Template talk:Infobox Country

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
1, 2, 3, 4

Contents

[edit] Native name

Can the bolding be optional? The bolding of the Ge'ez script in the Ethiopia and Eritrea pages renders the text unreadable as the script is by nature bolded (relative to the Latin script). I'm going to be bold and make this change now. If there are objections, it can easily be reverted (and it's not a major change), and pages where the native name should be bolded can easily have that done manually, as the native name cannot be unbolded within the page. — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 20:50, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

And how many nations use Ge'ez as their official script? While I understand your problem and sympathize, its effects are far too wide-ranging and result in patent absurdities. Especially when the native name of the country is in English, as with United States, United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, Nigeria, Guyana, New Zealand, Saint Lucia...Need I go on? It makes them look rather, well, weak. Even more ridiculous is the fact that the English name is more prominent for all nations whose scripts have a reasonable distinction between bold and not-bold, such as France, Italy, Germany, Egypt, Iran, Japan, South Korea, Russia, Greece and the People's Republic of China. So I'm reverting this until you can find a better solution. Lockesdonkey 22:35, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Is Ge'ez the only script that can be rendered illegible by bolding? No one said that the other language pages have to be unbolded. I'm just asking that it not be part of the template so that individual country pages can have bolding or not. Sure it takes more work, but once it's done, there's no difference except a few pages don't have illegible script. — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 17:06, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Patron saint(s)

Why? - Francis Tyers · 15:24, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

It looks a bit odd to me as well. Then again, I'm a Lutheran. Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 16:47, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't see the point, there can't be that many countries with Christianity as a state religion. I say it should be removed. - Francis Tyers · 16:51, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
In any case, the title of the infobox is the official name of the country, so the patron saint should not be included for countries that don't have official patron saints (nearly all of them). Historic or popular patron saints can be mentioned in the article body. Zocky | picture popups 16:54, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Ahhh! EDIT Conflict...It looks a little odd in the infobox to me as well and I'm Roman Catholic. This kind of came up before here in September. To keep the infobox less cluttered, stuff like this would probably be best stated within the article —maybe in a religion section. —MJCdetroit 16:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 17:03, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Agree. - Francis Tyers · 17:18, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Agree; I've come here because the patron saint section was recently filled in for the Romania infobox, which I felt was a bit odd since Romania is not a Christian state (i.e. church and state are separated, there is no official recognition of patron saints). The whole inclusion of this into an infobox about political entities and states (i.e. official stuff) seems a bit Christiano-centric to me. Ronline ✉ 10:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
I removed it. Actually, I thought that we had removed that a while ago. —MJCdetroit 17:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
We never got around to doing it. Anyway, better now than never. Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 17:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cosmopolitanism vs. Religious Understanding

I would support the idea of including the optional patron saint section in the template, because if some countries like Georgia, England, Ireland and etc. would like to include the patron saints in the article, they must be able to so without creating a separate template like template:Infobox England. In addition, it must be optional to fit the cosmopilitan policy of wikipedia for the countries who do not widh to include that section. Regards, SosoMK 15:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

My main concern is that somebody might pick up a copy of the Catholic Encyclopedia or similar and add this line everywhere. I for my part would very much like to avoid such material on the article about Denmark. Many of my countrymen would find it either a little insulting or at least nonsensical given that Denmark has been Lutheran since 1536. Come to think of it, I don't even know who Denmark's national saint was back then. Ansgar? King Canute? A second issue is that the infoboxes are already very big and we have to draw the line somewhere. Valentinian T / C 20:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Use in Wiki-on-a-Stick

How would I go about implementing this template for use in a Wiki-On-A-Stick? Any ideas? 206.116.13.184 00:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] fixed problems with disambiguating m² to square metre

I've fixed the template so that it no longer links to the disambiguation page m². Previously, the template linked to m² if any of the parameters area_magnitude, FR_metropole_area_magnitude, or FR_land_area_magnitude were undefined. However, simply changing "m²" to "square metre" would create red links, because articles on different orders of magnitude for area do not use "square metre" in their titles. Creating the appropriate redirects for every single article in that category would prove to be quite annoying. Therefore, I've used the #if: ParserFunction to counter this problem. If I broke anything, please let me know. Thanks. --Ixfd64 08:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cluttering the infobox with unnecessary optional info

