Template talk:Infobox Country/HDI

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hello! Thank you all for voting on this issue and participating! An overwhelming majority of 68% – 29 votes total: 20 votes yes, 9 votes no – has voted to include the HDI in the country infobox/template (as of 23:59 (UTC) on 1 October 2005). We will proceed on that basis shortly.

During this period, various opinions were offered regarding how the HDI should appear in the infobox. Further discussion regarding this should hereafter occur below, the results of which will be integrated into the template.

[edit] Discussion

Thank you all for your participation in this issue (I also apologise for the delay in rounding out this discussion piece.) In support of the results of the related vote, there are two primary considerations/questions to resolve regarding the HDI in this discussion:

(1) What precise elements (fields) pertaining to the HDI should appear in the country/infobox template, and how should they appear to a visitor?
(2) Where in the country/infobox template should the HDI information appear to a visitor?

Contents

[edit] Issue 1: fields to include/appearance

(1) What precise elements (fields) pertaining to the HDI should appear in the country/infobox template, and how should they appear to a visitor?

Well, yes: these are two, but interrelated, questions. The possible fields/metadata that can be considered for placement – singly, in any combination, or in totality – in each infobox are:

  • HDI label (abbreviation) – with link to Human Development Index article
  • HDI year: of index – not the year of report publication, since this is two greater than the year of the actual HDI
  • HDI value: numerical value between 0 and 1, to 3 decimal places – as per current report and list
  • HDI rank: with ordinal – as per current report and list
  • HDI category: high, medium, low – as per current report and list

I recommend including all of them (see below) – the usage and syntax boxes below indicate the proposed arrangment and structure on each country page:

[edit] HDI usage

Below is an example for Sweden:

<!-- BEGIN INFOBOX -->
{{Infobox_Country|
...
GDP_PPP_per_capita_rank = 20th |
HDI_year = 2003 |
HDI = 0.949 |
HDI_rank = 6th |
HDI_category = <font color="#009900">high</font> |
currency = [[Swedish krona]] |
...
}}
<!-- END INFOBOX -->

[edit] HDI empty syntax

<!-- BEGIN INFOBOX -->
{{Infobox_Country|
...
|GDP_PPP_per_capita_rank =  
|HDI_year =  
|HDI =  
|HDI_rank =  
|HDI_category =  
|currency =  
...
}}
<!-- END INFOBOX -->

A test template appears here; please do not alter!, examples appear below.

[edit] HDI in template

I opt to include all fields with a colourised category (based on UN HDI classification, which will aide in the understanding of an otherwise cryptic number by novices); this will yield the following result and appearance (*). (For countries with null values, like Afghanistan, I recommend merely including "NA" in the data field.)

One alternate is that the category needn't be colourised (merely black text), but I think colour is also an important aide to understanding (e.g., traffic signal implications). These colours also roughly correspond to the HDI world map, and legend. See the HDI list for colours and wikitags proposed.

Numerous alternatives (including proposed ones, for Russia) are below:

(1)* HDI (2003) 0.795 (62nd) – medium
(2) HDI (2003) 0.795 (62nd) – medium
(3) HDI (2003) 0.795 (62nd)
(4) HDI (2003) 62nd – medium
(5) HDI (2003) 62nd – medium
(6) HDI (2003) 62nd
(7) HDI (2003) medium
(8) HDI (2003) medium
(9)  ?

Thoughts? Cite numerical preference, or alternate, below.

