There is an ongoing request for comment to streamline the source deprecation and blacklisting process.
Technical news
There is a plan for new requirements for user signatures. You can give feedback.
Arbitration
Following the banning of an editor by the WMF last year, the Arbitration Committee resolved to hold a Arbcom RfC regarding on-wiki harassment. A draft RfC has been posted at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Anti-harassment RfC (Draft) and not open to comments from the community yet. Interested editors can comment on the RfC itself on its talk page.
Miscellaneous
The WMF has begun a pilot report of the pages most visited through various social media platforms to help with anti-vandalism and anti-disinformation efforts. The report is updated daily and will be available through the end of May.
You are making countless edits with the rather deceptive edit summary "Update date format tag", while the most important thing you do in these edits is adding "authority control". It is very debatable if any of the changes you make (the dmy tag date, replacing templates no one has a problem with (like refimprove) with the ones you rae trying to impose for years now ("more citations needed"), and adding the empty authority control tag) is actually needed, but the last one is the only one that could have an impact on the actual article, and thus the only one that actually needed to be in the edit summary. Please (preferably) stop with these edits, or (at the very least) make sure that the edit summary indicates the actual, impactful edit, and not the superfluous one.
Note that you are also adding authority control to localities, which is very often a bad idea as it links too often to pages about different subjects or to 404 error pages (e.g. for Worldcat), if anything is found at all. For example Saint-Josse-ten-Noode now has some links to pages repeating that yes, it is a municipality of Brussels, and some about a museum in the municipality, not the municipality itself. An "authority control" which is about more than one subject is not an authority control. Sall (a village in Denmark) has this Worldcat identity, this VIAF, and this Library of Congress link All three are wrong.
I don't know if there is any consensus that adding authority control to all articles, no matter the subject, is wanted. A quick check shows you adding it to tv shows, movies, train services, mobile phones, ...Fram (talk) 15:15, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
One of the principles I try to operate under, is to reduce the number of edits for the same benefit. As you know there are many hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of edits that simply add {{Authority control}}. For this reason it seems a good idea to add the template whenever editing an article for some other reason. Mentioning this in the edit summary might well be a good idea in principle, but it seems a minor thing.
I'm not sure why you are annoyed with {{Refimprove}} being replaced with {{More citations needed}}, this template was moved to its present name in 2018, by User:Timrollpickering after a requested move by User:SMcCandlish, supported by User:BD2412 and User:Galobtter. The move was reviewed by User:SkyWarrior, and upheld. The template move was promptly reflected in the AWB list by User:JJMC89. It is not as you claim, something I have been trying to impose, though it does seem a good idea worth supporting.
After a relatively short period, around half the usages are at the new name. I would expect in another five years 7/8 will be there, without anyone having to make any special effort at all. This is a system that works well in my book.
You refer to difficulties with the {{Authority control}} template itself. I have fixed the template to resolve the 404 issue you mention.
For the first I have suppressed the VIAF/WorldCat entities, and have contacted VIAF about the confusion in their authority file (as well as contacting the Wikidata community). The authority control record itself is an authority control record, it simply has incorrect links to other perfectly valid records. This is the identical problem that we used to have with interwiki links on the Wikipedias.
For the second I have removed the VIAF/WorldCat/LCCN links from Wikidata, as they plainly link the Wikidata item to the wrong records.
All these resolutions are within the grasp of any Wikipedian, with the possible exception of the template fix.
Authority control records cover a wide variety of matter. While people and places are prominent, organisations and publications are also important. Sachbegriff or headwords can include any item which a publication can be "about".
Hope that helps clarify the matters you raised, stay safe.
All the best: RichFarmbrough (the apparently calm and reasonable) 00:54, 10 April 2020 (UTC).[reply]
So you will continue making pointless edits because you prefer to have it your way, got it. As usual, you don't check the results of your edits, and only when someone else spotchecks some of them may you consider acting on these spotchecks, without checking whether other edits had similar problems. This is a pattern going back more than ten years, but little seems to have changed in the meantime. That a template is renamed doesn't mean that all instances of that template have to be renamed, and that many have been renamed since is a self-fulfilling prophecy. The end result of your edits was still nothing substantial added, and the potentially problematic part of the edit not included in the edit summary, making it less likely that others would check what these many changes on their catchlist actually did. Fram (talk) 08:11, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I notice for example that you are still changing e.g. 20th century to twentieth century, a change for which there is no consensus at all but which you have been pushing in your mass edits for years. You are still trying to impose your preferred style through your mass editing, even though it has been pointed out to you on many occasions (and by many people) that this is not allowed in many cases. Fram (talk) 08:35, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For example you most recent edit, [1]: you change a perfectly working and acceptable template to one that has the exact same result (and this change is not included in Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/Template redirects), and you change "TV" to "television" even though this goes againstWP:MOSABB#Exceptions. It looks as if you are just trying to skirt the older restrictions you have had for years, and the new one imposed in January (which you dramatically claimed would be a "ban from editing", without actually adressing the underlying issues, i.e. that you should stop making these edits which do nothing to actually improve the article but just continue the same needless meddling with pages to get them closer to your preferred vision of what MOS, templates, spelling, everyone should use. Fram (talk) 08:51, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You do the same, with a false edit summary, here. And here you change the official name of a machine to one without caps, in your zeal to erase all erroneous capitalization. Basically, you are again, as way too often happened before, making mostly inconsequential edits where the end result is just as likely to be an error or an improvement. And when you do make a substantial edit, like in creating Mohammad Ali Younes, you violate basic policies and create an article which is simply not acceptable for the mainspace: a BLP (very recent death) with allegations of murder sourced solely to an opinion piece? I moved the article to draft space, to get it improved (the sourcing is just the most major problem) or deleted. Fram (talk) 09:21, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I spent a considerable effort on replying to your initial screed, in the forlorn hope that you would engage collegially. Once again you reply with personal attacks and negativity.
Please think about the people you are engaging with, who are not automata.
