Template talk:Infobox country/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

RFC: Audio links to national anthems

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Many, though not all, instances of the {{Infobox country}} template include a link to an audio (ogg format) file for the country's national anthem. See the infobox at United States of America for one of many examples.

The national anthem audio links are not supported as a separate, dedicated item in the infobox template; rather, they are appended to the national_anthem field, typically something like this:

national_anthem = "[[The Star-Spangled Banner]]"<br /><center>[[File:Star Spangled Banner instrumental.ogg]]</center>

Some editors have objected to the inclusion of these audio links, or to the addition of such links in country infoboxes where they do not already exist. See, for example, this archived discussion from 2012, as well as this currently ongoing discussion concerning whether or not to add an audio link to the infobox for Georgia.

Should country infoboxes contain, where possible, a link to an audio file for the country's national anthem? And if not, should existing national anthem audio links in country infoboxes be removed? — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 21:55, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

• Neutral. Can't bring myself to care very strongly about this topic. Leave it to local consensus. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:46, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

• Infoboxes are meant to provide a quick accessible summary of the topic. Country infoboxes have a tendancy (much like their articles) to grow large and clunky. If there's something in the infoboxes that doesn't inform the reader we should remove it. The anthems are nice to listen to, but they don't necessarily teach the reader anything about the country, and creates a large media box. If the reader wants to listen to the anthem, the music samples are invariably present in the page on the anthems, where they would be expected to be. CMD (talk) 09:09, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
• No anthem recording: country infoboxes are way too big as is. Anthem recordings should not be present there. Instead, a recording of the anthem could be included at the location later in the article where the anthem is mentioned. — This, that and the other (talk) 09:46, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
• No anthem recording - so many problems - file way to big for the boxes - most have there own article if people want to hear the American band version of there anthem being played off key they can hear it in the main aticles. -- Moxy (talk) 15:03, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
• Comment I don't particularly care one way or the other, but if the main concern is size then we could use {{Audio}} to display a direct link to the audio file which takes up next to no space: "The Star-Spangled Banner" (listen)^ⓘ. TDL (talk) 17:56, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

That's a very good idea. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:44, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Until someone notices there's no attribution/license link. — Lfdder (talk) 20:47, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

If you look a bit closer, the speaker icon links to the file description page... TDL (talk) 21:36, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought it linked directly to the sound file. I think this is acceptable, though not necessary. But not the sound box. — Lfdder (talk) 21:42, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

I turned off the "help" link for space constraints, but leaving it on yields a more prominent link to the description page: "The Star-Spangled Banner" (listen)^ⓘ TDL (talk) 21:49, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

• Yes I really don't see the problem with space. — Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 18:41, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Comment: That's not very well argued. The infoboxes are huge - they dominate the first 1/3 of many of these country articles. This is just one more item. And why do we need it anyway? Should we put media files in for the other items listed? Perhaps a photo in every infobox of the countries' leaders? Maybe a sound file of different pronounciations of the countries' names? A picture of the currency? Just because we can. No, "just because", come to think of it. --Merbabu (talk) 03:23, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

On my screen the sound file extends the Anthem box for about 34 pixels. On the scale of things this isn't a lot and it compares with about 500 pixels dedicated to infobox footnotes on the United States article. If space was really the issue, we could just add a smaller link with would hardly take up any space. — Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 15:16, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

• No Infoboxes should be kept simple. The existing ones should be removed. The links belong in the appropriate section of the article. DGG ( talk ) 15:57, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
• No anthem recording...these info boxes are already waaaay to big and take up too much space as they are. Usually they extend into 2 or 3 sections of the article. Info boxes should be kept simple. They are not mini articles. It’s really not the most relevant/important piece of information for a country article - it's quite trivial - yet it would get to go into virtually the most prominent spot of the article. People can easily click on the anthem link to find out more about it, including getting to play it. (and yes, I think even the anthem itself is way too prominently displayed in these infoboxes - but that's another discussion). --Merbabu (talk) 01:03, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

PS - in answer to the second part of the question, existing media files should be removed. --Merbabu (talk) 01:05, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

• Yes to adding the information to the infobox. Code it in such a way to keep the space to a minimum, as suggested by User talk:Danlaycock. Otherwise have to figure out a consistent location and spot to put that in each country article. For me, that spot is the infobox. — MrDolomite • Talk 16:40, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: You're assuming that there is no question that the file must go into the article, and all you're suggesting the infobox as only the best spot. Why should it go into the country article at all? --Merbabu (talk) 03:18, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

