File talk:COVID-19 Outbreak World Map per Capita.svg

维基共享资源，媒体文件资料库
跳转到导航 跳转到搜索

This is a talk page so:

  • Put new messages at the bottom of the page (click here to start a new topic).
  • Sign your post by typing four tides like this: (~~~~).
  • When replying to a thread, please add : and add replies below the other replies

Closed discussions[编辑]

2020[编辑]

This section is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this section. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so below this archive
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Please add Åland (Finland) independently if SValbard too? — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.176.53.93 (talk) 02:42, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[回复]

It has been added. Raphaël Dunant (留言) 08:12, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[回复]

Mouseover text[编辑]

When hovering the cursor over countries here, it mostly just displays the text "Layer 1" (with the weird exception of Israel, which is labeled). Can we get the map to display the country name, or (even better) do something more analogous to the map at w:2019–20_coronavirus_pandemic_in_mainland_China#Detailed_map_of_outbreak, where clicking on a country would take you to the article on the outbreak in that country. Sdkb (留言) 19:56, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[回复]

It looks like now the only country that's labeled with a tooltip is the West Bank. Very odd. Sdkb (留言) 07:23, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[回复]
Nice catch. It has been corrected! Raphaël Dunant (留言) 12:32, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[回复]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Deaths are more transparent and reliable than Infections[编辑]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Have you considered using Deaths per pop instead of Infections per pop as measure? I think the latter might be misleading, as the countries test more or less, and deaths are much easier to report. In my analysis of the spread rate I used that.

Here is the data source I use for updating my charts. It is based on JHU and updated daily.

Edit: Ups, I now saw that there already is such a map. Could you please link to that one in your maps description? — 以上未签名的留言是由该用户加入的： Tokes (留言 • 贡献) 05:12, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[回复]

--Tokes (留言) 04:54, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[回复]

Agrees ! Yug (talk) 13:01, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[回复]
For deaths per pop, we have File:COVID-19 Outbreak World Map Total Deaths per Capita.svg. --Dan Polansky (留言) 10:43, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[回复]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

French Overseas Regions[编辑]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Since the French Overseas Regions are an integral part of France with the same status as Metropolitan France, rather than autonomous territories, shouldn't they be colored in the same color ? The cases are reported at a national level, and there is precedent for it on File_talk:COVID-19_Outbreak_World_Map.svg (the relevant discussions are on the talk page's Archive 2) 2A01:E0A:2C1:4260:F14D:94DD:C266:C7F 23:14, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[回复]

The map reflects the data from 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data. Feel free to join the talk page in progress there. If it changes, I will of course update the map here. Raphaël Dunant (留言) 10:49, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[回复]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Adding remaining de facto sovereign nations and overseas and/or outlying territories per already established criteria[编辑]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Seeing as SADR, Taiwan, Palestine and Kosovo are generally always shown separately on maps and have dozens if not hundreds of UN member states recognizing them, it is understandable and desirable to stay consistent and keep showing them. It also appears to be justified to show the currently present de facto sovereign nations of Transnistria, Northern Cyprus and Somaliland as their health systems are detached and independent from their de jure sovereigns. Now, it would seem even more justified to add the marginally recognized states of Abkhazia, South Ossetia and Artsakh (Nagorno Karabakh) as they function very much in the same way. Currently cases have appeared in Abkhazia (Source) while Artsakh has no reported cases (Source) and South Ossetia, much like Lesotho for instance, hasn't the capacity to test for it (Source) although Russia is aiding them so that might change.

On a different note, the Indian Ocean entities of Britain and Australia would also fit in nicely for sake of consistency. First the British Indian Ocean Territory which already has a small section on the 2020 coronavirus outbreak in Asia page and appears to not have any cases yet. (Source) They would complete the shown British overseas territories seeing as all others are present on the map. The Australian Christmas Island and Cocos Islands would also fit in nicely with the already displayed Norfolk Island. They have blocked off all outside travel and so have no cases. (Source) — 以上未签名的留言是由该用户加入的： Dandioso (留言 • 贡献) 09:15, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[回复]

Thanks for the comment. It took some time, but I added Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Artsakh, Donetsk People's Republic, Luhansk People's Republic and Christmas and Cocos Islands. I also removed territories markers for territories without any permanent population. This way, the map is now more consistent with the main page. Raphaël Dunant (留言) 19:36, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[回复]
Abkhazia should be decolorized. The woman who's been diagnosed is treated in Georgia and has Georgian citizenship. She was simply going through Abkhazia from Russia to Georgia. source in Russian --Extended Cut (留言) 15:26, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[回复]
✓ 完成. Thank you @Extended Cut: . Raphaël Dunant (留言) 07:01, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[回复]
Raphaël Dunant, thanks! --Extended Cut (留言) 11:36, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[回复]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"No cases or no data"[编辑]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

These are two pretty separate categories. Can we introduce another color (I'm not sure what) to make them distinct? Sdkb (留言) 00:47, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[回复]