All the best: RichFarmbrough (the apparently calm and reasonable) 15:26, 10 April 2020 (UTC).[reply]
I have learned not to judge you by your passive agressive civility, but by your actions. Your edits are those of an automaton in way too many cases, and have been condemned as such by many people over many years. Ignoring the actual issues raised here because of some perceived personal attack is not surprising, but if you continue to edit in this vein, with hidden scripts causing many problems (like the multiple different short descriptions you added to articles but, on a positive note, self-reverted some days later), then you will again end up at ANI and probably face another editing restriction. Fram (talk) 16:28, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I agree that more descriptive edit summaries (especially to identify the more important aspects of an edit) are better. On the other hand, I think it's silly to complain about replacing old template redirects with links to the actual templates unless (per WP:MEATBOT, WP:NOTBROKE) it is the only change being made in the edit. Not going to wade through all the rest of that back-'n'-forth up there. This is all a WP:Common sense matter: don't sweat the small stuff or obsess over trivia, but also do not mislead other editors, either intentionally or through error of omission. We almost all have a lot of extra time on our hands and extra stress (especially those of us under financial hardship due to this F'ing virus), so let's go out of our way to avoid irritating each other. :-) — SMcCandlish☏ ¢ 😼 01:01, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination for deletion of Template:Current COVID[edit]
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Pafnuti Chebychev. Since you had some involvement with the Pafnuti Chebychev redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 21:13, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Kelvin Moore (footballer) (disambiguation). Since you had some involvement with the Kelvin Moore (footballer) (disambiguation) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Regards, SONIC678 04:45, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Hiram (given name) (disambiguation). Since you had some involvement with the Hiram (given name) (disambiguation) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Regards, SONIC678 20:34, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There's another applicable restriction. From ANI 3 months ago: Rich Farmbrough is not permitted to make any mass changes to articles, broadly construed, and regardless of editing method, cosmetic or not, without a demonstrable consensus from the community that he is explicitly permitted to do so (Special:Diff/935340986). Is there such a consensus for these edits? Mdaniels5757 (talk) 19:20, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) It gets worse. In this edit, Rich Farmbrough updated the date in the template without actually verifying that all dates in the article complied with the format. I think that these useless – and in this case actually harmful in a minor way – edits should stop. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:10, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve gone ahead and blocked you for two weeks per the above sanction cited by Mdaniels5757 as there doesn’t appear to be any explicit consensus for you to make them anywhere in your editing history. I’m also issuing final warning that should violate one of your sanctions again, you may be indefinitely blocked without further warning, as your block log shows these are issues dating back years. If you wish to appeal, you may follow the advice in WP:GAB. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:08, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am curious to know whether Mdaniels5757 and TonyBallioni regularly follow my talk page, since I believe Tony has only come here (twice) to block me, and I have never interacted with either editor outside this. All the best: RichFarmbrough (the apparently calm and reasonable) 21:50, 15 April 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Rich Farmbrough, Hi. No, I don't regularly follow your talk page. This came to my attention via my watching of another user's talk. --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 22:24, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Mdaniels5757, thanks, appreciate your prompt response. As Oscar Wild said "The only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about." Where (on wiki) am I being talked about? All the best: RichFarmbrough (the apparently calm and reasonable) 22:31, 15 April 2020 (UTC).[reply]
I saw it both here and on Iridescent's talk. I typically watchlist the talk page of user's I've blocked. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:58, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The level of despair these kinds of shenanigans bring about is far more than just making people want to throw up their hands and quit. The implication that I don't care about other users is a supreme irony.
All the best: RichFarmbrough (the apparently calm and reasonable) 18:12, 16 April 2020 (UTC).[reply]
But you have to laugh, or at least grin wryly:
specifically pointed to all the restrictions listed on the personal restrictions page... is this one Iri references not listed there? I swear, restrictions are enough to make me scream and throw a toddler tantrum.
— Ealdgyth
So there is plotting and tag teaming - and a bunch of advice, on which particular piece of quasi-legislation to use to ... well what was the purpose exactly? And Ealdgyth is the one suffering?
It is, as some of our more poorly worded articles would say "interesting to note" that the ER which the cabal picked as their weapon of choice was proposed by someone who was apparently ignorant of this injunction by ArbCom, which stood at the head of my talk page for some time:
An editor alleging misconduct by another editor is responsible for providing clear evidence of the alleged misconduct. An editor who is unable or unwilling to support such an accusation should refrain from making it at all. A claim of misconduct should be raised directly with the other user himself or herself in the first instance, unless there are compelling reasons for not doing so. If direct discussion does not resolve the issue, it should be raised in the appropriate forum for reporting or discussing such conduct, and should not generally be spread across multiple forums. Claims of misconduct should be made with the goal of resolving the problem, not of impugning another editor's reputation.
But heigh-ho a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, so add to my strait jacket with leaden weights, and you just make me more determined not to stumble into the torrent. And if I do and am swept away, no-one will really notice, there will just be one less person dedicated to making the project good, rather than editing for their own amusement.
All the best: RichFarmbrough (the apparently calm and reasonable) 19:37, 16 April 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Rich Farmbrough, I don't know others' motivations, and will not speculate as to them. They told me to do nothing (and, although they did link to a diff, their evidence was only a start, not sufficient to support any action).
A brief look at your contributions page was plenty for me to confirm their accusation. I think the evidence that I cited above speaks for itself (100 edits in 15 minutes with the same edit summary sounds like a "mass change" to me), but if you believe that the evidence does not establish that you breached your editing restriction, an unblock appeal is the way to go.
One last note: there is no cabal. There is no conspiracy against you. None of those above (or myself) are not "dedicated to making the project good". A couple of editors stumbled upon something that looked fishy, looked around for a minute, and acted appropriately. If you wish to appeal your block, I doubt that the reviewing admin will look favorably upon unfounded accusations and ad hominem attacks.
Of course all references to a cabal are meant to be humorous.
It's pretty clear that Ealdgyth's original message refers to "unrendered changes" - not the recent ER. She says on Iridescent's page "I meant all of them" but that's not what she said.
It is unpleasant, to say the least, that a discussion was going on about how to get me blocked, without even the courtesy of a ping.
Appealing the block is a waste of time. Even if it is successful, the damage is done. If I had been found guilty of manslaughter at the time of my first block I'd be out by now. But that block is still held against me. Even the arbcom restriction that was eventually rescinded is brought up as if I had been found guilty of some crime against humanity. Mud sticks.
In fact successful appeals make the block log look longer.
I don't fault you for coming here and pointing something out. I don't particularly fault anyone, they are all doing right according to their lights.
However I have a different perspective which I think is valid. And that is talk about things and resolve problems instead of blocking.
All the best: RichFarmbrough (the apparently calm and reasonable) 10:20, 17 April 2020 (UTC).[reply]
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Catholic Encylopaedia. Since you had some involvement with the Catholic Encylopaedia redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Regards, SONIC678 15:15, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.
