Template talk:Infobox country/Archive 6

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Video Template talk:Infobox country/Archive 6

Design for colorblindness by using contrast

12-April-2008: Topics above have raised the issue of color blindness. I've analyzed the problem based on medical sources (red-green colorblindness actually refers to several types). In general, just use high-contrast colors: black lettering on any color is typically visible to all. The most common problems are medium shades of red-green or orange-green combinations, but there are at least 8 forms of color blindness (see linked article for diagnosis-image as test for blindness). More men are afflicted because the problem is on the X chromosome with Y neutral, and women, with 2 X chromosomes, have 2 chances to get full-color vision. Anyway, black lettering on any color is typically visible to all (no need to worry about text). -Wikid77 (talk) 22:05, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

A very simple test for the web accessibility of contrasting colours is here. The colours currently used for the Wales box came through as a borderline pass, so not an optimal colour combination. It doesn't matter if men are more affected than women, what matters is that people are affected at all. Once again, see WP:COLOUR for guidelines. 52 Pickup (deal) 11:57, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Maps Template talk:Infobox country/Archive 6

In USA Red White Blue is America

13-April-2008: I never fail to be utterly stunned at the hollow content of Wikipedia. In the discussion above, some had considered that color was totally irrelevant to countries. Currently, a Wikipedia search for "red white blue" does find the 2002 hit single "Courtesy of the Red, White, & Blue (The Angry American)" by Toby Keith. However, try that search on Google some time. I cannot emphasize enough how, in the USA, "red white and blue" means America, not colors in the French flag. In fact, if someone traveled across America and said "huh?" when people mentioned red, white & blue, that person would be instantly spotted as an illegal alien. OMG, hello, wake up: red/white/blue is such a massive cultural icon in America, I am stunned that Weakipedia is yet again clueless. Total ignorance of America and red/white/blue is such a massive hole in the Wikipedia coverage, it is utterly pathetic. For those who had thought color was irrelevant, please try Google "red white blue" some time with an open mind. Thank God people suggested putting colored borders on country infoboxes or this enormous gap in Wikipedia coverage on America might have gone another 6 years undetected: weakipedia, weakipedia, weakipedia, people please help not hinder. -Wikid77 (talk) 07:26, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you start the article, but be prepared that this is not American, but English-language wikipedia and should give a global, not a America-centred worldview. Also make sure to use references. (BTW everybody knows that Red-White-Blue refers to neither America or France but clearly to Luxembourg). Arnoutf (talk) 09:53, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

The search also finds Red, White and Blue, which has a disambiguation link to National colours. Is your point that the country infobox should include this information? I'm not sure what the precise intent of it is, but there is a pair of parameters for "other_symbol_type" and "other_symbol", although if we're adding symbols it might be better to think about adding a new section to the infobox (color is but one of many, see National symbol or peruse Category:National symbols by nation). -- Rick Block (talk) 16:33, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I imagine that this use of "national colours" (of which Wales has none by custom or tradition), is the type of thing against the spirit of WP:MOSFLAG.

This type of "Weakipedia" kind of argument has lead me to revert out the coloured infobox now per WP:BRD. Discussion for a consensus towards its restoration can continue here. --Jza84 |  Talk  00:04, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Please, show me specifically in writting in the MoS that says we can not have info box borders or title headers? The specific text please, if so, then I shall defer. Until then, and unles we get a moderator for the issue, we remain at an impass.?Drachenfyre?·Talk 01:40, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Stop attacking Wikid77 for the Wales border changes

Look, Wikid77 is not to blame for the country info boxes or the title borders. As an editor, I asked if it was possible to do this, based off of the fact that Ireland has a VERY nifty colored info box. At the time I had no idea that it was an island default, when someone suggested there that I post here about how to do this. Wikid77 was kind enough to answer the call. Nor did I know that there was this HUGE bureaucracy associated with making editorial changes to country info box borders or title headers (where were you a week and a half ago when we started this project?).... This ask before edit was counter to what I understood of Wikipedia. We worked together and in good faith to bring interest and appeal to the info boxes while not changing the information contained there-in, posting on talk:Wales as we went, and things were fine for a week, when "an editor" took a profound exception to this. "The editor" and I have had disagreements on the talk:Scotland page regarding compromises on other issues, and to be honest I am uncertin at his neutrality and motives in this now. So have asked others for their imput, including a moderator. If the issue of colors is not suported by the wider community, then I shall defer to it. However, I feel strongly that we will be losing a profound oppurtunity to bring some signifcant and positive and proactive change to info boxs, that will both allow consistancy of information while allowing diversity of apearence. Why is it that the Ireland page (even if it is an island) can have color as part of its info box, yet Wales and others can not? Needless to say your attack on Wikid77 and his good faith edits is misplaced, and has left him and others dissillusioned with Wikipedia, and is disgusting in my opinion. He has left Wikipedia because of this. Thanks (read:irony). I ask for moderation from someone associated with moderation on wikipedia over this issue.?Drachenfyre?·Talk 04:21, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, no one is blaming anyone or saying anyone has done anything wrong. There are two issues at work here - one is how new features get introduced into this template. The way this has historically been done is by implementing the new feature in a sandbox area, showing others how it works, and then gaining consensus to add it. Instead of doing this (I'm perfectly willing to attribute this to ignorance of how to go about incorporating changes into this template), Wikid77 created a fork of this template. As is nearly everything here, this is not a big deal and can easily be dealt with by moving the "styled" version to his user space pending agreement here regarding the new feature(s). I don't think there's any particular disagreement about this from anyone (even Wikid77).

The other issue involved is the specific feature that has been added, i.e. the ability to create a colored border and colored title bar for country infoboxes. There are clearly folks who feel strongly on both sides of this (should be supported by this template and shouldn't). Wikipedia:Dispute resolution describes how issues like this should be resolved (please read it). Per WP:OWN, articles do not have "owners". Specifically, Wales is not owned by its regular contributors, just as template:Infobox Country is not owned by its regular contributors. Let's all try to stay cool. -- Rick Block (talk) 04:51, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Rick here. I do still maintain that these colours are ugly, politicised, garish, and even useless. This kind of argument based on "nifty infoboxes" is not satisfactory. I would also like to point out that Ireland has a coloured infobox because Ireland isn't a country, it's an island. Northern Ireland uses the correct infobox; can anybody tell me which colours are going to go on that article's infobox?! --Jza84 |  Talk  09:23, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Well answer me this, why cant we have info box borders and title headers? Because you dont want it? We can wait on official mediation Jza. ?Drachenfyre?·Talk 09:33, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

You didn't answer my concern over Northern Ireland. However, no, I don't want ugly, politicised, faux-national coloured infobox borders no, I think that's quite clear! Official mediation? -- I was never informed! However, I've been bold and nommed this template for deletion. See below. --Jza84 |  Talk  09:43, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

You've been more then bold, you've been hostile!?Drachenfyre?·Talk 09:57, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Look, I'm here to talk about the content, not contributors. I object to this colouring for multiple reasons. Don't take it personal, it's just how I feel and I'm entitled to my opinion. Taking the spotlight off the content and onto this non-existant "hostility" (which I understand has only been on your part [1]), does nothing but polarise us and damage the project. I think we've both said enough at this stage; we clearly have entrenched views on the ugly, politicised, non-consensual faux-national coloured infobox borders. --Jza84 |  Talk  10:02, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

We know your objections, you've listed them already, but you also havent allowed anyone else to comment before taking your own actions! Without mediation I do not see how your motives can be trusted, would you behave in this manner if the conversation were not going your way? I have already indicated that I would submit to the consensus if it were broad enough, yet when I try and seek a broader imput you put the mechanism by which Wikid77 created the info box border and title header up for deleation! Where is the good faith on your part to let the consensus have its collective say!!!?Drachenfyre?·Talk 10:17, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Nobody is attacking Wikid77, while you, Drachenfyre, have been doing your best to drown out anyone who wants to raise a clear and level-headed objection. Rick made a very timely and intelligent call for all to remain cool. That applies to everyone (i.e. you too), so enough Drama.

The Ireland article relates to the island and not the country and uses {{Infobox Islands}} which (coincidentally for Ireland) is green. Every other article that uses this template also has a green box. It is true that other infoboxes contain colour, for example:

• {{Infobox river}} uses a pale violet colour: should the entry for the Yellow River therefore have a yellow box?
• {{Infobox Australian Place}} has varying colours in the title, depending on the type of location (city, suburb, local government area). See Template:Infobox Australian Place/Examples

In both of these examples:

1. the colours are not bright, but pale enough to provide good contrast and to not dominate the article; and
2. are determined by the template and not the individual article.

Neither of these apply to the current situation. Some colour might be good here, but it must be uniform. No encyclopedia that has such country boxes has varying colours for every different country, except maybe for a childrens' encyclopedia. 52 Pickup (deal) 11:57, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Good to have a rational dialogue about this. My argument would be allow some variation in the templates. So changing the colour is one of those variations which is non-problematic and can be determined on each page. Maybe a constraint on the size. This is an evolutionary argument - without variety no change takes place. Allowing two maps not one map is OK as it deals with issues of nationhood and location. You can add in guidance - pastel colours etc. These would be reasonable constraints and we can get consensus on these.

IT is completely wrong to have attempt to pre-empt a discussion here with an attempt to have the template deleted with a vote. That has created some anger as it seemed to me at least an attempt to close down debate within one community, not the country pages. I would suggest that is stopped while discussion proceeds. --Snowded (talk) 12:34, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Let's delete the fork, use a standard, colourless infobox throughout and work out a way forwards here after TfD to gauge if the community wants coloured infoboxes. That's my suggestion. :) --Jza84 |  Talk  12:57, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

By which you mean do what I have advocated. At the moment we have a couple of sites with some variation. Lets stop all reversals, leave things as they are while we discuss it. --Preceding unsigned comment added by Snowded (talk o contribs) 13:34, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

What's all this "wait so we can start discussing" approach? Just discuss! Go for it! I'd like, however, to start with my concerns:

• What are the national colours of Wales and why?
• Why are they to be used?
• Would this be used worldwide or just Wales?
• What would Northern Ireland use?
• What value do they add to the article?
• What happens if somebody objects to them as political or unverifable pantones?
• Would this new "styled" approach be used on other infoboxes? Perhaps Template:Infobox England county or Template:Infobox settlement?

--Jza84 |  Talk  13:47, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I am happy to answer the questions on Wales but that is not the issue. The issue as an option to create a different colour on the frame. This allows some variety and if not taken to excess is aesthetically pleasing. I see it as an option that editors can take up on pages if they want. Should they be considered politically objectionable (orange or green in the six counties for example) then a discussion takes place as for anything else. I would make it generic. Red is the welsh colour - the dragon and the shirts of all sports teams. Again I suggest some restriction on the size of the text box - that was too big on the first release and I would narrow it a bit more. Guidlines on contrast also make sense. --Snowded (talk) 14:09, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

This is why we're going nowhere other than TfD. I don't think we're singing from the same songsheet as they say. Your reply doesn't address any of my concerns I'm afraid. --Jza84 |  Talk  14:19, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Probably correct - you want to impose a single standard I wan a degree of diversity. I have suggested some compromise but you are not interested in the discussion. In the meantime an administration has arbitrarily forced a speedy delete. This is not what the wikipedia is about --Snowded (talk) 18:06, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

TfD nomination of Template:Infobox Country styled

Template:Infobox Country styled has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. -- --Jza84 |  Talk  09:43, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I voted!?Drachenfyre?·Talk 09:56, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Kingdom of Gwynedd

Seems to be using one of those coloured infoboxes. Is there a consensus to do so? --Jza84 |  Talk  11:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Do not confuse Infobox Country with Infobox Former Country, which is used by the Kingdom of Gwynedd article. I have not yet removed the colouring option for that template so its use can be still be seen for the purposes of the RFC which I am starting below. 52 Pickup (deal) 21:07, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Individually-modifiable infobox colours: diversity or distraction?

Relevant threads:

• All discussion on this page, starting here
• Talk:Wales: various threads, starting with this one
• This thread on Template talk:Infobox Former Country

A quick introduction for those new to this discussion:

A while ago, modifications were made to {{Infobox Former Country}} while a fork template of {{Infobox Country}} was created with similar modifications. These changes made it possible for additional CSS coding to be placed in individual articles. The major purpose of this was to allow individual colouring of the infoboxes for individual articles, at the of some users working on Wales-related articles

Examples of these coloured infoboxes can be seen here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here. (Infobox Former Country still has this feature in place, for the purposes of this RFC)

The ensuing discussion led to the following major arguments for and against such a feature:

So far no end result has been reached. There are those so far who say that the need for discussion is bureaucratic and against what Wikipedia is all about. There are those so far who say that the avoidance of any discussion is non-democratic and against what Wikipedia is all about. There are those who say both, making things very confusing. Now there's been a pause, everyone has had the chance for a nice cup of tea and a sit down, so now let's put an end to this. I see three options:

1. Leave this colour modification options as they are
2. Coming up with a different way to include colour
3. Removing this option and going back to how things were before

If there is not a clear overall agreement that makes sense across all articles (and not just country articles, and not just Wales-related articles) by the end of this RFC, option 3 (no colour option, as before) will be taken since that is currently the desired option by most of those who are responsible for maintaining these templates. - 52 Pickup (deal) 21:07, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

Having laid out the situation, I support option 3 - although if I can be convinced by a better alternative, then I would consider option 2. There's no policy saying that this is not allowed, but I think that common sense is policy enough here. - 52 Pickup (deal) 21:07, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Option #3--Status quo ante bellum. --MJCdetroit ^(yak) 14:01, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Option 3 please. --Jza84 |  Talk  19:14, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Option3, and well summarized, thank you. -- Quiddity (talk) 20:20, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Could go with 3 or possibly 2; but that will need to be developed convincingly. Arnoutf (talk) 22:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Option 3, please. Infoboxes should be uniform and the colors should be carefully considered so as not to create readability issues for people with vision problems; allowing anyone to specify any color in an infobox could lead to readability issues. Karanacs (talk) 19:05, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

For information, Template:Infobox_Dutch_Political_Party (please look at the "what link heres" as the the template itself does not show much) uses different colours for the different parties in a (IMHO) fairly subtle way. Such an option maybe one (under option 2) that may be worthwhile. (In my opinion option 1 is not a good idea). Arnoutf (talk) 21:46, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I can't make a solid recommendation, as I agree with most of the points presented above (in both columns). I suppose if I were pressed I would say leave the color options as-is, and then discuss whether or not to use them. Powers ^T 14:52, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Use of "style" attribute

I'm doing some experiments on how to best print Wikipedia content. For various reasons, I have to ignore the CSS style sheet that comes with Wikipedia. Instead, I apply a newly written style sheet. However, when disregarding the style attribute, I lose valuable information. Ideally, I'd like for there to be a class attribute onto which I can attach similar styling. For example, the current template generates numeous elements that have a style attribute, but no associated class. For example:

I propose adding classes to these elements. For example:

This would make the Wikipedia markup more semantic and help reuse.