I removed the geocodes section of the template as they just managed to clutter the infobox and are relatively unimportant. —MJCdetroit 17:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I would disagree with them being unimportant, and when I floated the idea some time back the reception was rather positive. In any event, I don't really get the clutter argument considering they were if'ed. The Tom 21:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
For these codes, it is probably enough to have the fields in the syntax but do not display these fields, treating them as metadata, similar to what we do for {{Infobox German Location}}. - 52 Pickup 13:47, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Except what purpose would they serve as metadata? These are important characteristics of countries, arguably just as useful to be summarized rapidly for reader's reference as, say, total area. The Tom 20:17, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Agree with The Tom. We should keep these data. Valentinian T / C 00:14, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
I'd at least be in favor of adding back the ISO 3199 alpha-2 and alpha-3 codes, as I mentioned below. —Angr 00:35, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] arrow

what is the reason for the green arrow in most of the country boxes? --Astrokey44 14:38, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I think this (or alternatively the red downward-facing arrowhead) are meant to indicate an increase (or decrease) in the country's HDI since the previous year's evaluation... Which reminds me: maybe {{increase}} and {{decrease}} are more appropriate (more generic) names for these arrowhead templates... Regards, David Kernow (talk) 00:49, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikitravel

Wikitravel is a wonderful site for tourist-specific information. It also complies with Wikipedia's Guidelines and Policies. I was thinking of adding a link in the Infobox to the corresponding Wikitravel Page, based on the country's name. Like inserting a link to "http://wikitravel.org/en/{{{common_name}}}. Would that be a good idea? Danielsavoiu 19:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I was a bit too bold in adding my idea to the template already, but I wanted to see if it works, and seeing as it does, I ask of your opinion. Should it be left there, or taken out? I hope I didn't go too far. Danielsavoiu 20:12, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't like this, but we'll see what others have to say. BTW - the link is broken for countries whose common name includes blanks (like the US). I suspect the fix for this is to feed either just the country name or the whole link through the pseudo template urlencode, see m:Help:Magic words. -- Rick Block (talk) 02:04, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
I reverted it. I echo some of the concerns of Rick's and also my argument above to start to limit the amount of data in the infobox. If the infobox becomes too cluttered then we may have a stituation where the standard infobox for all countries may fall out of favor with some editors. Thereby causing a return to many non-standard infoboxes. Remember it wasn't easy to get all the editors to agree/switch to this infobox in the first place. We should be careful in what additional information that we chose to install and decide through concensus. Until other editors say they do want this feature and it will work for all countries, then let's leave it off—MJCdetroit 04:18, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
I wonder, then if one could areate the link with another formula, say [http://wikitravel.org/en/{{PAGENAMEE}} {{PAGENAME}} at Wikitravel], with the use of {{PAGENAMEE}} instead of {{PAGENAME}} to use underescores instead of spaces. That would fix a lot.
As is visible here, the method described above works. Even though it doesn't correspond to any Wikitravel page, the link is now taking the spaces in the country name into account. Please reconsidere it's usage as it is an invaluable source of tourist information.Danielsavoiu 08:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't like it but to be fair (IMO) it is more reasonable then some of the other things that have been added. If others like and want this feature then it could be added. I guess we'll have to wait and see what others have to say. —MJCdetroit 13:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
That would indeed be a good idea. Someone should start a poll. Danielsavoiu 07:59, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion. It's sometimes quite difficult to get enough discussion going to determine a consensus. Rather than start a poll, I think it might be better to solicit more input on this (say, from the last 10 users who have edited this template). -- Rick Block (talk) 14:47, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
I did not say poll as in a special page designed just for the purpose of counting pro and con votes. I meant a local poll here in the discussion board, because clearly it's more effective than soliciting input, seeing as I might not be the only one supporting the Wikitravel-link, but merely the only one contributing to this discussion in its favour. I would like to see more input to this matter so a consensus can be reached. I urge everyone linked to this Infobox to contribute to this discussion. Danielsavoiu 18:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't image it would add any more than one or two lines to the template (yes..?) so I'd say give it a try... Maybe place it just before the footnotes...?  Regards, David Kernow (talk) 05:50, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Adding Income inequality / Gini Index

Re-opening my request to add a Gini Index.