If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! UnitedStatesian (talk) 17:33, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, User:UnitedStatesian! I would appreciate it if you would do me the courtesy of notifying me before you nominate anything for deletion. The majority of the time I will either {{G7}} the offending item, or provide a reasonably compelling argument for it's retention. All the best: RichFarmbrough (the apparently calm and reasonable) 22:33, 15 April 2020 (UTC).[reply]
@Fastily: please refund this article. All the best: RichFarmbrough (the apparently calm and reasonable) 22:35, 15 April 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Anyone who is kind enough to fix any of these things, please add a {{Done}} by the item or items you fix. Anything left I will attempt to attend to on my return.
Photo_51 mis-seplls Gosling as Goslin in a reference. Done
Histone fails to mention that some viruses (polioviuses?) have histones.
(minor) in the caption to Core histone H2A/H2B/H3/H4, the word "complex" should probably not be capitalised
(minor) the heading for "linker histone H1 and H5 family" should start with a capital L
Erich Vermehren cites de:Wikipedia as a source, less importantly
(minor) was making peace overtures with should be was making peace overtures to
(minor) External links, WARTIME ACTIVITIES OF THE GERMAN DIPLOMATIC AND MILITARY SERVICES DURING WORLD WAR II should be in title case, i.e. "Wartime Activities of the German Diplomatic and Military Services During World War II". Done (all three)Mathglot (talk) 19:58, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(minor) c. 72 mis-spelling of "encyclopedia" as "encylopedia".
Details? Can see 2 bare URLs only, on quick scan. PamD 07:19, 16 April 2020 (UTC) Fixed them both. PamD 08:07, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, these were fixed by AnomieBot, here. All the best: RichFarmbrough (the apparently calm and reasonable) 08:54, 16 April 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Noted Negro Women should say "is" rather than "was" in the first sentence. Pending – Agreed; but I like to link policy/guideline in the ES, and I can't find the one that governs present tense here; link it please and ping me, and I'll fix it. Mathglot (talk) 08:29, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Grimoult of Plessis "his Castle" should be "his castle" and "Attempted Coup" should be "Attempted coup" DoneMathglot (talk) 08:36, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"These styles are not used on Wikipedia, including for titles of pop-culture or academic works, respectively." remove the meaningless "respectively". Additional information needed – article or project page link? Mathglot (talk) 08:36, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sugar Ray Seales "He was subsequently declared legally blind, and was used as a cause célèbre along with Sugar Ray Leonard during the 1980s for those pushing for a ban on boxing." better is "He was subsequently declared legally blind, and was used as a cause célèbre, along with Sugar Ray Leonard, during the 1980s by those pushing for a ban on boxing."
Kirsten Johnson for some reason the Academy Award is italicised, no support for this in WP:ITALICS. All the best: RichFarmbrough (the apparently calm and reasonable) 13:07, 18 April 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Brothers Grimm "In 1837, they lost their university posts after joining in protest with the Göttingen Seven." should be "In 1837, they lost their university posts after joining the rest of the Göttingen Seven in protest." -see the linked article for details. RF 16:21, 18 April 2020 (UTC) DoneMathglot (talk) 19:46, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Superyacht - This edit broke file syntax, easy fix. Additional information needed – assume you are you looking for a revert here? The new image is 100px square. Mathglot (talk) 19:41, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This has been reverted by User:HopsonRoad, to whom thanks. RF 13:55, 19 April 2020 (UTC) Done[reply]
2020_coronavirus_pandemic_in_the_United_Kingdom#Royal_family 'The Queen' -> 'the Queen' (x2), 'Royal Family' -> 'royal family' (x2?), 'a televised address outside or her annual Christmas message' -> 'a televised address excluding her annual Christmas messages', 'The Prince' and 'the Prince' -> Charles, 'Garden Parties' -> 'garden parties', "'virtual'" remove single quotes and remove "due to the ongoing pandemic" as redundant.
All the best: RichFarmbrough (the apparently calm and reasonable) 21:40, 15 April 2020 (UTC).[reply]
User:Ealdgyth - your challenge is to write the article on Kathlyn Oliver, trades union founder and promoter of the right for women to love one another, which I had just started when the first effects of your actions took place.
You told me edit summaries were impossible to enforce. But when you have an editor who makes hundreds of (known) controversial bot-like edits, along with known controversial reverts, without edit summaries, or with deceptive edit summaries, can that be added to arb evidence?
Yes it certainly can. I would think genuinely deceptive edit summaries would be enough for the community to take action though. All the best: RichFarmbrough (the apparently calm and reasonable) 22:18, 16 April 2020 (UTC).[reply] 22:18, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
All the best: RichFarmbrough (the apparently calm and reasonable) 21:56, 16 April 2020 (UTC).[reply]
You've been an enormous inspiration to me (and to my mentor Lightmouse, long since retired), so it's you I owe an incredible thanks to. But you're not done, at least I hope not . I have found that WP is on one hand a whimsical place, it's also incredibly forgiving, so hang on in there, and Illegitimi non carborundum. I'm looking forward to working with you again! -- Ohc ¡digame! 16:01, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
User:Richard Nevell (WMUK), I will definitely attend. This is something I have been thinking we should do for years, or what this could evolve into. All the meetups are a trek for me, Cambridge takes about 2 1/2 hours, London 4 and Oxford 5 or 6. And the travel is not cheap. And I know many Wiki[mp]edians (among whose number I still count myself) have even less disposable income than I.
All the best: RichFarmbrough (the apparently calm and reasonable) 22:51, 16 April 2020 (UTC).[reply]
It looks like there are enough people to make it worth trying out, and because it's not specific to one place there's the chance for people who don't usually get to go to meetups to take part. Assuming it goes ahead, we'll publicise it on the meetup pages and probably the watchlist notice I should think. Richard Nevell (WMUK) (talk) 11:28, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
User:Eliteplus has made a large number of edits applying the Oxford comma to articles, often alone, sometimes with other changes that are more or less good. (For example - "a LP" to "an LP", good, "water craft" to "watercraft", dubious.)
While I'm sure they did this unintentionally, and will stop and be more careful in future, it will need someone to revert/rollback all the bad edits.
Volunteers?
All the best: RichFarmbrough (the apparently calm and reasonable) 22:08, 16 April 2020 (UTC).[reply]
User:Hko2333 has been adding "necessary commas" (as well as fixing captialization errors and other, generally useful clean-ups). These are not always necessary, and perhaps it would be wise to stop this.
User:Patiodweller has been adding similar commas, and changing spelling to the Oxford style (as in "captialization" rather than "captialisation", again while also doing other clean-up at least some of which is useful. Please try not to change these spellings except where the article is already using the same spelling style, and also be very circumspect about adding commas. Similarly Brovaz' is a perfectly valid punctuation.