Howcome (talk) 13:10, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it sounds to me like an id attribute would make more sense than a css class -- Duesentrieb-formerly-Gearloose (?!) 15:25, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Since it is highly unlikely that adding this class="anthem" to the table might break anything that wasn't broken before, I asked an admin to change it. This should not prevent people from talking about better solutions for whatever purposes. Many thanks to Lar and Duesentrieb. -- Mathias Schindler (talk) 21:16, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

If you want to use classes for semantic markup, that's fine. Microformats work this way, too. But this does have a potential for breakage. I'd suggest using a name space prefix. To avoid class-name collisions. I.e. wpsem-anthem for example. --Dschwen 21:23, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Broken

The recent changes to the template have broken it around the area section. See Japan or Poland for an example. This is the error code.

  km² ([[List of countries and outlying territories by total area|]])  Expression error: Unexpected div operator sq mi  

Harryboyles 13:53, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Reverting backwards an entire month does not seem to fix it. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Fixed. Res Gestæ Divi Augusti (talk) 14:45, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

src: bhclondon.org.uk

inconsistencies

{{editprotected}}

If you view the section for Syntax > Parameters for Country or territory, it has national_motto and national_anthem. If you view the section for Examples > Example for Country or territory, it has motto and anthem. One of these sections should be changed for consistency.--Rockfang (talk) 11:54, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

 Done I changed the doc page to use national_motto and national_anthem in the example section to match the parameter list section. The motto and national_motto parameters do the exact same thing, but anthem links to anthem, while national_anthem links to national anthem. Since for Cameroon it is a national anthem, the switch made sense. --CapitalR (talk) 12:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Legislature

{{editprotected}} Would it be possible for someone to add a legislature field such as the one in the Template:Infobox Former Country --Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 18:03, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with it. Let's see if anyone objects to the idea first. Can you make a sandbox version?--MJCdetroit ^(yak) 20:55, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Not done Looks alright, but you need to say "copy this code", or "add these lines" (and you need to test it in a sandbox, as MJCdetroit said). Happy-melon 10:39, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Here is the relevant code. Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 22:21, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Where in the template should this field be added? Your code reflects only the addition. {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 12:20, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry below the Government section.Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 17:11, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Done though I amended the size of the code (=====) to fit 800x600 screens. Woody (talk) 20:52, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Kingdom of Gwynedd

Can somebody take a look at the Kingdom of Gwynedd article? It appears to be using a non-consensual formatting style. --Jza84 |  Talk  11:27, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

See several feet of discussion from "Wales country specific infobox" a little bit higher on this talk page. Arnoutf (talk) 15:12, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

That page actually uses {{Infobox Former Country}}, which should follow the style of this template anyway. --MJCdetroit ^(yak) 20:38, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps then Template:Infobox Country/styled sandbox should now be deleted? --Jza84 |  Talk  01:52, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

As long as the sandbox version is not being used on live pages, I don't care if stays or goes. I do agree that {{Infobox Country styled}} which is now a redirect of that sandbox definitely needs to be killed once and for all. Ask User:Davidgothberg to pull the trigger on that one. --MJCdetroit ^(yak) 04:01, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Template layout

See the Portuguese Wikipedia template for countries. More clear, more organized, more beauty. Why we don't use this format here? Felipe C.S ^{( talk )} 16:32, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Except for the row-seperators which look good in the Portugese version, I hardly see the difference. Can you explain what exactly is better? Arnoutf (talk) 16:54, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

It's very similar to this old version which we've moved away from since it:

1. Uses a font override
2. Uses complex markup (to make the row separators not quite full width) that creates problems with some font sizes and is difficult to copy to other templates.

Discussion about the change to the current version is in Template_talk:Infobox_Country/Archive_4. -- Rick Block (talk) 19:00, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Proposal:Literacy rate

I would propose adding literacy rate to the infobox. The list includes the majority of widely recognised countries, and this is a distinction from the other development indexes(HDI, GDP). I would like to hear people's opinions on this. --Hamster X (talk) 13:21, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

That's overcrowding the template. There's also the Gini index which was contested by many editors (I don't know if it was finally removed). There will be never "enough" information we could add in the infobox, however we should remain under reasonable bounds and work on keep it concise and having only the essential information. Eklipse (talk) 13:42, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Don't think we should, I think the template is overly long already. Arnoutf (talk) 16:42, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

symbol_type field

Why doesn't the symbol_type field render anything here? Polemarchus (talk) 13:35, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Country establishment dates

Something what has confused me for a while are country establishment dates in the infobox. Let's see the article on Russian Federation for example. "Founded (862) Arrival of Rurik to Novgorod", am I the only one who sees this a bit ridiculous? The article on Greece had some silly legendary dates as well, while historically notable, quite irrelevant when discussing the date of independency of the modern Hellenic Republic (a country with a modern parliament). The have removed those dates though (as of now), and only state the date of independence from the Ottoman Empire, which is a good thing I think. Would it be a good idea to add 300 BC to Vietnam because of H?ng Bàng Dynasty? I can't see how those can be called predecessor states to the modern countries, although the people there might have had the same "ethnicity". Shouldn't we remove everything else from there except the clearly relevant information to the (modern) country itself? --Pudeo? 16:16, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree, the only date in the infobox should be the date of foundation of the modern state. We need some guideline on this issue here and at WP:COUNTRIES. --Victor12 (talk) 19:15, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

That is no minor issue. For example France's 5th republic was founded only in 1958 (after it became member of the EU); while it lists Verdun 843 as founding date (and to be honest 1958). Russia lists 862, but it could be argued that the modern country only exists since 1991; Netherlands lists 1581 (declared) and 1648 (recognised), but the modern state stems from either 1815 (after Waterloo) or 1830 (independence of Belgium). There are more countries of similar difficulty so it will be hard to find consensus I guess. Arnoutf (talk) 19:44, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Links to common units

The template has links to common units like square mile and square km. Anyone that does not know one unit can look at the other in the conversion.

I see that Wikipedia:Context#What generally should not be linked says not to link "Plain English words, including common units of measurement". It gives some examples of common units in a footnote. Can somebody remove these links please? Lightmouse (talk) 13:31, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Please see my remarks below at Template talk:Infobox Country#Conversions in infoboxes. Peter Horn User talk 01:19, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Largest City

IMHO, the term largest city is ambigious. It doesn't tell the general reader if its by area size or by population. I think "largest_settlement" should be the only tag available or the "largest_city" tag should say (by area). Ninadhardikar (talk) 01:58, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

By area is nonsense, e.g. in the Netherlands that would be something like Apeldoorn which is no 25 or something in population. Largest should (and does) refer to population. Arnoutf (talk) 16:15, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree. It's not worth mentioning by area. So we shouldn't be having the "largest_city" tag. We should stick with only "largest_settlement" or most populous settlement/urban area/metropolitan region, something of that sort. Ninadhardikar (talk) 04:24, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Largest cities

{{sudo}} I think the line

  --><br/>[[Demographics of {{{common name}}}|(and largest city)]]  

Should link to [[List of cities in {{{common name}}}]] instead of [[Demographics of {{{common name}}}]]. Or at least, that should be configurable. --Waldir ^talk 09:17, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

The Demographics of {{{common name}}} appears three times in the template altogether. Are you proposing to change all of them to List of cities in {{{common name}}}? -- Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:38, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't notice it came up more than once. Yes, I think that change makes sense in all of them. The "List of cities in ..." title seems to be sufficiently disseminated not to cause at least any major disruption if the change is made. --Waldir ^talk 00:01, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

We could put a check for whether that page exists and if not, don't link it. -- Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:40, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that I think is the best solution. Perhaps even a double check, in order to keep current functionality. Something similar to the below:

   {{#ifexist:List of cities in {{{common_name}}}    |[[List of cities in {{{common_name}}}{{!}}(and {{{largest_settlement_type|largest city}}})]]    |{{#ifexist:Demographics of {{{common_name}}}      |[[Demographics of {{{common_name}}}{{!}}(and {{{largest_settlement_type|largest city}}})]]      |(and {{{largest_settlement_type|largest city}}})     }}    }}  

I havent edited templates in a while, I'm not sure whether the {{!}} trick is still used. Apart from that, what do you think? --Waldir ^talk 15:36, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I think that is probably too complicated. We should be able to decide here, which is the best target to link to. I've implemented the "List of cities in xxx" for now. -- Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:27, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I agree about the simplicity and the target. Thanks :) --Waldir ^talk 21:56, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Proposal for a new image parameter

I propose adding an image parameter for a landscape photograph which can represent the country. I was thinking something along the lines of what is used in Template:Infobox Settlement. This would be particularly useful for articles like Monaco, Vatican City, San Marino, Gibraltar, etc. What does everyone think? Regards, --Gibmetal 77^talk 12:40, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

coordinate type and scale?

I am having difficulty understanding how this template generates the geographical coordinates code. I had posted a message at Template talk:coord because there was a problem with coord and GeoHack, but that has now been fixed. I tried the examples in Template:Infobox Country/testcases and got these results:

  Place            Zoom  Region  Type     Globe  Google                                                   Beijing           1    CN      country   500    200  New Delhi         1    IN      country  1000    200  Washington, D.C.  1     -      country  1000    200          Brussels          1    BE      country   500    100  Berlin            1    DE      country   500    100  

Each gave the same scale of 1:10000000 which is too large for cities.

Zoom region and type are from the GeoHack page. Numbers under Globe is the scale lengths that appear when I clicked on the globe to display the interactive javascript map. Numbers under Google Maps are the scale lengths seen when I click the cooordinates and then choose Google Maps.

So, is it possible to set the GeoHack type and scale parameters from this template?

For example, look at the tiny island of Sark and look at its "capital" La Seigneurie: click on the geo coordinates and you get a giant scale of 1:10000000 with type:country, which is far, far too large. -84user (talk) 02:29, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Happy Planet Index (HPI) or Other Environmental Indexes

I would like to propose including the HPI in addition to GDP. To include GDP as the main economic indicator reflects a belief that financial wealth is the most important economic indicator, a view which may be valid but not productive in a dispassionate encyclopaedia. A discussions of the merits and disadvantages of using the HPI (as well as a plethora of other non-GDP measures) can be found in a report commissioned by the European Parliament here. Additionally, an EU conference on non-GDP measures lists a variety of background reports here. The HPI measures the extent to which citizens can live long, happy lives without overstreaching environmental resources, and its use is becoming more politically important.