[edit] Discussion

  • I propose using the full name "Human Development Index" rather than the HDI TLA as I believe too many people are not yet aware of it (unlike GDP which has been used for at least 20-30 years and GNP before it since the second World War). Also, rather than using just rank, it should be rank out of the total, e.g. 6/175?, maybe with the number linked to List of countries by Human Development Index. Finally, given that the rank is there, there is no need for the category, which would then not really add much. Luigizanasi 03:30, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Hello! Thanks for the comments, and in return ... As you can see in the examples above, the HDI TLA links directly to the HDI article (as it does for GDP, TLD, etc.) and is apparent through the wikilink; spelling it out may be too lengthy, though I'm not totally averse to doing it.
    • I think the rank, with ordinal, should also be consistent with other data points/fields in the template; as proposed and exemplified, the ranks should be linked to the HDI country list. Perhaps all ranks should be as you propose?
    • Lastly, my belief is that the category (which is in the HDI report) will aide in a user's precise understanding of the HDI, e.g., [country] is of medium human development, with an index of [number] or ranked [rank]th. The categories (high, medium, low) are not in equal thirds (1/3 of countries in high ...), so a full understanding of a country's HDI and position/rank is not fully gleaned by just listing the rank or category. Thoughts? Thanks again! E Pluribus Anthony 03:39, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Personally, I prefer #5. Unlike area and population, the average reader will not be able to make much of the HDI value. The ranking will, in the vast majority of cases, be far more informative. I'm hesitant about the use of colour - to me it seems kind of tacky - but it's no big concern to me. -Joshuapaquin 19:11, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I like it as it appears in the Sweden example. The category is very informative (although I wished there were more than 3 categories). And I don't think that the color poses a problem, it looks good on the example. Anyway great work! CG 17:45, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Thanks for your comments and praise. I think the three categories (which appear in the HDI report) are few enough to give a general indication about a country's level of development, while broad enough that they segregate 'higher' performers from others. Merci! E Pluribus Anthony 18:49, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
      • I support using colours for categories. But which colors are we going to use? 4 colors (high, medium, low and NA) or the 16 colors featured on the HDI world map? CG 21:24, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
  • green (high)
  • yellow (medium), and
  • red (low)
This colour scheme is not distinguishable by people with colour vision deficiency (colour blindness), such as one in twelve Europid Caucasian males. Should be changed to Blue/Yellow/Other. For sample see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:HDImap2006-colourblind-compliant.png Andrew Oakley 19:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
  • There's no need to parse the countries with all 16 colours on the map, which was done merely to provide additional context. For null values (i.e., NA), I recommend all text to merely be the usual black; a shade of grey is also a possibility. E Pluribus Anthony 22:21, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I like the grey shade. CG 17:29, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I think the example looks good as it is, only with the rank (I believe it corresponds with alternative #4), and I would like to see it added into the template ASAP. Mariano(t/c) 08:17, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Thanks! I hear ya; I've been swamped as of late and regret being unable to realise this sooner. Once a decision (or perhaps not) is reached on appearance, it would be helpful if various interested users added HDI metadata to their respective countries' infoboxes, or to a clutch of them. It is this that will take time; the template edits are fairly simple ... now that we've gone through this process! :) E Pluribus Anthony 08:32, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Either #1 or #2. I'd prefer #1. — Instantnood 13:43, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I believe that we should include as much information as possible. The rating might not mean a lot to me, but I bet that it does to somebody looking for that piece of information. So either no. 1 or no. 2. No. 4 or 5 will work as well, but I'd prefer one of the first two options. --Valentinian 21:13, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
  • The more information, the better. I'm all for #1 or #2. If it has to be, I can also live with #4 or #5, but I don't see any reason to leave out information. ナイトスタリオン ✉ 22:33, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I like options #2 and #3. I am stridently opposed to any colouring.--cj | talk 23:36, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
  • How about using the Index of Sustainable Economic Welfare (ISEW) instead of GDP/GNP to calculate it? I think GDP/GNP is problematic, because it doesn't really look at quality of life or sustainability issues. Voyager640 02:07, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
    • This is interesting; however, your suggestion is beyond the purview of this discussion, which – in support of the related vote – concerns the final form and appearance of UN HDI information to be included in the country infobox/template. E Pluribus Anthony 02:24, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
  • My preference is for #1: all of the information is useful yet succinctly presented. Coloured categories (which hark of those used in the HDI world map and legend) will aid in understanding. If there was (or even if there wasn't) significant objection to coloured categories – and currently significant objection does not exist – #2 would be my secondary choice. E Pluribus Anthony 17:24, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • The more info, the better. #1 is really not cluttered with information and displays the values in a nice format. #1 is it. --Mceder 20:59, 2 December 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Issue #2: location

(2) Where in the country/infobox template should the HDI information appear?

Given its function, being a synthesis of demographic and economic data, I suggest the HDI be placed after the GDP fields in the template and before the currency field.

Other possible locations include placement between the area and population fields, or at the bottom between the calling code and notes (or elsewhere).

Again, my preferred arrangement and appearance for the HDI in the country infobox/template is here.

Thoughts? Cite preference, or alternate, below.