See, for instance, File:COVID-19 Outbreak Cases in Asia.svg. Sdkb (留言) 04:58, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[回复]
@Sdkb: That is a good idea. The hard part will be finding a reliable source or list of which territories have suspected cases and which ones don't. Raphaël Dunant (留言) 09:21, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[回复]
@Raphaël Dunant: Looking at the list at w:2019–20_coronavirus_pandemic_by_country_and_territory#Entities_without_confirmed_cases, I think it's just North Korea and Yemen. There's sources in the Asia article and related pages. Sdkb (留言) 09:27, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[回复]
@Raphaël Dunant: It's getting increasingly ridiculous that North Korea appears from this map to be the healthiest country in the world right now. Is there anything else you need to be able to address this? Sdkb (留言) 19:49, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[回复]
@Sdkb: We currently have no reliable source about suspected cases. This article for example states that basically every big country has suspected cases, also Tajikistan and Turkmenistan. Lesotho is waiting for results of suspected cases. What is the criteria for "suspected cases"? Finally, there is currently no Wikipedia article about every suspected coronavirus cases. So if we add this new color, it will be highly subjective, which is against Wikipedia guidelines. But if enough people are in favor of this change, we could add it. Raphaël Dunant (留言) 10:24, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[回复]
@Raphaël Dunant: That's a fair concern. I'm going to bring this up at the en-WP COVID-19 WikiProject to see if others might have ideas on how to handle this. Sdkb (留言) 18:27, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[回复]
See w:Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_COVID-19#How_to_handle_North_Korea_in_maps? Sdkb (留言) 18:41, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[回复]

There is data about North Korea: the official number of confirmed cases in the DPRK is 0. Of course this can be disputed. But the official data is there. It is not accurate to just say there is no data. Sdkb: I don't think the DPRK is the healthiest country in the world right now, but given its hermeticism and the fact that it started closing entry to tourists, quarantining, etc, as early as January, it is not so extraordinary that it is the country that has the lowest chance of importing cases. --MarioGom (留言) 19:04, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[回复]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Inaccurate data[编辑]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The current version from April 7th seems inaccurate. Specifically, I noticed that Serbia is colored much lighter than Bulgaria, while Serbian has almost the same population (a bit less) and 4 times the cases. It shouldn't be lighter. Maybe there are others colored wrongly too, but that's what I checked manually. --Martin.LibTec (留言) 01:52, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[回复]

Indeed, good catch. there was an error while importing Kosovo value that caused Serbia to have the wrong color. It has been corrected. Raphaël Dunant (留言) 07:29, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[回复]

I see the color of Serbia unchanged in the updated version, is that a mistake? — 以上未签名的留言是由该用户加入的： CNBH (留言 • 贡献) 01:14, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[回复]

Yes, I corrected Serbia to the correct color. The two svg entities, Serbia and Kosovo are grouped together in a strange way in the file which makes it a little buggy, I will try to correct this. Raphaël Dunant (留言) 09:35, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[回复]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

new color?[编辑]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

can you add a 2000+ or a 3000+ category? Now, more than 30 countries/territories have 1000+ cases per capita. 6 countries and 2 territories (Faroe Islands and Gibraltar) have more than 3000+ per capita (including Spain which has a high population) and 12 countries and 5 territories have 2000+. @Raphaël Dunant Thank you! Also, make a change to WS as it is de facto split in parts (1 owned by Morroco and another by the SADR) Thanks again!

 
> 2000 cases per million inhabitants
(it could also be > 3000 cases per million inhabitants)
 
1000-2000 cases per million inhabitants
 
500-1000 cases per million inhabitants
 
200-500 cases per million inhabitants
 
50-200 cases per million inhabitants
 
>0–50 cases per million inhabitants
 
No reported cases, no population, or no data available

That should be the 2000+ or 3000+ Humiebees (留言) 22:09, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[回复]

I modified the latest scale step to have a more consistent scale. Thank you for your remark. Raphaël Dunant (留言) 11:21, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[回复]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Belgium and Netherlands mixed up?[编辑]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I think when updating the scale, BE and NL got mixed up: Belgium has about 3 cases per 1000, while the Netherlands still have less than 2. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.127.24.77 (talk) 11:46, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[回复]

Yes you are right, I somehow mixed up Netherlands and Belgium. It has been corrected. Thanks for the notice! Raphaël Dunant (留言) 11:20, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[回复]

I think Norway has more than 1000 cases per million.CNBH (留言) 11:56, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[回复]

Thanks for the notice, Norway color has been corrected. Raphaël Dunant (留言) 22:00, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[回复]


The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Two things[编辑]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

1) The source of the base map should be acknowledged (and linked) where you have 'Author'.

2) I notice that the series of maps will be of considerable interest (could be an animation or have a slider to scroll back and forth through the time-series data). It seems a shame to hide the data away in 'History'. Or perhaps you've already done that somewhere else. Of course, for that use, the same colours must be used consistently throughout the series. Chiswick Chap (留言) 20:59, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[回复]

@Chiswick Chap: Thanks for the comments.
1) You are right, I added the sources of the base maps on the legend.
2) As per Wikimedia guidelines, the works on the plateform should be continuously improved. As such, the map will continuously be modified to improve the information conveyed. I would advise against using this map for a timeline. If you want a timeline of the Coronavirus cases per capita, I would advise to check Wugapodes's work on the English Wikipedia. Raphaël Dunant (留言) 22:08, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[回复]


The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Western sahrara[编辑]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

please uncolor it as it has no cases (in the Polisario controlled area) @Raphaël Dunant Humiebees (留言) 02:24, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[回复]