It would be nice to hear your views and see if we can come to some consensus. If the HPI is not considered for inclusion, I would argue that we should at least include one non-GDP measure due to the POV considerations I have mentioned above. Sumthingweird (talk) 11:54, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, HDI is already in the infobox and is a much more widely recognized measure. --Victor12 (talk) 15:08, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

There are tons of indicators out there. Including all them and the infobox becomes overwhelming. Eklipse (talk) 16:19, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I understand that HDI is already in the infobox, and that we can't add too many different indicators. However, I would still maintain that the HDI and the HPI are fundamentally different. The HDI measures things like literacy, life expectancy, and GDP per capita, whereas the HPI measures life expectancy and happiness per tonne of CO2-e emitted. That is to say, the HPI is a utilitarian-ecological measure, whereas the HDI is a broad-economic measure. The HDI is not a non-GDP measure. It would be good to include in the list a utilitarian measure of some description, or an ecological measure.Sumthingweird (talk) 12:44, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

As the other editor also mention, adding all available (dozens of) indicators to the infobox would make it even less readable than it currently is. In my opinion the infobox is already overpopulated (with e.g. 2 GDP versions); and we should strive to reduce it rather than expand it. Arnoutf (talk) 12:55, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Agree with many of the comments above: there shouldn't be too many indicators, and the ones displayed in the infobox should be (1) relevant for the article, (2) reliable and (3) available for as many countries as possible. GDP scores well in the categories 2&3, however has only a limited country relevance, as it only refers to a specialized non-qualitative economic measurement. The HDI is somewhat more relevant as it incorporates qualitative social measures along with the economic ones, while scoring similarly well in categories 2&3. The HPI scores very well for criteria 1, but has problems with criterias 2&3. I think the infobox should include indicators for all three realms of a country: Society, Economy & Nature. Currently, there are 4 economic indicators (GDP PPP & nominal x total and /capita), 2 social ones (Gini and HDI) but NONE Environmental. For a better balance I suggest (a) drop nominal GDP figures (this can appear in the economic section), retain PPP GDP figures only; (b) place HDI before/above GDP as it is more complex; (c) introduce an environmental indicator such as Ecological Footprint, or (or at least composite one such as the Happy Planet Index; Elekhh (talk) 15:15, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Elekhh's ideas above. There should be an environmental index. Another possibility is the Environmental Performance Index (EPI), although HPI and Ecological Footprint are probably better, because EPI's results did not seem very reliable to me.Ceilican (talk) 17:13, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Changes in HDI

I would like to propose the arrow indicating changes in HDI be removed for many reasons:

• Sometimes it messes up the infobox. For example in Lebanon, the HDI row takes now two lines.
• Infoboxes aim at summarizing important information and not packing as many facts as we can find in a cramped space.
• It is strange that we included changes in HDI only and not changes in GDP and population. But again, the infobox will become overwhelming.
• Plus it adds color to the infobox. In my own opinion, I find it slightly unprofessional. Eklipse (talk) 19:49, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I think it makes sense to remove the arrow. Elekhh (talk) 15:15, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Global Peace Index (GPI)

I'd like to propose inclusion of Global Peace Index in Country Infobox template. --Preceding unsigned comment added by Vikrant42 (talk o contribs) 12:10, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Link with IFC

Template:Infobox Former Country has the little flags indicating the preceding and successor countries. Perhaps there could be some sort of a provision in this current infobox for the immediate preceding countries. Not necessarily in the same style as IFC but some field catering to it perhaps so you have a full link between them all, can go back from the present article into the country/ies which made it up?- _JLogan^t: 11:35, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Enlarged Images--Please fix

{{editprotected}} It seems that there is something wrong with the part of the template which defines the size of the coat of arms, flags and location maps on this infobox; on some pages, these images take up their full resolutions, making them wider than the page and making the infobox span the entire top of the page. This problem occurs on numerous country pages, including Belarus, United States, United Kingdom and Poland, but does not appear on others, i.e. Fiji. An admin familiar with this template should investigate and make any necessary changes. Thanks, Robert Skyhawk (Talk) 20:59, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

It was a bug in the system, which has since been fixed. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 21:10, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Robert Skyhawk (Talk) 01:28, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Help with use in Palestinian National Authority article

Please help The infobox includes a link to Flag of Palestine rather than the correct Palestinian flag; please amend the infobox or the article to fix it if you can. Thanks. --Justin (koavf)?T?C?M? 00:29, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Ordering of names

{{editprotected}}

I'd like to propose a minor change in the formating of the name-of-country section of this infobox. Currently, it appears to be "native longform name(s) in native script", followed by "native longform name(s) romanized", followed by "English longform name". I think we should maintain this order, except move the English name to the top for ease of our readers. The current setup often places a large mass of otherwise indecipherable (to English users) text right at the top. See, for instance Switzerland, Transnistria, Russia, Burma, Ethiopia, Armenia, and so forth. This new order seems like a reasonable corollary to the way we begin articles: English name, followed by native names. The rationales of clarity and ease of use applies the same way in both cases.Erudy (talk) 17:43, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

No comment or response for a week...I'm going to be bold and implement the change if I can figure out how to do itErudy (talk) 02:59, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, I know how to do it, but I need an admin to make the change.Erudy (talk) 03:23, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Please remove:

  -->{{#if:{{{native_name|}}}{{{conventional_long_name|}}}{{{name|}}} |<!--then:       --><tr class="adr">            <th colspan="3" align="center" class="mergedtoprow fn org country-name"                style="line-height:1.2em; padding:0.25em 0.33em 0.33em; font-size:1.25em;"><!--             -->{{#if:{{{native_name|}}} |<!--then:-->{{{native_name}}} }}<!--             -->{{#if:{{{conventional_long_name|}}}{{{name|}}}                |<!--then:--><div style="padding-top:0.25em;"><!--                  -->{{{conventional_long_name|}}}{{{name|}}}</div><!--             -->}}<!--         --></th>          </tr><!--  -->}}<!--  

And replace with:

  -->{{#if:{{{conventional_long_name|}}}{{{native_name|}}}{{{name|}}} |<!--then:       --><tr class="adr">            <th colspan="3" align="center" class="mergedtoprow fn org country-name"                style="line-height:1.2em; padding:0.25em 0.33em 0.33em; font-size:1.25em;"><!--             -->{{#if:{{{conventional_long_name|}}} |<!--then:-->{{{conventional_long_name|}}} }}<!--             -->{{#if:{{{native_name|}}}{{{name|}}}                |<!--then:--><div style="padding-top:0.25em;"><!--                  -->{{{native_name|}}}{{{name|}}}</div><!--             -->}}<!--         --></th>          </tr><!--  -->}}<!--  

Done Stifle (talk) 09:52, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Disambiguation

{{editprotected}}

Disambiguate Capital to Capital (political) by finding:

  '''[[Capital]]'''  

And replacing it with:

  '''[[Capital (political)|Capital]]'''  

And you're done! Gary King (talk) 23:18, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

No, not done - now we're  Done. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 13:01, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Coordinates

If you check the infobox in Lebanon, you'll notice that the scale used to display the capital is too large which makes it useless to locate a city. Maybe it should reduced to 1:100,000 or use city as a type for the coordinate template. In addition, Wikipedia:WikiProject Geographical coordinates says that the use of {{coor *}} is depreciated and replaced by {{coord}}. Maybe you should consider switching. Thank you. Eklipse (talk) 06:20, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

i think it's broken

I was able to copy this to my wiki site (http://wiki.mobianlegends.com/wiki/Template:Infobox_Country), and while all other infoboxes work without a single error, Infobox Country always puts out various HTML table tags, such as <tr>,<th>,and </div> all over the place. I've noticed that if i include |capital ANYWHERE, it loads up a tag with the template, but if it's commented-out or ignored, everything's fine. things are far worse for Infobox Geopolitical organization. I wish i knew why it did this... I have parserfunctions installed already as a prerequisite... RingtailedFox o Talk o Contribs 13:07, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Fixing an inconsistancy

Why are the "top level domain" and "calling code" parameters handled in fundamentally different ways? This is very confusing and not properly documented. The first one is output as is. The second one is automatically linked and given a subparameter for notes (which is not listed in the documentation). I feel strongly that the "calling code" parameter should also be output "as is" for three reasons:

1. So that it works the same way as similar parameters, i.e. no surprises after you save.
2. Since most calling codes don't have Wikipedia articles, it should be up to the author whether or not he wants to link the code.
3. Adding a reference for the calling code breaks the link (unless you know about the secret subparameter)

If no one objects, I would like to fix this inconsistency. Obviously, this would require a bot run first to fix any articles that were actually using the secret subparameter. Kaldari (talk) 17:35, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I say go for it. if your proposed fix makes the infobox operate more efficiently or properly, then you have my support. RingtailedFox o Talk o Contribs 20:23, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Alright, I'll do this in 4 steps:

1. Remove the auto-linking code from the template
2. Find all articles that use the secret calling_code_note parameter (by using a temporary hidden category)
3. Manually move content from the calling_code_note parameter to the end of the calling_code parameter
4. Remove the code for the calling_code_note parameter from the template

Kaldari (talk) 01:01, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

All done. Kaldari (talk) 19:04, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

More establishment event entries needed

I'm working on the infobox for Abkhazia, a partially recognised country whose road to independence was and is rather complicated, and I need 11 entries for events that lead to its established, but at present 9 is the maximum number supported, so I request that this be extended to e.g. 19 by adding (part of) this code to the relevant section:

  -->{{#if:{{{established_event10|}}} |<!--then:       --><tr class="mergedbottomrow">            <td style="width:1em; padding:0 0 0 0.6em;"> - </td>            <td style="padding-left:0em;">{{{established_event10}}}</td>            <td>{{{established_date10|}}} </td>          </tr><!--  -->}}<!--  -->{{#if:{{{established_event11|}}} |<!--then:       --><tr class="mergedbottomrow">            <td style="width:1em; padding:0 0 0 0.6em;"> - </td>            <td style="padding-left:0em;">{{{established_event11}}}</td>            <td>{{{established_date11|}}} </td>          </tr><!--  -->}}<!--  -->{{#if:{{{established_event12|}}} |<!--then:       --><tr class="mergedbottomrow">            <td style="width:1em; padding:0 0 0 0.6em;"> - </td>            <td style="padding-left:0em;">{{{established_event12}}}</td>            <td>{{{established_date12|}}} </td>          </tr><!--  -->}}<!--  -->{{#if:{{{established_event13|}}} |<!--then:       --><tr class="mergedbottomrow">            <td style="width:1em; padding:0 0 0 0.6em;"> - </td>            <td style="padding-left:0em;">{{{established_event13}}}</td>            <td>{{{established_date13|}}} </td>          </tr><!--  -->}}<!--  -->{{#if:{{{established_event14|}}} |<!--then:       --><tr class="mergedbottomrow">            <td style="width:1em; padding:0 0 0 0.6em;"> - </td>            <td style="padding-left:0em;">{{{established_event14}}}</td>            <td>{{{established_date14|}}} </td>          </tr><!--  -->}}<!--  -->{{#if:{{{established_event15|}}} |<!--then:       --><tr class="mergedbottomrow">            <td style="width:1em; padding:0 0 0 0.6em;"> - </td>            <td style="padding-left:0em;">{{{established_event15}}}</td>            <td>{{{established_date15|}}} </td>          </tr><!--  -->}}<!--  -->{{#if:{{{established_event16|}}} |<!--then:       --><tr class="mergedbottomrow">            <td style="width:1em; padding:0 0 0 0.6em;"> - </td>            <td style="padding-left:0em;">{{{established_event16}}}</td>            <td>{{{established_date16|}}} </td>          </tr><!--  -->}}<!--  -->{{#if:{{{established_event17|}}} |<!--then:       --><tr class="mergedbottomrow">            <td style="width:1em; padding:0 0 0 0.6em;"> - </td>            <td style="padding-left:0em;">{{{established_event17}}}</td>            <td>{{{established_date17|}}} </td>          </tr><!--  -->}}<!--  -->{{#if:{{{established_event18|}}} |<!--then:       --><tr class="mergedbottomrow">            <td style="width:1em; padding:0 0 0 0.6em;"> - </td>            <td style="padding-left:0em;">{{{established_event18}}}</td>            <td>{{{established_date18|}}} </td>          </tr><!--  -->}}<!--  -->{{#if:{{{established_event19|}}} |<!--then:       --><tr class="mergedbottomrow">            <td style="width:1em; padding:0 0 0 0.6em;"> - </td>            <td style="padding-left:0em;">{{{established_event19}}}</td>            <td>{{{established_date19|}}} </td>          </tr><!--  -->}}<!--  

sephia karta 21:56, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Why 19 if you only need 11? Why not just 11 or 12 or 15? Kaldari (talk) 20:44, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Note that the infobox should be an extreme summary rather than all information. Referenda, new constitutions and the rest may not be sufficiently important for entry there. In any case, if it is that complex, perhaps only the last occurrence should be in the infobox, with a not that the rest is in the main text. In brief I think that everything beyond 2 entries (self-declared - internationally recognised) is probably in 99% of the cases over the top (ie recognised by your neighbours would be a trivial in between step). If I look at current Abhkazia:

1. Georgian annulment of all Soviet-era laws and treaties
2. Declaration of sovereignty
3. Georgian declaration of independence
4. Dissolution of Soviet Union
5. Reinstatement of 1925 Constitution
6. New Constitution
7. Referendum
8. Act of state independence
9. First international recognition

The only relevant numbers are

2 Declaration of sovereignty from Soviet Republic Georgia

8 Act of state independence from Georgia (now independent country)

9 First interntational recognition

All other issues are fairly irrelevant (for an extrme summary) context issues that should not be part of infobox, but explained in bodytext. So I just freed 6 slots for you (and there is a chance your additional 2 should not be in either) Arnoutf (talk) 21:49, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

If only it were that simple. The list is so long for three reasons. Firstly, Abkhazia became independent both from the Soviet Union and Georgia, sort of simultaneously. Secondly, the different sides in the conflict give different legal meaning to the various events. And thirdly, Abkhazia didn't explicitly declare independence at the time, so again that leaves room for interpretation. The 1999 act of state independence is retroactive, it says that de jure independence came about by the events of 1992-1993 (the war), and that this was confirmed by way of the 1994 constitution. So if I had to choose, I guess I would restrict myself to the dates of 30 September 1993, which constitutes the end of the war, celebrated as independence day in Abkhazia, though I don't think any decrees were passed at the time saying well now we're independent, and the date of the 1994 constitution. But that reflects my interpretation of events, and other people will disagree. That's why I prefer to be inclusive and include all the relevant events, all of which are essential in some of the narratives. I think it makes for a clear timeline and does not at all clutter the infobox, and if readers get the impression that it is not clear when Abkhazia became independent, well, that's the right impression.

But really, I think this is a discussion to be held at the talkpage of the Abkhazia article. Here I am simply requesting for this code to be added so the possibility exists to include more than 9 events. No other articles will be affected by this. And I chose 19 as a number because that would mean adding a round figure (10), and because it would give more manoeuvring space. By all means, 15 is fine also. sephia karta 12:50, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

It seems you both have valid points. Limiting the number is good since the infobox should never be cluttered with non-essential information. In some cases, however, it's going to be difficult to narrow the number of establishment events. What if we compromised and added one additional event for 10 total. It's a nice round number--not too big, and hopefully not too small. Surely at least one of the events you list could be edited out for the sake of being concise, right? Kaldari (talk) 19:12, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes. sephia karta 10:20, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree it should probably be discussed in the Abkhazia page. But note that I never argued that these events were not important (or even essential), only that they should probably not be all in the infobox.