• Yes—infoboxes are too big, but a link to a national anthem recording won't make them bigger as long as it's linked from the national anthem's name and not as a separate link. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 09:28, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Are you suggesting we replace the link to the anthem's article with the link to the sound file? — Lfdder (talk) 09:31, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, that would not make much sense. We link to articles. --Merbabu (talk) 12:32, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

There are templates for that. It usually has an icon for the audio, or (audio) or something similar. The solutions are already available on Wikipedia for compact/unobtrusive audio links. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 08:31, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

• Yes If the national anthem is going to be included in the infobox, there is nothing but benefit to providing a link.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 17:06, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

This RfC is not about a link, but about the audio boxes often stuck into infoboxes. The link was present long before the audio boxes started proliferating. CMD (talk) 19:08, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

• no, and no, there is no reason to solve this centrally. It should depend on the status of the anthem in a certain country and the quality of the audio. Perfect to solve that on a country-level, but no reason to make it a general rule and answer the question here… L.tak (talk) 20:15, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree with this approach - however what got us here was the adding of American Naval version of anthems all over. As linked above from the previous talk I agree we should have tlaks about the version used if they are to be used. -- Moxy (talk) 17:08, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

• No direct audio link. The appropriate place for an audio link is in the linked article on the anthem. If a user is interested in the anthem, it is better for them to hear it in the context of the lyrics and other details that might be important. This should also apply to {{Infobox former country}}. --Boson (talk) 20:16, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
  • On the second point, existing audio links should be removed from the country infobox; they belong in the anthem article. --Boson (talk) 15:01, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
• Yes I thought this already was standardized; infobox is a good place to keep this info.Chris Troutman (talk) 02:40, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Comment Just because??? --Merbabu (talk) 03:10, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

• Suggestion: Since this is not just a template matter, should it not be advertised for community-wide attention, using the {{RFC}} template? Since the meaning is unclear and there is no clear consensus, perhaps it would also be useful to close this local RfC and reword it before presenting it as a community RfC, clarifying that the request also applies to similar templates, such as {{Infobox former country}} (it is particularly relevant to Nazi Germany, which links to two audio files, one of which is a recording of a Nazi song that is banned in several countries, possibly presenting problems for use of Wikipedia in an educational context) and clarifying the various points on which an opinion is needed:

1. Should a separate template parameter (for exactly one audio file?) be provided (enabling the template writer to provide the best format)?
2. Should a direct link to the audio file normally be specified where possible (in addition to the link to the anthem article and its direct link to the audio file)?--Boson (talk) 15:01, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
3. Should existing links to audio files be removed?

--Boson (talk) 15:01, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Inequality-adjusted HDI

Should we add inequality-adjusted HDI? Similar to 'GDP (PPP)', it's a more actuate then the standard measure. Rob (talk | contribs) 14:14, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

No, it's not more accurate or equivalent to PPP adjustment. It simply measures something different. By contrast PPP adjustment is the standard for international analyses because it smooths out distortions found in nominal currency comparisons. Frankly we probably shouldn't be using HDI at all in info boxes since it's an ideologically rigged, garbage index that doesn't transmit useful data to readers, except maybe in differentiating between first and third world nations. But if we do use it we should give preeminence to the primary, most heavily reported index, as the "inequality adjusted" version is absurdly complex and even more ideologically skewed. Wikipedia embracing it arguably amounts to POV and/or undue emphasis. VictorD7 (talk) 00:26, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Too many parameters?

Take a look at early June 2014 edits for Turkey to see what happens when a template offers "too many" parameters. They get used, and misused. Parameters should be limited to the essentials, and not include all possibilities. A short guide for the interested reader. Not "everything!" Student7 (talk) 12:54, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Flag caption

Flag Coat of arms

In the current template, the inclusion of the caption for the flag image depends on whether the parameters {{{common_name}}}, {{{linking_name}}} and {{{name}}} are defined:

{{#if:{{{common_name|}}}{{{linking_name|}}}{{{name|}}}
| <td align="center" style="font-size:85%;">{{#ifexist:Flag of {{{linking_name|{{{common_name|{{{name|{{PAGENAME}}}}}}}}}}} |[[Flag of {{{linking_name|{{{common_name|{{{name|{{PAGENAME}}}}}}}}}}} | {{{flag_caption|Flag}}}]] |Flag }}</td>
}}

This results in an omitted flag caption and a misplaced emblem caption if none of the name parameters are defined, even if there is a flag image. This was noticed at Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant.

