Talk:COVID-19 pandemic in Serbia

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Growth factor

Data named "Growth factor", defined as today's new cases/new cases on the previous day, are misleading. Real indication of the pandemic is being controled would be Growth factor defined as today's new cases/total confirmed cases on the previous day.

WikiProject COVID-19

I've created WikiProject COVID-19 as a temporary or permanent WikiProject and invite editors to use this space for discussing ways to improve coverage of the ongoing 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic. Please bring your ideas to the project/talk page. Stay safe, --Another Believer (Talk) 17:47, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kosovo should not be part of this map

As the Government of Kosovo, more particularly Ministry of Health of Kosovo is dealing with new cases of COVID-19, and there is a page on the current pandemic in Kosovo, this map should be revised.

Thank you, Anna Anna Comnena (talk) 14:53, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need to revise map since there's a note in infobox that info is excluding Kosovo and note that Kosovo is the subject of a territorial dispute, like in any other wiki page with related topic. Nightfall87 (talk) 15:46, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Nightfall87.--AirWolf talk 05:23, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, parts in red are from Kosovo, and since Serbia clearly has no info on Kosovo, we should mark them in gray. Indicating that information from that part is given by another entity. 09:02, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

As the note in the infobox is being abused, the best bet is to mark Kosovo as gray, since another entity issues information for the cases in Kosovo. That way we can drop the infobox note and editors wouldnt have to undo vandalism every hour. However, i am fine with whatever the general consensus is BananaWaffle talk 23:27, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Original idea about this note was to prevent edit wars like this and it was reached after a lenghty disscussion between large number of editors. Best place to look for that is in archived discussions related to that template. Though it's no surprise that, although note is regulary used on multiple pages, existance of the same note within articles is now topic of new edit wars. I would still prefer keeping it since it was originally a result of consensus. As for the map itself I thought about it a bit longer and I agree that it could use some improvements, though I have no knowledge on how to do it myself. I would much more prefer using something like this as a base for new map, even though our government does not provide enough data for the location of each individual case on municipality level. I believe Вукан Ц is author of the map that is currently used (sorry for the mention if I'm wrong), maybe he could help / give his own input on that. Nightfall87 (talk) 00:25, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Nightfall87. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 23:35, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings to you all! This is my comment and opinion on above mentioned topic. I'm from Serbia and we here do not recognize so called Kosovo as an independent state. Following the articles of Constitution of Serbia and Resolution 1244, Kosovo is part of Serbia. That's not important now, the thing is that as a Serbian I don't want to separate my country, no matter what others say. However, again, this is my personal opinion. If community don't allow this map, I don't have problems with it. I'll just upload map to Serbian Wikipedia and not to Commons. Of course, if that happens, I won't update the map on Commons. I apologize if I've made some grammar mistakes. Cheers and stay healty! Вукан Ц (talk) 07:44, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully final note about this, since we finally have some data about place of origin for most of the cases up to yesterday I updated map using as a base map from Municipalities and cities of Serbia page. Nightfall87 (talk) 17:44, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone please fix the look of the border between the disputed territory and Serbia on the current map? Standard border line should not be presented and editors did not agree to it. ty, Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 16:02, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Don't see what the issue is, border has same line width as between any two other administrative region. And different coloring is there to indicate disputed status. Nightfall87 (talk) 16:39, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Recovery

There is no official information about any patient being recovered from covid19 in Serbia. Few days ago there was information about it in Serbian media, but at the end it was just a misunderstanding (One patient was relisted from hospital after being tested negative on virus, so he wasn't recovered, he didn't have virus in the firs place). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zemun90 (talk • contribs) 00:12, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Some users are adding recovery data to two of the graphs, but it remains predominantly unsourced and unreliable!

Map update

According to press sources, until today first cases of coronavirus were detected in Branicevo, Pcinja, Zlatibor, Kolubara, Pomoravlje, so the map should be updated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.111.244.73 (talk) 12:15, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]


https://covid19.data.gov.rs/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.92.174.131 (talk) 09:00, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Branimir Nestorović

Some context would help readers understand more about the story linked to Branimir Nestorović. Someone who is not from Serbia and can't read Serbian wouldn't understand why this story shows how in the Balkans COVID-19 was underestimated. Today Nestorović spread more dangerous fake news and said that 85% of the population is not at risk from the coronavirus.--Maleschreiber (talk) 08:22, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Official link

Official link section at right part of page is empty. I suggest moderators to add this page (it is Serbian official page - EN version) https://covid19.rs/homepage-english/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.245.79.166 (talk) 10:46, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

wanted: map update

the map shows Number of confirmed cases by municipality (as of 16 May 2020) .