The territory colored on the map is the complete Western Sahara, not only the part controlled by the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic. Western Sahara has, as of today, 4 confirmed cases. Raphaël Dunant (留言) 18:59, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[回复]
@Raphaël Dunant Could you maybe split it into two parts as controlled by Morocco and SADR? I mean this map is all about de facto controlled areas, right? So I think it should be adequate in this case as well. --Extended Cut (留言) 11:54, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[回复]
@Extended Cut ✓ 完成 Thank you for the suggestion. Raphaël Dunant (留言) 15:48, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[回复]


The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Suggestion: split 0-100/m into two bins: 0-30/m and 30-100/m[编辑]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I think this will better reflect the situations in very highly populated countries. For example, India has nearly 50,000 cases but is still the lightest color because it's so large. To get the next color it will need well over 100k cases. Vietnam on the other hand has only 3/million and has it well under control. I think that the situations in these two countries, as examples, are different enough to warrant different colors, and I think 30/m is a good dividing line. CJK09 (留言) 19:56, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[回复]

Thanks for your remark, I made India cases more visible by adding more provinces. The objective of starting the scale at 0.1 cases per 1,000 is to make the map highlight the most touched areas (US, Europe, Iran, etc.) instead of having details about low touched areas. But if it becomes a frequent request, we might add more details for low touched areas. Raphaël Dunant (留言) 10:48, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[回复]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Discussion at the COVID-19 WikiProject on standardizing various aspects of maps[编辑]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

 You are invited to join the discussion at w:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject COVID-19#Best universal colors for maps and graphs?. Sdkb (留言) 21:41, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[回复]

Thanks for the link, I am currently taking part in this discussion. @Gajmar: , if you want to voice your opinion in this discussion, please do it! Raphaël Dunant (留言) 21:34, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[回复]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

suspect cases[编辑]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

in the map,there should be a Blue color for the suspected cases (in north korea) — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 189.35.35.204 (talk) 14:43, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[回复]

Please see "No cases or no data" in the closed discussion section for the current consensus on the issue. As with other consensus, if enough people voice that it's important to have this new colour, we will reopen the discussion. Raphaël Dunant (留言) 21:32, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[回复]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Colors[编辑]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

almost white countries[编辑]

coloring countries almost white while using a white background is probably a bad idea. --BuschBohne (留言) 18:19, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[回复]

Seconded. Especially since "zero" is light gray and "more than zero" is white on white, this is both hard to read and counterintuitive. --XndrK (留言) 23:22, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[回复]
Since there is only 7 countries with the whitish color, and there is little difference for an average user between 1 case per 100 million and 1 case per 10 million, I have removed the last color. Raphaël Dunant (留言) 17:42, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[回复]
@Raphaël Dunant: removing white was a good change. Why did you bring it back? —St.nerol (留言) 08:52, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[回复]
Because of @Senator2029: comment about needing a broader color palette. But I admit someone should suggest a better colour than the yellowish. Raphaël Dunant (留言) 09:39, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[回复]
@Raphaël Dunant: As I noted at the talk page, I think we should remove the whiteish yellow again. A broader color palette might be nice, but not having countries with cases be lighter than those with no cases is the bigger issue (and it's also nice to have consistency with the totals map; further changes to the color palette for either should also be reflected in the other). Sdkb (留言) 05:28, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[回复]


Color palette[编辑]

May I suggest broadening the color palette? By only using red and pink, all the countries seem to blend together. Senator2029 19:03, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[回复]

I’m all in for changing the colors of the map to colorblind friendly colors similar to File:Verkaufsalter für Tabakwaren in Nordamerika.svg but I do not know how others will react if I do change the colors. Fluffy89502 ~ talk 04:34, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[回复]
Someone commented negatively on this color:
 
...
.

Current color scheme:

 
> 1 case per 1,000 inhabitants
 
1–10 cases per 10,000 inhabitants
 
1–10 cases per 100,000 inhabitants
 
1–10 cases per 1 million inhabitants
 
1–10 cases per 10 million inhabitants
 
1-10 cases per 100 million inhabitants
 
There are no reported case/no population

A modified proposal, using ffe0e0 for the smallest-rate region:

 
> 1 case per 1,000 inhabitants
 
1–10 cases per 10,000 inhabitants
 
1–10 cases per 100,000 inhabitants
 
1–10 cases per 1 million inhabitants
 
1–10 cases per 10 million inhabitants
 
1-10 cases per 100 million inhabitants
 
There are no reported case/no population

One might also reconsider whether to really use the red-to-black palette; Our World in Data uses green-to-blue:

One might also pick a palette from colorbrewer2.org, e.g. Reds, n6, and you can have a look at other palettes there, and they may be then tweaked a little. colorbrewer2.org has an icon showing for each palette whether it is color-blind safe.

--Dan Polansky (留言) 11:29, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[回复]


Color palette (again)[编辑]

In the current color palette, some nations are near-white (the same color as the sea) or not easily distinguishable from those with 0 cases. Also, we will unfortunately start having countries with >1% (> 10000 cases per million inhabitants) soon, so if I may suggest a new palette that I created using this tool with #400000 and #ecb9bb for start and end colors, 6 steps, HSL mode:

 
10,000+ confirmed cases per million
 
1,000–10,000 confirmed cases per million
 
100–1,000 confirmed cases per million
 
10–100 confirmed cases per million
 
1–10 confirmed cases per million
 
>0–1 confirmed cases per million
 
No confirmed cases or no data

I have also made a map using these values (doing search/replace on your SVG), but I'm not sure if I should upload it. Might do so just for illustration purposes, but then it'd have no real reason to stay on commons since it won't be used in any article. Byteflush (留言) 01:38, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[回复]