I have changed the sandbox to display the flag caption if and only if there is a flag image (diff). This doesn't change anything if there is a coat of arms but no flag (example; no caption is displayed for the emblem, but that's a different issue), or if there is a flag but no coat of arms. I'll put this change live if nobody minds. SiBr₄ (talk) 19:10, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

yes, that is a bug, and should be fixed now Frietjes (talk) 22:07, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

While the problem is now fixed, I'm wondering why you kept an #if case depending on the name parameters. Since it now has a fallback value of {{PAGENAME}}, it will always evaluate to "non-empty" except when any of the parameters is set to nothing. Since Flag of does not exist, the removal of the #if function will not cause wrong links even if a name parameter is set to a null value.

Speaking of the state symbol captions, is there a reason why there is no caption for the emblem if there is no flag? SiBr₄ (talk) 09:40, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

trying to avoid Special:WhatLinksHere/Flag_of, which causes that redlinked article to appear in the list of "most wanted articles". Frietjes (talk) 15:19, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

The code contains an {{#ifexist}} to create the link only if the page it would link to exists, so it can't show a redlink at all, can it? SiBr₄ (talk) 16:39, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

the ifexist call generates an entry in Special:WhatLinksHere/Flag_of. Frietjes (talk) 17:24, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't know why that is, but that would mean our options are to reinsert the #if I removed, remove empty name parameters from articles and deprecate them, or to not care about the "links" to Flag of and don't do anything. In any case there are only 24 pages listed on WLH, half of which are articles; way fewer than the apparent threshold of fifty for inclusion in WP:MWA. SiBr₄ (talk) 17:59, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

let's just not worry about it, and fix the articles. it was actually helpful for finding some non-country articles that were using this infobox (mostly fixed). Frietjes (talk) 23:04, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

check Bushong ... :) Frietjes (talk) 23:06, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Update the colors to the new parameters, Infobox country/HDI

Update the colors to the new parameters of the year 2013 proposed by the United Nations Development Programme.

For example: Colombia has a high human development for the United Nations Development Programme, but according to wikipedia has medium human development, that is incorrect, it is necessary to correct these errors.

http://hdr.undp.org/sites/default/files/hdr14-summary-en.pdf - the report of the United Nations Development Programme. Spawn ^Talk! 09:26, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 14 August 2014

Please change the <code></code> tags in the currency section to <pre></pre> tags. The code tag is only intended for computer code, not other types of codes.[1][2][3] This misuse of the code tag can have serious display consequences, as code blocks are often rendered with special overflow rules in CSS. As a more practical matter, it currently causes it to be rendered with a box around it in Vector (which is superfluous to the parentheses). I went ahead and changed it in the sandbox template. Kaldari (talk) 14:36, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Not done for now: @Kaldari: We should change it from <code>...</code> tags, yes, but <pre>...</pre> tags are not the answer here. They introduce unwanted line breaks, stop the template parameters from being parsed, and put a big box around the currency code - see the test cases. If we use a tag then it should probably be some kind of span tag, but I wonder if just removing the tags altogether might be the best solution. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 14:56, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Your right, looks like <pre>...</pre> also has issues. I think removing the tag entirely would be fine. Kaldari (talk) 15:00, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I updated the sandbox. See what you think. It now also matches the Time Zone formatting. Kaldari (talk) 15:03, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for the update. :) — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 15:08, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Edit request 23 August 2014

The word government should be replaced with "Political system":. "Political system" is much more specific then just "Government".--TIAYN (talk) 08:39, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit template-protected}} template. This would need to be discussed. See also this edit request. – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 03:00, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Also: to avoid a forked discussion, further talk should take place at a more centralized venue such as the Village pump. – Paine 