Many countries have very complex establishment histories. Look e.g. at the Netherlands (my home country) which simply states declared and recognised. Of course this would be in reality (all important dates that changed the country significantly): 1477 Formed as Habsburg Netherlands (including Belgium provinces); 1556 subjected to the Spanish crown to become the Spanish Netherlands (less independence); 1581 Declared independence from Spain (only Northern provinces); 1648 Recognised by Spain; 1795 Transformed into Batavian republic (Nobility removed from influential post with assisstance of French revolution; de facto vasal state of France); 1806 Conquered by France - Vasal state Kingdom Holland created; 1810 Kingdom Holland disbanded to become province of French Empire; 1815 United Kingdom of the Netherlands formed (Belgium provinces under Dutch rule); 1830 Belgium succeeds from United Kingdom; Kingdom of the Netherlands founded; 1940 Kingdom of the Netherlands integrated into Third Reich; 1945 Kingdom of the Netherlands re-established. However, that information; a lot of it about changing border with consequences untill today is in the main text, not in the infobox.

So I still think you should seriously try to limit it to the absolutely bare essentials (not more than 5 I would say). Arnoutf (talk) 21:17, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I happen to also be Dutch, and I would say that the old Republic was another state (if it could be considered a single state at all, formally) from the current Kingdom, and therefore irrelevant to this question, and the same goes for the various state forms that existed briefly before French annexation. I am not sure, but I don't think anything really changed on the Dutch side when Belgium became independent (but correct me if I'm wrong), so I would leave that out as well. So I would include the 1815, 1940 and 1945 dates, throw in 1983 for being the date of the latest constitution and possibly also add something in relation to the Koninkrijkstatuut. I don't think that this would be too much. As you said, also for the Netherlands it's difficult to answer this question with one date only. And I don't see the problem really with including all of these points. It makes the infobox more accurate at no expense of clarity.

I agree that it would seem that not all of the eleven events are really essential, but I'm not sure whether that's really so. I'll think about it some more. sephia karta 23:57, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Don't forget Thorbecke's constitution... But stop, I gave the Dutch example to show that even in a complex and muddled history 1 or 2 very important dates should be enough. Please do not extend the Netherlands infobox, it is waaaaaaaaaay too long as it is already. My heuristic for a high quality infobox is that it fits without scrolling on a single screen. (no country infobox meets that criterion, so they are all low quality in my book). Quality goes further down in proportion to extra length. So no, please shorter shorter shorter. Not longer, details is what the article is for..... Arnoutf (talk) 18:27, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry, I won't change the Netherlands infobox. :-) I think you and I fundamentally disagree on what an infobox should look like, I belong to the school that doesn't mind if they run down the length of the article (as one user so eloquently put it somewhere higher up). I think it would even be better to leave this question out of the infobox all together, rather than trying to compress things into 2 or 3 dates.sephia karta 10:20, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Yup we do fundamentally disagree on infobox. In my view each and any infobox should fit on a single full-screen sized browser without any scrolling ;-) Arnoutf (talk) 21:48, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Style issue in UTC offset

utc_offset

See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (mathematics). For "five minus three", one writes

5 - 3,

not

5-3,

nor

5 - 3,

and certainly not

5-3.

A minus sign is longer than a mere hyphen and one puts spaces (preferably non-breakable IMO) before and after it. In Grenada, I changed the hyphen to a minus sign. It comes out as

UTC-4

with no space before or after the minus sign. I don't know how to fix this. Can someone attend to that? Michael Hardy (talk) 18:06, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Semantic problems with the coordinates

Take the box in the Greece article for example. The layout leads the reader (and apparently the editor) to believe that the coordinates in the infobox are the coordinates of the capital, while in fact the coordinates are of type:country. In this particular case a second set of coordinates (this time actually the country) has been added to the article. This is unsatisfactory, as it makes data extraction unpredictable and complicated. Automatic data extraction is ultimately for the benefit of the reader. For example the labels displayed on the meta:WikiMiniAtlas are extracted from coordinate data in the articles, and correct display depends on correct naming and typing of the embedded coordinates. --Dschwen 19:35, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

sq km unicode

{{editprotected}} This template currently uses "&nbsp;km²". WP:MOSNUM states "Avoid the unicode characters ² and ³. [..] Instead, use superscript markup, created with ".

This should ideally be changed to "&nbsp;km²". --Sladen (talk) 13:58, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

 Done --MJCdetroit ^(yak) 01:06, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Disable the {{editprotected}} template.... :-P --MZMcBride (talk) 02:17, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Please see my remarks below at Template talk:Infobox Country#Conversions in infoboxes. Peter Horn User talk 01:22, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Add type of economy as section

Would be usefull.Spitfire19 (Talk) 21:18, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean? Market vs State economy; Money vs non-money economy. In my view this proposal holds many problems without further explanation else but stating "would be useful". To mention my 3 problems

1) What are the relevant classes of economy; and what objective classification method do we cite for this

2) How do you find sources for a state to link it to the classes identified in 1)

3) This will, once again, make this already ridiculously oversized infobox larger. Arnoutf (talk) 21:46, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

A) Between Socialist, Capitalist, and Traditional EconomiesSpitfire19 (Talk) 14:55, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Two questions. How to deal with shades of grey? E.g would the Dutch social-capitalist economy be socialist or capitalist; or the Brasilian? or the economy of Singapore??

Which economist has proposed this division (and where is it published), we should not come up with our own classifications as that is clearly original research Arnoutf (talk) 18:01, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Just to add my concerns - although "Market" and "Command" economies are commonly accepted in economic theory, in practice most/all economies are mixed to a greater or lesser degree, and fluctuate quite quickly. For example, I visited Thailand during the 1980s when it was generally regarded to be a command economy (long queues at the post office, reminiscent of the communist bloc, etc) but on a subsequent visit last year it was quite clearly a market economy. Many people would regard the United Kingdom as a market economy, yet large sectors of the economy are clearly more command-economy-orientated - the health service, and the military for example. If the United Nations or a similar global body (the IMF or the World Bank, say) categorised nations I'd be happier, I suppose, but right now this seems too contentious and a probable magnet for edit-warring. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 18:11, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

National Language

Would it be possible to create a section to display National Languages ie. Languages which are spoken widely but aren't official, for example: Shona and Ndebele in Zimbabwe are national languages but have no official capacity. Thanks Mangwanani ^(talk) 12:32, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

There is a separate article on that. See National language. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 00:10, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

There is a separate article on that but what I wanted to know was if a section could be added to the infobox to make it clear to readers immediately about other languages in a certain country that have no official capacity as there is no such function at present. Mangwanani ^(talk) 17:43, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry. I had misread the name of the article, and thought incorrectly that I was responding on Talk:Official language rather than on this template talk page. I see from the template documentation that the template currently has a regional_languages parameter, meant to contain the names of officially recognized languages. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 23:02, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Country Codes (ISO 3166-1)

I can't seem to find this here. Both the two and three letter codes should be added. ISO 3166-1 has been around since 1974. Eg: United States: "US" and "USA", Canada "CA" and "CAD", etc. Right after the globe map would be good. Facts707 (talk) 14:34, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Documentation

I recently answered a request at Wikipedia:Help_desk/Archives/2009_May_29#Infobox_question. Would someone with their head in this template please update the documentation. There is at least one undocumented parameter and there needs to be an explanation of how some of the links are built. ----- Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 11:35, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Largest settlement type

As seen from the box in the Monaco article, Largest {{{largest_settlement_type|city}}} should be replace with {{{largest_settlement_type|Largest city}}}. 01:09, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Anyone listening? 15:16, 21 June 2009 (UTC) --Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.237.139.18 (talk)

Venezuela

Under flag there is "Coat of arms", and under coat of arms there's nothing.

Status?

{{Infobox Former Country}} has a parameter for "status" and "status text," which can be used to mark something as a client state (Confederation of the Rhine, Slovak Republic (1939-1945)) or a protectorate (Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia) or the like. Could someone add that to this template? It would be useful for such articles as Greenland (to mark as a constituent country of the Kingdom of the Netherlands). Mnmazur (talk)

Map size

Does anyone know how can I change the size of the map while using the template? in other templates you put a bar (|) and then put the size you want (230px), I tried to do it in this one but it didn't work, can anyone fix the template so we can resize the maps or tell me how can I do it? thanks. Supaman89 (talk) 01:18, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Main source(s) of income or Industry

Can we have section on the main source(s) of income and/or main industries? I can include this section, but would like to know whether this obvious section was excluded for any specific reasons. Thanks Në?????er^{Peace Talks} 05:50, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Two problems. 1) You need reliable sources that use identical classification worldwide (e.g. is a university teacher classified as scientist or educator / e.g. is the government and industry? is tourism an industry?). Is seriously doubt this data is available in a sufficiently similar format to be used across all countries 2) The country infobox is already far too long for most articles, I am principally for culling the information in this infobox rather than expanding it. Arnoutf (talk) 17:39, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I took a quick look here and didn't see anything (I could have missed it). There are, however, quite a few interested and well-sourced stats there. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 01:38, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Alt attribute in infobox image

{{editprotected}} As per WP:ALT and WP:ACCESSIBILITY I just now added alt attributes to the images in India, but since {{Infobox Country}} doesn't support this I couldn't do it for the images in the lead infobox. I have run into similar problems with other infoboxes (e.g., {{Infobox Disease}} in Autism) and made the obvious changes to these templates, which work; please see, for example, Template talk:Infobox Disease #Alt attribute in infobox image. To do the same thing here, please install into {{Infobox Country}} the edit that I just now made to {{Infobox Country/sandbox}}. I have added a test case for this by copying India's current infobox to Template:Infobox Country/testcases #India, and the sandbox is working for the test case, in that the sandbox images have proper alt text. Thanks. Eubulides (talk) 09:25, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

 Done. Please could you update the documentation? -- Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:10, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Done, and thanks. Eubulides (talk) 17:15, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Use of "common name" field

{{editprotected}} Currently, it seems that the common name is used to look up for the flag and emblem links, so that "France" as a common name is going to create a "Flag of France" and "Emblem of France" links. Althought this is fine for most countries, it isn't for all them. For instance, the common name of the Republic of China is "Taiwan" but it doesn't seem accurate to link the flag to "Flag of Taiwan" (the article doesn't actually exist on Wikipedia) because there's not such thing as a flag of Taiwan and it also can be confused with the proposed flag of Taiwan. The same comment applies to the "Flag of China" which technically doesn't exist and, perhaps more importantly (at least on Wikipedia), it wouldn't be appropriate to imply that it does. Actually, the "common name" field on People's Republic of China is currently set to "the People's Republic of China" which is inaccurate and I presume it was done to go around the limitations of the template. So, if possible, I would suggest adding an optional field that would allow specifying the link to the flag on Wikipedia. If the field is not there, then it should default to the "Flag of <common_name>" as it is now. Laurent (talk) 08:05, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Don't use a editprotected as a "request for comments". It's a way to deploy a specific and clear change with pre existing consensus. --TheDJ (talk o contribs) 10:25, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Imperial/Metric Order Preference

I notice the template currently has the order of preference with metric units first, whereas WP:MOSNUM would indicated that the US for example would have imperial first. This means that where both are quoted the template is at odds with this guideline. Would adding a flag to specify order of preference eliminate this ambiguity? Order preference is currently done with other templates such as the weatherbox for example. Justin talk 17:15, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

In the infobox just put "|area =", and not |area_km2 = and |area_sqmi =, and use the template:convert That allows either the imperial values or the metric values be given first according to what is given in the source, e. g. 10,000 sq mi (25,900 km²) or 25,900 km² (10,000 sq mi). Please see my remarks below at Template talk:Infobox Country#Conversions in infoboxes as well. Peter Horn User talk 01:38, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Infobox update

{{editprotected}} Hey folks,

Can we make infobox updates to this template like we did to other templates?--PK2 (talk) 19:33, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Could you be more specific? Thanks! Plastikspork (talk) 23:59, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I think they mean that this infobox should use a common "shell" infobox template, a la {{WPBannerMeta}}.  Skomorokh  22:12, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

flag_link and emblem_link fields

{{editprotected}}

Two new fields: "flag_link" and "emblem_link" need to be added to allow specifying the links to the flag and emblem pages. Currently, the links are built by prepending "Flag of " and "Emblem of " to the common name, however this is not a good solution for many countries. For instance, the common name of the People's Republic of China is "China", but there is no such thing as a "Flag of China". Adding these new fields would allow going around this sort of issue by explicitely linking to "Flag of the People's Republic of China". Of course if the fields are not specified, the infobox should default to "Flag of <common_name>" and "Emblem of <common_name>" for backward compatibility. I think this change is uncontroversial because none of the existing infoboxes will be affected, however if something is unclear in my proposition please let me know. Laurent (talk) 13:40, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Please make the desired change at Template:Infobox Country/sandbox and then re-enable the edit request. --- RockMFR 23:15, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I've made the changes here, with a test page there. Note in particular the difference between the links to the flag and emblem articles compared to the current article links. The names correctly appear as "Flag of the Republic of China" and "Emblem of the Republic of China" as opposed to "Emblem of Taiwan" and "Flag of Taiwan" (which don't actually exist and are currently redirects). Laurent (talk) 11:33, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Not done Are we sure this won't affect other flags ? I'd want to be really sure that this doesn't result in "Flag of Botswana version 2.2.7 with transparency" somewhere else... --TheDJ (talk o contribs) 21:44, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Establishment: small error

{{editprotected}} Please sync with the sandbox. This fixes a small error where the template would output <th colspan="2">Establishment</th><td></td> rather than <th colspan="3">Establishment</th>. TIA. --Ms2ger (talk) 19:05, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

 Done --TheDJ (talk o contribs) 21:46, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Style tweaks