@Raphaël Dunant: I uploaded the modified file, I probably did something wrong, but this is just for illustration, can be deleted from commons later.
  • Current map
    Current map
  • New color palette
    New color palette
Apologies to Austria - I have changed their color scheme to 1% infected. This is just an illustration to see how it shows on map; I have nothing against Austria, it's just that it's conveniently located between 0.1%, 0.01% and 0.001% countries. Byteflush (留言) 01:58, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[回复]
I updated the color palette to make the white most color darker. What are your opinions on this new palette? Raphaël Dunant (留言) 09:24, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[回复]
Yeah, that looks much better now, thanks! Byteflush (留言) 23:43, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[回复]


The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Splitting of countries[编辑]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Sub-division coloring[编辑]

How come some nations are colored in one solid color, but other nations (i.e. China) are given preferential treatment and colored based on province? This makes the graph look silly and biased. Either make China one solid color based on its current internationally recognized borders or start coloring in individual states/provinces/prefectures/whatever for every country on the map.

I second the above posters comments. The map as it now is displayed in misleading / in accurate. In almost all the the United States, the rate of infection is well below the solid red color rate, yet the whole country is colored as such. While China is broken out by province. This gives a very mis-leading impression of infection rates. This graphic should be broken out by province for all countries, or show country-wide rates worldwide, but NOT selectively mish-mash them. Otherwise, it is BIASED. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 184.170.166.62 (talk) 14:25, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[回复]

I also agree. Since, for several countries, the infection rate strongly varies from province to province, or from state to state, coloring by province would be an interesting option to consider. For now, three possibilities seem relevant (feel free to add others):
  1. Coloring the full countries, including or not dependent territories (currently what is done for most countries, except China).
  2. Coloring the full countries for smaller states (for example, < 1 million km², around the area of Egypt), while dividing the largest into first-level subdivisions.
  3. Coloring all first-level subdivisions for countries where the data is available (the possibility I currently favor, despite one more order of magnitude in the volume of daily updates being needed).
2A01:E0A:2C1:4260:F14D:94DD:C266:C7F 16:41, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[回复]

The map should provide just one colour per country. It doesn't make sense to split up China and not e.g. the United States and Russia. We could argue about what to do with Hong Kong, Macao and Taiwan though, but that's a different discussion. De wafelenbak (留言) 16:54, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[回复]

Agree with above posters. I wouldn't quite argue that it is biased but this definitely isn't the proper way to color in the worldwide map. A map of all the world's countries by administrative region would be interesting, but for now this should be reverted to country only. @Raphaël Dunant: --2605:E000:1520:8586:340D:7F57:85C9:2CB7 17:15, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[回复]

I updated the map accordingly, thanks for the feedback. Indeed having every country separated by first-level administrative division is way too hard to keep track of. What would you think of a compromise, such as suggested in this discussion: that every country bigger than 3mio km^2 is split by first level division (Russia, Canada, US, Brazil, China, India, and Australia)? Raphaël Dunant (留言) 10:46, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[回复]


I don’t understand why we are still separating some nations by subdivisions? If we aren’t going to do it for all then whats the point in doing it for some on this type of map? It’s going to be super confusing and it lacks consistency. It made more sense how it was before. — 以上未签名的留言是由该用户加入的： Bleach143 (留言 • 贡献) 06:08, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[回复]

You expand all administrative divisions on the world. Aldrin Orlanes Poliico (留言) 07:25, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[回复]

As per other major maps on the web (Google, Johns Hopkins University Dashboard, etc.), we only separate administrative divisions for some countries. This allows greater precision. We don't do it for every country as the situation is evolving rapidly and this would make the map unmaintainable and not up to date. We chose an objective criteria, to split every country greater than 3 mio square kilometers into its first level administrative division. This provides a balance between information displayed and maintainability. Raphaël Dunant (留言) 11:48, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[回复]
Great job with coloring per administrative division such as individual states in the U.S. It provides much more meaningful granularity of coloring for the U.S., where for the purpose of multiple analyses, one U.S. state is a bit like one European state. To color all divisions from File:Blank Map World Secondary Political Divisions.svg makes no sense to me; the step toward balancing of granularity would be lost, and it is unclear it is possible to get all the data required for such a coloring. --Dan Polansky (留言) 07:13, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[回复]

consistency required, if some nations are divided then it does not necesarily follow that all should be but there should be common criteria. If we divide federative nations than all should be. At the moment it is arbritary. Why is the US and Australia divided but Germany not. Personally I think nations should be treated as single entities but I agree there is sense in departing from that. However it must be consistent. At the moment it is not. --Mtaylor848 (留言) 00:47, 3 May 2020 (UTC) ]]) 00:44, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[回复]

There does seem to be consistency since there is a rule: "We chose an objective criteria, to split every country greater than 3 mio square kilometers into its first level administrative division." --Dan Polansky (留言) 06:48, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[回复]
From a demographic perspective, the rule should better refer to population rather than geographic area. But area is not too bad. Coloring some subdivisions as has been done is doable and useful; coloring all subdivisions from File:Blank Map World Secondary Political Divisions.svg seems impossible for the lack of data. --Dan Polansky (留言) 06:56, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[回复]


Russia[编辑]

Russian first level administrative divisions are 85 federal subjects, not 8 federal districts. If the US are separated into states, not into 4 Census Bureau regions, then Russia should be separated into federal subjects. Uge Rondo (留言) 17:42, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[回复]