Edit request 27 August 2014

I was asked to return here... Currently, both these template refer to simply as "Government" when the parameter refers to "government_type".. While its not a problem with liberal democratic states, its a major problem when referring to dictatorships and communist states in general. While the United States is correctly referred to as a "Federal presidential constitutional republic", former (and present socialist states) are referred to as (such as the USSR) "Marxist–Leninist single-party state" or in other cases as "Marxist–Leninist single-party socialist state", Juche single-party state or "Single-party socialist state"... First Marxism-Leninism and Juche is an ideology, and while it can be generalized, and states can be called Marxist-Leninist states or Juche states there never existed a form of government which was Marxist-Leninist or Juche. The socialist political system was conceived by Lenin, but its evolution has by both communists and non-communists alike been referred to as the socialist system. Since this form of government (in every case that I know since post-1923) was based upon both Marxism-Leninism and a single-party system, calling them "Marxist-Leninist single-party socialist state" is really saying the same thing three times. To quote a more articulated user;

I am no expert; however, from the little I do know, that statement gives two, main important pieces of this puzzle. Those are Marxist–Leninist and socialist state. Just a scan of those two articles can lead to truth here. The former describes an ideology, not a type of government, although forms of government may be based upon that ideology. The latter, "socialist state", describes a type/form of government that may be based upon an ideology. Ideologies and types of governments are two different things, aren't they? It would seem that no matter how many sources one may provide, it is how those sources are interpreted that applies here. And they should be interpreted by use of the definitions of "ideology" and "type of government". When a source refers to a country as "Marxist–Leninist", the source refers to the ideology, not to the type of government. I could be wrong, but it strongly appears that when the ibox parameter is "government_type", this country's entry should be "socialist state".

Adding the ideological nature of the political system is not the point of government_type parameter, its task it to mention the form of government. But before I began editing it, that was not the case. For instance Democratic Kampuchea was referred to, in the infobox government parameter, as a "Agrarian socialist totalitarian single-party state". Yes, ideologically they may have been agrarian socialists, and they may have been totalitarian and they may have been a single-party state, but none of those terms actually answer the question; what form of government did Democratic Kampuchea have. The answer is a socialist system; therefore it should say Socialist state/republic (and just that). Since "Socialist state/republic" implies by definition a single-party state there is no need to mention it at all (similar we don't need to add the word "Democratic" to "Federal presidential constitutional republic" even it would spell out clearer then what it already does that the US is democratic).. Of course, this is not only a problem in communist articles, look at Nazi Germany; its referred to as a "Nazi single-party state. Totalitarian dictatorship". First, totalitarianism has no reason to be there; the infobox asks for "government_type" and not the political concept used to categorize the worst dictatorships. I don't know if "Nazi single-party state" is apt, as far as I know the Nazis never theorized on what political system a Nazi world would have. Of course I could be wrong. To make sure this doesn't happen again (and too stop edit wars over it), I propose of replacing the word Government in both infoboxes with either a "Form of government", b "Political system", c "System of governance" or d "Type of government" or e "Political structure". I am personally inclined to a or d. --TIAYN (talk) 09:44, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

• [moved comment to centralize discussion] Here's an idea. Why not make sure the government parameter matches what is listed at List of countries by system of government. That reduces us to a limited set of possible options. --Jayron32 16:27, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

@Jayron32: That wouldn't make sense when it came to communist or fascist countries. How would you describe China? China is ruled by the Communist Party but managed through the state. If China has a strong president or not doesn't really matter, and it wouldn't help to define Fascist Italy; it was a corporatist state. The problem here doesn't lay in classifying liberal democratic states, but dictatorships in general. --TIAYN (talk) 20:08, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

You can come up with any classification scheme you want. The problem is, you want a classification scheme so finely graded, that for n countries, you will get n+1 categories, which is essentially useless as a classification scheme. The nice thing with that list I cited is you can essentially have a list of about 9-10 systems, which broadly works for almost all countries in the world. Every nation, is to a point, a sui generis creation, and every nation has subtle differences to how it runs itself. It isn't helpful to devise a classification scheme which is so detailed that it doesn't actually classify anything. Anything more than a dozen "types" and our schema isn't helpful to the reader in the infobox. It's just the music-genre-wars all over again. I'm fine with a few terms like "parliamentary republic" or "presidential republic" or "constitutional monarchy" or terms like that. If readers want more information on the subtle differences, that's what the article text is for. The infobox should be a quick overview, and needn't give the complete political landscape and social history of a nation in three words. --Jayron32 20:36, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

@Jayron32: I agree, but thats not normal practice here on WP on any article I can think of. In either case, by adding the words "Form of government" to "government" I think people will better understand what is meant. Currently users are adding everything they can. --TIAYN (talk) 20:49, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

