with no active cases

#	Territory	Population	Country	Continent	Start Date	End Date	Ref.
1	Macau	649,335	China	Asia	2020-01-22	2020-07-17
2	Isle of Man	85,033	United Kingdom	Europe	2020-03-19	2020-06-03
3	Guernsey	63,026	United Kingdom	Europe	2020-03-09	2020-05-27
4	Greenland	56,770	Denmark	North America	2020-03-16	2020-06-04
5	Gibraltar	33,691	United Kingdom	Europe	2020-03-04	2020-07-15
6	British Virgin Islands	30,231	United Kingdom	North America	2020-03-25	2020-05-26
7	Anguilla	15,003	United Kingdom	North America	2020-03-26	2020-04-27
8	Saint Barthélemy	9,877	France	North America	2020-03-01	2020-04-21
9	Falkland Islands	3,480	United Kingdom	South America	2020-04-03	2020-05-01
10	Sint Eustatius	3,138	Netherlands	North America	2020-03-31	2020-05-05
11	Saba	1,915	Netherlands	North America	2020-04-12	2020-05-12

2001:B011:30E0:1550:9454:A6D:E9A5:42E (talk) 16:48, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

We should use a clear cut-off here. No new cases for at least one month? There is a risk that countries/regions will go in and out of this list as new infected people enter. New Zealand declared victory - only to get more cases again. --mfb (talk)

'Pandemic by country and territory' heading

The H2 heading 'Pandemic by country and territory' seems redundant with the title. Would it make sense to rename it to 'Regions' and split out the 'Cases and deaths' subsection into its own H2? - Wikmoz (talk) 01:26, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

North Korea reports a case?

rt.com says North Korea reported 1 case. I don't trust either rt or North Korea's statement, but is that enough to remove North Korea from the "no reported cases" list? --mfb (talk) 10:08, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Read the article, just suspected case, not confirmed Nguyen QuocTrung (talk) 10:56, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Infobox height

The infobox height was pushing down the body content. I believe the CSS clear tag below the infobox is necessary to avoid having it show alongside and potentially squeezing the 'Cases and deaths by location' table. To improve the situation, I changed first map (cases per 100,000) to display with a two column key and collapsed the second map (total cases). I doubt many people will find it now that it's collapsed. Is there any way to float it to the right of the table so that when the screen isn't large enough, it drops below the table? - Wikmoz (talk) 23:53, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

UPDATE: I figured out one option... By setting the table to float left, it forces the map to wrap below when there's not enough space to display side-by-side. However, since the map floats right, it looks awkward when it does ultimately wrap at a low resolution. Ideally, it would just drop the float and sit right below the table in this scenario. Any wiki-markup experts out there with a better solution? - Wikmoz (talk) 07:26, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Going to run with the above. By moving this map out of the main infobox, it also helps shorten the top section when viewed with the MinervaNeue theme, which doesn't respect the collapsed view. It's easy enough to roll back if necessary. - Wikmoz (talk) 05:52, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

REMOVED MOCKUP AND ITS 300 REFERENCES FROM TALK PAGE SINCE IT'S NOW LIVE - Wikmoz (talk) 04:31, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi everybody - Australia's death toll is given as 1676 - this is an error, it's 176, looks like there was a typo in updating stats. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2402:A040:212:F341:C518:8F54:330E:FEA9 (talk) 23:19, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Pandemic_by_region: source? EU inc UK?

It is interesting to to have a "Pandemic_by_region" section, but there are issues:

• What are the source?
• What does EU inc UK means?
  • https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/inc says inc means increase?
  • Can UK be included in the EU while UK is no more in the EU? Do you mean EU/EEA+UK like in ECDC publications? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.136.209.23 (talk) 09:25, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

There's a reference there: ECDC. I put "inc UK" because the UK is half-in, half out of the EU at the moment. (The government says it's out but actually its borders are subject to EU regulations until the end of the year.) Chris55 (talk) 14:56, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Lack of some countries

Some information of other countries is seen, such as Tanzania, Sn. Barth, Carribean Netherlands, and so on.

As you know, the best reference is world meters.com.

E.g: https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/tanzania/

Thanx. محمد اعمی (talk) 04:12, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Tanzania hasn't made any reports since May 8 - even on worldometers! For Carribean Netherlands see Bonaire, Sint Eustatius & Saba. If by Sn. Barth you are referring to Barth Island, then it's uninhabited. But otherwise I don't know what its English name is. Chris55 (talk) 20:54, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

If you mean Saint Barthélemy then refer to Note N (It comes under France.) Chris55 (talk) 15:04, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

The assertion that As you know, the best reference is world meters.com. is not supported by consensus. For the purposes of this article, worldometers is not regarded as a reliable source. Related discussion at Template talk:Cases in 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic § Source Vycl1994 (talk) 21:43, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Iran leak?