Corrected thanks to Gajmar. Raphaël Dunant (留言) 16:01, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[回复]

All administrative divisions[编辑]

You expand all administrative divisions on the world. Aldrin Orlanes Poliico (留言) 07:24, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[回复]

Thank you for your suggestion. Having every country being split up would indeed be useful. However, as the situation is evolving quickly, such a map would be too hard to keep up to date. That is why the current criteria is that every country bigger than 3 mio square kilometers is being split up into its first level administrative division. This provides a balance between information displayed and maintainability. Raphaël Dunant (留言) 11:39, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[回复]


The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Changing color scheme from red to blue[编辑]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I propose to change the color scheme from red to blue. The red signals alarm; a neutral presentation would not prejudge the situation but rather calmly present figures by means of colors of different value/lumina. As anecdotal evidence, just by looking at the red map I can feel myself changing emotion toward alarm, and a mind in alarm can much worse concentrate and is more likely to make cognitive mistakes. A neutral information source should be calm, factual, as if descriptive rather than normative.

An example from https://colorbrewer2.org/#type=sequential&scheme=PuBu&n=6:

Old:

 
> 10,000 cases per million inhabitants
 
3,000-10,000 cases per million inhabitants
 
1,000-3,000 cases per million inhabitants
 
300-1,000 cases per million inhabitants
 
100-300 cases per million inhabitants
 
>0–100 cases per million inhabitants
 
No reported cases, no population, or no data available

New:

 
> 10,000 cases per million inhabitants
 
3,000-10,000 cases per million inhabitants
 
1,000-3,000 cases per million inhabitants
 
300-1,000 cases per million inhabitants
 
100-300 cases per million inhabitants
 
>0–100 cases per million inhabitants
 
No reported cases, no population, or no data available

--Dan Polansky (留言) 07:35, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[回复]

Fair enough, I'm not sure the colour makes a difference; is red more alarming than blue? But the scale in blue (at least to my mind) is easier to distinguish. --Mtaylor848 (留言) 00:50, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[回复]

I feel like the red colour is better suitable to represent COVID-19, as it is a very alarmingepidemic. It seems to be the colour palette of most other COVID-19 world maps. However, if you think the colour scale is not distinguishable enough, the distance between colours can easily be increased. Raphaël Dunant (留言) 08:28, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[回复]
I believe the map should not prejudge whether something is alarming. In fact, the cases alone are not alarming, and the map shows cases. I mean, we do not change the article font to red because it is a very alarming epidemic. Words and numbers should speak for themselves. What I think is alarming a bit, but not as much as the media suggest, are some of the worst excess deaths shown in all-case weekly deaths, e.g. in New York City where the excess death percentage for the peak week reached 526%, but that is rather unique and even London is not so bad.
It is indeed true that mainstream media use red colors for covid maps, a major failure of objectivity and neutrality. Mainstream media proved to be an unreliable source on science in last decades. For covid coverage, it is sometimes hard to tell tabloids from non-tabloids. --Dan Polansky (留言) 18:00, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[回复]
That's some good points, You convinced me. The ideal then would be to have a color palette going from white to blue, then from blue to black. In the example you gave, I think that the first color is too white and might be mixed up with the color of the background (oceans). If nobody does it before, I'll apply a blue color palette this week-end. Raphaël Dunant (留言) 07:32, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[回复]
Thank you. The colors I proposed were just an example, and probably need finetuning, and indeed, the lightest color is perhaps too light. To complete the picture, e.g. Danish website sst.dk uses blueish colors in their case maps, and so does File:COVID-19 Outbreak Cases in Denmark.svg. --Dan Polansky (留言) 10:24, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[回复]

Why are we only doing subdivisions for some? it should be all or nothing[编辑]

I don’t understand why we are still separating some nations by subdivisions? If we aren’t going to do it for all then whats the point in doing it for some on this type of map? It’s going to be super confusing and it lacks consistency. It made more sense how it was before. If people wanna see the subdivisions they can go to a nations specific page. I dont see why a bigger nation hides more then a smaller Australia has less people then Germany for example so if anything I’d argue some smaller nations are hiding more specific detail. And most maps of this type aren’t structured this way from what I’ve seen. It makes borders hard to separate and some visitors might not even know the outline of every nation let alone subdivisions of larger ones only creating further confusion. — 以上未签名的留言是由该用户加入的： Bleach143 (留言 • 贡献) 09:51, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[回复]

Strongly agree This is confusing and its difficult it makes country borders more difficult to identify. I don't think I've see on it any other maps. It also makes wikipedia look US centric (although I appreciate Brazil regions are included). Please can we have country only shades. Great work in general though on this map 51.9.110.246 21:24, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[回复]

This seems to be continuing. It would be helpful to have a wider discussion about this soon as more sub-divisions are being added. Thank you 51.9.110.246 10:45, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[回复]

Thanks for your feedback. Please join the discussion at the top of the talk page to avoid discussion duplication. We are currently looking into making countries more visible. Raphaël Dunant (留言) 11:44, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[回复]

strongly agree - this is a mess. I'm trying to work out the criteria of why some are divided and others not. At first glance I thought federated states had been divided (which would have a loose logic to it), but Germany and Switzerland haven't. It seems to be authors selection. Makes no sense and is confusing. --Mtaylor848 (留言) 19:56, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[回复]