I offer similar advice to User:Challenger.rebecca who is both adding and removing commas, it is not the case that a comma is required before the word "but" nor is it forbidden before the word "while". In [2] this case the comma is parenthetical, and makes perfect sense.
User:Martinthewriter once again, commas after "In 1922" and so forth, are sometimes a good idea, but not always. Same applies to leading terms such as "Therefore".
Not sure if there are more editors making these types of changes, but good luck to you all in refining your editing.
All the best: RichFarmbrough (the apparently calm and reasonable) 02:38, 18 April 2020 (UTC).[reply]
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect 262144. Since you had some involvement with the 262144 redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 13:28, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, User:1234qwer1234qwer4! I would appreciate it if you would do me the courtesy of notifying me before you nominate anything I created for deletion. The majority of the time I will either {{G7}} the offending item, or provide a reasonably compelling argument for its retention.
All the best: RichFarmbrough (the apparently calm and reasonable) 14:58, 17 April 2020 (UTC).[reply]
There is a presentation problem with this page, that causes the heading shown below to fail to render properly at some window sizes, due to squeezing by the chart. You can use your browser's zoom to make the
heading hide/show.
COVID-19 cases in the United Kingdom() Deaths Confirmed cases
^On 25 March PHE changed reporting of deaths to be correct up to 17:00 the previous day, while cases are reported up to 09:00 the same day. Deaths reported for Tuesday 24 March only covered from 09:00 to 17:00 on that day; subsequent reporting is for 24-hour periods from 17:00 to 17:00.[3]
^Figures for 27 March and after include additional cases from tests carried out on key workers.
^Starting with the figures published on 29 April, deaths in all settings are now included. Previously, only deaths in hospitals were included in the official figures. The numbers in this table have been updated with backdated figures for previous dates.
^Positive cases are 27 lower than the difference between today’s and yesterday’s cumulative. This is due to Northern Ireland not processing testing data for 17 May, and the removal of a quality control sample from Wales data.
^Reduction in the cumulative total is due to unpublished corrections, and the reallocation of some positive test results to previous days.
^111 deaths were reported for 31 May. However, the cumulative total was revised to include an additional 445 deaths from the period from 26 April to 31 May identified by PHE as COVID-19 deaths having received a positive test. The numbers in this table have been updated with backdated figures from 23 May onwards.
^The methodology of reporting positive cases has been updated to remove duplicates within and across pillars 1 and 2, to ensure that a person who tests positive is only counted once. This has resulted in a reduction in the number of cumulative tests.
Pillar 1: swab testing in Public Health England (PHE) labs and NHS hospitals for those with a clinical need, and health and care workers.
Pillar 2: swab testing for the wider population, as set out in government guidance.
^Total positive cases reported for 14 July include an additional 842 cases from a testing laboratory in Wales. These positive cases should have been reflected in the data for 13 July. Had they been included in the 13 July data, there would have been 398 positive cases reported on 14 July, and the increases for 13 July and 14 July would have been 0.47% and 0.14% respectively.
^The way daily death figures are calculated is currently under review. Statement from HM Government: "The Secretary of State has today, 17 July, asked PHE to urgently review their estimation of daily death statistics. Currently the daily deaths measure counts all people who have tested positive for coronavirus and since died, with no cut-off between time of testing and date of death. There have been claims that the lack of cut-off may distort the current daily deaths number. We are therefore pausing the publication of the daily figure while this is resolved."
^After a review, the way daily death figures are calculated was changed. The daily death figures now only includes cases where a death occurred within 28 days of a positive test.
^ abA backlog of positive test results from the previous week are included in this figure. Statement from Public Health England: "Due to a technical issue, which has now been resolved, there has been a delay in publishing a number of COVID-19 cases to the dashboard in England. This means the total reported over the coming days will include some additional cases from the period between 24 September and 1 October, increasing the number of cases reported."
^Includes a backlog of 141 deaths. Statement from HM Government: "Due to a processing update, 141 historical deaths within 28 days in England were excluded from the published data on 21 November. This issue was corrected for data published on 22 November, which included deaths omitted on 21 November within the total and daily number of newly reported deaths for 22 November."
^Includes a backlog of about 11,000 positive test results from Wales. Statement from HM Government: "The number of new UK cases reported on 17 December 2020 includes around 11,000 previously unreported cases for Wales as a result of system maintenance in the NHS Wales Laboratory Information Management System."
^3 March: 172 deaths within 28 days of a positive test were added to Scotland and UK totals.
^13 March: Daily counts of deaths in England rely on multiple data sources. On 13 March 2021 there was a delay in receiving this information from one of these sources. This might have a small impact on the total number of deaths reported on that date. This delay will be reflected on the numbers published on 14 March 2021.
^18 May: 4,776 additional cases from England were removed
^19 May: further 561 additional cases from England were removed
^20 May: further 180 additional cases from England were removed
^Because of a public holiday, no data has been updated for Wales and only headline cases, vaccinations and deaths are available from Northern Ireland.
^Because of a network issue at Public Health Wales on 8 October 2021, cases and deaths within 28 days of positive test were reported after the UK dashboard was updated.
^Because of technical issues at Public Health Wales yesterday, the cases and deaths reported today cover a 72-hour period.
^Deaths data was not received from NHS England on 1st November 2021. This means that two days’ worth of data from this data source are potentially included in today’s figures.
^Public Health Scotland (PHS) are investigating a processing issue with UK Government Pillar 2 lab tests contributing to lower than expected cases. This means reported case numbers for Scotland on 4 December 2021 are likely lower than would have been expected.
^Issue with cases by test type – Because of a processing issue, positive lateral flow tests followed by a negative PCR test in England were not removed on 20 Dec 2021. Today's figures include removals for 2 days.
^The COVID-19 dashboard will not be updated on 25-26 December 2021. Daily reporting will resume on 27 December 2021. The availability of data will vary over the festive period.
^Incomplete data for deaths due to holidays – No data have been reported for Scotland and Northern Ireland.
^Newly reported figures from Northern Ireland for testing, cases and deaths reflect the difference in totals reported on 29 December and those last published by Northern Ireland on 24 December 2021. Figures for cases and deaths are available by specimen date and date of death respectively. Retrospective report date figures for each day from 25 to 28 December are not available.
^Today’s death figures include a backlog of hospital deaths reported overnight by NHS England covering the period 24th–29th December.
^Cases and deaths data are only included for England. Data for Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland will be updated after the holidays.