I'm unsure whether the data is appropriate/meets the criteria being used to populate this page and others, but the BBC is now reporting on a data leak of documents from the Iranian government that indicate almost three times the number of deaths previously reported, similar numbers to which have been being used on Wikipedia and in this article BlackholeWA (talk) 09:28, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

All the table entries are official reports. We can mention that BBC reported higher numbers, but we can't use these numbers in the table. --mfb (talk) 00:24, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

I think that's exactly backwards. The BBC is much more likely to be WP:RS than is the Government of Iran. Adoring nanny (talk) 17:59, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Almost every country is reporting fictions. The number of cases is the biggest because it is so dependent on how many tests are performed, but deaths are a major problem in Russia, India etc. as well as Iran and in many other countries are not counted unless a test has been performed. I think mfb's got it about right. We can't take a media report over the official figures in one table and not another. Chris55 (talk) 10:15, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

There is a big difference between figures that are wrong and figures that are fudged. The BBC is alleging that Iran has two sets of data -- the data that are their best estimate of reality and the data for public consumption. That's outright fabrication. Adoring nanny (talk) 12:46, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Senegal Past 10,000 cases?

Infobox says Senegal is past 10,000 cases. Is somebody going to change the color on the world map? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:82E0:A690:F5EE:ED34:7C96:5AE1 (talk) 19:09, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Also change Jamaica to 1,000 cases Esaïe Prickett (talk) 00:07, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 August 2020

"The first human cases of COVID-19 were identified in Wuhan, China, in December 2019."

Please drop "human", since it wasn't observed in any other species before December 2019. 64.203.187.94 (talk) 17:59, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 20:25, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Kazakhstan Past 100,000 Cases?

Kazakhstan is past 100,000 cases now. Somebody please change its color on the world map. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:82E0:A690:B963:11EB:1CA8:19B7 (talk) 21:16, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

uk death rate downward revision

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-53722711

The chart should reflect this but it doesn't seem possible to amend Gashmak (talk) 18:31, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 August 2020

In Laos, no deaths confirmed but all cases have been recovered. 71.36.110.235 (talk) 23:50, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — IVORK _Talk 02:01, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Zambia and Lebanon both past 10,000 cases?

According to Worldometer, Zambia and Lebanon are both past 10,000 cases. If that is accurate, please update their numbers and colors on the map. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.104.223.114 (talk) 22:04, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Spain update

Spain update: 386.054 cases & 28.838 deaths Smtbcn123 (talk) 18:18, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Update your tables to reflect statistical analysis

Reporting on total numbers doesn't have a lot of value. That is why epidemiologists use rates of change to chart the progress of a disease. That is, you should add columns indicating death and recovery rates. This will yield a more useful comparison. This page is far more useful because it includes statistical data, not just raw data: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_pandemic_death_rates_by_country — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.124.137.122 (talk) 15:47, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Korea's death number is wrong

It jumped to 3231 but the death number should be 323, I guess. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikinaruno (talk • contribs) 05:34, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Add new template?

Would it be helpful to insert Template:COVID-19 pandemic death rates by country in the blank space on the right of the COVID-19 pandemic by location table? Dudley Miles (talk) 11:33, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Sounds good. Should scroll in the same way as the absolute numbers, of course, otherwise it's too long. --mfb (talk) 20:49, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

{{helpme}}. I do not know how to do this - that is put two templates next to each other, not one beneath the other. Also how do I only display part of the table with scrolling, as with the COVID-19 pandemic by location template. Advice please. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:34, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

I fear this will need a change in the template, similar to Template:COVID-19 pandemic data. Might be better to discuss it at Template:COVID-19 pandemic death rates by country first. Once the template is smaller it's simply copying the existing code and exchanging left for right. <div style="float: right;">{{COVID-19 pandemic death rates by country}}</div> --mfb (talk) 22:40, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Comment. There is discussion about this in these talk page sections:

• Template talk:COVID-19 pandemic death rates by country#Change to template format
• Template talk:COVID-19 pandemic death rates by country#Link to scrollable sandbox version and Help:Table discussion about it
• Help talk:Table#Partially collapsed table with vertical scrolling and show/hide links?

