Hello, FHessel! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. We're so glad you're here! If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. If you would like to play around with your new Wiki skills, the sandbox is for you. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! — Mikhailov Kusserow (talk) 07:40, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply] Getting started A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: edit a page • upload and use images Getting help Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and guidelines Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The community Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Writing articles Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Pages needing attention • Peer review Miscellaneous User name • User pages • Talk pages Clean up: General - Spam - Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Welcome!

Hello, FHessel, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! 70.29.212.226 (talk) 04:14, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bingo!

http://www.southernnevadahealthdistrict.org/press_releases/2009/061609.html

Public Health Update - H1N1 Influenza June 16, 2009

The Southern Nevada Health District received confirmation of 57 novel H1N1 cases in Clark County, as of Friday, June 12. The health district posts updated case counts weekly, each Tuesday before noon. The next update will be posted Tuesday, June 23. To date, the severity of illness caused by the novel H1N1 virus is similar to seasonal flu. This case count includes four novel H1N1-confirmed samples from school children who were tested on Tuesday, June 9, to identify if an increase in absenteeism at a Clark County elementary school was caused by influenza or another virus.

On Friday, June 12, the health district reported the first novel H1N1-related death in Clark County. The patient was a 70-year-old woman and a New York resident. Her illness was identified shortly after her arrival in Las Vegas and she was hospitalized shortly after. Because this patient is a resident of another state, she is not included in the confirmed novel H1N1 case count for Nevada, but would be included the case count for New York State.

Only one death in Nevada! CaninePitDog (talk) 16:53, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A reference was listed beside the NY deaths for nearly a week prior to 2-3 days ago to the NV State Health Dept. Since then it has been removed. I do not know whether or not the actual death number was removed. The only way for it to make since is that the woman was from NYC and it was counted under the 32 deaths there. I found somewhere online that she was the 17th (?) death in NY state. So if it was added, it was a while ago. But I am in the dark, too. CaninePitDog (talk) 18:47, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Based on what I've looked at through the edits of the template, your addition of the NY death is correct. It was first added under NY, someone deleted it and moved it to Nevada and left the reference. The reference was left there for a while and someone deleted it without removing another NY death. So I think it is all good. CaninePitDog (talk) 18:58, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've not touched the death count, and the revert goes to the number of confirmed cases. 100K is an estimate and not lab-confirmed. :-) - Xavier Fung (talk) 18:19, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This report from Xinhua refers to the 6th death case in Thailand. [1] - Xavier Fung (talk) 18:37, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SYN states we should not combine multiple sources to justify statements that aren't found in any source. This is because those sources come from different medias (which may have used different sources at the same time) and from different dates. I would prefer if the numbers were detailed in the 2009 flu pandemic in Argentina article, while the {{2009 flu pandemic table}} contained a link to it, like the USA numbers. I don't like the idea of combining numbers, but if you are going to do it, at least the Argentina article could be updated regularly and be the main focus of the updates, and not this table. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 13:27, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you show me the diff? I don't remember having done so (unless you refer to the 108 deaths reference, where I put the title of the blurb on the right instead of the main article). Also, remember that we don't care who is right or who is not, we only care about verification. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 13:28, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, we usually block all the advertisement. Turned the blocking off and noticed the ads moved the blurb pretty low. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 15:00, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{help}} I have some important suggestions regarding the display of old revisions. Now I cannot find, which template is being used to display the old revision header, including time/date, author and the standard prev(diff)|current(diff)|next(diff). Please give me a hint, which template this is based upon. thx FHessel (talk) 09:13, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is not based on a template. If this is not the answer you wanted, join #wikipedia-en-help through http://toolserver.org/~bjelleklang/pjirc/. --Srinivas→ 09:19, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the answer I wanted. Unfortunately #wikipedia-en-help does not work for yet unknown reasons. So where could I direct suggestions regarding this header of the old revision page, especially the german version of it? FHessel (talk) 09:29, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's a possibility I could answer your question, but it's one of two. Can you link me to a page so I know exactly the page/template you mean. Cheers, — Deon^talk_{I'm BACK!} 10:01, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, what I'm after though is a link. So go to the page that you see the template on, then copy the address that is in the address bar. Thanks for replying on my talk page, else I might have missed your reply. Cheers, — Deon^talk_{I'm BACK!} 10:22, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, but it is a bit complicated (that was the reason, I condensed it into a jpg).
Any wikipedia page is affected, but take for example this [[2]].
Now, make sure, that you have set your user prefs to Language = English and open the link.
In a second step, open a new tab, set your user prefs to Language = German and open the link again.
Now you can see the following:
1. The date/time-stamp in the German version is faulty, it shows the time instead of the date and again the time. This has to be corrected.
2. The English version shows a colored box, which acts as a clear warning, that you have an old revision here. In comparison, the German version may be mistaken as the current revision much more easily. Since updating pages (especially the flu pandemic table) is based on the review of older revisions very often, it could happen accidentially, that an old revision will be changed and all edits since then be discarded. I know, that you can revert such a change easily, but what do you do in cases, where other people have updated the page in the meantime (just look at the update frequency we have sometimes)? So I would propose a layout similiar to the English version, in order to prevent possible mistakes.
FHessel (talk) 10:46, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks for the reply again. I haven't followed your instructions above, but I can tell from your description the problem. I can give you the links and the links but it doesn't matter because only administrators have access to that kind of stuff (see WP:MWN). I recommend you report this at the technical section of the Village Pump. The people who are in charge of the back-end of things will read it there and make the necessary changes. Hope this helps :) Cheers, — Deon^talk_{I'm BACK!} 10:53, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, because the Village Pump can be a little daunting for newcomers, I'll leave a note there on your behalf, and give you a link so you can track it. — Deon^talk_{I'm BACK!} 10:56, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've posted your message here. You can follow the conversation there. Let me know if you need anything else :) Have a good day. — Deon^talk_{I'm BACK!} 11:01, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh.. I do apologise :) And no worries.. it's a pleasure! :) — Deon^talk_{I'm BACK!} 11:10, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I've updated the message MediaWiki:Revision-info/de with the wording from de:MediaWiki:Revision-info, compare the English interface with the German interface.
For some background, the default German message is Version vom $4, $5 Uhr von $2, while the default English message reads Revision as of $1 by $2. They obviously use very different parameters, and the German ones don't seem to work as intended. I'll track down where in the MediaWiki source code this is defined, and file a bug report to fix the default behavior.
Thanks, Amalthea 11:29, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, bug report is filed: bugzilla:19709. Amalthea 11:57, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{help}} I need help again! I know how to create a table, which is collapsed when being included on a main page. Is it possible to do the same with some columns of a table, e.g. showing the first three columns standardly and the other columns only, when a user explicitly expands them? | FHessel (talk) 16:54, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can ask your question at: http://webchat.freenode.net/?channels=wikipedia-en-help --Tyw7  (Talk • Contributions) 17:19, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you can do that. --Tyw7  (Talk • Contributions) 17:24, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• References as usual placed by the referenced number. Additionally one column for the reporting authority (=> easier access to new reports + does not have to be updated)
  