[edit] Discussion

  • After GDP as in the Sweden proposal is fine. No reason to put it anywhere else that I can think of. Luigizanasi 03:33, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
  • GDP and HDI are not consistent with the other types of data/info. They are based on calculations of other data. They are also value-laden in terms of what is considered to add to wealth and to human development. All other data listed in the infobox (except population and pop density) are stable, neutral facts, unreliant on anything else. It is my opinion, if they are to be included, that they should be separated from the other types of data. --maclean25 05:35, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Hello; thanks for your comments. As noted, and as indicated in the clear majority vote, this discussion is to determine now not if but how the HDI will be incorporated into the infobox template. As for the GDP, perhaps a vote should be held to segregate or to move it, but that is beyond the purview of this discussion and should have no bearing on it. In any event, thanks for your input. E Pluribus Anthony 05:44, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
      • Actually, what I was trying to say is that the info should be grouped together according to some theme (ie. separated from the other types of data). The Sweden example above places non-static variables in the middle of the list. I don't see the reason or pattern behind it. You could argue that this info (Pop, GDP, HDI) has more international appeal, and since it can be ranked, it will be referenced more often than anything else. Why not put it, along with the area, at the top right under the picture? That is where I'd expect the most sought after info to be. I'd show you but I can't figure out the template codes. --maclean25 07:31, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
        • Ah, I see; thanks for the clarification. I understand what you mean. I've opted for including it after GDP (and after population) but before currency since it synthesises GDP and is related to it; while also related to currency, USD GDP PPP figures are used to calculate HDI and is therefore above currency (which is generally unique to each country) in the proposed placement. The other components of the HDI (educational attainment, life expectancy) do not appear in the infobox and are only tangentially related to population figures in the infobox.
        • Alternate locations have also been proposed for the HDI (e.g., at the end). I'm open to having it appear elsewhere if it makes sense or if it has a consensus supporting it. So I think we can move forward with this in mind.
        • Perhaps a request for comment should be mounted about the location of the GDP figures? Thanks again! E Pluribus Anthony 07:43, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
  • It is obvious to me that the HDI should be right after the GDP. Perhaps it would be better to have the currency before both, but that's another issue. Mariano(t/c) 08:17, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Right after GDP. — Instantnood 13:45, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
  • It should be next after the GDP rating. --Valentinian 21:05, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
  • While I find myself agreeing with a few issues maclean25 pointed out, I'm gonna join the others in proposing after GDP rating. ナイトスタリオン ✉ 22:35, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Hey there; thanks for your input. I also share some of the concerns expressed: I think the overarching matter is (all the same) one of theme, function, and/or appearance of relevant information in the infobox. If this is indeed a systemic concern, perhaps a proposal should be made to re-organise the other fields in the infobox/template? E Pluribus Anthony 22:45, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I agree that it should be placed immediately after GDP. However, I echo Mariano about "currency" -- it does look rather out of place, and may be better place before both.--cj | talk 23:42, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
  • In the infobox's current form, the HDI information should be placed after GDP and before currency. There does appear to be a need to reorganise some of the information in the infobox template (e.g., the location of the currency field); that should be the topic of another discussion. E Pluribus Anthony 17:24, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Right after GDP, before currency. Concur - it looks and feels as a logical place for it. --Mceder

[edit] Summary/conclusion

So once issue (1) is resolved, interested parties should take some time to enter relevant HDI data for each country. Then, the country infobox/template can be modified as per issue (2). Then ... tada!

In support of and to implement the successful vote:

  • if a consensus for issue (1) is not reached, the demonstrated proposal/example (*) should carry and be implemented, and data entry should occur afterward by interested users;
  • if a consensus for issue (2) is not reached, the demonstrated proposal/example will be implemented.

Discussion regarding anything here, or issues unidentified, is encouraged. Again, thank you all for your support, assistance, and input! E Pluribus Anthony 01:58, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Final results and implementation!

  • Are we there yet? Mariano(t/c) 07:32, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes: it's in! As per the lengthy discussion above, in support of the earlier vote, a number of conclusions can be made:


Issue #1: What precise elements (fields) pertaining to the HDI should appear in the country/infobox template, and how should they appear to a visitor?

(1)* HDI (2003) 0.795 (62nd) – medium
(2) HDI (2003) 0.795 (62nd) – medium
  • An apparent consensus supports including more information rather than less: i.e., option (1) or (2).
  • There is currently insufficient opposition for including coloured categories; this is reinforced by the presence of similar colours in the HDI world map and legend. Thus, option (1) should be implemented (*). As a fallback, however: if coloured categories are utterly controversial to the editors for a specific country's article, the colour tags for an entry can be removed, yielding (2). For consistency, this is discouraged.


Issue #2: Where in the country/infobox template should the HDI information appear?

  • Some users have commented about the placement of the currency information, et al. While there does appear to be a need to reorganise some of the information in the infobox template, that should be the topic of another dedicated discussion.