--Timeshifter (talk) 06:47, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

The scrollable table is at Template:COVID-19 pandemic death rates. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:28, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

About this COVID-19 pandemic cases and mortality by country as of 31 August 2020, the dead rate makes no sense, it must be placed at the peak of the pandemic. Making an exact estimate by country is very difficult. Furthermore, the global death rate, calculated by academic experts on the pandemic, is 2.8%. --Peter39c (talk) 17:18, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

The dead rate is calculated on the total for the whole of the pandemic, the same basis as the 'COVID-19 pandemic by location' table, together with the population of each country. It is based on John Hopkins University figures, the same source as used for the world total in the 'by location' table. Any change would need to apply to both tables and would require consensus. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:52, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

The new arrangement seems a mess to me. Of the new table, two of the four columns are a repeat of the previous column table (except that the numbers are different) and the case fatality rate is of minor importance (except possibly to some US apologists). If you want extra columns in the main table then that's the place to put them. Get it sorted at the template level. Chris55 (talk) 08:43, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

The new table transcludes figures from a John Hopkins table. It is obviously not ideal, but it supplies useful information correcting the misleading reliance of raw figures ignoring populations size. Your suggestion would require an inordinate amount of additional work compared with just transcluding an existing table, but if you can see a way of doing it then go ahead and propose it. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:56, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

You put the table there so it's your responsibility to clear up the mess. Chris55 (talk) 08:59, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

There is no mess. John Hopkins University Coronavirus Resource Center is a reliable source. Trying to combine the 2 tables on an ongoing basis would be very difficult, and unnecessary. --Timeshifter (talk) 10:43, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

The "mess" is 1. There are two tables abutting each other, one left adjusted and the second right adjusted. 2. The first two columns of these are supposed to contain the same data but have different values. Ok, I know why that is, but it must be confusing for the average reader and takes up a lot of space. Chris55 (talk) 14:35, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree that the differences between the 2 tables should be briefly explained. The placement formatting of the 2 tables does not matter much to me. I leave that decision to others. --Timeshifter (talk) 14:43, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

There is no need for two tables. You can't add extra columns to the original template without changing the consensus on that template. But if you want more columns simply replace the use of the first template by the use of the second. You will have to add extra columns such as Recovered (John Hopkins has that data). It doesn't have populations but you've obviously got those. Chris55 (talk) 15:00, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

I have not been involved with the editing of the first table. I started the article with the second table: COVID-19 pandemic death rates by country‎. Someone else moved the table to a template: Template:COVID-19 pandemic death rates by country‎. Adding a column for Recovered to it on a daily basis would be difficult and time consuming. In my opinion the Recovered numbers are bogus anyway since no one knows how many people have truly gotten the virus to begin with. Many people have had the virus without having enough problems to require seeing a doctor. Updating the template only takes a few minutes. See how here: Template:COVID-19 pandemic death rates by country/doc --Timeshifter (talk) 15:12, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

1. I do not agree that there is no need for two tables. They allow the reader to compare a nation's ranking on total and proportional figures, which is much more difficult with a single table. 2. I asked advice on how to put two tables side by side and followed the recommendation of Mfb. I agree that it would be better if the tables were immediately adjacent, but it is a minor issue. 3. I agree with Chris55 that an explanation is needed of the differences in the figures in the two tables, but I do not see how to add an efn note while the template is used both for this article and COVID-19 pandemic death rates by country. I think it would be best to follow Timeshifter's suggestion of two templates, a scrollable one for this article and a non-scrollable one for the other one. An editor (I cannot remember who) opposed this on the ground of duplication of effort updating two templates with the same information, but I think trying to use the same template for both articles is causing too many problems. If other editors agree, I will work on a separate template for this article. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:52, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

(unindent). Dudley Miles. The tables are not adjacent at all on my 21 inch monitor. The tables follow one another. On my 27 inch monitor they are adjacent, except for the world map first.

You wrote: I do not agree that there is no need for two tables. They allow the reader to compare a nation's ranking on total and proportional figures, which is much more difficult with a single table.

I don't understand this. The newer table has totals and rates. It is all in one table. It has all the columns of the first table except for the "Recovered" column. Which as I previously explained I don't see a need for.

The older table has a lot of notes. I think they should be saved somewhere as referenced history. Keep just the country and reference columns. Delete the table data columns. Then people can scroll down for the notes, or click on the references to get to the references.

I have changed my mind. 2 templates for the rates are better. This way the disagreements are split between 2 different template talk pages. One can choose to work on only the template of more interest. --Timeshifter (talk) 17:09, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Dudley Miles, if you want to see how it is possible to put both in one table, all you have to do is to look at the next section (Pandemic by Region). That shows a regional version which is perfectly adequate. I even put in a total population column though it's not strictly necessary. You can sort on any column, either totals or rates.

Are the notes in the first table an accurate guide to where the figures derive from? I very much doubt that anyone goes off to each of these in turn. It's not clear whether John Hopkins or ECDC is used for many, but one of them almost certainly is. So I think those notes are highly misleading, however interesting they are. Chris55 (talk) 18:49, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Chris55. That is a small table with only 15 rows. A full country list is much longer.

Where is the source for the "Recovered" column?