{{editprotected}}

Request sync with sandbox for minor style tweaks to make width consistent with contemporary infoboxes (22em vs 46ex) and to ensure that text displays at the same size in both IE and Firefox. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 19:25, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I've replaced it with this version of the sandbox. Cheers,  Skomorokh  21:35, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Conversions in infoboxes

Guinea-Bissau

|area_km2 = 36,125
|area_sq_mi = 13,948
36,125 km² (13,948 sq mi) or 13,948 sq mi (36,125 km²) There is a problem here. See also Talk:Guinea-Bissau#Conversions in infoboxes 36,544 km² (14,110 sq mi), what is it??? I suspect that similar anamolies can be found in the infoboxes of other countries. The consistant use of Template:convert is highly recommended. Peter Horn User talk 00:25, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Proposal: National broadcast system

I think we need to add an ITU designation of national broadcast system(s) used entry here. -- 85.240.208.70 (talk) 11:23, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Why? If we go there we should also add the power current, type of power plug, used mobile phone networks, DVD regions, etc etc etc. The list of information in the boxes is long (or even too long) enough as it is. Arnoutf (talk) 11:23, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Why not? We already have the power current (item ac_outlet), and wikipedia is supposed to be a one-stop comprehensive knowledge base. I'm not suggesting stuff like, number of volcano eruptions per decade, but actually I think type(s) of mobile networks and DVD reg would be a good idea, too, as would be, for example, metrication: metric/imperial/mixed. It's just a question of structuring, and that's what templates and subheaders are for. --85.240.212.204 (talk) 04:30, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Countries AC Power Plug

Can we add a section that lists the countries standardized power plug? A good list has already been made in wikipedia. This information would be in line with other such facts found in the template like the side of the road driven and international calling code. -- Phoenix (talk) 23:16, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

We need less, not more entries to this infobox. Arnoutf (talk) 09:35, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Plug information is never found in the prose of the article so the template would be an ideal location. -- Phoenix (talk) 02:42, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

No, this is backwards. The infobox is supposed to be an at-a-glance summary of the article contents - it should not contain any unique material. It should especially not contain trivia which doesn't even warrant inclusion in an article's body in the first place. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:02, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia and at a glance information is one of its many functions. Such information like this is what places like wikipedia are for. We are here for a service and such information as a traveler, is VERY important, not trivial in the least. -- Phoenix (talk) 09:32, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

This trivial information should not be in the info box along with the Drives on the --Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 15:23, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

WOW I wholeheartedly disagree. Information like that is what an encyclopedia is for. I applaud the person that added that information. -- Phoenix (talk) 04:56, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Please read WP:NOT. It quite clearly points out that Wikipedia is neither a travel guide, nor an indiscriminate collection of information. Trivial material like this clutters up infobox templates for little gain. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:18, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I re-read that page and it does not violate it. I am not suggesting that we should add good places to eat. I would say that the plug connection is quite notable. -- Phoenix (talk) 02:15, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

That contradicts your rationale above. Regardless, for now there doesn't seem to be consensus for adding this. This infobox is already too busy, and we shouldn't exacerbate that problem without a very good reason. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:10, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I guess you are referring to my as a traveler comment. I still do not wish to make this into a traveler's guide, but simple and basic information about modern life that is not included in the prose of the article should be included in a simple line of the template. I see this as an essential part of wikipeidas duty as an encyclopedia. Oh well :-( -- Phoenix (talk) 09:18, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

If this material is essential then it must be added to the article prose. To do otherwise is to misunderstand the purpose of infobox templates. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:47, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

The problem with that is it will be lost in the prose of all +200 countries/territories across the planet. It is much better to have a standardised location for such simple and quick information to be found and that is why the gods of wikipedia invented the template :-) -- Phoenix (talk) 09:56, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

In my view this information is, for the article here, of equal importance to, let's say, orientation of traffic lights, a legend for all trafic signs, the colours and formats of vehicle number plates, the standard bicycle valve and wheel size (believe me this can be annoying if you have a flat in another country and the repairman does not stock tires in your wheel size) etc etc. In other words, I do not think this information should be here at all.

If it where to be included, it would be in an outline, or in wikitravel; or if important enough in the main text. Not in the infobox though. Arnoutf (talk) 20:47, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

When one travels or when someone is doing research on a country I doubt that the wheel size is something to think about.... I didnt know that there was differences from country to country... I have only noticed differences from brand and the bikes size. But plug information is really a simple thing just adding one line

AC power plug : Type C

And that is it. No drama, no fuss, no mess. Simple really. I am not asking for much only a couple of words. -- Phoenix (talk) 21:55, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

When one travels --- That is what Wikipedia is not - a travel guide; and anyway when the Dutch travel they take their bike, so tire size and valve information is highly relevant for travellers ;-) Arnoutf (talk) 07:55, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Infobox dieting

Agree with some of the comments above: the infobox is getting a bit fat. One area it could get slimmer is the GDP section: currently it provides four different measurements of GDP - a gross and non-qualitative economic indicator. Also note that the GDP figures are followed by the HDI composite index, which itself is made up 1/3 by the GDP. Thus the infobox appears to have a bit of a GDP growth bias. And why is there a line between GDP (PPP) and GDP (nominal) - aren't these both economic indicators of similar nature? Therefore I suggest:

1. compact GDP section by removing the line between separate GDP figures.
2. remove GDP nominal per capita, since both GDP PPP per capita and HDI provide better comparison of life quality between countries.
3. compact HDI to one line by removing high-low indication: country ranking is sufficient. There is a doubling in stating both very high and 2nd (Australia), or very low and 169th (Ethiopia).

Anybody agree? Elekhh (talk) 09:46, 19 October 2009 (UTC) Anybody disagree? anybody there?Elekhh (talk) 12:19, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Removing unnecessary fields

Following on from the discussion above I believe that the drives_on and possibly date_format be removed from the template --Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 18:16, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes please (ie support). Arnoutf (talk) 20:41, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Support removing drives_on. It is not what it is supposed to be, namely a summary of transportation in a country. Modal share (% of trips done by each transport mode) data would provide a summary if it would be available . Elekhh (talk) 23:14, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Yup, happy with removing this as part of a drive (no pun intended) to focus this template on the bigger picture. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:14, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

No surprise I am actually fond of keeping those as I find them useful. It can help students while researching countries. -- Phoenix (talk) 03:27, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Surely students should be reading the articles and following their references to check the veracity of the material therein, rather than just skimming the infobox. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:20, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Personally I agree with Phoenix. There is really no other place within a country's main article where such information could be given, and the infobox provides a nice and quick way of doing so. I understand that the thought of students carelessly 'skimming the infobox' instead of "following their references to check the veracity of the material therein" is less than desirable for your average contributor, but a) do you really think students would bother? and b) the material (in this case, driving side) would no longer be 'material therein', and c) if they want to check the veracity of the claim that Country A drives on the left, the 'drives on' section of the infobox provides them with a link to the main article which *should* do just that. Haku8645 (talk) 04:11, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Flags as links

Is there a reason for the images (flags, emblems, etc) link to the image description, and not to the article about the flag?

Especially in the infobox of former countries, the images linking to previous and next regimes are annoying when the arrow linking to the actual article is barely visible and one would think that the image is the link to the article.

Thanks, Spiff (talk) 17:09, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Historically, the MediaWiki software essentially didn't support linking images to anything other than the image description, and this is still the default link for an image. The software currently supports a "link=" parameter for images (see Wikipedia:Extended image syntax), so the template could be changed to link the flag, seal, etc images to the same place as the caption underneath. Any objections to this? -- Rick Block (talk) 18:54, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's a good idea as some readers may actually want to see a larger version of the picture when they click on it. At least that's what I would expect. The textual links below the flag and coat of arms are sufficient in my opinion. Laurent (talk) 19:15, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Broken capital coordinates

I noticed that the coordinates for capitals etc currently use type:country({{{area_km2|}}}). That seems like it should be type:city{{population}}_region --TheDJ (talk o contribs) 12:09, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Lats and longs

{{editprotected}} When one tries to nail down a capital city on a country map, sometimes using just degrees and minutes doesn't get one close enough. Would it be okay to add seconds to the Coord template's code?
 --  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine Ellsworth<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  13:23, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Not done Don't use editprotected as an attention beacon please: "This template should be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, so that an editor unfamiliar with the subject matter could complete the requested edit immediately." discuss, prepare the change and THEN make an editprotected request. --TheDJ (talk o contribs) 15:41, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Didja get up on the wrong side of the bed today, TDJ??? Ya know, sometimes people make it very difficult to AGF these days! Number one: I was unaware, as Stepheng3 mentioned here, that decimals could be used in the latm and longm parameters. Truth be known, I'm a dms man and would still prefer to see seconds added to this template. Number two: I'm not a child, TDJ, and I don't expect to be preached to by you nor anyone. If what you say is correct, that I should have "discussed" it here first, then why the heck is there an {{editprotected}} template in the first place??? After "discussing" the admin would just either make the change or not. That template is here precisely to get an admin's attention so a described edit can be made. It is designed specifically as "an attention beacon". Otherwise, it has no conceivable use at all. As for preparing the change, in a case like this, my goodness! how hard can it be? Just go to the "Capital/Admin center; Largest city/ies or settlement/s" section, and in the "capital is largest_city or largest_settlement:" and "capital isn't largest_city or largest_settlement:" subsections make the following bronze insertions...

  |{{{latm}}}|{{{lats}}}|{{{latNS}}}|{{{longd}}}|{{{longm}}}|{{{longs}}}|{{{longEW}}}|  

in the template. Sincerely hope you get to feelin' better, TDJ!

 --  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine Ellsworth<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  20:37, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with the side of bed. It's an important template that is widely deployed and thus requires discussing before changing, and a lack of a specific change that needs executing is simply an incorrect usage for editprotected. That thing is used to often to open a discussion, instead of being the result of a discussion, and it warns for such uses in the template transclusion itself. just quoting --TheDJ (talk o contribs) 23:36, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Hopefully this time I will not make the mistake of misreading your intent, TDJ. However, I don't see clearly why you feel I misused the Editprotected template. I feel a change is needed, so I opened a discussion with the Ep template. I probably took liberties by not stating precisely what I wanted to change in the code, but I suppose I thought that, since this is a relatively simple change, my clutsy effort at being precise (I'm truly no programmor) might be taken as an insult to someone who knows what they're doing with code. At any rate, I hope you'll forgive me so we can move on. Do you think adding seconds is a good change? or no? In light of the fact that decs can be used in the latm and longm parameters, this is not so much a needed functional change. However, as I said, I like working in dms, and I find it awkward using both dms and dec together, so I would still like to see the lats and longs added to this template (see below). What do you think?

Thank you for listening and for your help, TDJ!

 --  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine Ellsworth<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  03:59, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I think the idea is that for discussing a proposed change, you don't need an admin. Anyone who is interested can participate, or for that matter, no one needs to participate. Then if everyone agrees on your proposition, or if no one came to protest, then you give the code and add the template, because now you do need an admin, to carry out a bureaucratic task. (For what it's worth, I agree with your proposed addition of seconds.)sephia karta | di mi 10:16, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I can be hard-headed and far too outspoken at times, sephia karta. I look back and remember all the times I misused the Ep template in this way due to my inexperience. Indeed, I'm surprised that TheDJ was the first to bring it to my attention. Well, onward and upward. Thank you very much for your kind words of agreement!

 --  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine Ellsworth<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  05:07, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} To the embedded {{Coord}} templates, please add the "seconds" parameter to complete the "dms" formula. The "seconds" parameter (in bronze below) may be added as follows...

                  |<!---then4:                   -----------------------------------------------                    capital is largest_city or largest_settlement:                   -----------------------------------------------                      --><br/>[[Demographics of {{{common_name}}}|(and {{{largest_settlement_type|largest city}}})]]                         </td><!--                      --------Add capital:--------                      --><td>{{{capital}}}<!--                      --------Add capital's latitude and longitude (if provided):-------                      -->{{#if:{{{latd|}}}                         |<!--then:--><br/><small><span style="white-space:nowrap;"><!--                          -->{{coord|{{{latd}}}|{{{latm}}}|{{{lats}}}|{{{latNS}}}|{{{longd}}}<!--                                    -->|{{{longm}}}|{{{longs}}}|{{{longEW}}}|type:country({{{area_km2|}}})<!--                          -->}}</span></small><!--                      -->}}                         </td><!--               -->|<!---else4:                   ------------------------------------------------                   capital isn't largest_city or largest_settlement:                   ------------------------------------------------                    --></td><!--                       --------Add capital/admin center:--------                    --><td>{{{capital|}}}{{{admin_center|}}}<!--                       --------Add capital/admin center's [lat/long]itude (if provided):-------                       -->{{#if:{{{latd|}}}                          |<!--then:--><br/><small><span style="white-space:nowrap;"><!--                          -->{{coord|{{{latd}}}|{{{latm}}}|{{{lats}}}|{{{latNS}}}|{{{longd}}}<!--                                    -->|{{{longm}}}|{{{longs}}}|{{{longEW}}}|type:country({{{area_km2|}}})<!--                           -->}}</span></small><!--                      -->}}                       </td><!--    

Thank you very much!  --  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine Ellsworth<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  16:37, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Not done As you can see by using the sandbox and the testcases, this does not work for infoboxes that currently don't have lats or longs specified. You see how small changes can have unintended consequences ? :D I'm not sure what will be the best way to fix this. Either a {{#if}} or specifying a default value of 0 perhaps. --TheDJ (talk o contribs) 14:29, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, it's worse than you may think, TDJ. On the testcases page, I entered the seconds figures for the capital, New Delhi, in the India infobox. If you look at both maps you will see that there is no difference. Then compare that with the infobox on the New Delhi page, which was recently repaired to allow for coordinates at the bottom. That map is right on the money. This means that even by adding the lats/longs parameters and then inputing values to this template, there is no change in the map position and the Coord template is not doing its job. Now, since it is doing its job well in the Infobox Indian Jurisdiction template (New Delhi infobox), then it may still be fixed locally. I don't know how, yet, but I'll keep trying to figure it out.