^Cases and deaths data are only included for England and Wales. Data for Scotland and Northern Ireland will be updated after the holidays.
^Cases data only include figures for England and Scotland. Deaths data only include figures for England
^Newly-reported figures of tests conducted, cases and deaths for Northern Ireland cover a 4-day period, and for Wales cover a 2-day period. Newly-reported figures for cases in Scotland are only available at national level. Data for deaths in Scotland have not been updated. The UK total therefore includes only newly-reported deaths in England, Northern Ireland and Wales. Figures for cases and deaths by specimen date and date of death have been updated for England, Northern Ireland and Wales.
^Today’s death figures include a backlog of hospital deaths reported overnight by NHS England covering the period 1–4 January. Deaths with COVID-19 on the death certificate registered in the week ending 24 December 2021 are only available for England and Wales. The UK total number includes England and Wales only.
^The Office for National Statistics (ONS) has corrected the number of deaths with COVID-19 on the death certificate for the week ending 24 December 2021. Some deaths were not included in the published figures because of an issue with the ONS automated coding system.
^From 6 January in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales, and 11 January in England, people with positive lateral flow results for COVID-19 need to report their result but don’t need to take a confirmatory PCR test unless they develop COVID-19 symptoms. This is a temporary measure while COVID-19 rates remain high across the UK as the vast majority of people with positive lateral flow test results can be confident that they have COVID-19.
^Figures for cases, deaths and vaccinations that were not reported from Scotland yesterday have been retrospectively added to the totals for 16 January 2022. The missing data have also been added to the UK figures for 16 January.
^Because of a processing issue, deaths with COVID-19 on the death certificate have not been updated for all areas.
^Scotland cases that were not reported over the weekend have been retrospectively added to the Scotland and UK totals for 22 and 23 January 2022. One death has been removed from the cumulative number of reported deaths within 28 days of positive test in Northern Ireland following validation. Public Health Scotland has noted that the cumulative number of deaths within 28 days of positive test in Scotland is one fewer than the day before.
^From 31 January 2022, UKHSA will move all COVID-19 case reporting in England to use a new episode-based definition which includes possible reinfections.
^Figures for new positive PCR cases in Scotland are not available at the weekend.
^Northern Ireland did not publish an update to reported cases and deaths within 28 days of a positive test in time for inclusion in the UK dashboard. Figures will be added in a future release.
^Figures for first episodes (equivalent to the pre-31 January 2022 case definition) and possible reinfections by specimen date have been added for England plus regions and local authorities within England. From 31 January, UKHSA COVID-19 case reporting has changed to an episode-based definition which includes possible reinfections. Deaths within 28 days of positive test and deaths within 60 days of positive test will also be updated on 1 February to include deaths following the most recent episode of infection using the new episode-based case definition in England.
^Deaths definition in England updated to align with revised cases definition. From 31 January 2022, UKHSA COVID-19 case reporting has changed to an episode-based definition which includes possible reinfections.
^Figures for cases, deaths and tests conducted that were not reported from Scotland yesterday have been retrospectively added to the totals for 2 February 2022. The missing data have also been added to the UK figures for 2 February.
^Positive rapid lateral flow test results are included in cases for Scotland. Historical cases by report date have not been revised, so there has been a step increase in the cumulative numbers of cases. Because of the new case definition for Scotland, underlying data files for cases and deaths have changed structure.
^As of 20 February 2022, Public Health Wales have moved to a five day reporting period for COVID-19 surveillance. This means that there will be no reporting of the daily figures for Wales on weekends.
^From the week of 21 February 2022, the UK Health Security Agency will stop publishing dashboard updates at weekends. The dashboard will be updated as usual from Monday to Friday. Daily cases and deaths by report date published on Mondays will include figures from the weekend. These will not be separated out to show daily figures for Saturday and Sunday.
^From 1 March 2022, multiple infection episodes are included in cases for Scotland: cases include both new infections and possible reinfections; deaths following possible reinfection are reported; cases by specimen date and deaths by date of death have been revised back to the beginning of the pandemic; historical cases and deaths by report date have not been revised, so there has been a step increase in the cumulative number of cases of around 60,000 and in the number of deaths of 75.
^Due to a technical issue affecting one route of reporting to UKHSA, the number of COVID-19 deaths may be lower than otherwise expected. This is anticipated to be a temporary limitation, and any delayed reporting will be resolved in the coming days.
^A technical issue affecting one route of reporting to UKHSA reported on 2 March has been fixed. Today's deaths figures by report date include some deaths that would have been reported on that date.
^An additional 13,774 historic cases have been included in today's cumulative case total for Scotland. These are positive rapid lateral flow test (LFD) results that were reported via the Scottish Government LFD Portal between 6 January 2022 and today.
^Due to a technical issue, Public Health Scotland (PHS) has been unable to provide updated data on cases, deaths, tests, hospital admissions and vaccinations. UK totals therefore only include updates from England, Northern Ireland and Wales.
^Because of the technical issue affecting Public Health Scotland reporting yesterday, today's newly-reported cases, deaths and tests cover new reports since 12 March. Newly-reported vaccinations cover the period since 11 March.
^Case figures reported by Public Health Scotland today cover less than a 24-hour period. A reoccurrence of the technical issue from earlier in the week means data has not been received since 8pm on 15 March 2022.
^Because of a public holiday in Northern Ireland, data have only been updated for cases, deaths and vaccinations by report date. Case figures reported by Public Health Scotland today cover less than a 24-hour period. A reoccurrence of the technical issue from earlier in the week means data has not been received since 2pm on 16 March 2022.
^Case figures reported by Public Health Scotland today cover more than a 24-hour period, due to technical issues from earlier in the week. Data covers cases reported from 2pm on 16 March 2022 and those reported on 17th March 2022.
^6 deaths within 28 days of a positive test have been removed from the cumulative total for Scotland. Changes to test details mean they are no longer classed as deaths within 28 days of positive test. These changes affect the Scotland and UK cumulative totals.
^The availability of free COVID-19 tests in England changed on 1 April. Information on who can access free tests has been published by UKHSA. Changes to patient testing in the NHS in England have also been published by NHS England.
^Due to a processing error, a number of people who died within 28 days of a positive COVID-19 test in 2022 were not reported in a timely manner. 2,714 deaths within 28 days of a positive test were added retrospectively. The backlog of deaths has been added to the cumulative total for England and the UK. Newly-reported deaths for England and the UK on 6 April 2022 represent the numbers that would have been reported without the extra retrospective deaths.