To editor Jayron32: Please rest assured that editor TIAYN actually advocates anything but a "finely graded" classification scheme. TIAYN has been arguing against such a scheme, and for you to fully understand this, a visit to this talk page discussion will shed light on it for you. Editor TIAYN appears to feel that the simple label "Government", which is filled by the param "government_type", has been misused by editors who feel that other aspects such as the state's ideology should also be included in that param. In other words, if the label was changed to, say, "Form of government", then the param would be better understood. Yet, I am not sure that it would make any difference in the minds of editors who have made up their minds to include things other than just the type of government. – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 22:34, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, what we need is 1) a consensus guideline to tell readers what is and is not acceptable to include in the "government type" parameter and 2) the willpower to advise editors to follow it. --Jayron32 23:04, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

@Jayron32 and Paine Ellsworth: Worst case scenario would be the inclusion of a state ideology parameter (which, when you think about it, is actually missing)... But leaving it as it is doesn't solve it at all; there currently is a manual for how to use the government_type parameter at the /doc page for both these templates. No one reads them. Changing to form of government is not a radical change at all, and only makes the government parameter clearer. --TIAYN (talk) 23:07, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, the doc page for this template is a bit sparse, instruction-wise, for this parameter, and the doc page for "Former country" may provide a bit too much info, i.e., it's gets a little technical. These issues can be addressed so that the instructions are clearer for all editors. – Paine  23:22, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Exactly. People need to stop complaining about the behavior of others, and start doing something about it. And that something is clear guidelines we can point to so we can tell people they are doing it wrong. We know and agree what the problem is. Now is the time for a solution. --Jayron32 00:22, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Related discussions are taking place here and here (RfC). It may be better to await the outcome of the RfC at the 2nd link so this does not become a forked discussion. – Paine  11:29, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Those are discussions regards a content dispute in an article related to a single, defunct state. I can't see how they would have much bearing on something with systemic implications for all country articles. bridies (talk) 11:48, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I see where that might be unclear – this edit request began because the editor who made the request was involved in the first discussion above. That editor feels that to merely label the parameter "Government" and to ask for "government_type" is so vague that other editors also involved in that discussion misinterpreted the parameter. The asking editor may very well be correct if one counts the controversy about "form of government" on that specific former country's talk page. – Paine  12:52, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

@Paine Ellsworth: I closed that discussion. It didn't make sense, and worst of all, they didn't know what they were talking about. Which makes the point of having a discussion useless. --TIAYN (talk) 19:20, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Neutral

• I don't see that "political system" is any less vague than "government". I also think the whole premise for the change is dubious - the assertion that the field is "a major problem" when referring to single-party states is not true, and reflective of the fact the OP DOESNTLIKE the terminology currently in use (and came here after failing to overturn consensus on multiple pages). He also seems to have gone on hiatus. bridies (talk) 11:48, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

@Bridies and Paine Ellsworth: I don't have any problems at all of using the term Single-party state when it is the best way to describe it. But a socialist system, as defined inside and outside of China, is a single-party state. "Single-party socialist state" does not make sense. The clear majority agrees that China has a socialist system, so there is no controversy over this subject. Adding "Single-party" is superfluous and is an ideological fallacy, thats why I opposed the inclusion of single-party state... There are exceptions, however, such as "Nazi single-party state" since Nazi Germany did not have a formal political system. This works because the Nazi political system is not clearly defined, in contrast, the socialist system as it exists is clearly definable. Therefore single-party state should be removed from all articles on socialist states... Either we go with socialist state/republic or designate them with their forms of government; socialist republics or people's democratic republics. And no, I don't care if that whats the socialist states call them; they call it that because its correct. --TIAYN (talk) 18:55, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Religion (again)

I note that in the archives it discusses whether to have Religion replaced by "Official Religion" or "State Religion" and possibly plural in countries with more than one official religion (or we should drop the whole thing, btw some countries have a lot of official religions but only one state religion [e.g., Iceland where many denomination are registered and receive tax revenue but only one state church]). Another question has to do in the case of an established religion whether one uses the denomination name (e.g., Church of England) or the 'ism' form (e.g., Anglicanism). I'm inclined to use the official name since the 'ism' form might be applied to more than the official religion (i.e., in Iceland the state church is the Evangelical Lutheran Church but 'Evangelical Lutheranism' may well apply also to two free churches that broke away from state church). Advice since I'm in a discussion over in Iceland? --Erp (talk) 03:06, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Suggested layout edits (anthem, motto)

National anthem audio file

Looks like it's a popular style to do:

   national_anthem =[national anthem name]<br/><center>[[File:national anthem.ogg]]</center>

Why not add a new field? E.g.:

   national_anthem =[national anthem name]
   national_anthem_file =[[File:national anthem.ogg]]

Just seems more structured this way. --Makkachin (talk) 03:21, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

• I agree and, in lieu of objection, will incorporate with the below. Sardanaphalus (talk) 08:24, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Motto/anthem layout

Any objection to replacing the following?

