→Infobox diet: no dieting? |
Paine Ellsworth (talk | contribs) →Lats and longs: new section |
||
Line 711: | Line 711: | ||
I noticed that the coordinates for capitals etc currently use <nowiki>type:country({{{area_km2|}}})</nowiki>. That seems like it should be <nowiki>type:city{{population}}_region</nowiki> —[[User:TheDJ|Th<span style="color: green">e</span>DJ]] ([[User talk:TheDJ|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/TheDJ|contribs]]) 12:09, 27 October 2009 (UTC) |
I noticed that the coordinates for capitals etc currently use <nowiki>type:country({{{area_km2|}}})</nowiki>. That seems like it should be <nowiki>type:city{{population}}_region</nowiki> —[[User:TheDJ|Th<span style="color: green">e</span>DJ]] ([[User talk:TheDJ|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/TheDJ|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?<br> |
|||
— <small>[[User:Paine_Ellsworth|<font color="darkblue"><b><sup>.`</sup></b>^) </font>Paine Ellsworth]][[User_talk:Paine_Ellsworth|<sup>diss`cuss</sup> <font color="darkblue">(^<b><sup>`.</sup></b></font>]]</small> 13:23, 27 October 2009 (UTC) |
Revision as of 13:23, 27 October 2009
Index
|
|||||||||||||||
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)
In USA Red White Blue is America
|
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5e/At_Home_With_Evel_Knievel.jpg/190px-At_Home_With_Evel_Knievel.jpg)
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)
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)
- 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)
- 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:
- the colours are not bright, but pale enough to provide good contrast and to not dominate the article; and
- 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 • contribs) 13:34, 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)
- 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)
- 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:
- 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)
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)
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)
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:
For individual colours | Against individual colours |
---|---|
|
|
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:
- Leave this colour modification options as they are
- Coming up with a different way to include colour
- 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)
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:
<td colspan="3" style="line-height:1.2em; text-align:center;">
I propose adding classes to these elements. For example:
<td class="anthem" colspan="3" style="line-height:1.2em; text-align:center;">
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
- Perhaps then Template:Infobox Country/styled sandbox should now be deleted? --Jza84 | Talk 01:52, 13 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)
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:
- Uses a font override
- 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)
- It's very similar to this old version which we've moved away from since it:
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 Hồng 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⺮ 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
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)
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 77talk 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)
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)
- 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)
- There are tons of indicators out there. Including all them and the infobox becomes overwhelming. Eklipse (talk) 16:19, 3 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)
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 • 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?- JLogant: 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><!-- -->}}<!--
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 • Talk • 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:
- So that it works the same way as similar parameters, i.e. no surprises after you save.
- 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.
- 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 • Talk • Contribs 20:23, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
- Alright, I'll do this in 4 steps:
- Remove the auto-linking code from the template
- Find all articles that use the secret calling_code_note parameter (by using a temporary hidden category)
- Manually move content from the calling_code_note parameter to the end of the calling_code parameter
- 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)
- Alright, I'll do this in 4 steps:
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:
- Georgian annulment of all Soviet-era laws and treaties
- Declaration of sovereignty
- Georgian declaration of independence
- Dissolution of Soviet Union
- Reinstatement of 1925 Constitution
- New Constitution
- Referendum
- Act of state independence
- 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
- 2 Declaration of sovereignty from Soviet Republic Georgia
- 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)
- 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:
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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 " km²". WP:MOSNUM states "Avoid the unicode characters ² and ³. [..] Instead, use superscript markup, created with <sup></sup>".
This should ideally be changed to " km<sup>2</sup>". —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)
- Disable the
- 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 redpropagandadeeds 18:11, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- A) Between Socialist, Capitalist, and Traditional EconomiesSpitfire19 (Talk) 14:55, 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 NëŧΜǒńğerPeace 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 • 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 • contribs) 21:44, 19 October 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)
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 • 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
|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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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:
- compact GDP section by removing the line between separate GDP figures.
- remove GDP nominal per capita, since both GDP PPP per capita and HDI provide better comparison of life quality between countries.
- 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)
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 • contribs) 12:09, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Lats and longs
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?
— .`^) Paine Ellsworthdiss`cuss (^`. 13:23, 27 October 2009 (UTC)