  • Agree with criticism above. Subdivisions for just seven countries is very weird indeed. It might make some sense if these seven were either the seven worst affected or the seven with the largest population, but it's neither. Better to remove map from articles until consistency has been introduced. Jeppiz (留言) 16:04, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[回复]
    There does seem to be consistency since there is a rule: "We chose an objective criteria, to split every country greater than 3 mio square kilometers into its first level administrative division." Please explain how following the quoted rule fails to achieve consistency. --Dan Polansky (留言) 17:27, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[回复]


Because what is this “Consistency” helpful for? I used this same argument earlier why does a nations size justify it should be broken up into subdivision? Bangladesh has a massively larger population then Australia. On paper Bangladesh and it being broken up would be able to explain more data. The logic here seems to be “Well county big so let’s break it up cuz....idk?” This isn’t consistent because some nations get broken up and others don’t and it’s not really based on anything other then a nation being large on a map which seems like a bad reason to do it. — 以上未签名的留言是由该用户加入的： Bleach143 (留言 • 贡献) 09:51, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[回复]

Argentina is the 8th largest country in the World by size, 98% percent of the cases are located in the Capital City Buenos Aires and it's surrounding satellite cities known as the Greater Buenos Aires, and this distribution is highly unlikely to change in the next months due to demographics. I believe these are enough reasons to split the country in the map so as to be realistic on the distribution of cases --181.229.89.100 23:16, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[回复]

chilean territory in antartica[编辑]

covid-19 cases we're confirmed in the Chilean territory on antartica,but it is still not colorized. 189.35.35.204 14:49, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[回复]

Thank you for your remarks. As of now, the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_pandemic_in_Antarctica show no known cases in the Chilean Antarctica claims and the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_pandemic_in_Canada shows no cases in Nunavut (the Northern province). If you have information about cases in these places, please modify the given pages.
Regarding Canary islands, our current policy is to consider islands that are not Dependent territory and are close to the country as being one with mainland. Raphaël Dunant (留言) 15:35, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[回复]
then,why this map:https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:COVID-19_Outbreak_Cases_in_Chile_(Density).svg says that in the chilean land in antartica has cases?
and another thing,i didnt said that antartica shall be colored red,only the chilean place that is infected. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 189.35.35.204 (talk) 22:03, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[回复]
It's because in the map you're citing is about Chilean provinces, and technically, the Chilean claim over Antarctica is managed by its southernmost province. However, there never was any cases for now in this part of Antarctica. Raphaël Dunant (留言) 19:25, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[回复]

yeah, ik, but it should still be colored, because if its a part of a province, this province has cases.189.35.35.204 10:37, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[回复]

"per capita"[编辑]

Why does this name cases "per capita"? Doesn't this mean "per head"? That's not a reasonable number, being only an extremely small decimal number. Below is a legend, naming numbers "per 1,000". 1000 what? For simple calculations it is easiest to calculate by 1 Mio. people. For diseases medical people are trained to compare numbers per 100 000. Thus I recommend

  • to change the description to "per 100 000 population"
  • to get rid of the "per 1,000" from the legend
  • to shift numbers by 100 (which does not require any recalculation, just a fix in the legend) — 以上未签名的留言是由该用户加入的： Traut (留言 • 贡献) 08:11, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[回复]

Voicing my opinion in the talk page[编辑]

The new color scheme and scale looks awful and unfamiliar. I also don’t have any idea how moving the scale up is good for better visualization (I would say, it is pretty bad). Uge Rondo (留言) 16:57, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[回复]

I would have to second this opinion. It also is now different then the color scheme used on individual nations maps on their pages. Bleach143 (留言) 20:09, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[回复]

"Standardization" needs to be contextualized as "standardization with what?" We've tried holding a discussion on it, but it didn't amount to much. The pink scheme is being brunt introduced by an editor who seems to have little interest in working with others to reach a consensus for standardization, and just since they've had some success forcing their preferred scheme doesn't mean that it's the new standard everyone else should capitulate to. Sdkb (留言) 22:04, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[回复]

Thanks all for your comments. I have restored the previous color scheme. I agree with you all that the purple-pink color scheme looks bad. @Bleach143: The standardization was related to United States, Brazil, India, United Kingdom, etc. Raphaël Dunant (留言) 23:14, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[回复]
@Raphaël Dunant: I still cannot understand how does moving the scale up help. I see that there are some territories with more than 3 % cases, but there are very few of them (actually just Qatar and Amapá), and pure black may be used for them. I think 300 cases per million is too high ratio to be the lowest boundary in the scale. Uge Rondo (留言) 20:21, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[回复]

All the color changing[编辑]

Hello, as a reader rather than editor of this map, I'd like to voice a frustration that I think many readers are experiencing by the constant color changing. There appears to be an ongoing striving towards optimum visual readability of a singular image but editors are forgetting that readers of this page are repeat visitors. I would even venture to say that visitors to this map as often as daily are in far greater number than most content on the combined wiki websites. This makes this image time based in nature, readers are looking at this at 24 hour intervals (or more or less) and reading information based on change rather than whatever optical clarity the editors believe they are creating in a static image. That change is crucial to be aware of as designers. When you made the last massive color palette re-organisaiton, the time-based aspect of this map was completely lost and like many readers of this map I was forced to abandon all recognition, memory and understanding of the map to start from zero again with your new logic. If you stopped changing it so much, at the end of the pandemic (whenever that should be.....) it would be possible to animate the change that we are witnessing now only incrementally, as a smooth progression. As things stand now, anyone wanting to do this will have to either go back through all your files and change one by one, or will have to split the animation into "arbitrary pink chapter" "arbitrary dark chapter"... Please stop changing the colors. This is not a static work even though it might appear that way in the heat of the editing moment to some of the more zealous formalists among the editing team. Besides this gripe, thank you for your extraordinary effort at this time. Louise000 (留言) 13:22, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[回复]