^Daily counts of deaths in England rely on multiple data sources. Data from one source was not included on 12 April 2022 due to delays in receipt and processing.
^Following the technical issue affecting one route of reporting to UKHSA yesterday, today's deaths figures by report date include some deaths that would have been reported on 12 April. Deaths by death date are backdated.
^In line with weekday only reporting, the dashboard will not be updated over the bank holiday weekend. Following the update on Thursday 14 April, the next update will be on Tuesday 19 April.
^Due to a technical issue, Public Health Scotland (PHS) has been unable to provide updated data on cases, deaths, tests and hospital admissions. UK totals for cases, deaths and testing by publish date therefore only include updates from England, Northern Ireland and Wales.
^Because of a technical issue, it has only been possible to update figures for cases for England (nation) by report date.
^In line with weekday only reporting, the dashboard will not be updated over the bank holiday weekend. Following the update on 29 April, the next update will be 3 May.
^Due to a technical issue affecting one data source, the number of reported COVID-19 deaths in England is lower than expected. Any delay in reporting is expected to catch up in the next couple of days.
^A technical issue affecting one route of reporting to UKHSA reported on 4 May has been fixed. Deaths figures by report date on 5 May include some deaths that would have been reported on the previous day. Deaths by death date are backdated.
^From 9 May, Public Health Scotland moved to reporting data on Mondays and Thursdays. This means UK headline figures are also updated on Mondays and Thursdays. Up-to-date data for England, Wales (excluding vaccinations) and Northern Ireland are on the cases, deaths, healthcare, testing, vaccinations and postcode pages.
^Due to technical issues, the Department of Health in Northern Ireland were unable to update the numbers of tests, cases and deaths reported. This means that UK cases, deaths and testing data has not been updated beyond 10 May 2022.
^From 20 May, Department of Health Northern Ireland stopped reporting data on cases, testing and deaths. This means UK headline figures for these topics will not be updated. Up-to-date data for England, Wales (excluding vaccinations) and Scotland are on the cases, deaths, healthcare, testing, vaccinations and postcode pages. Data for vaccinations in Northern Ireland will continue to be updated daily.
^In line with weekday only reporting, the dashboard will not be updated over the bank holiday weekend. Following the update on Wednesday 1 June, the next update will be on Monday 6 June.
^On 25 March PHE changed reporting of deaths to be correct up to 17:00 the previous day, while cases are reported up to 09:00 the same day. Deaths reported for Tuesday 24 March only covered from 09:00 to 17:00 on that day; subsequent reporting is for 24-hour periods from 17:00 to 17:00.[6]
^Figures for 27 March and after include additional cases from tests carried out on key workers.
^Starting with the figures published on 29 April, deaths in all settings are now included. Previously, only deaths in hospitals were included in the official figures. The numbers in this table have been updated with backdated figures for previous dates.
^Positive cases are 27 lower than the difference between today’s and yesterday’s cumulative. This is due to Northern Ireland not processing testing data for 17 May, and the removal of a quality control sample from Wales data.
^Reduction in the cumulative total is due to unpublished corrections, and the reallocation of some positive test results to previous days.
^111 deaths were reported for 31 May. However, the cumulative total was revised to include an additional 445 deaths from the period from 26 April to 31 May identified by PHE as COVID-19 deaths having received a positive test. The numbers in this table have been updated with backdated figures from 23 May onwards.
^The methodology of reporting positive cases has been updated to remove duplicates within and across pillars 1 and 2, to ensure that a person who tests positive is only counted once. This has resulted in a reduction in the number of cumulative tests.
Pillar 1: swab testing in Public Health England (PHE) labs and NHS hospitals for those with a clinical need, and health and care workers.
Pillar 2: swab testing for the wider population, as set out in government guidance.
^Total positive cases reported for 14 July include an additional 842 cases from a testing laboratory in Wales. These positive cases should have been reflected in the data for 13 July. Had they been included in the 13 July data, there would have been 398 positive cases reported on 14 July, and the increases for 13 July and 14 July would have been 0.47% and 0.14% respectively.
^The way daily death figures are calculated is currently under review. Statement from HM Government: "The Secretary of State has today, 17 July, asked PHE to urgently review their estimation of daily death statistics. Currently the daily deaths measure counts all people who have tested positive for coronavirus and since died, with no cut-off between time of testing and date of death. There have been claims that the lack of cut-off may distort the current daily deaths number. We are therefore pausing the publication of the daily figure while this is resolved."
^After a review, the way daily death figures are calculated was changed. The daily death figures now only includes cases where a death occurred within 28 days of a positive test.
^ abA backlog of positive test results from the previous week are included in this figure. Statement from Public Health England: "Due to a technical issue, which has now been resolved, there has been a delay in publishing a number of COVID-19 cases to the dashboard in England. This means the total reported over the coming days will include some additional cases from the period between 24 September and 1 October, increasing the number of cases reported."
^Includes a backlog of 141 deaths. Statement from HM Government: "Due to a processing update, 141 historical deaths within 28 days in England were excluded from the published data on 21 November. This issue was corrected for data published on 22 November, which included deaths omitted on 21 November within the total and daily number of newly reported deaths for 22 November."
^Includes a backlog of about 11,000 positive test results from Wales. Statement from HM Government: "The number of new UK cases reported on 17 December 2020 includes around 11,000 previously unreported cases for Wales as a result of system maintenance in the NHS Wales Laboratory Information Management System."
^3 March: 172 deaths within 28 days of a positive test were added to Scotland and UK totals.
^13 March: Daily counts of deaths in England rely on multiple data sources. On 13 March 2021 there was a delay in receiving this information from one of these sources. This might have a small impact on the total number of deaths reported on that date. This delay will be reflected on the numbers published on 14 March 2021.
^18 May: 4,776 additional cases from England were removed
^19 May: further 561 additional cases from England were removed
^20 May: further 180 additional cases from England were removed
^Because of a public holiday, no data has been updated for Wales and only headline cases, vaccinations and deaths are available from Northern Ireland.
^Because of a network issue at Public Health Wales on 8 October 2021, cases and deaths within 28 days of positive test were reported after the UK dashboard was updated.
^Because of technical issues at Public Health Wales yesterday, the cases and deaths reported today cover a 72-hour period.
^Deaths data was not received from NHS England on 1st November 2021. This means that two days’ worth of data from this data source are potentially included in today’s figures.
^Public Health Scotland (PHS) are investigating a processing issue with UK Government Pillar 2 lab tests contributing to lower than expected cases. This means reported case numbers for Scotland on 4 December 2021 are likely lower than would have been expected.