 --  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine Ellsworth<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  17:30, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

A default value of 00 can be used if lats/longs is not specified, but the problem is that this introduces specificity where it was not there before. Some people would argue there is a difference between lat.latm vs lat.latm.00 --TheDJ (talk o contribs) 18:33, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

And they are correct. There is a difference, and that difference is precision. This is easily seen by looking once again at the India testcases. The left box is precise to minutes and the right box is precise to seconds. And the right box hits the New Delhi nail right on the head. When specifying the coordinates for a city, it is usually best and most precise to find and list the total dms, not just the dm sans s. I've made the necessary changes to default the values to zero in the sandbox. If you agree, then the changes can be made to the live version.

Also, you may note that some of the infoboxes on the testcases page get wider, especially the India example. There is a nowrap command that can be commented out to see that the effect would be to keep the narrower widths of the infoboxes. The coordinates may wrap around, lat. on one line and long. on another, but this probably isn't a problem. Which way do you like it TDJ?

 --  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine Ellsworth<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  19:18, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

• PS. I used decimals in the seconds position in the India infobox to show that even greater precision can be given if needed and if known. If the lats=49.7 is changed to 50, and the longs=31.8 is changed to 32, the precision of the position on the map is still good. This would knock off four spaces and so would narrow the infoboxs significantly.
• PPS. Please note how I was able to focus the Paris coordinates using seconds.

The point however is that the coordinates are for the Country, not for the capital (I only realized this yesterday). The capital is just used as the "focal" point for the country. As such you could argue that seconds precision is an overprecise pinpointing of a country. --TheDJ (talk o contribs) 10:57, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Are you sure, TDJ? I've seen a lot of these templates of varying kinds, and the coordinates in each and every case focus upon a pinpoint on the map. For Infobox Country, if you check it, every infobox focuses the coordinates as best it can on the capital city of the nation. Yes, the coordinates are for the country, but countries are usually too vast to use coordinates, unless you are mapping and using circles, squares and polygons to represent nations. E.g....

I've repaired several coordinate groupings on that map, and I find that this is truly the only way to represent an entire country in most cases. The pinpoint coordinates always hit the capital cities as best they can.

 --  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine Ellsworth<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  11:58, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Twelve days later

It's been awhile, as I've been caught up in other projects. Since there has been no discussion for about twelve days, and since I would still like to see seconds added to this template to round out the "dms" system in use, I shall address the concerns presented so far...

1. It has been noted that this is a "Country" infobox and that the coordinates are for the country, not for a precise point or area within the country. It could be argued "that seconds precision is an overprecise pinpointing of a country".

2. Also noted is that "00" will appear in the seconds position of coordinates until the parameters, "lats=" and "longs=", are actually added to each and every one of the hundreds of Infobox Country coordinate links. "Some people would argue there is a difference between lat.latm vs lat.latm.00."

• 1. In every Infobox Country I've come across, the coordinates are for a city in the specified country. So far, the coordinates for the capital city have been entered. Here, the seconds precision isn't always needed, this much is granted. The US infoboxes on the testcases page are good examples. The coordinates are for the capital, Washington, DC, and degrees plus minutes is all that's needed to zero in on that location.

Now, if just one example of an Infobox Country that requires dms precision can be shown, then it is my opinion that the seconds parameter would be justified. And that example is found in the India article, which focuses on the capital, New Delhi. India can also be found on the testcases page. New Delhi, you see, is very close to Delhi, and in this case the precision of either decimal (dec) usage in the "minutes" parameter, or seconds (dms) is definitely required to focus in on the capital, New Delhi. I played with the infobox in the India article (Infobox Country) in order to come up with the focused decimal value for the "minutes" parameter. This is easily converted to dms as I've done in the New Delhi article, which utilizes {{Infobox Indian Jurisdiction}}. That Indian Jurisdiction infobox already has the seconds parameter installed. IMHO, New Delhi justifies the seconds parameter to be added to Infobox Country.

• 2. The "00" challenge can also be met. If this template were to be upgraded to dms today, in other words, if the root seconds parameters - {{{lats|00}}} and {{{longs|00}}} - are added right now, then until at least the empty parameters are added, that is, until at least "lats= " and "longs= " are added to a specific article's Infobox Country code, the "00" will appear in the seconds position of the coordinates link. First of all, please note that in the European Union infobox, in which the coordinates for the Commission seat, Brussels, have been entered, the seconds values for both latitude and longitude actually are zero, which precisely focuses on the city of Brussels. This will happen sometimes.

Here's a proposal... It is possible to wade through all of the WhatLinksHere links for this template and add the seconds parameters for latitude and longitude to all of the article infoboxes. I've already done a cursory check, and many of the links are to User pages and such. And yes, there are a lot of country articles that use this template. An easier way might be to use the List of countries article to focus the search for the infoboxes. When I'm done, there will be no more "00" problem. It will be solved. Such a project will take quite a bit of time. I have already added the seconds parameters and values to the left-side infoboxes on the testcases page. I wanted to see if this would mess up the infoboxes. It didn't, and the left-side infoboxes (presently the ones using the "live" version of Infobox Country) appear exactly the same whether or not the seconds parameters and or values have been added.

When I'm finished adding the seconds parameters to all those Country articles, and I return here with notification that the job is done, I would, of course, like to hear that the root seconds parameters will then be added to {{Template:Infobox Country}}. So to get me started on this, I would at least like to receive assurance that an administrator will make the edit that will enable the seconds parameters that I add to the article infoboxes. Is this a possibility?

Additional note: When the time comes, all that will be necessary is to copy and paste the code in the Infobox Country/sandbox to the "live" Infobox Country. The sandbox version is precisely the same TOP to BOTTOM as the live version, with of course the exception that the root seconds parameters have been added to the sandbox version. I've retained a copy in my own sandbox in case the template sandbox is altered.

 --  Paine's Climax  05:53, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Another example has been found where this template could use the seconds parameter. In the Infobox Country of the British Virgin Islands article, the coordinates for the capital, Road Town, have been decimalized in the minutes parameter. This is another case where I would not be able to enter the seconds coordinates prior to adding the root parameter to this infobox, because the latitude is 18° 25' 53". So if I were to enter this, and the seconds are not registered in this template, then the maplink would be significantly too far south of the Road Town position. So while I will be able to enter the seconds coordinates into some Infobox Country infoboxes, others would have to wait until this template is upgraded to dms. I would still like to receive assurances that this will happen before I embark on the long road to add the seconds coordinates to as many Infobox Country infoboxes as possible.
 --  Paine's Climax  04:33, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Flag borders

Noted in the Japan article is the indistinct border of Japan's flag in the infobox. Basically, what I see is a large red dot where a flag image is expected to be. Then I look closer and I can just barely make out the border of the flag.

  See also: South Korea - Indonesia - Russia  

I'm unable to find any parameter that would give the flag a distinct border. This could be done by including an all-covering border=1 parameter and value, or by just including the "border" parameter as an option that can be adjusted in the individual articles. This affects all flags that have a white background. Options and suggestions, please?
 --  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine Ellsworth<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  08:09, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

The template background is a light gray (not white) and there is already a darker gray border done using the "border" option of Wikipedia:Extended image syntax. Changing the color of the existing border would not be easy. I have no problem seeing the border of the flag. Is your monitor calibrated correctly? There are some calibration images at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates#Is my monitor calibrated correctly?. If there were a parameter to add another border, it's not obvious to me that this wouldn't look like the border was part of the flag. Possibly the background color of the table (maybe just the row with the flag and seal images) could be adjustable, but if we do this I think the template should offer a limited set of options (e.g. something like 3 different shades of gray) rather than a "background-color" option specifying an arbitrary RGB value. -- Rick Block (talk) 15:28, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Rick! No matter what I try, I can only see 2 of the 4 circles in this image when I look at my flatscreen straight-on. If I go about 45 degrees left or right, then I begin to see a third circle, however that little trick doesn't help when I try to view the flag borders. Thank you so much for the color references!

 --  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine Ellsworth<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  20:35, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Failed State Index ranking

It seems to me that it would be useful to add a failed_state_index_rank parameter (see Failed state#Failed States Index and List of countries by Failed States Index). Barring objections, I may add it. Comments? Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 07:04, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think this is a good idea. The FSI is the creation of a private U.S. think tank. As far as I know, the Fund For Peace has no unusual authority or qualifications to rank and classify nations, so why should Wikipedia give its judgments prominence? Would we do the same if the American Security Council Foundation or the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty decided to rank countries based on criteria of their own choosing? Also, since the rankings are updated annually, distributing this data across hundreds of articles creates a maintenance burden, which IMO is not warranted given the limited value of thw information.--Stepheng3 (talk) 21:16, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

European Union constituencies and returned Members

I stumbled across an issue when trying to introduce a small amendment copied from Wales to Northern Ireland & Scotland. It occurs to me that the Info Box is where this information should be included (whether or not it is further developed in the article itself). The member states of the European Union are represented by elected members who represent regional constituencies. In the UK, Scotland, Wales & NI are each a single constituency returning 6,4 & 3 elected members respectively. England has 9 regional constituencies returning 69 members of the EU Parliament. This seems to be the sort of basic detail that should be included in the country info box and used for all of the EU countries, irrespective of out-references in the article body. Any thoughts? Leaky Caldron 12:09, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Drives on who the hell cares

Sorry but that is such a random piece of info for the infobox. Like who cares. It isn't important. It's like putting left handed or right handed in the bio infobox. Come on this should be remove. Who's with me say I.--Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 03:54, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

This seems like a useful tidbit of information to provide. If I were planning to visit a country, I might want to know whether I'd feel comfortable driving on their roads. --Stepheng3 (talk) 21:21, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

• Strong Keep. And for those who would feel comfortable whether it's left or right, they would like to know what to expect, i.e., the side of the road on which they will be driving when they get there.

 --  Paine's Climax  04:15, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

But if I go abroad I am much more interested to know whether I have to look up or down talking to people, so average person height is much more important (as is dominant type of bicycle tire and valve, orientation of traffic lights, colour of license plates, most used road surface, numbering of floors (e.g. ground floor or 1st floor at street level), the exact number of grains of sands on the beaches of the country etc etc etc etc). However as Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collation of information, nor a travel guide, all of this type of information is equally irrelevant. Therefore my suggestion: Either add 100,000 facts of trivia to this infobox or get rid of most of this kind of garbage.

Wikipedia aims to provide information, inclusion of everything is no information, but data about a country. Information is reasonably comprehensible by the reader in a reasonable amount of time.

Sadly I am sure my call for reason will be ignored as extremist inclusionists seem to have taken power in spite of Wiki policies and good sense. Arnoutf (talk) 12:01, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I may have been a bit impolite here, but people read the talk page before duplicating comments. The current talk page (not counting archives) has topics on similar issues: Proposal: National broadcast system Countries AC Power Plug and on this exact same topicRemoving unnecessary fields. It is only a few topics higher on. If nobody bothers to read open discussions, why am I trying to make a case? Arnoutf (talk) 21:14, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm a convinced inclusionist, but I agree that this particular item does not need to be in this infobox.sephia karta | di mi 00:29, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. As per my previous comment this field is not what it is supposed to be, namely a summary of transportation in a country. Furthermore the topic is fully covered by Right- and left-hand traffic for those interested. As a handy travel planning info, is perfectly appropriate for Wikitravel. Elekhh (talk) 00:48, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
• Should we include which side does the driver seat is located? Seriously, if I want to go to the UK I would also like to know if I should enter the care through the left side or right side. This is all something your travel agent should tell you. Also, it isn't very encyclopedic to put it in a countries article. It belongs in the Right- and left-hand traffic where it already is.--Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 06:05, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

(out). The fact that such an appropriate inclusion of travel information that is in many, many infoboxes draws such painful discussion such as the completely inappropriate words of "Sadly I am sure my call for reason . . ." above tells me I'm correct that this info/data, whatever, should be kept.
 --  Paine's Climax  19:18, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

• PS. The argument that information can or "should" be found somewhere else does not hold a drop of water. Every single bit of data found in Wikipedia is supposed to be found somewhere else. If we delete all the info that can be found somewhere else, then there would be nothing left!

That wasn't my argument. I was just pointing out that Wikipedia has complementary sister projects, which cover WP:NOT domains. Elekhh (talk) 19:48, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I think this information is problematic with regard to several important Wikipedia policies being unduly detailed for articles on country level; very relevant for travel guides but not for an encyclopedia; has a tendency to be a mere collection of indiscriminate facts or trivia, and perhaps least problematic (as easily solved in theory) lack reliable sources.

In my view this, and many other entries in the current version of the country box, are seriously problematic on these policies. I also seriously doubt whether these additions were evaluated on the suggestions in the manual of style on infoboxes for inclusion of fields. Arnoutf (talk) 17:58, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Your view is noted and noted again. Congratulations for managing to express your view this time without insulting Wikipedians. In my own humble opinion, those who try to change things and do so by insulting administrators and editors of Wikipedia cannot possibly have the improvement of Wikipedia at heart. So what other agenda might those people have? Oh! perhaps making Wikipedia worse instead of better? deleted by Paine

 --  Paine's Climax  19:19, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to say Paine's Climax, but the comment you just made is not WP:CIVIL. Please reconsider. Elekhh (talk) 19:40, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I feel the same as Elekhh, but have to agree, neither was my original post in this section very civil.

Let's not dwell on that; and try to make Wikipedia better.