I totally agree with you. It is very hard to visually compare the latest versions of the map with the versions made before scale changing. Uge Rondo (留言) 14:57, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[回复]


@Louise000: Thank you so much for your well formulated remarks. It is easy, as an editor, to forget the main profile of the map readers. Your remarks make a lot of sense. Note that for the timeline, you can check Wugapodes's work on the English Wikipedia. I will now avoid any big color change in the future, except for really major reason (e.g. major agreement between users) and keep the current color scale that can last very long without any problem. For example, if we need a new step (> 10% cases), I will add a new shade of black instead of moving the whole map up one scale. Thanks. Raphaël Dunant (留言) 15:37, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[回复]

Split Argentina, Kazakhstan and Algeria into their provinces.[编辑]

argentina is the 8th biggest country in the world, and most of its cases are concentrated in its capital, so i think it would be better to split the country into their provinces to show what provinces have the most cases. with kazakhstan and algeria the same, big country, and most cases in some provinces, so they also should be split. NormalWikiBoy (留言) 23:25, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[回复]

Hawaii[编辑]

Hawaii passed the 0.3% threshold more than a week ago.

Second and third waves - is the cumulative count less helpful[编辑]

Was wondering if at some point that given the pandemic is ongoing and the new case count is what matters, that perhaps a count like daily new cases averaged over the last 7 days like would be of more assistance Investigatory (留言) 11:34, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[回复]

Be bold, start a new and separate file. Hopefully you also have the energy to maintain it! Louise000 (留言) 11:28, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[回复]

Should indicate prominently if this is cumulative or active cases[编辑]

I had to click through to the sources to determine that this is cumulative cases. 96.240.129.142 01:55, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[回复]

Antarctica?[编辑]

Will Antarctica now turn a shade of red, due to the recent outbreak at a Chilean Antarctic base? — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 96.237.242.52 (talk) 23:23, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[回复]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

2021[编辑]

This section is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this section. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so below this archive
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Splitting up czechia[编辑]

Can you split up czechia? thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 108.88.82.1 (talk) 17:59, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[回复]

Please answer it. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 108.88.82.1 (talk) 20:52, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[回复]

Thanks for your suggestion. First, please refrain from closing unanswered topics. The countries have been split with respect to their area and population (biggest and more populated ones). Splitting more countries will require a too big effor to maintain. This could be done once the pandemic is over. Raphaël Dunant (留言) 12:32, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[回复]

Gajmar do you need someone else to edit?[编辑]

Gajmar do you want me to edit the file? I don’t know how to do it is the thing. Could you explain if you want me to do it? — 以上未签名的留言是由该用户加入的： Croatia11 (留言 • 贡献) 02:22, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[回复]

UK[编辑]

The UK should not be divided. England, Scotland, and Wales need to be removed. 2600:1700:6180:6290:FDB9:42AC:DD23:6780 22:04, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[回复]

The UK is not divided on the map. England, Scotland and Wales are only one entity. What do you mean? Raphaël Dunant (留言) 08:24, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[回复]
They've been removed.

Questions about Our World in data maps[编辑]

Note: Moved here from user talk page.

Hi @Timeshifter I would like to know would the representation of the islands in the map (like Pacific islands) are hard to see. I think using the method like we did in the older version of the map would be better (ie. placing larger circles representing different islands) And also 10 colours are presented at the bottom of the newer map but only 8 of them are used, plus some of the colours are listed wrongly on some countries, I think we should change those(?) In my opinion I suggest using the older version, as the older version also uses the data of John Hopkins University and other data sources like worldometer also, so I think both versions of maps are using the same data also. I've checked once again and there're no wrong or missing data on the older map. I think it's better to use the old map rather than correcting the mistakes of the new map. Or what are your thoughts on the older map? Please feel free to let me know. Look forward to hearing from you soon weeeee! --S17003 (talk) 07:55, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[回复]

Hi S17003. I find the circles to not be very helpful, because it is hard to tell what island they represent. For example, in the Caribbean. They are closely packed, and so they no longer are in accurate positions. Plus they don't have tooltips to provide any help.
All maps have temporary mistakes. But I have noticed them being fixed. And the mistake may not be a mistake. Depends on the source used.
The beauty of the OWID maps is that they all come with a table tab that lists the exact numbers used.
If you compare their number with the number you have found for a country, you may find that they are different. So the sources may be different, or one source may have an older number from the same source. OWID uses data from Johns Hopkins University.
On the maps with the circles there is no table list of the exact data.
I have worked on many list pages over the years. Lists of countries, etc..
I prefer lists that use one source. That way all the vetting is done by the source. For example,
List of countries by intentional homicide rate
List of countries by incarceration rate
OWID maps on COVID-19 have a source tab. That source always lists:
"Raw data on confirmed cases and deaths for all countries is sourced from the COVID-19 Data Repository by the Center for Systems Science and Engineering (CSSE) at Johns Hopkins University."
So it is a single source. I say let's use their maps, and let them do all the vetting. It is much easier.
Plus if people want the numbers for the smaller islands, many can be found in the OWID table for each map.
That is why I add the link to that table in the references used on the Commons and in Wikipedia articles.
Here is the source info:
https://ourworldindata.org/explorers/coronavirus-data-explorer?tab=map&Metric=Confirmed+cases&Interval=Cumulative&Relative+to+Population=false&Align+outbreaks=false&country=~OWID_WRL - Our World in Data. Click on the download tab to download map. The table tab has a table of the exact data by country. Source tab says data is from the COVID-19 Data Repository by the Center for Systems Science and Engineering (CSSE) at Johns Hopkins University. The map at the source is interactive and provides much more detail. For example, run your cursor over the color bar legend to see the countries that apply to that point in the legend.
--Timeshifter (talk) 12:38, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[回复]