^Issue with cases by test type – Because of a processing issue, positive lateral flow tests followed by a negative PCR test in England were not removed on 20 Dec 2021. Today's figures include removals for 2 days.
^The COVID-19 dashboard will not be updated on 25-26 December 2021. Daily reporting will resume on 27 December 2021. The availability of data will vary over the festive period.
^Incomplete data for deaths due to holidays – No data have been reported for Scotland and Northern Ireland.
^Newly reported figures from Northern Ireland for testing, cases and deaths reflect the difference in totals reported on 29 December and those last published by Northern Ireland on 24 December 2021. Figures for cases and deaths are available by specimen date and date of death respectively. Retrospective report date figures for each day from 25 to 28 December are not available.
^Today’s death figures include a backlog of hospital deaths reported overnight by NHS England covering the period 24th–29th December.
^Cases and deaths data are only included for England. Data for Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland will be updated after the holidays.
^Cases and deaths data are only included for England and Wales. Data for Scotland and Northern Ireland will be updated after the holidays.
^Cases data only include figures for England and Scotland. Deaths data only include figures for England
^Newly-reported figures of tests conducted, cases and deaths for Northern Ireland cover a 4-day period, and for Wales cover a 2-day period. Newly-reported figures for cases in Scotland are only available at national level. Data for deaths in Scotland have not been updated. The UK total therefore includes only newly-reported deaths in England, Northern Ireland and Wales. Figures for cases and deaths by specimen date and date of death have been updated for England, Northern Ireland and Wales.
^Today’s death figures include a backlog of hospital deaths reported overnight by NHS England covering the period 1–4 January. Deaths with COVID-19 on the death certificate registered in the week ending 24 December 2021 are only available for England and Wales. The UK total number includes England and Wales only.
^The Office for National Statistics (ONS) has corrected the number of deaths with COVID-19 on the death certificate for the week ending 24 December 2021. Some deaths were not included in the published figures because of an issue with the ONS automated coding system.
^From 6 January in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales, and 11 January in England, people with positive lateral flow results for COVID-19 need to report their result but don’t need to take a confirmatory PCR test unless they develop COVID-19 symptoms. This is a temporary measure while COVID-19 rates remain high across the UK as the vast majority of people with positive lateral flow test results can be confident that they have COVID-19.
^Figures for cases, deaths and vaccinations that were not reported from Scotland yesterday have been retrospectively added to the totals for 16 January 2022. The missing data have also been added to the UK figures for 16 January.
^Because of a processing issue, deaths with COVID-19 on the death certificate have not been updated for all areas.
^Scotland cases that were not reported over the weekend have been retrospectively added to the Scotland and UK totals for 22 and 23 January 2022. One death has been removed from the cumulative number of reported deaths within 28 days of positive test in Northern Ireland following validation. Public Health Scotland has noted that the cumulative number of deaths within 28 days of positive test in Scotland is one fewer than the day before.
^From 31 January 2022, UKHSA will move all COVID-19 case reporting in England to use a new episode-based definition which includes possible reinfections.
^Figures for new positive PCR cases in Scotland are not available at the weekend.
^Northern Ireland did not publish an update to reported cases and deaths within 28 days of a positive test in time for inclusion in the UK dashboard. Figures will be added in a future release.
^Figures for first episodes (equivalent to the pre-31 January 2022 case definition) and possible reinfections by specimen date have been added for England plus regions and local authorities within England. From 31 January, UKHSA COVID-19 case reporting has changed to an episode-based definition which includes possible reinfections. Deaths within 28 days of positive test and deaths within 60 days of positive test will also be updated on 1 February to include deaths following the most recent episode of infection using the new episode-based case definition in England.
^Deaths definition in England updated to align with revised cases definition. From 31 January 2022, UKHSA COVID-19 case reporting has changed to an episode-based definition which includes possible reinfections.
^Figures for cases, deaths and tests conducted that were not reported from Scotland yesterday have been retrospectively added to the totals for 2 February 2022. The missing data have also been added to the UK figures for 2 February.
^Positive rapid lateral flow test results are included in cases for Scotland. Historical cases by report date have not been revised, so there has been a step increase in the cumulative numbers of cases. Because of the new case definition for Scotland, underlying data files for cases and deaths have changed structure.
^As of 20 February 2022, Public Health Wales have moved to a five day reporting period for COVID-19 surveillance. This means that there will be no reporting of the daily figures for Wales on weekends.
^From the week of 21 February 2022, the UK Health Security Agency will stop publishing dashboard updates at weekends. The dashboard will be updated as usual from Monday to Friday. Daily cases and deaths by report date published on Mondays will include figures from the weekend. These will not be separated out to show daily figures for Saturday and Sunday.
^From 1 March 2022, multiple infection episodes are included in cases for Scotland: cases include both new infections and possible reinfections; deaths following possible reinfection are reported; cases by specimen date and deaths by date of death have been revised back to the beginning of the pandemic; historical cases and deaths by report date have not been revised, so there has been a step increase in the cumulative number of cases of around 60,000 and in the number of deaths of 75.
^Due to a technical issue affecting one route of reporting to UKHSA, the number of COVID-19 deaths may be lower than otherwise expected. This is anticipated to be a temporary limitation, and any delayed reporting will be resolved in the coming days.
^A technical issue affecting one route of reporting to UKHSA reported on 2 March has been fixed. Today's deaths figures by report date include some deaths that would have been reported on that date.
^An additional 13,774 historic cases have been included in today's cumulative case total for Scotland. These are positive rapid lateral flow test (LFD) results that were reported via the Scottish Government LFD Portal between 6 January 2022 and today.
^Due to a technical issue, Public Health Scotland (PHS) has been unable to provide updated data on cases, deaths, tests, hospital admissions and vaccinations. UK totals therefore only include updates from England, Northern Ireland and Wales.
^Because of the technical issue affecting Public Health Scotland reporting yesterday, today's newly-reported cases, deaths and tests cover new reports since 12 March. Newly-reported vaccinations cover the period since 11 March.
^Case figures reported by Public Health Scotland today cover less than a 24-hour period. A reoccurrence of the technical issue from earlier in the week means data has not been received since 8pm on 15 March 2022.
^Because of a public holiday in Northern Ireland, data have only been updated for cases, deaths and vaccinations by report date. Case figures reported by Public Health Scotland today cover less than a 24-hour period. A reoccurrence of the technical issue from earlier in the week means data has not been received since 2pm on 16 March 2022.