[edit] Old request

Proposal: Add "Gini Index" below HDI (Please react)

I think that besides givin the GDP and a HDI which give average values over a whole country only, it's very important to also mention the inequality within the country itself. I think it's one of the basic facts to know about a country and deserves to be in this ttemplate. For one thing, it makes the figures GDP and HDI more weight, beacuse otherwise they may be so misleading for certain issues. Therefor I propose to add the often used "Gini Index" here.

Is anyone against this ? If no reactions, I would like to include this in couple of days / weeks. R U Bn @ e-builds 13:24, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I second. I would make it exactly like the HDI (value, rank, high/med/low), especially since there are a number of countries which are ranked but have no Gini value. VodkaJazz / talk 12:33, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New

So, if no one reacts, I will add this soon---—The preceding unsigned comment was added by R U Bn (talk • contribs).

This seems to be reasonable. I guess we'll have to see what it looks like. In any case, the last time this was proposed it was lumped together with national bird and national tree and plant, and automobile codes, and patron saints. Unfortunatly, it may have gotten over looked because of those other things. —MJCdetroit 01:34, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree with this proposition. It should be added next to the HDI. The Gini index is a measure of how well-distributed the wealth of the country is. If a very rich country has all of it's rich people living in one city, then it would be misleading to only state it's degree of wealth. A very good idea, and usable indeed. Danielsavoiu 18:22, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
No objections from me! --Ixfd64 18:31, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
"Gini" index is new to me, so, as other folk are endorsing it, add it and let's see what happens!  Regards, David Kernow (talk) 05:52, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Trial & Suggestions

Gini ? ({{{Gini_year}}}) {{{Gini}}} ({{{Gini_category}}}) ({{{Gini_rank}}})

OK, I guess something like this below HDI (without border then since it's also about human "equality" (Danielsavoiu agree). I also added the "?" which could be used in all fields of the infobox by the way... Suggestions, thoughts ??

  • Where can I find category ? Does this exist, VodkaJazz, since you suggested it ?

R U Bn (Talk • contrib) 15:59, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Superscripted + "help cursored" the "?". P.S. You need to hover over it and check the hover tooltip. If you didn't guess, maybe it is too hidden? R U Bn (Talk • contrib) 17:45, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Implemented

Sorry for the long wait, but better late then never. And sorry for the cliché :-) --R U Bn (Talk • contrib) 22:01, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Way cool! --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 01:33, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I see that the Gini index already exists in Template:Infobox Economy. Personally, I don't think it needs to be repeated again in the country infobox. I'd actually prefer to see the HDI index moved to the economy infobox as well, to avoid cluttering the country infobox with composite data. And how is "high/medium/low" defined? Isn't that kind of subjective? — Kelw (talk) 19:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Religion

I suggest adding a section about religions in the country. -- Walter Humala Godsave him! (wanna Talk?) 20:34, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ISO 3166 codes

What about adding the ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 and ISO 3166-1 alpha-3 codes to the infobox? They could go right under the Internet TLD. —Angr 12:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

We've removed these in the past and I would oppose their addition again.—MJCdetroit 12:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Why were they removed in the past? And why shouldn't they be there? —Angr 14:04, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Flag

Is there any way someone could add a field "Unofficial flag" or "local flag" (and perhaps the same for coat of arms) to be used when the flag is unofficial (such as with overseas territories which use this template), so that it states underneath the flag "unofficial flag" or "local flag" (although it should still link to just "Flag of Common Name")? We're having some dispute over at Saint-Pierre and Miquelon. └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 15:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Portal?

Can a field for portals be added? Like the one in the saints infobox? --Howard the Duck 11:23, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Airplane registration-prefix and Amateur-Radio (HAM) prefix

I hereby suggest that the prefix for airplane's registration-numbers in the country (eg. "LN" for Norway) - perhaps along with the nationa-emblem (eg. a circle with concentric red, white and blue circles for the USA), should be added in the Infobox.