--Timeshifter (talk) 21:17, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

I was talking width, not length. The current JH Recovered figure is here. (The reason I didn't include it in the regional figures is that many significant countries do not show such a figure.) Chris55 (talk) 21:22, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Comment. Dudley Miles. Please see:

• Template talk:COVID-19 pandemic death rates

Primefac replied. It looks like a separate template is needed in order to get a fixed header row that remains visible while scrolling. Or the data needs to be added directly to Template:COVID-19 pandemic death rates. --Timeshifter (talk) 21:31, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Display style and format

Right now there are two main tables.

First table:

 "COVID-19 pandemic by location"

and the second table:

   "COVID-19 pandemic cases and mortality by country as of 2 September 2020"

These, unfortunately, appear side by side on my browser (palemoon) on a wide monitor screen (almost 2000 px).

Could these two graphs instead be displayed in a way that one is below the other one rather than side by side?

As it is, when it is side by side, it overflows and an in-widget scrollbar appears, which makes this tedious to use. I'd much rather have one big table per vertical "line", than two of these large table/diagrams side by side. (I actually come to this wikipedia page to look exactly at the second table, and this one appears on the right side, where it is harder to read than the left side table right now). 2A02:8388:1641:8380:F57D:59AE:A2AE:B491 (talk) 17:29, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

It looks like Wikmoz put the tables in different sections. Both tables are now left aligned. See diff.

Does this solve your problems? --Timeshifter (talk) 21:36, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

I am probably going to take a short wiki-break due to off wiki problems, but should get back to you shortly. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:26, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Wikmoz's changes allow the addition of additional information, but do not deal with other problems, especially the one which you pointed out of losing the header row when scrolling. The only solution appears to be two separate templates, and I will work on a scrollable one. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:57, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Dudley Miles. The header row is now sticky at User:Timeshifter/Sandbox119. Header row stays visible while scrolling. I think we still need a way to collapse the table from fully expanded back to the scrollable box. Without having to reload the article. --Timeshifter (talk) 01:35, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Timeshifter. I will move the table over to the mainspace once the update for 5 September is available. Dudley Miles (talk) 07:45, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

The cases and mortality by country graph is misleading

It should include a note for each country about the way they count their deaths, just like it does for pandemic by location graph. 153.98.68.208 (talk) 11:02, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

No such graph on this page. Chris55 (talk) 15:57, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, there is... 2A02:A03F:689C:5100:1806:5E7D:D596:F7D6 (talk) 11:09, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

That's a diagram or map, not a graph :) But seriously, a small diagram can't include that much information. It might be possible in a table, if the information was available on a wide scale, but it's hard to come by and none of the diagrams show it. Belgium is of course one of the only countries to provide registered figures as a headline. Britain also has these figures and the difference grows wider every week. (41K headlined, 57K registered) Chris55 (talk) 16:12, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Pandemic by region table. Made narrower...

...so graphs fit to the right at narrower screen sizes

COVID-19 pandemic by country and territory#Pandemic by region

See this version. See diff.

Zoom the page to see that the graphs stay to the right longer than before. --Timeshifter (talk) 16:44, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I edited before I noticed this Talk section. I don't see that we have much benefit from these changes (and a column width specifification of 1em is just silly). People with small screens must be used to content stacking, and that's what happens (and happened) here. People with wide screens should be able to expect a reasonable exploitation of the available screen real estate, which isn't the case when we adamantly insist that the columns are just one word wide. I've got as much empty space to the left of the two graphs as the graphs themselves are wide (and I can't do anything about it). I should rent that space to Google Ads, or something. ;-)

Our tables (and content in general) should be responsive to whatever user-agent the visitor is using, and we can't know that in advance. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 07:21, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

JohnFromPinckney. I left your change to style=width:5em;

I reverted your removal of style=text-align:left;

Why would you remove left alignment of text in the left column? It is standard procedure in tables. I edit Help:Table. --Timeshifter (talk) 12:56, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

I reverted your reversion of my removal of style=text-align:left;.

I did not really remove left alignment of text in the left column, I just removed the unneeded style code. But I did it to clean up the table (internally) and make it look like a standard wikipedia table (visually).

If left alignment of text is so standard, why is it the default for wikitable rows?

If you want left-aligned rows, use plainrowheaders, as I have now added. I stand by my edit summary that style=text-align:left; is unneeded, especially 14 times.

I have also reverted your reversion of my fix to the date format.

Next time someone undoes something you've just done, try to think of looking on the Talk page first. Possibly someone has tried to communicate with you per WP:BRD (as I did). I'll ping you @Timeshifter: so you don't edit before you come to Talk (I don't always check Talk first, myself). Regards,— JohnFromPinckney (talk) 04:15, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

JohnFromPinckney. You did the first reversion without looking at the talk page. And you did not add plainrowheaders until after I complained about the lack of left alignment. And I did look at your reply before making further changes. When I undid your illogical removal of left alignment I did not notice that date format change. So sorry about that. I am not the person that originally shortened that date. I don't believe it is a good idea though to use long dates for access dates in references. Especially when there are hundreds of references as with this article. By the way, MOS:DATE agrees with me that it is OK to use shorter date formats in references. I am not going to fight over it though since this article is using a long date format in references.