^Case figures reported by Public Health Scotland today cover more than a 24-hour period, due to technical issues from earlier in the week. Data covers cases reported from 2pm on 16 March 2022 and those reported on 17th March 2022.
^6 deaths within 28 days of a positive test have been removed from the cumulative total for Scotland. Changes to test details mean they are no longer classed as deaths within 28 days of positive test. These changes affect the Scotland and UK cumulative totals.
^The availability of free COVID-19 tests in England changed on 1 April. Information on who can access free tests has been published by UKHSA. Changes to patient testing in the NHS in England have also been published by NHS England.
^Due to a processing error, a number of people who died within 28 days of a positive COVID-19 test in 2022 were not reported in a timely manner. 2,714 deaths within 28 days of a positive test were added retrospectively. The backlog of deaths has been added to the cumulative total for England and the UK. Newly-reported deaths for England and the UK on 6 April 2022 represent the numbers that would have been reported without the extra retrospective deaths.
^Daily counts of deaths in England rely on multiple data sources. Data from one source was not included on 12 April 2022 due to delays in receipt and processing.
^Following the technical issue affecting one route of reporting to UKHSA yesterday, today's deaths figures by report date include some deaths that would have been reported on 12 April. Deaths by death date are backdated.
^In line with weekday only reporting, the dashboard will not be updated over the bank holiday weekend. Following the update on Thursday 14 April, the next update will be on Tuesday 19 April.
^Due to a technical issue, Public Health Scotland (PHS) has been unable to provide updated data on cases, deaths, tests and hospital admissions. UK totals for cases, deaths and testing by publish date therefore only include updates from England, Northern Ireland and Wales.
^Because of a technical issue, it has only been possible to update figures for cases for England (nation) by report date.
^In line with weekday only reporting, the dashboard will not be updated over the bank holiday weekend. Following the update on 29 April, the next update will be 3 May.
^Due to a technical issue affecting one data source, the number of reported COVID-19 deaths in England is lower than expected. Any delay in reporting is expected to catch up in the next couple of days.
^A technical issue affecting one route of reporting to UKHSA reported on 4 May has been fixed. Deaths figures by report date on 5 May include some deaths that would have been reported on the previous day. Deaths by death date are backdated.
^From 9 May, Public Health Scotland moved to reporting data on Mondays and Thursdays. This means UK headline figures are also updated on Mondays and Thursdays. Up-to-date data for England, Wales (excluding vaccinations) and Northern Ireland are on the cases, deaths, healthcare, testing, vaccinations and postcode pages.
^Due to technical issues, the Department of Health in Northern Ireland were unable to update the numbers of tests, cases and deaths reported. This means that UK cases, deaths and testing data has not been updated beyond 10 May 2022.
^From 20 May, Department of Health Northern Ireland stopped reporting data on cases, testing and deaths. This means UK headline figures for these topics will not be updated. Up-to-date data for England, Wales (excluding vaccinations) and Scotland are on the cases, deaths, healthcare, testing, vaccinations and postcode pages. Data for vaccinations in Northern Ireland will continue to be updated daily.
^In line with weekday only reporting, the dashboard will not be updated over the bank holiday weekend. Following the update on Wednesday 1 June, the next update will be on Monday 6 June.
Hi, Rich. I've temporarily stopped working on #Things that need fixing, pending outcome of a discussion on proxying policy, which I pinged you to here. I linked you there, only because your "fixing" request above prompted it, but really that discussion is a general request about policy wording, and in no way a criticism of your "Things to fix" section, which I see as fully acceptable. I realize that while blocked you can't respond at that discussion, but it really isn't about you anyway, it's about getting some clarity about whether what I'm doing is even allowed per policy or not. Just wanted to be clear about that; in no way does that discussion imply any misstep on your part. If anyone made a mistake here, it's me. Mathglot (talk) 22:25, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Mathglot. I can assure you, you have done nothing wrong. This has come up many times, and consensus in the past is that provided you take responsibility, i.e. aren't blindly proxying, you can implement changes like this. It's even been accepted to re-create changes by blocked or banned users socking. Essentially the community argues that you, as a user in good standing, can make any change that improves an article, and of course that means it is your responsibility, just as with any edit.
Once again, thanks for your good faith work here.
All the best: RichFarmbrough (the apparently calm and reasonable) 13:19, 19 April 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Actually this is all in WP:BLOCK. All the best: RichFarmbrough (the apparently calm and reasonable) 13:40, 19 April 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Talk Page Jimmy's - removal of comments from YouTube?
ListeriaBot
All the best: RichFarmbrough (the apparently calm and reasonable) 18:23, 19 April 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point[edit]
User:Johnuniq: I don't think this is causing disruption. Nor is the purpose to illustrate a point. Minor things that I would fix while reading Wikipedia are going on this list, well some of them, there are too many to list them all. If they don't get fixed I'll fix them whenever I'm able to edit again. Major stuff I am either abandoning, or making notes here or elsewhere to complete later. Notably we should have coverage of histones in viruses, the mechanisms of SARS-CoV-2 needed more work (that may have been covered by now) and some lists of people who are probably notable, some of which doesn't belong in article space anyway.
All the best: RichFarmbrough (the apparently calm and reasonable) 13:52, 19 April 2020 (UTC).[reply]
So here's a question, I have noticed a relatively new account name that should be renamed because it violates policy. What should I do? All the best: RichFarmbrough (the apparently calm and reasonable) 14:18, 19 April 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Is there a way of suppressing page review notifications for redirects only? All the best: RichFarmbrough (the apparently calm and reasonable) 20:41, 19 April 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Hello there. This is an invitation to join the 50,000 Destubbing Challenge Focus of the Week. £250 (c. $310) up for grabs in May, June and July with £20 worth of prizes to give away every week for most articles destubbed. Each week there is a different region of focus, though half the prize will still be rewarded for articles on any subject. Articles may be submitted for this as well as the regional Challenge you usually contribute to at the same time. Sign up if you want to contribute at least one of the weeks or support the idea! † Encyclopædius 19:37, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Guideline and policy news
Technical news
Arbitration
Miscellaneous
Template:Current COVID has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 20:10, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
Done
Pending – Agreed; but I like to link policy/guideline in the ES, and I can't find the one that governs present tense here; link it please and ping me, and I'll fix it. Mathglot (talk) 08:29, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
Additional information needed – article or project page link? Mathglot (talk) 08:36, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
. I have found that WP is on one hand a whimsical place, it's also incredibly forgiving, so hang on in there, and Illegitimi non carborundum. I'm looking forward to working with you again! -- Ohc ¡digame! 16:01, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