Can somehelp help = update ? thanks in advance, --Neun-x (talk) 17:50, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline

This part is frankly unreadable, and full of repeating words. A simple table would be just as informative, and it's probably even superfluous. Any attempt to rectify this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.116.176.160 (talk) 13:37, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Flatten the curve" explanation is wrong

Under the log chart of confirmed cases is the following quote:

Growth of confirmed cases. The idea is to "flatten the curve"(the logarithmic scale to become flat over time, ideally it should be parallel to the x axis, meaning no new cases has been discovered) and prolong the pandemic as much as possible.

This is not correct. The linked article for "flatten the curve" is clearly not on a logarithmic scale, and is about the idea of infecting the entire population slowly enough as to not overwhelm your public healthcare system. No country is attempting this strategy as it would take multiple years with a maxed out healthcare system to get close to herd immunity.

87.116.178.166 (talk) 16:17, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BIRN-uncovered underreporting of deaths and new cases

Why is there no mention of the supposed data falsification by the Serbian government? The nummber of COVID-19 casulties seems to be more than three times as big. https://balkaninsight.com/2020/06/22/serbia-under-reported-covid-19-deaths-and-infections-data-shows/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.40.14.19 (talk) 11:53, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Did an editor add number of recovered?

Here,it shows that more than 39.000 people are recovered,but on every cite i go it says number of recovered is 31,536,i am asking where did that number of more than 39.000 come from? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.79.12.223 (talk) 23:46, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template include size exceeded

This page is appearing in Category:Pages where template include size is exceeded. I recommend, as a first step, condensing the monthly sections in the "Timeline" section. We do not need day-by-day reports for a whole year in an encyclopedia article. The amount of detail is excessive. In general, we should summarize what happened in each month, especially in the May through February period. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:53, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting this article

This article is currently one of the largest on the wiki with almost 486,000 bytes. After looking at the section sizes, the timeline section appears to be the longest, at about 364,000 bytes. Thus I suggest splitting the section into a separate article. Blubabluba9990 (talk) (contribs) 16:31, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think the timeline section could be split into two different articles: a 2020 article and a 2021 article. Realmaxxver (talk) 12:09, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Blubabluba9990:, I've just made the pages where they can be split into. they can be found here and here. Realmaxxver (talk) 18:50, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Blubabluba9990 (talk) (contribs) 22:08, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just moved the "2020" section into the (2020) article. But i am not really sure if i should move the 2021 section right now. Realmaxxver (talk) 09:48, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Blubabluba9990: After looking at the Arbitration Commitee message, I've decided to revert the edits. Realmaxxver (talk) 09:57, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Think i might need to have a broader consensus before doing it. Realmaxxver (talk) 10:08, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What did the Arbitration Committee say about the page split? I do not understand why they would be opposed considering the length of this article. Blubabluba9990 (talk) (contribs) 17:05, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Realmaxxver: and @Blubabluba9990:, this article is well above the size limit allowed on Wikipedia, so much so that it is the longest article on Wikipedia curently. Its total size is a massive ‎535,979 bytes. Checking the section sizes, it is clear that the Timeline section accounts for the most share of this size - a total of 382,221 bytes. Check below.

@Jonesey95: pointed this back in March and am surprised no proper action has been taken yet. According to WP:SIZERULE, it should certainly be split. It is also common practice for the COVID-19 WikiProject to split Timeline sections into a separate article and has been done for many countries. This is to avoid cluttering the main articles with too many details and to avoid lengthy articles which cause an issue with size. @Realmaxxver: and @Blubabluba9990:, you guys were on the right track.

However, @Realmaxxver:, you must not create articles in advance without some consensus or unless you are certain that the articles will serve a purpose and not be nominated for deletion. The right way to split Timeline sections from COVID-19 articles is to create a separate article like Timeline of the COVID-19 pandemic in Serbia and not by years, especially if the information is merely statements of numbers of cases, recoveries and deaths. Could you also point me to which Arbitration Committee message you are referring to? As far as I know, the Arbitration Committee is only contacted to provide resolutions in case of serious disputes, there doesn't seem to be any for this article. Let me know soon. After I have further information, I will be splitting this article with required templates and categories into the separate article.•Shawnqual• 📚 • 💭 22:57, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Daily figures need updating

The case count template only covers the timeline up until November 2011, missing out on the reported 2022 wave that dwarfed previous waves in the country. Could someone update it? - 60.52.7.240 (talk) 06:49, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:COVID-19_pandemic_in_Serbia"