For usability (= ease of use, usefullnes and satisfaction) of the infoboxes, I think the lengthy inclusion of relatively minor facts is detrimental (especially ease of use).

On the other hand, we do have a system of lenghty and extensive bulleted lists of facts called outlines. Although I am critical about outlines duplicating article information, I could imagine that "drives on" but also "AC current" and "plug type" and much other factual information of this type could be provided in such an outline. This way the infoboxes of the main articles may be come less crowded, while even more information can be given in a brief and factual way. At the same time, in my opinion at least, this would help to justify the outline project running parallel to the main pages.

What do you guys think about this? Arnoutf (talk) 19:49, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the change of tone. I agree that there would be better places for this kind of info than the Country infobox, and Outline of country could be one such place. However I wonder if necessary: generally there is a link to Wikitravel on each country's page in the external links section (example), and than you could see it in the quickbar (example). Which means the info is just one click away. Funny to see that "drives on" is not yet included in the Wikitravel quickbar - although much more relevant there than here. Elekhh (talk) 20:27, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Please, Elekhh, just "Paine" will do. All I can say in my defense is that "civility begets civility", and therefore does it not follow precisely what incivility begets? Since dwelling upon it could be construed to be an attempt to escalate the incivility, I will say only that people have to earn back my respect, and I am not convinced that the original uncivil tone is completely to be dismissed. Nor am I convinced that the argument to delete is sound.

I know of at least one example where the information in question can come in very handy in the infobox. Due to British influence, and despite the fact that the right side of the road is used in mainland China, Hongkongers drive on the left side of the road. It may be just a "tidbit", but I think it a useful tidbit, and that its inclusion in the infobox is justified. Goodness! this tidbit is even mentioned in the lede of the Hong Kong article! A few years ago and just before I went to France and Italy, Wikipedia was one of my references for learning about the region. I appreciated each and every piece of info I read here, which backed up, and was backed up by, the info in other sources. So I still say keep.

 --  Paine's Climax  08:56, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

• PS. I personally prefer the {{collapsible list}} template to compact infoboxes. Its usage is much better than actually deleting useful information from the boxes.
• PPS. Here is a draft example I just threw together to illustrate. Note the the very last item, "Nickname", in the right infobox is not shown at all in the "live" infobox, because even though it has been entered in the live infobox on the HK page, there is no such parameter in this template. This was all done "locally" without the need to edit TL|Infobox Country. That's not to say that a more sweeping change to accomplish the same thing cannot be done to this template, but the code would probably be far beyond my ability.

I believe this information should definitely be included on Wikipedia, but it has its own dedicated article and it does not need to be included in countries' infoboxes. sephia karta | di mi 11:48, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Re Paine, Although I understand your example in relation to HongKong, you also mention this is rather unique. I am not sure that a unique situation warrants inclusion of this in a broadly applied template.

Other point, as you may read from my suggestion above, I do not suggest that this information is not be found anywhere on Wikipedia, but probably not in the main country article.

Personally I have suggested the country outlines as a place for this information (and opened a talk thread with that suggestion in wikiproject outlines talk)

Elekhh suggested that Wikitravel might be the most appropriate place for this.

Sephia karta suggested that there are already dedicated articles (Right- and left-hand traffic and Mains power around the world and AC power plugs and sockets) where this information has its own place.

None of us suggested outright deletion from the project, we only questioned the appropriateness of this (rather detailed) information in an article with the broad scope as that of the (top level) country article. Arnoutf (talk) 13:48, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Arnoutf, I do realize what has been suggested. People need to know how to reach those more specific places, and the "Drive on the" link will take them to the "Right- and left-hand traffic" page. So I still disagree, however if reducing the Infobox presence on any given page (and any given infobox) is the main thrust, then perhaps something like this is the way to proceed?

 --  Paine's Climax  15:59, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I have stated before that I believe this to be very useful information since it is not typically included in the prose of the article so it should be kept. -- Phoenix (talk) 05:44, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

coord type: subparameter

I'm thinking type:country({{{area_km2|}}}) in the template should get simplified to type:country. As far as I can tell, the type:country parameter of the {{Coord}} template was never intended to take a subparameter like type:city does -- see Template:Coord/doc. If there's no objection, I'd like to remove the subparameter from the template. --Stepheng3 (talk) 07:11, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

(ec). I honestly don't know for sure, Stephen. Sometimes when such things are added, it's in anticipation of a future improvement, in this case to the Coord template.

 --  Paine's Climax  12:22, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll check with Wikipedia:WikiProject Geographical coordinates just in case. --Stepheng3 (talk) 16:23, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I've coded the changes in Template:Infobox country/sandbox and tested them on the testcases. Would someone please copy these changes to Template:Infobox country? --Stepheng3 (talk) 07:19, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

 Done Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:40, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!--Stepheng3 (talk) 02:16, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Capital (and largest city)

What's the deal here? The whole Capital (and largest city) thing makes sense when they are one and the same, but why the hell doesn't it just say "Largest city" anymore? There's no point to that, it's just awkward wording. Eightball (talk) 03:44, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Ya I think that's a bug. If there is an entry in "Largest City" it should turn into Capital: blah Largest City: blah, not Capital: Blan (and largest city): Blah. TastyCakes (talk) 16:26, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

About to make the same complaint. So can someone fix this? Lexicon (talk) 16:53, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Think I fixed it. Lexicon (talk) 17:02, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

area and documentation

It looks like the documentation of the area parameters is incorrect and/or outdated. I've added the area_footnote parameter to the documentation but, from a look at the template, the area parameter seems to be unsupported. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:15, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

common "shell" infobox

Hey folks,

Can we make this infobox use a common "shell" infobox template, a la {{WPBannerMeta}}? --Phillip Kragulj (talk) 09:25, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand what the point would be. Can you explain what this would accomplish? -- Rick Block (talk) 18:01, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the OP means using something like {{infobox}}, which would make the code much, much easier to read and maintain. But that's not going to be a trivial conversion on such a crufty codebase. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:13, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Highest point

could someone add the highest/lowest point of the country in the template ? thanks Polylepsis (talk) 19:33, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I do not think this is core information that should be available at a glance. As such I do not think it should be in this infobox, which is for all practical use far too large already. Arnoutf (talk) 19:39, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Coats of arms, seals and national emblems

The terms are often misused, and there should be stricter application of the terms for Accuracy's sake.

An emblem is any image used to represent something or anything, a type of catch all term. A coat of arms is a specific type of emblem that requires an image displayed upon a shield, with other embellishments optional, that must adhere to heraldic norms. Any emblem that is heraldic in nature but not on a shield would be termed a badge. Other words that could be used in place of emblem are symbol, mark or device; insignia refers to things representing an office or power, so would not be appropriate to refer to a sovereign nation's emblem as such.

A seal is not the same as an emblem, but a device used by nations to give approval and authenticate treaties and other legally binding documents. A seal can depict the national emblem, but does not need to. For example, the seal of the U.K. usually showed the king enthroned on the front side and the king on horseback on the other side. The most recent seal of Queen Elizabeth II is the first U.K. seal to depict the coat of arms of the monarch upon it. The U.S., alternately, has always used a coat of arms upon its seal. However, when the president or Congress use the device as a backdrop, it is acting as an emblem or a coat of arms, and it is improper to refer to it as a seal in such instances.

Is there perhaps a better place to discuss this? I had found a style manual page, but not quite sure if that is where such things should be discussed. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 04:33, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Problems with largest_settlement_type and largest_settlement in Macau article

If you head on over to Macau and check out the infobox you'll notice problems in the section on largest_settlement_type and largest_city. I've tried to figure out how to correct the problem, but was unable to. Thought it should be brought to your attention. Danshil (talk) 17:58, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

"Population" should link to list of countries by population

Currently, "Population" section links to Population, which is too general. In the context of the infobox, the link should be to List of countries by population. (Suggested patch: replace [[Population]] with [[List of countries by population|Population]] in the text of the template.) --RoboTact (talk) 18:37, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

French population links

An administrator should edit the following line: < td >{{{FR total_population_estimate}}} ([ [List of countries by population in 2005 | {{{FR total_population_estimate_rank}}}] ])< / td >
by replacing the outdated link "List of countries by population in 2005" with the up-to-date page "List of countries by population".
The same should be done with the line: < td >{{{FR metropole_population}}} ([ [List of countries by population in 2005 |{{{FR metropole_population_estimate_rank}}}] ])< / td >
Der Statistiker (talk) 15:59, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Overlinked

{{editprotect}} I have just noticed that the template links, amongst other terms, 'Area', 'water' and '%'. These should be delinked because they are generic terms not germane to the subject. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 06:39, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

You may possibly have a point with respect to "water" and "%", but "Area" seems valid in the context it is presented. Please allow discussion regarding this to proceed, as the template is in widespread use. (I've disabled the edit template for now, so that others can weigh in on this.) --Ckatz^chat_spy 06:54, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I definitely think water and % should be delinked. As for area, if that is not delinked, can we find a more specific article to link, such as one that describes "land area"? Dabomb87 (talk) 14:36, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Is "area" a difficult term for English-speakers to understand? The link-target doesn't appear to be helpful to readers' understand of a country article. Tony (talk) 04:00, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

katz, I hope I am wrong about you, please help me by looking at how excessively generic the term is to be usefully linked. If you insist on keeping the term, linking to land mass would be infinitely preferable. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 08:15, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Time, I think, to override CKatz's disabling of the editprotect request. Was this an admin action? (I hope not ...) Tony (talk) 08:36, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

You know perfectly well it wasn't admin-related, Tony. You could have done exactly what I did - and how on Earth can "please allow discussion regarding this to proceed" be misinterpreted as an "admin action" anyway? As I clearly stated above, this should allow for discussion given the wide use of the template, beyond just a handful of comments from the folks who want to make the change. --Ckatz^chat_spy 10:08, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Dabomb87, Ohconfucius, perhaps you'd entertain a link to List of countries and outlying territories by total area? Seems pretty relevant. --Ckatz^chat_spy 10:10, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I am not very good with the technical stuff: I have no idea how one disables such a template/request and who has the authority to do it. You have answered that question in a way that appears to be consistent with your carping criticism of me and your fisticuffs with another party, all paraded on my talk page over the past day. Please calm down. I'm pleased to see a suggestion here concerning greater specifity for a link, the only issue being that it will be a "hidden", or "Easter egg" link that no one will click on because it looks like a dictionary term. We may be able to sort that out--I'm unsure. Tony (talk) 10:44, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

This was a good catch, after all. CKatz, I go along with the more specific AREA link that you suggest, and perhaps the WATER and % links can be combined into List of countries by percentage of water area?

 --  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  10:52, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

The information purported to be given is the percentage of the country's area that is water. To render a non-deceptive link to the list of countries in this respect would require a pipe such as "Water % ranking", which conflicts with the given information. Perhaps "Water % =" and on a second line "(ranking ...)". Ranking could be linked to the list. But now we're trying to solve common-term overlinking by adding another field of information to the template. The problem is that plain water percentage can't be linked, except deceptively. Tony (talk) 11:08, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Then I must be completely out in left field, Tony. I thought that the heading links were given in case a reader was not too sure what is meant by the data that follows in the infobox. I think we agree that just linking to the general articles, such as Area, Water and % is too general to help the reader in this respect. However, the article CKatz suggested for "Area", and the one I suggested for "Water %" would leave no doubt in the reader's mind what the information means. I'm trying to keep in mind here that not all English speakers and readers/writers learned English as their primary language, and those who learned it as a "second language" might need some assistance with the specific meanings of the headings as they apply to the data given. Wouldn't completely delinking these qualify as a form of systemic bias?

 --  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  18:12, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ At least there seems to be agreement that Area, Water and % should no longer be linked. Can this be done first? Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 07:14, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree, Ohconfucius, that it would be an improvement to RElink those links to more specifically defined links, but not to completely delink them.

 --  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  08:06, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

What, relink "%"? To what? May as well link every word in WP. Even a seven-year-old child is meant to know what the percentage sign means. Linking needs to be rationed to the most useful items or it easily becomes swamped. I think there's a misconception that readers love to click links and do so a lot. I'm sorry to disabuse people of this notion, but it is much more likely that readers click rarely, and we need to make the most of it by selecting for them the most useful. Now taking an expansive line on linking in an infobox is just the kind of practice that will relegate linking to the status of the emperor's new clothes. It would be much more practical to link to country rankings of water coverage and area in the main text, where such links do not have to be deceptively piped for reasons of extreme space constraints. This goes for all infoboxes. Tony (talk) 09:04, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, Tony, I still disagree. Both the "Water" and "%" can link together to List of countries by percentage of water area in order to quell any doubt as to what the entries in the ibox mean. Moreover, nobody thus far that I've seen is taking an "expansive" line on linking. People are merely looking to keep the links that already exist except to make them more specifically explained. And I think you might be wrong about the instances of clicking by readers, too. I don't just edit WP, I also read it, quite extensively. And I click on links all the time in order to get a better understanding of whatever it is I'm reading about. It's the links that set WP apart, by the way, right from the beginning. I think the links in the ibox should remain and be relinked to better explanations when possible.

 --  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  03:45, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ Okay, can we at least agree for now to degeneralize the links by linking "Area" to List of countries and outlying territories by total area, and "Water %" together to List of countries by percentage of water area, so that the ibox links will specifically clarify to general readers what is meant?
 --  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  21:08, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

• PS I've made the changes in the sandbox that can be observed on the testcases page, so that copying the sandbox code to the "live" source page will do the job.