I also suggest that the prefix used in the countries Amateur-Radio (HAM) call-signs to be added (eg. for Norway (AFAIK) LA, LB, LC and LØ (zero) - though I think all but LA and perhaps LØ are obsolete. We used to have LA for full, LB for limited and LC for technical license, and LØ used on Norwgian possessions(?) ) koppe 15:30 12 March 2007 (CET)

[edit] View, edit, talk links

Can someone please get rid of the part at the bottom of the infobox that reads "This box: view • talk • edit"? It's ugly and a waste of space. Let's keep the infobox devoted to actual content. — Kelw (talk) 00:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I added these following a request; they're quite common on similar infobox templates (the "Politics of..." series comes to mind). However, they may be more useful if there's consensus for #Use Template:Infobox Countryname in articles...? below. Regards, David Kernow (talk) 07:30, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
I can see how the links would be useful if your suggestion below gets implemented, but right now the links are just taking up space without being very useful. Editors mostly want to edit the content of the infobox rather than the syntax of the template, so the links are not needed. Can you remove them for now and add them back later as part of your suggested plan? — Kelw (talk) 02:12, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Kelw. Dump the links. —MJCdetroit 02:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
If the template is inline, there no need for these links (and I think the template should be inline). -- Rick Block (talk) 03:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Gone!  If/when anyone queries their removal, I'll direct them here. Regards, David Kernow (talk) 06:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Use Template:Infobox Country/territory_name in articles...?

Following this short thread, I'm wondering if there's a consensus to use {{Infobox Country/territory_name}} templates rather than the {{Infobox Country}} template in articles, to remove the space used by parameters for the latter in these articles' code. {{Infobox Fooland}}, for example, would consist of the {{Infobox Country}} for Fooland – i.e. something like:

{{Infobox Country
|native_name              = Fooland
|conventional_long_name   = Republic of Fooland
|common_name              = Fooland
|image_flag               = Flag of Fooland.svg
|image_coat               = Coat-of-arms of Fooland.svg
|image_map                = Location of Fooland.png
etc etc
}}

– meaning that the Fooland article would only need to use the one-line

{{Infobox Fooland}}

rather than the full {{Infobox Country}} version. The view-edit-talk links recently added to the bottom of {{Infobox Country}} could then link to {{Infobox Fooland}} rather than {{Infobox Country}} itself.
What do folk think...?  Regards, David Kernow (talk) 07:30, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Am I understanding you correctly, you want to create 200+ single use templates just to save a few kilobytes per article??? The reason we standardized all the country articles to use only one template was to give all articles an infobox with a similar appearance and controlled from a central location (here). Having the code inside the article also makes it easier for editors to update the infobox. Also, when we did standardized the templates the last hold outs against standardization were France, Australia and Western Sahara; who all had their own special templates. After, the fight they put up over the switch then a year later to just completely reverse ourselves. Just leave it status quo. I would be very much against such a reversal. —MJCdetroit 16:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree, avoid single-use templates and keep the code in the article. --Golbez 16:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
And isn't it more convenient to be able to edit the infobox contents directly from the main article? If the editors do decide to keep the status quo, then I strongly suggest removing those "View, Talk, Edit" links in the infobox because they serve little purpose under the present arrangement. — Kelw (talk) 02:04, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks all for the feedback so far. I wondered if there might be a flaw in the idea, so I'm grateful to MJCdetroit for pointing it out – I guess it's something obvious I missed!  The Tnavbar links have also now been removed from the template. Yours, David Kernow (talk) 06:05, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Area optional...why?