As for how people left align the first column opinions vary. Some people like plainrowheaders, some don't. I prefer the bold headers. I agree that having to add style=text-align:left; to the left column is a lot of effort and clutter. I have started 3 different threads at Village Pumps and Common.css pages about it. There is also a Phabricator task about it: T2418. Easier and better alignment within Wiki Tables. Many tables don't need row headers at all. They just need the left column aligned left, and the data columns aligned right.

If left alignment of text is so standard, why is it the default for wikitable rows?

The browser default for tables is center alignment for header cells (whether column headers or row headers), and left alignment for all other cells. Most data tables on Wikipedia need the left column aligned left, and the data columns aligned right. So the simplest current solution is to add style=text-align:right; at the top of the table wikitext. And style=text-align:left; or align=left to the left column cells. align=left won't work in header cells.

--Timeshifter (talk) 14:55, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

You did the first reversion without looking at the talk page. Yes, I know that. I said that. Why are you mentioning it?. We all agree it's true. And that's entirely in line with WP:BRD; you were bold, I reverted, then it was time to discuss. Which is why I immediately came to the Talk page. As I noted at the very beginning.

I did look at your reply before making further changes. Well, that's what's kind of set me off here. That behavior was inappropriate. You are expected to discuss conflicting editing ideas, not go do some reversions and then come defend your actions. Doing otherwise wastes time (we could have discussed your concerns about centered headers and talked about plainrowheaders, and after achieving consensus, then edited once) and it annoys other contributors.

By the way, MOS:DATE agrees with me that it is OK... I am not going to fight over it... Well, I'm glad you don't want to fight, especially as MOS:DATEUNIFY is part of MOS:DATE and, as you pointed out, the long form is "the format expected in the citation style adopted in the article". (In other words, MOS:DATE disagrees with you.)

Now we finally come to actual table formatting, and you've left me bemused. I know quite well what the browser default for tables is; you don't have to tell me, and I don't see what point of yours it serves to explain. You then say, Most data tables on Wikipedia need the left column aligned left, and the data columns aligned right. "Citation needed", as they say. I would very, very, very much like to see the sources for these two statements. I find the word "need" especially dubious. My experience is that about 60% of the row headings (your "left column") work well centered, and most (~85%?) of the data is best left-aligned. But it depends on the data you tend to work with. And I have absolutely no sources for my guesstimates, just my gut.

It (heading alignment) generally comes down to what editors on individual articles decide what works best, table for table. The standard is (as I know you know) bold centered for headers. But this seems like a good reason to tend toward this as standard, for the sake of uniformity project-wide, not away from it. IOW, it seems like it'd be good for the table in question. And it'd be bold, as is your preference. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 21:12, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

JohnFromPinckney. MOS warriors spend an inordinate amount of time nitpicking. I already said that when I reverted your kneejerk reversion I didn't notice the date reversion, and apologized. Try being more graceful, and you'll get farther on Wikipedia in my opinion.

Browser default is not a logical reason for what works best in any particular table on Wikipedia.

And I am going to put the left column back to what looks best in my opinion: Left-aligned and bold. Unless you come up with a logical reason not to. If that leaves the wikitext a little cluttered, then so be it. The reader does not see the wikitext:

scope=row style=text-align:left;

Bold is easier to read in headers. Especially when some of the text in the headers is in a light blue color due to being linked. Normal-size light blue text on a gray background is not a great idea. Making the header links bold makes them easier to read if the text is linked. The bolded headers also use a darker blue for the linked text. See this version of the table with bold left-aligned row headers with linked header text:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=COVID-19_pandemic_by_country_and_territory&oldid=977865879#Pandemic_by_region

In the meantime I will wait for the opinion of others.

And WP:BRD requires reading the talk first before kneejerk reversions. As you said, you did not do that. And since we both agree that the left column is fine left aligned, then you should have left it left aligned, and discussed further before changing it from bold to normal font. All just because you did not like the clutter. I had already done the work, so there was no need to revert. It was petty on your part.

--Timeshifter (talk) 23:38, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

The "nitpicking" you're complaining about stems in part from my perception that you're overlooking several details and making claims which are not quite accurate. I have the (perhaps overly pedantic) urge to offer some corrections. You said, above, a bit after you apologised (and thanks for that!), I don't believe it is a good idea though to use long dates for access dates in references. Especially when there are hundreds of references as with this article. By the way, MOS:DATE agrees with me that it is OK to use shorter date formats in references. I thought it important to point out what MOS:DATE actually says, which I thought would be useful to you if you're going to use it in further discussions.