{{editprotected}} While the original request in this discussion asked that the "Area", "Water" and "%" generic links be delinked, and while consensus on this has not yet taken place, it appears that there is consensus that the present links are too general. Since there has been no discussion for three days, I propose that these links be made more specific. The "Area" link can go to List of countries and outlying territories by total area, and the "Water" and "%" links can be combined and go to List of countries by percentage of water area. (The result is actually a partial "delinking", since we are opting for two links where before there were three links.) This improvement will help young readers and perhaps readers who learned English as a foreign language, who need more info about what the data in the ibox means.

I have made these changes in the sandbox, and the results can be observed on the testcases page. So the sandbox code can be copied to the live Infobox country template page.
 --  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  23:00, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

 Done. I think the sandbox wasn't quite up to date so I didn't copy all of it across - next time please synchronise it with the live template before starting work! Regards -- Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:00, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you again, Martin. If you'll check the sandbox' history, you'll find that it was in synq with the live version except for this edit. (I had internalized the "(s)" in the "Official language(s)" link before I asked for this edit.) Best of everything to you and yours!

 --  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  12:05, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

What languages should go in the regional_languages field?

Hi all. There is an ongoing dispute over what languages should go in the regional_languages field. The template prompts to list those which are "officially recognized" but we don't know what makes a regional language recognized or not. I have proposed my definition, based only on common sense. Is there a legal definition? Is there a definition at the Wikipedia level? Thank you for enlightening me on this. -- Xavier, 21:47, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Xavier. I'm not sure why the outcry on the France article's Talk page. There are two distinct parameters. "Official languages" and "Recognised regional languages". Since French is the only official language (there might be a possibility for discussion about making it "Official language(s)", so that in the case of only one official language, the plural would be optional), then there is no reason to think that all of the regional languages must also be "official" before they can be listed.

Another seemingly small separate issue, sometimes not even mentioned, is that a list of several languages makes the ibox so much longer. This is where the {{Collapsible list}} template might come in handy. I installed this template in the France ibox, and it does make the ibox significantly shorter. There was some bunching, so I also installed {{Fixbunching}} templates. Hope this helps!

 --  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  07:11, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

PS. Xavier, you might want to look at the ibox in the India article for other "Collapsible list" template ideas.

I've just thought of another possible solution to this, Xavier: Instead of using the "regional languages" parameter, try using the "languages_type" parameter. This has the added benefits that the word "Recognised" does not have to be used, and the "Regional languages" is in its own section. Here's an example:

{{Infobox country
|official_languages = [[French]]
|languages_type = [[Regional languages]]
|languages = {{collapsible list |title = {{nbsp}} |[[Alsatian language|Alsatian]]; [[Basque language|Basque]]; . . .}}
}}

Parenning the plural

On the Talk:France page, due to the fact that France has only one "official" language, French, it was asked if the "Official languages" could be changed to "Official language". This, of course, would not be appropriate, I would suppose, since many countries have more than one official language. So how about using the parentheses, as in:

  Official language(s)   

? Is this a feasible solution?
 --  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  10:50, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} There have been around five days since I suggested the above with no discussion. So I altered the Infobox country/sandbox version, and the result can be seen on the Infobox country/testcases page. Please copy the sandbox version to the source of the active template to implement this edit. Thank you very much!
 --  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  16:55, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

 Done -- Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:19, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Once again I get to thank you, Martin! Hope all is well with you! I see that you internalized the parenned plural; I was going to do it that way, but I felt the black-after-blue effect added a little enhancement. No problemo, though, as I think it's a major improvement either way. Later gator.

 --  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  17:28, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Small parameter issue

(Just out of curiosity, I found that in the France ibox, the parameter for the official language is:

  |language = French   

singular "language", which makes French show as the "Official languages"; however, this parameter is in the /doc as

  |official languages =   

so I'm wondering if the "language =" parameter is an appropriate addition to the doc?)
 --  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  11:05, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

The more I look at this issue, the more it appears as if it's a glitch of some kind within the template. If you will travel to the France page and bring up the ibox source code, you will see that there is a "language" parameter (no plural), and that it has been set to "French" (no double brackets). And it looks like this works to install "French" in the "Official languages" box as an enabled link to the French language article. I can find no usage in that ibox of the "Official languages" parameter, and I can find no mention on this template's /doc page of a "language" (no plural) parameter. Does anybody have any ideas on this one? Is it "relic code" that is hidden somewhere else in the template's source code? Something else that I haven't got a clue about?

 --  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  17:05, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Redirect of the geopolitical organization infobox

Currently the template:Infobox Geopolitical organization redirects to the template:Infobox country. I propose to redirect it instead to the template:Infobox organization as the geopolitical organization is also an organization and is more close to a general organizations than countries. Beagel (talk) 19:16, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

According to the history, Template:Infobox Geopolitical organization was at one time in the past supplemented by Template:Infobox country. Then when this template was improved enough, in May 2007 T:IGo was redirected to this template. So maybe refocusing the redirect to Template:Infobox organization wouldn't be appropriate, as the histories might not match up properly. Also I see that you created a "Template:Infobox geopolitical organization" (alternative capitalization of "Geopolitical") two days ago that redirects to T:Io. That might be confusing to general readers? (So I redirected it to T:Ic.)

 --  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  18:23, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I see. But in this case we need very clear guidelines, in which case we should used the Template:Infobox Geopolitical organization and in which case the Template:Infobox organization. Looking for the current usage of the Template:Infobox Geopolitical organization, it seems that in some cases the Template:Infobox organization would be more appropriate. It is clear that not every international organization should fall under this template. There is no problem with the United Nations, European Union or trade blocks, but what to do with the organizations like OPEC, OECD, Nordic Council or the International Whaling Commission? Beagel (talk) 19:52, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

You might try using one of the testcases pages, Template:Infobox country/testcases or Template:Infobox organization/testcases, to see if the change would generate any significant losses.

 --  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  03:24, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, Beagel, I set this up on the testcases page for T:Ic. You can see what just re-redirecting the Geopolitical org. pages would do to the OPEC ibox. A lot of info is lost, so merely re-redirecting the redirects would cause problems. Feel free, though, to experiment and perhaps find a way to do what you want to do.

 --  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  10:33, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I absolutely agree that if redirected, the code of Template:Infobox organization should be amended to show all fields properly. However, if not directed, the documentation of the Template:Infobox country should provide clear guidelines, in which cases the Template:Infobox Geopolitical organization should be use and in which cases Template:Infobox organization. The distinction between these templates not very clear and there is no clear definition which organization is geopolitical and which is not. Making this clear is the first thing to do.Beagel (talk) 18:40, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Up at the top of this page we have WikiProject Countries, and at the top of Template talk:Infobox organization is WikiProject Organizations. Sounds like one would have to study these two projects to see if some of the work has already been done (no reason for you to "reinvent the wheel" as is said). If not, then these would be the places one would go for collaboration. That would ensure that any edits you make would be not just improvements, but lasting improvements. Wish you the best!

 --  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  19:25, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't knew if any if these projects have define it somewhere. I am just saying that if I am using any template; I am expecting to find the guidelines and documentations at the template page (transcluded documentation). And right now there is no such kind of documentation explaining when to use the Template:Infobox Geopolitical organization and when the Template:Infobox organization is more appropriate. And I think that the template talk page is a right page to discuss this although both WPs should be notified. I will to this. Regards. Beagel (talk) 20:29, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Automate archiving?

Does anyone object to me setting up automatic archiving for this page using MiszaBot? Unless otherwise agreed, I would set it to archive threads that have been inactive for 30 days and keep at least ten threads.--Oneiros (talk) 14:16, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

 Done--Oneiros (talk) 18:27, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Economic numbers and estimates

In examining Israel that is at WP:FAR it has come to light that the economic numbers such as GDP are automatically branded as estimates. Surely the status as estimate ought to be optional? The IMF seems to produce definite numbers for the year before at around September or so. The numbers at that time are not estimates. Then by the middle of February there are numbers available that are estimates for the preceding year. There must be several featured articles on countries and this sort of inexactitude isn't really what should be accepted in featured material.--Peter cohen (talk) 21:13, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not an economist, but could it be that by its nature, the GDP of a country can only ever be estimated? sephia karta | dimmi 03:36, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I have no problem with "estimate" for GDP, particularly as the three standard agency measures vary considerably. It's not like area (in sq km, for example). Tony (talk) 13:25, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Native name

Hello. There is an ongoing discussion about what information should be in the parameter "Native name". The documentation of the infobox states that native name is the "conventional long-form in native language". I understand "native" to mean "local language", that just makes sense and is analogous to other encyclopedias (concept of "conventional local name"). So far that's what I've seen in the other country articles, so I just need confirmation.

So if a source indicates that the official name of a country is in a language (say Spanish), that should go there, right? For example (as in the CIA world fact book):

• English long-form name: United Mexican States
• Common English name: Mexico
• Native/local long-form name: Estados Unidos Mexicanos
• Native/local short name: México

Thanks. Please comment. 201.173.187.48 (talk) 11:28, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi, there! I'm probably the "problem maker" of this discussion. And I think it would be ok if you change the |native_name to either "official name" or "name in mother tongue", but that could be done only if we add a REAL NATIVE NAME parameter and being shown in at least equally importance place of the infobox. It would be better than a native_name - "name in native language" parameter where native language can means either "language of a native or aboriginal people" or "one's first language, learned in early childhood".

Also: there're no official language of Mexico, so the example 201.173.187.48 gives is inapt. But it a good idea to discuss whether "official language" is relevant to "native language" here. --?? (Yú H?i) (talk) 12:18, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Time zone fix

{{editprotected}}

Fix needed for DST display where only the time zone is given and not the offset. Old:

       -->{{#if:{{{utc_offset_DST|}}} |<!--then:  

New:

       -->{{#if:{{{time_zone_DST|}}}{{{utc_offset_DST|}}} |<!--then:  

Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 19:35, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Done. thanks. --TheDJ (talk o contribs) 21:52, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Please allow overriding of

  |utc_offset=-5 to -10  |utc_offset_DST=-4 to -10  

with

  |utc_offset_min=-5  |utc_offset_max=-10  |utc_offset_DST_min=-4  |utc_offset_DST_max=-10  

and then display links min and max, i.e.

  UTC-5 to UTC-10  UTC-4 to UTC-10  

Data taken from USA. This is needed for countries with multiple time offsets from UTC. TimeCurrency (talk) 18:53, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

{{editprotect}} I came here because of concern that hyphens were wrong used, instead of minus signs, in the edit summary. I have changed them in this example. Tony (talk) 23:44, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

TimeCurrency: please put your proposed code in the /sandbox and obtain consensus for it. Tony1: I am confused. Isn't this a problem with the parameters that are fed to this template rather than the template itself? If not, please be more precise because I don't understand what needs changing. -- Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:46, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I reverted the alteration of my talk contribution. If values are split, the template could easily detect wrong input, since the number of possible values can be taken from template:Timezones. This is one more reason to split. I asked at User talk:CBDunkerson#Time zone fix for help to add code to the sandbox. TimeCurrency (talk) 12:44, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Martin, what do you think about the change itself? City templates link to the UTC pages, e.g. Rome links to UTC+1 and UTC+2. Only country pages do not, since range input is allowed. Splitting the ranges to min and max would allow linking. TimeCurrency (talk) 14:13, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

This can be done with the existing template by using something like;

  |utc_offset=[[UTC-5|-5]] to [[UTC-10]]  

Alternatively, separate parameters could be added as you suggest and an extra condition to check for those parameters before 'utc_offset'. --CBD 20:53, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

• Errr ... Why are we seeing hyphens displayed, where minus signs are supposed to be used (See WP:MOSNUM). --Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony1 (talk o contribs) 09:08, 20 May 2010

  For the second time, it's because articles are passing hyphens to the template. It's not a problem with the template code itself. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:49, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry; it's beyong my technical know-how that articles pass hyphens to a template. But I accept your point that the template is in good order in this respect. Thx. Tony (talk) 13:06, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Summary of the economy

The economy of each country is currently "summarised" in the infobox through four different measures of the GDP and associated rankings. This is too much data providing too little information. The GDP is simply a measure of a country's overall economic output which has many limitations and does not provide any information about any aspect of the economy other than overall size, such as importance of each economic sector, size of informal economy, wealth distribution, sustainability of growth, etc. Thus 8 (eight) numbers are provided for a single and limited purpose. I think this is not consistent with the aim of the infobox, which is to provide a "summary or overview information about the subject". The nominal GDP expressed in US dollars has little relevance for non-US readers. For the purposes of comparison of the size of national economies the GDP PPP and associated ranking are more relevant than nominal GDP. Therefore I suggest removing the nominal GDP parameters (GDP_nominal, GDP_nominal_rank, GDP_nominal_year, GDP_nominal_per_capita, GDP_nominal_per_capita_rank) from the infobox, as they do not provide much extra insight compared to GDP PPP. For the United States the two measures are identical. For all other countries GDP PPP is more relevant. Elekhh (talk) 03:57, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I think nominal GDP should be retained, since it provides a measure of a country's potential to trade (i.e., import) goods and services. Thus, when nominal GDP is a third of GDP PPP, we can be sure that local goods and services that have a significant imported component (e.g., oil) are expensive in comparison to labour costs. Tony (talk) 21:52, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I am not saying that nominal GDP is meaningless, but is a rather detailed information, which could be found in the article, not the infobox. Consider that many meaningful indicators of a country's demography for instance aren't included in the infobox: such as average/median age, population growth rate, life expectation, etc. Notwithstanding the above, would you consider all four figures of the nominal GDP equally important, or could you think of removing some of the nominal GDP figures, such as per capita values ? Elekhh (talk) 02:12, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Maybe you're right: the infobox is too long. Or all eight figures could be given in a collapsible/expandable sub-box. I just think PPP and Nominal give two sides of the picture--both are distorted. It's no big deal. Tony (talk) 02:24, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Source of article : Wikipedia