Template talk:Infobox country/Archive 6#area and documentation

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 [http://www.snook.ca/technical/colour_contrast/colour.html 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)

|}

Image:At_Home_With_Evel_Knievel.jpg dress in these clothes?]]

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)

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 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMatt_Lewis&diff=205492137&oldid=205406370]), 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 {{tl|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:

:::*{{tl|Infobox river}} uses a pale violet colour: should the entry for the Yellow River therefore have a yellow box?

:::*{{tl|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)

::::::::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)

Template:{{ucfirst: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)

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)

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 while ago, modifications were made to {{tl|Infobox Former Country}} while a fork template of {{tl|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, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kingdom_of_Gwynedd&oldid=203890850 here], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kingdom_of_Gwynedd&oldid=204148322 here], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kingdom_of_Gwynedd&oldid=204164702 here], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kingdom_of_Gwynedd&oldid=207534025 here], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Principality_of_Wales&oldid=205461935 here], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Principality_of_Wales&oldid=206020964 here] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kingdom_of_Powys&oldid=206017669 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)

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)

I'm doing some [http://www.princexml.com/samples/#wiki 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)

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 ()

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)

{{tlx|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)

{{tlx|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|[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Log?user=Nihiltres log]}} 12:20, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

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

:::[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Infobox_Country&diff=221512405&oldid=210238716 Done] though I amended the size of the code (=====) to fit 800x600 screens. Woody (talk) 20:52, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

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 {{tl|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 {{tl|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)

[http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predefini%C3%A7%C3%A3o:Info_pa%C3%ADs 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 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Infobox_Country&oldid=60130690 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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

{{tlx|sudo}}

I think the line

-->
Demographics of {{{common name}}}

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}}}

|largest city}}})

|{{#ifexist:Demographics of {{{common_name}}}

|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)

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)

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)

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 [http://www.europarl.europa.eu/comparl/envi/pdf/externalexpertise/gdp.pdf here]. Additionally, an EU conference on non-GDP measures lists a variety of background reports [http://www.beyond-gdp.eu/background-papers.html 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)

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)

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)

: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)

{{tlx|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)

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)

{{tl|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|}}} |

style="line-height:1.2em; padding:0.25em 0.33em 0.33em; font-size:1.25em;">{{#if:{{{native_name|}}} |{{{native_name}}} }}{{#if:{{{conventional_long_name|}}}{{{name|}}}
|
{{{conventional_long_name|}}}{{{name|}}}
}}

}}{{#if:{{{conventional_long_name|}}}{{{native_name|}}}{{{name|}}} |

style="line-height:1.2em; padding:0.25em 0.33em 0.33em; font-size:1.25em;">{{#if:{{{conventional_long_name|}}} |{{{conventional_long_name|}}} }}{{#if:{{{native_name|}}}{{{name|}}}
|
{{{native_name|}}}{{{name|}}}
}}

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

{{tl|editprotected}}

Disambiguate Capital to Capital (political) by finding:

Capital

And replacing it with:

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)

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 {{tl|coord}}. Maybe you should consider switching. Thank you. Eklipse (talk) 06:20, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

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 ,,and