And I, too, don't want to spend an inordinate amount of time, doing nitpicking or anything else. But that's one of the things I suspect you've missed: by not discussing here after by reversion, you wasted an inordinate amount of time. We're arguing about MOS:DATE, about plainrowheaders, about nitpicking, about BRD and who read the Talk page when; don't you think that's a waste?

And now to BRD. You wrote, And WP:BRD requires reading the talk first before kneejerk reversions. Please read WP:BRD. It requires nothing of the kind (although it doesn't seem to contain the word "kneejerk" anywhere). I'll summarize it again for you: you were bold, I reverted, I came here to discuss. Nothing kneejerk about it.

I'll accept that left-aligned can work for this table.

My thinking was, that if Timeshifter and others here prefer left-aligned row headers, we can use plainrowheaders instead of multiple style specifications. (No need to revert me, then partially revert your own reversion in two steps, and still miss the date thingy.) True, the reader does not see the wikicode, but editors do. I think removing unnecessary code ("clutter", as you say) is useful and usually A Good Thing^TM.

I, too, would like to have other editors weigh in. I fear, however, we may have scared them all off. :-0 — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 00:07, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Well, let's wait for others to weigh in. And Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle often mentions looking for discussion first before further actions. --Timeshifter (talk) 20:13, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Well, yes, let's wait for others to weigh in. And yes, yes it does. Exactly. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 21:48, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

SADR Free Zone has cases or not?

The article about the COVID-19 pandemic in Western Sahara now states there were 25 confirmed cases in the Free Zone - apparently there have even been cases since sometime in July, but the article kept citing no cases until a few days ago. Here and in COVID-19 pandemic in Africa the current state is still that there are no cases.

We should find out which of these statements is right, or say better, more up-to-date. But I guess there are some problems with translation of the sources in the way.

Furthermore, if there are really confirmed cases in the Free Zone now, would that mean we have to add Western Sahara into the cases/deaths and death rate tables? --2003:E7:7713:A738:A5C0:22CD:17C3:4DCC (talk) 22:22, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

SADR authorities reported the first Free Zone cases on 25 July 2020. In COVID-19 pandemic in Africa the text has now been corrected; here the phrase 'the Free Zone, administered by the disputed state of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic, and' ought to be deleted.2A00:23C8:3A16:C600:50D0:767D:5361:BBEF (talk) 10:15, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Cases and Deaths

Please update all countries cases and deaths. Aldrin0000 (talk) 11:25, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Pandemic by region table. Format choice

Note. Option D table was added later by Wikmoz.

Table column from:

• COVID-19 pandemic by country and territory#Pandemic by region

There is a Phabricator task to make left alignment of a column much easier: T2418. Easier and better alignment within Wiki Tables.

In the meantime which table column below do people prefer? Left, middle, or right? I prefer the left column because light blue links on a gray background (right column) are not as easy to read or scan, especially for the visually impaired. Right column may meet minimal contrast requirements, but it is not as good as the left column where the blue links are bold, and use a darker shade of blue.

• Option B is the browser default for row headers. Text is center aligned.

• Option A is created by using any text editor to globally replace scope=row in the wikitext of the middle column with:
  

scope=row style=text-align:left;

• Option C has the same wikitext as the middle column, but it removes bolding and adds left alignment by adding class=plainrowheaders at the top.

Row headings, option A Region South America North America South Asia European Union and the UK Middle East Central Asia and Russia Sub-Saharan Africa Central America Other Europe Oceania and islands in East Asia North Africa East Asia Caribbean Totals

Row headings, option B Region South America North America South Asia European Union and the UK Middle East Central Asia and Russia Sub-Saharan Africa Central America Other Europe Oceania and islands in East Asia North Africa East Asia Caribbean Totals

Row headings, option C Region South America North America South Asia European Union and the UK Middle East Central Asia and Russia Sub-Saharan Africa Central America Other Europe Oceania and islands in East Asia North Africa East Asia Caribbean Totals

Row headings, option D Region South America North America South Asia European Union and the UK Middle East Central Asia and Russia Sub-Saharan Africa Central America Other Europe Oceania and islands in East Asia North Africa East Asia Caribbean Totals

By using a free app (CareUEyes Lite) I, like many others, keep my monitor at 80% of its maximum brightness. Due to this the background of my web pages are slightly gray instead of the bright white background at 100% brightness. Try it, your eyes will thank you. I can maximize brightness instantly via the app button in the taskbar. To watch videos for example. I am not alone in this lowering of brightness. It is recommended by eye doctors.

Anyway, this lowers the contrast of text (and especially the blue links) on a gray background. Because the gray background is a darker shade of gray. The default Wikipedia blue links and background color may meet minimal WCAG contrast recommendations on a bright monitor setting, but not on lower brightness settings that are very common. This can be shown with WCAG contrast checkers. First, see Help:Link color. The color of an unvisited internal link is #0645AD (a shade of blue). The header background color (according to Help:Table) is #EAECF0 (a shade of gray).