[edit] Process for implementation

(1) Help add some data! Add your signature to the table below, indicating your intention to add HDI metadata to a particular group(s) of countries;

HDI category Ranks Countries Wikipedian
sign below!		 Done ?
High human development
0.800 – 0.999		 1 – 20 Norway – Germany E Pluribus Anthony 02:24, 3 December 2005 (UTC) Y!
21 – 40 Spain – Qatar ナイトスタリオン ✉ 10:37, 3 December 2005 (UTC) Yup.
41 – 57 United Arab Emirates – Trinidad and Tobago ナイトスタリオン ✉ 10:54, 3 December 2005 (UTC) Yup.
Medium human development
0.500 – 0.799		 58 – 79 Libya – Peru ナイトスタリオン ✉ 11:41, 3 December 2005 (UTC) Yup.
80 – 100 Kazakhstan – Georgia ナイトスタリオン ✉ 12:43, 3 December 2005 (UTC) Yup.
101 – 123 Azerbaijan – Gabon ナイトスタリオン ✉ 13:09, 3 December 2005 (UTC) Yup, except for Palestine; adding it to State of Palestine would be POV, adding it to Palestinian territories isn't possible due to lack of infobox; maybe two values for Israel somehow, one for Israel, the other for the Palestinian occupied territories?
WOW, again! I don't think adding this information to the Palestinian National Authority article and infobox would be POV (despite the moniker atop the current article); perhaps in-text references or Israel infobox adds in the other articles (as you suggest) would also be sufficient? Merci! E Pluribus Anthony 17:07, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
I've added the HDI to the PNA entry and edited the Palestine entry in the list to redirect. Merci! E Pluribus Anthony 20:07, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
124 – 145 Morocco – Zimbabwe ナイトスタリオン ✉ 13:32, 3 December 2005 (UTC) Yup.
Low human development
0 – 0.499		 146 – 160 Madagascar – Angola ナイトスタリオン ✉ 10:16, 3 December 2005 (UTC) Yup.
161 – 177 Eritrea – Niger ナイトスタリオン ✉ 10:00, 3 December 2005 (UTC) Yup.
unavailable (NA) E Pluribus Anthony 17:49, 3 December 2005 (UTC) Y!
It will probably take one person around fifteen minutes to add 20 entries.
  • Comment: He he; of course, half-an-hour was my estimate: it didn't take me that long to do, but others may not be able to copy, edit, paste, save, switch ... as quickly.  :) Merci! E Pluribus Anthony 22:58, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

(2) Consult the list of countries by HDI, and note country and applicable HDI information;
(3) Access the article or template for the country in question;
(4) Add the metadata fields (as indicated above and in examples below) with the specific values and tags:

(5) Save your changes;
(6) Indicate in the above table that all entries in your charge have been completed;
(7) Once all of the metadata has been added to the country articles/infoboxes, I will then edit the template to exhibit these changes ... then
(8) Tada!

We're almost there! Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks to all of you for your input, patience, and assistance. Take care! E Pluribus Anthony 02:24, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Done, except for the two cases listed above. What now? ナイトスタリオン ✉ 13:32, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Kudos to you Nightstallion! Insane speed in getting these added. Mceder 14:59, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

I live to serve. ;) ナイトスタリオン ✉ 15:31, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
I have only one thing to say (actually three):
(1) WOW! After adding some and requiring regeneration, I didn't expect one person to go through the remaining 15x countries and add this data. This requires the naming of a first-born child ... perhaps A Man Called Horse? TY!  :)
(2) Holy shi'ite!
(3) I'm gonna go through the countries for which HDIs are unavailable (today!); I will then edit the template!
I think that's it; kudos! E Pluribus Anthony 17:02, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
As I said, gladly. Thanks for your work in this, too! ナイトスタリオン ✉ 22:49, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Singapore has been un-protected, HDI information has been added. ナイトスタリオン ✉ 01:08, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Fabu! E Pluribus Anthony 01:16, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Help in updating template!

Hello again, and thanks for your help. All the relevant data has been added. When I tried to edit the infobox template, however, the HDI and HDI_year values are displaying incorrectly – see here for test template and see here for the real McCoy and history. I believe I have edited the infobox template properly (and will gladly admit error!), but I require assistance or guidance before attempting to edit the template again. Merci beaucoup! E Pluribus Anthony 18:24, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

I have looked and looked again, but I do not see the problem? The test template seems fine to me, and viewing the last reverted edit it appears that the real template will look okay as well. Mceder 19:11, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
Hi there! Thanks for the other set of eyes. I think this was my error with one country ... my alma mater, Canada. Ppon testing the edits there, I mistyped the entry in that infobox: no | at the end of the HDI line. This corrupted the rendering of the next metadata set. Doh! This goes to show what one can do when they stare at a screen for hours ... and not just for pleasure! (I'm kidding.)  ;)
Anyhow, it looks great! Thanks again for your help! E Pluribus Anthony 19:31, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
Awesome, glad to see it in production - good job in keeping this organized and on track! And by pleasure, I am sure you ment.... pleasure! Mceder 19:51, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
Er, of course! There are numerous forms of pleasure: like this or this! :) It took awhile, but the proof is in the pudding. Thanks again! E Pluribus Anthony 19:57, 3 December 2005 (UTC)