• A/H1N1 ./. ILI rate seems to become the new indicator. It could be used for ordering the table (where to order countries, which do not give that rate?)
  
• Confirmed cases should remain, because in thoses cases, where still an extensive testing is done it is worth to have this number. Besides, it gives some hints as to the relation between confirmed cases/hospitalized cases/deaths, the moment in the epidemic evolution, when the first death cases appear, ... But it should clearly state, which status the number has. Maybe it should also state, whether at all and at what time this country has shifted from testing everybody to testing only the severely ill.
  
• Hospitalized and ICU cases give an impression, how actual the disease is, they should be included in any case, even if not all countries do provide these numbers.
  
• 'Data status' is different from 'Publication date', in many cases there is a gap between the two.
  

Feel free to add your comments!

I think this is a great idea! i'd certainlly support this although the width is probably a bit too long. Also, i don't think hospitalized cases should be reported. As for some countries, all cases are hospitilized. for example, China. We could also include "current nomber of H1n1 cases" in the table.Sampsonkwan (talk) 05:09, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

^{[1] [2] [3] [4] [5]}

Cases by province/territory

Province/territory	A/H1N1 ./. ILI rate	Confirmed ‡ by province/territory or PHAC	Hospitalized		ICU		Deaths	Reporting authority ‡‡‡	Data Status
			Total ‡‡	Actual	Total	Actual
PHAC totals		9,855	905				39	[6]	13.07.2009
Reported totals		10,012	904				43
Alberta	%	1,320	71[6]	-	-	-	3	[7]	14.07.2009
British Columbia	%	382	14	-	5	-	1	[8][1]	14.07.2009
Manitoba	%	787	94[6]	-	-	-	6[9]	[10]	06.07.2009
Newfoundland and Labrador	%	42[6]	0	-	-	-	0	[2]
New Brunswick	%	33[6]	1[6]	-	-	-	0	[11]
Northwest Territories	%	13[6]	0	-	-	-	0
Nova Scotia	%	282[6]	8[6]	-	-	-	0	[3]
Nunavut	%	393[6]	38[6]	-	-	-	0	[4]
Ontario	%	3,636[6]	240[6]	-	-	-	14[6]	[12]
Prince Edward Island	%	5[6]	1[6]	-	-	-	0
Quebec	%	2,263	426[6]	-	-	-	16[13]	[14]
Saskatchewan	%	855[6]	11[6]	-	-	-	3[6]	[5]
Yukon	%	1[6]	0	-	-	-	0
-: no data available
‡Many countries have stopped to report cconfirmed cases. A date in brackets indicates the last date when confirmed cases have been issued.
‡‡The totals can differ from the details due to reporting delays.
‡‡‡References for the numbers can be found in the column Reporting authority, unless otherwise indicated next to the number.