This combination minimally passes all the WCAG tests in this WCAG contrast checker:

• https://snook.ca/technical/colour_contrast/colour.html#fg=0645AD,bg=EAECF0

But a slightly darker shade of gray (see shades) does not pass all the WCAG tests:

• https://snook.ca/technical/colour_contrast/colour.html#fg=0645AD,bg=E8E8E8

That is why it is better to use the bold header text that uses a darker shade of blue. It increases the contrast, and helps readers, especially the visually impaired. Some of whom have complained about this.

A light yellow background creates even more contrast. But that is another discussion. For more ideas see:

• User:Timeshifter/Sandbox120

--Timeshifter (talk) 20:38, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your passion and attention to detail. I think the table looks pretty good as it is but in general, I'd vote for A, C, or D (just added this last option). If legibility is a problem, then A or D (see the second table on the page where this is already used).

Probably not worth the effort to debate much more in this context. A legibility issue should be discussed at a much higher level as it affects all of Wikipedia.

The totals at the bottom of the table should be right aligned. I'd remove the gray background as well... the bolding (and the bottom position and row label) should be sufficient to differentiate these as totals. On a related note, why is the Population column so wide? Is this just a limitation to allow flexible width? - Wikmoz (talk) 21:46, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

The Population column is as wide as the largest value: 7,590,384,083 at the bottom or "Population" at the top (I can't tell for sure which is longer). Are you seeing something significantly wider than that? I'm using the "modern" skin on Firefox.

As for gray shading, that's part of the visual indication that the headings are headings; they are meant to enhance understandability of the data we're presenting. I would really not like to see that removed. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 22:26, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

That's fair. In that case, I'd vote for A. Yes, the population column appears much wider in the default theme. Can we right align and remove the background color from the totals? Something like:

COVID-19 cases and deaths by region, in absolute figures and per million inhabitants as of 5 September 2020

Region	Total cases	Total deaths	Cases per million	Deaths per million	Population
South America	6,567,184	208,599	15,521	493	423,117,093
North America	6,297,180	196,464	17,286	539	364,296,266
South Asia	4,678,052	81,103	2,578	45	1,814,388,744
European Union and the UK	2,295,988	182,312	4,474	355	513,213,363
Middle East	1,598,877	65,959	5,406	223	295,732,825
Central Asia and Russia	1,378,062	22,641	5,753	95	239,531,973
Sub-Saharan Africa	1,037,955	21,907	960	20	1,081,142,280
Central America	930,977	74,780	5,306	426	175,471,759
Other Europe	601,090	15,369	3,606	92	166,707,094
Oceania and islands in East Asia	511,439	13,547	900	24	567,962,253
North Africa	184,173	7,067	1,206	46	152,696,504
East Asia	182,992	5,312	104	3	1,752,240,948
Caribbean	159,088	2,799	3,625	64	43,882,981
Totals	26,423,057	897,859	3,481	118	7,590,384,083

References

Increased first column to 8em to prevent the Oceana row from wrapping to 3-lines. Set last column to 6em. Resolved last row alignment and shading. Excluded last row from sort. - Wikmoz (talk) 23:44, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

In order of preference: I prefer option D first, and then A, B, C. Most country and state tables on Wikipedia keep the white background for the left column of countries or states. It is obvious what the column is, and doesn't need background shading. And legibility is better for all people, including the visually impaired. --Timeshifter (talk) 02:01, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

You write, Most country and state tables on Wikipedia keep the white background

A. Prove it, please. Where do you get this information?

B. Do tables which have white-background left columns do so out of editors' personal preference, as you seem to be suggesting, or because the tables have yet to be marked up properly with !scope="row" coding per WP:ACCESS? And here, too: how do you know?

Regards, — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 10:04, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm good with A or D. Timeshifter, it sounds like your preference is for D but you're OK with A as a second best option. It's clear that John really doesn't like D. Accordingly, let's run with A for now. We can perhaps continue the debate here and update again if necessary. On a related note, the table was last updated on Sept 5. Is there a regular update process? - Wikmoz (talk) 20:05, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

John, if you click on any of the region pages, most of them (with exception of Africa) do not apply background shading to the the left column when listing states. The same is seen in many Wikipedia articles listing countries (countries by population, countries by GDP, etc). So the Option D approach does seem standard. - Wikmoz (talk) 20:28, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Wikmoz. Yes, that was rather the point of my question. I know that Africa has shading because I added the table mark-up to that page. I have not added the mark-up to the other articles, so they don't have it yet, and the background is white. The result is, that nothing about preferences has been proven for me either way. To me, it just looks we haven't gotten around to fixing all the articles on WP yet. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 00:41, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

WP:ACCESS is out of date concerning the latest scope requirements according to WCAG. Simple tables don't require scopes. See:

H51: Using table markup to present tabular information | Techniques for WCAG 2.0. "Simple tables generally have only one level of headers for columns and/or one level of headers on the rows."