DK, why was this made optional? I could venture to guess but I won't. I am going to revert the change until it is explained for everyone. If it is for the reason that I am thinking I don't think anyone would have a problem with it. —MJCdetroit 16:43, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

  • On second thoughts, I agree, so thanks for revert and message!  Yours, David (talk) 05:13, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Capital/Largest city

I was wondering if someone could add the option for largest city = capital to Template:Infobox Province or territory of Canada. I realize that template is simple while this one is complex, but perhaps someone who's template-savvy could do it anyway. Thanks. Lexicon (talk) 13:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Coat of Arms images next to the names of cities

The following discussion was copied/moved here from Talk:Canada20:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC):

Lexicon has added icons of the flags of the cities and provinces for Ottawa and Toronto. I believe that there is no useful information added with the inclusion of these icons, and furthermore it adds to the clutter of the infoboxes. What do other people think? Regards, -- Jeff3000 13:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. See Wikipedia:Don't overuse flags.--cj | talk 13:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Talk to the editors of most countries, then, who put the coats of arms of the capital cities in infoboxes. See, for instance, Germany, Spain, Romania, Russia, Poland... Lexicon (talk) 13:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
That's not a compelling reason to use them. I think it's a bad idea to take an infobox which is intended to be consistent and apply to it something which is fundamentally inconsistent. These images (flags or coats of arms) cannot be applied for all countries; for example, Australia, for which city articles cover metropolitan areas that do not have equivalent images.--cj | talk 13:52, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Couldn't work for largest city, but I'd suspect it could work for capital, which is what they're generally used for, since, from my understanding, Canberra is one city. But even if there was a problem, that wouldn't be a reason to abandon the protocol. One or two countries don't really have a coat of arms, but that doesn't mean we don't include such in our infoboxes. Lexicon (talk) 14:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
The difference is that they are by and large useful and are included in the infobox proper. There really isn't a good reason to decorate the infobox with these images in this inconsistent manner. On the other hand, there are several valid reasons not to.--cj | talk 14:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Most of the arguments in that essay are completely irrelevant to the current use. Unless you are ready to remove the capitals' coats of arms from all the counties whose articles have them, then consistency with a growing trend is a reason to include the coat of arms here. Also, while I understand that overuse of decoration is unhelpful, "prettification" of articles is a good thing. Lexicon (talk) 14:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Sorry Lex, I tend to agree with the others. In country infoboxes, just list the name of the capital and/or the largest city and have them wikilinked to those cities. In the Canada infobox, I can not really tell what that blob is next to Ottawa anyway. If a reader wants to know more about Ottawa or Toronto or any other city on any other country infobox, they can click the wikilink to the city article. The infobox at the city articles have specific parameters to display the flag, logo, COA, and seal for the city. Also, I would say that displaying of country and province flags in the subdivision fields of the city infobox (like Toronto) is much more acceptable than displaying flags and coat of arms for cities in the country infobox. Although, in the city infoboxes, place the flags after the subdivision names. This keeps all the names vertically lined up. —MJCdetroit 16:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Basically every country in the Americas and Europe has the coat of arms, I don't see why Canada should be an exception. Lexicon (talk) 17:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Canada's coat of arms is displayed. It is to the right of the "flag" and in between "Canada" and "Motto". It is a very nice coat. —MJCdetroit 17:12, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Er, I obviously meant the coat of arms of the capital city. Lexicon (talk) 18:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
This discussion should probably take place over at Template talk:Infobox Country instead of Talk:Canada. MJCdetroit 20:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
(Now it is here.) I think it is in general a bad idea to add the city CoA to the templates on any of those countries; as it adds nothing (the interested reader can click the city name and see the CoA in the article). IMHO it only clutters the infobox making it less pretty and harder to read. Arnoutf 15:37, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree. Include the country's CoA, but not any city's. These images are too intricate to be recognizable at icon size, and including a larger version would be too intrusive. In addition, the CoA of the capital city has very little to do with the country. -- Rick Block (talk) 17:39, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, agreed. Jkelly 17:47, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Rick Block; the images are too intricate to be shrunken down to be really necessary. The country's CoA is fine, since its the most important. We don't need a bazillion flags everywhere for every country. Leaving it unchcked could possibily get that way. Disinclination 18:08, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
I started at discussion at wikiproject countries regarding this issue I have removed the city coat of arms from all of the EU countries their inclusion serves no purpose whatsover and can make the infobox look messy. --Barry O'Brien entretien 02:01, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../i/n/f/Template_talk%7EInfobox_Country_7f9c.html"