Hi, I know thanks. Somebody kindly made a topic in the talk page of the article which I replied to immediately after. I do not need posts on my talk page telling me what I already know. At the time of me changing it, and still on the BBC site, they had this: "It comes as the number of new cases hit 55,000 last week and the NHS has seen a surge in calls and consultations." Now to me that sounds like it is confirmed and not an estimate. That figure was mentioned on the HPA site and was the only figure mentioned at the time. Thenthornthing (talk) 17:37, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, initially, it did not mention anything about estimation. They added and updated their reports after I obtained the source Thenthornthing (talk) 17:46, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, if you're on line, want to talk for a little bit about making a really good article Cool Nerd (talk) 01:19, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure; just this morning there was an article (http://www.staffnurse.com/nursing-news-articles/swine-flu-rates-double-3656.html) referring to case rates per 100K, and I've seen others.

I believe that some here are balking at providing 'estimates' because they hear that word and think it means the same as 'wild guess'. It doesn't, of course; 'estimate' in this context means simply a scientifically-accurate though not necessarily exact counting of cases. Epidemiologists, virologists, physicians, mathematicians--all of them work together observing, comparing what they see with what they know, and extrapolating their findings. It's very much analogous to measuring the distance to, say, the sun. It's estimated distance is 93,000,000 miles, but that's obviously not exact; it's a rounding off of theire best measurements.

Anyway, they should really be included in the table. Perhaps not now, but sooner or later... Sqlman (talk) 15:30, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Any thoughts about a "new name poll" ( see talk page) would be helpful. Thanks. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 22:10, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'd seen that message. I had already reset the Brazil number when I read that, and quickly double-checked the remaining nations you listed--US, Australia, Mexico, etc.. The only one that appeared out of whack at that time was Canada. I set the number to what was shown on the Wikipedia page, but am double checking the provincial numbers now, and will reset them if need be.

Thansk for fixing that. I'm looking at it, and can't understand why I would have updated the deaths without updating the reference; I try to be very careful about both the sources I use and updating and Wikipedia page. Again, thanks.

On a related note: you may have noticed that I update/correct the totals of confirmed cases and deaths several times a day. I'm a software developer, so I wrote a very small utility that scrapes the screen and removes the extraneous stuff, then lists just the pertinent info--country, confirmed cases, deaths--while totalling everything. The entire process takes maybe 30 seconds, so the numbers I use are definitely accurate and up-to-date; if/when you see me overwrite yours or anyone else's totals, you can rest assured they're right. Sqlman (talk) 11:56, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not discounting your edit of the Chilean H1N1 death figures, if you think you can back it up with proper references. Right now 116 deaths + 11 unconfirmed deaths posted on the table. That equals to 127 deaths if the 11 are confirmed. The news article states that there are 128 deaths: [3] So which is right? Roman888 (talk) 16:56, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't instead of creating another column to differentiate the officially and unofficially confirmed A(H1N1) cases in the table template, just add a note to any of the figures? Unless your creating a column for estimations of the number of A(H1N1) cases, then another column on the table is required. Otherwise its just making extra work. Anyways what has happened to the discussion of adding population figures next to the number of deaths? Are we heading in that direction? Roman888 (talk) 15:32, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added an entry for swine flu to the table in 2009_flu_pandemic#Historical_context, and in order so share data with Template:2009 flu pandemic menu, I split out the worldwide total into Template:Swine-flu-deaths so it can be shared between the 2 tables. --Cybercobra (talk) 10:28, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FHessel, just want your opinion whether we can use some of the figures from this website and incorporate them into the H1N1 pandemic table. The website is updated quite frequently and there are some confirmed cases that are much higher compare to our current pandemic table: Swine Flu Count Let me know what you think. Roman888 (talk) 15:32, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus for keeping the table in the lead seems at this point seems to be you. I will leave it were it is however until further people join the discussion. Cybercobra however did remove it from the lead once as well so currently the consensus does seem to be against having it in the lead.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:33, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unable to locate any formal guidance on it, but in my recollection I've never come across an infobox not placed at the beginning of an article. --Cybercobra (talk) 05:32, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We're still discussing the placement of this table. As I'm sure you're well aware by now I am concerned about the table being misinterpreted by the lay reader. Essentially I want it to be clear that the table is of reported deaths not total deaths and that this distinction might be significant. Other context for the table would be useful but is a little less important. I can see that you don't wish for the table to be moved from its current prominent position. Perhaps we can clear up this one major and regular misinterpretation by adding a footnote into the table. I would like to add the following footnote to "Confirmed deaths" in this table:

The fraction of deaths which are later confirmed is unknown. See data reporting and accuracy for more detail.

I'm asking you because you say on the associated talk page that you have an automated program to update this table. Perhaps it would be easier for you to include this footnote yourself?

Clearly the data reporting and accuracy section needs some detail added to it. It did use to have more detail but it appears to have been trimmed somewhere along the way! I'll get on to that part immediately.

Barnaby dawson (talk) 18:09, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I think this prefix is a reasonable compromise. Thank you for making this modification. Barnaby dawson (talk) 19:44, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I was wondering if the note on the table might be rephrased a bit (no substantive changes) and moved to the bottom (while important, it doesn't need to precede and dominate the table) as in this revision. Thought I'd ask you so as to not disrupt your script. --Cybercobra (talk) 09:29, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'm fine with your just making the textual change at your next update and not messing with the placement. --Cybercobra (talk) 12:54, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]