H63: Using the scope attribute to associate header cells and data cells in data tables | Techniques for WCAG 2.0. "Note 1: For simple tables that have the headers in the first row or column then it is sufficient to simply use the TH elements without scope."

People were on a mission to remove rowspans awhile back, but they are no longer a problem for modern screen readers according to this discussion section:

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Accessibility/Archive 15#Rowspan and screen readers.

User:TheDJ (a volunteer developer on Wikipedia) wrote in reply to me in this WP:VPT discussion here:

The blind need scopes on all header cells that is simply not true. While good advice in general, all screenreaders I have worked with simply make their own header direction analysis for tables (because no one other than Wikipedia uses the scope attribute) or even completely ignore the direction of headers. So in practice it isn't really a thing. There is a difference between being a 'need' and an 'improvement/net benefit'. They can also be very useful for styling.

--Timeshifter (talk) 01:35, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Here's what I think you should do: go to WP:ACCESS, arrange consensus on an RfC question (or textual rewording), pose that question in an RfC, and if widespread consensus agrees with all of your many claims which you keep posting and cross-quoting and linking to new "discussions" you keep starting, then you will have helped WP:ACCESS become current, we'll all know what guidelines to follow, and you can stop complaining that other editors do things you don't like the look of.

How's that for a plan? — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 02:18, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Knock yourself out. No one is stopping you. --Timeshifter (talk) 07:33, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Only just seen this enlightening discussion. I hope I haven't disturbed the finesse. It's a pig to update these tables as most of the formatting needs redoing. I trust that doing it every two weeks will keep Wikmoz happy. Chris55 (talk) 13:08, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for updating!!! Two weeks sounds good to me. - Wikmoz (talk) 04:59, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Chris55 and Wikmoz. I agree, and thanks for updating the table. Please see related discussion:

Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 184#Tables, row headers, and accessibility

--Timeshifter (talk) 05:10, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Case fatality rate

As this is an ongoing pandemic with a non-zero number of open cases in most countries, I would not calculate the CFR for each country in the table under "Total cases and death rates by country" by dividing the number of deaths by the total number of cases (which consists of deaths, recoveries and a yet unknown outcome).

Instead, I would divide the number of deaths by the sum of number of deaths and number of recoveries only (or the difference between the total number of cases and open cases). Otherwise, the CFR is misleadingly low for countries with a high number of open cases (like USA), while having in the near future for the open cases a similar percentage of deaths as for the current sum of deaths and recoveries. So, why should the CFR now be lower than later (44% for USA)? It would seem paradox, that during the pandemic the CFR is lower than at the end of the pandemic.

Therefore, the open cases should only be considered in the CFR calculation, when their outcome (deceased or recovered) is defined and the case is closed. Taking into account the number of open cases would only make sense, if we will still have such an outcome after the pandemic is over, which we won't.

This should be considered also for the pandemic page of each country (in each language). Dremmelt (talk) 17:40, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

The data for 'Recoveries' is useless. I wouldn't base any calculations on that data point. The US for example, doesn't actually have 3.1 million people with active infections. It is expected that CFR would decline over time as treatment improves and more cases are identified due to broader testing. Your point is correct though, the data presented is actually the death-to-case ratio (since the numerator and denominator are from the same time interval), not the CFR. Unfortunately, JHU labeled the column CFR. I'd be in favor of renaming the column but I imagine some will object. At this point in time, given the large numbers, the CFR and death-to-case ratio should be nearly 1:1. - Wikmoz (talk) 05:13, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Countries by active cases

Should there be another section sorting the countries by the number of active cases? GeorgeMHall 17:49, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Missing Countries

North Korea should be included in the list of countries even if its "Number of Cases/Number of Deaths/Recovered" columns might only say "No Data". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.244.210.117 (talk) 12:16, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

ALso the EU as a whole could be included in the list. The EU had open borders up until the pandemic set in, therefore it can be considered as one country for the purpose of the spread of the virus. Leveni (talk) 05:58, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

The table has faults but it is based on a John Hopkins University table and we have to go by the source cited. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:24, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Quebec

Quebec has passed 1,000 cases per 100,000 people — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.71.68.176 (talk) 19:49, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 October 2020

Please change India's data to Cases-7,650,849;Recovered-6,794,626;Deceased-1,15,956 176.203.233.55 (talk) 06:13, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

 Already done Asartea ^{Trick | Treat} 15:21, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

North Korea

 "The lack of cases in North Korea is disputed, given its shared border with China, while concerns have been raised about the ability for its health system to cope"

This sentence seems politically inspired without any substantiation. There are many places in Asia with similar circumstances.

200.68.142.46 (talk) 05:05, 27 October 2020 (UTC) Baden K.