oh thanks @Timeshifter I got your message, and I think you're right, using only one source would be more accurate and easier. --S17003 (talk) 09:07, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[回复]

COM:OVERWRITE and your uploads[编辑]

Note: Moved here from user talk page.

Hello Timeshifter, I don't think your recent uploads of Our World in Data maps are in accordance with COM:OVERWRITE. I personally think they are an improvement on the manually-updated old versions, but overwriting them directly instead of making a new filename causes problems on Wikipedia (see the history of the COVID-19 pandemic article on enwiki; as of time of me writing this, the captions are completely off because there was a flip-flopping between the two map styles over the past few days). I'm also seeing chaos on other language wikis, which now have wrong captions. Please upload the Our World in Data maps under a new filename, and then change the files used on Wikipedia instead. — Goszei (talk) 21:56, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[回复]

Goszei. COM:OVERWRITE does not prevent us from doing this. I have contacted recent uploaders and I am waiting for them to reply here. Other uploaders are already in agreement with me that we should use the Our World in Data maps.
All these maps (old and new) are substantially the same with mostly the same data sources in the end. But Our World in Data does all the work for us now. It is much easier to keep these maps up to date on the Commons just by using their already compiled and updated maps.
The only difference is the color legend. The Our World in Data map has a color bar horizontal legend on the bottom of the map. No need for that info in the Wikipedia captions.
Once we get the other recent uploaders to agree, we can easily remove the color legend info from the map captions on the Wikipedia articles.
This is much easier than uploading the Our World in Data map with a different file name. And then replacing all the maps on the many Wikipedia pages. In either case the caption will be changed.
But it is much faster if we just agree that the Our World in Data map is better, and upload it to the existing file name. --Timeshifter (talk) 23:08, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[回复]
It is definitely a violation of COM:OVERWRITE: the overwrites are "substantial changes or completely unrelated files". Quote: "Guidance on this is necessary because both Wikimedia projects using Commons files and external reusers who directly use Commons content rely on files being reasonably stable." There is no reasonable stability when edits like [1] will need to be made (in this case, the reverse would need to be made) on every single wiki (not to mention any external reusers) to fix the new and extreme mismatch between the captions and the overwriting map. This is plainly a significant change and the exact thing we want to avoid.
Unless you are willing to go to every single embed of the file on all Wikipedias (there are hundreds of embeds) and fix the caption immediately after you overwrite, the overwriting is disruptive. This is not even mentioning the fact that some Wikipedias may just want to use the old version. — Goszei (talk) 01:30, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[回复]
The color bar horizontal legend is the main difference. You said the the Our World in Data maps are an improvement. If you want to upload the Our World in Data map as a separate file feel free to do so.
It is a lot easier to upload it over the old inferior map. I will wait to see if the other uploaders agree.
Fixing the captions on all the Wikipedias will get done over time as people notice the problem.
It is not a serious problem because anybody who clicks on the map will see the horizontal color bar legend.
I can help delete the old captions.
People who speak the language of the Wikipedia will have to add new captions. That is true in all cases, whether the map is uploaded separately or not.
Here are the 2 Commons links along with the source info for the 2 Our World in Data maps in question:
--Timeshifter (talk) 17:55, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[回复]
I have uploaded the maps (plus two more for deaths) at:

Suggest redirecting this file to File:Cumulative confirmed COVID-19 cases per million people, OWID.svg[编辑]

File:COVID-19 Outbreak World Map per Capita.svg is on hundreds of pages across Wikipedias in many languages.

I suggest redirecting it to this better map that comes from a source that is updated daily:

To see where the map is transcluded go here:

"What links here" in the sidebar only shows links to the map from Commons pages (mostly talk pages now). --Timeshifter (talk) 19:07, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[回复]

Animated Versions?[编辑]

On the global scale it would be interesting and informative to have a choropleth map timeline. Flip through them and you'd see the pandemic spreading and getting worse and worse. Pick just the most cases/deaths per capita and watch that uber hot spot jump around. (One could also drill down to the prefecture/county level, I suppose, but that's another project for another day.) Kencf0618 (留言) 17:08, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[回复]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.



2022[编辑]

Map legend[编辑]

Hello. Is it possible to bring the map legend back? What we have now is a brown-red-and-pink drawing of the world but without any description. Thanks in advance, Msz2001 (留言) 09:50, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[回复]

Done.幺于 (留言) 07:26, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[回复]
取自“https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File_talk:COVID-19_Outbreak_World_Map_per_Capita.svg&oldid=659120630”