'''Motto: '''{{{motto| ……	with	'''Motto'''<br/>{{{motto| ……
'''Anthem: '''{{{national_anthem| ……	with	'''Anthem'''<br/>{{{national_anthem| ……
'''[[Royal anthem]]: '''{{{royal_anthem}}}	with	'''[[Royal anthem]]'''<br/>{{{royal_anthem}}}

Sardanaphalus (talk) 23:11, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Have you got any testcases so we can compare them side by side? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:38, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

• Should be visible in the sandbox version once I finish becoming more familar with the rest of the template. Sardanaphalus (talk) 11:49, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 1 November 2014

Some countries, like Sri Lanka has two capitals. Please add,

   capital2

and

   capital_type2

Chamath237 (talk) 16:55, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I see that template:infobox country/doc describes something like this as if the template does support it. However, the template does not seem to currently support it as documented there. The template code in that area is somewhat complicated. It looks to me as if there are issues to discuss about whether/how to implement support for this -- probably best discussed by editors with template coding experience more recent than mine. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:22, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

possible, but ughhh the code is horribly complex, mostly due to the desire to limit the available parameter combinations. for example, {{Infobox country|capital=capital|capital2=capital2|admin_center=admin_center|largest_city=largest_city|largest_settlement=largest_settlement}} currently only displays capital and largest city. and, for some reason, the labels are not entirely correct. Frietjes (talk) 21:26, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Please, make changes to Template:Infobox_country/sandbox and then test them at Template:Infobox_country/testcases. After that, please, re-enable this request. Ruslik_Zero 20:58, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Edit request on ethnic groups section

Is it possible to edit the template in such a way, that instead of displaying "etnic groups" in the infobox, it displays something else? For example some countries count citizeship or races instead of ethnic groups: Greece, Germany and the Netherlands give figures for citizenship rather than ethnic groups when the UK gives racial figures instead of ethnic groups.Hansi667 (talk) 18:37, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 28 November 2014

Hello, the HDI index values written in --Evaluate and add HDI category-- section for Very High, High & Medium HDI are not correct. As per 'Human Development Report 2014 Summary' of UN, lowest value for Very High HDI is 0.808 (country: Argentina), lowest value for High HDI is 0.700 (country: Dominican Republic), lowest value for Medium HDI is 0.556 (country: Equatorial Guinea). Please make the corrections accordingly.

Ali Haidar Khan Tonmoy (talk) 09:21, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

done. Frietjes (talk) 15:54, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Footnote text is tiny

Per WP:ACCESS#Text, the minimum font size to be used is 11 px. The footnotes font size is 9 px. Therefore, I suggest that all instances of font-size: xx-small be changed to 90%, which computes to 11-point-zero-something pixels. 31.153.50.47 (talk) 23:13, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Disabled request for now, as this proposal will require some discussion. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:00, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

@MSGJ: If there's been no replies in this time, what makes you think it'll "require some discussion"? 62.228.28.188 (talk) 22:56, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Support. Much-needed accessibility fix. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:35, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

There's only been one reply, in support, in nearly two weeks, so I'm reactivating the request for what should be a common-sense edit. Who might take issue with an accessibility fix? 93.109.28.109 (talk) 14:30, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

 Done. These footnotes were way too small. This is a common-sense fix per WP:ACCESS#Text. I increased the font size to 85%, which is not exactly what was asked, but at least brings it in compliance with MOS (10.95px text in Firefox 34 on Windows 8.1, and 11px on Chrome 39 on Windows 8.1). If you think it needs to be increased to 90%, I will do that; I just thought it would lessen the visual distinction between normal text and footnote text within the infobox. — This, that and the other (talk) 03:40, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Request for help from techies

Something in the infobox on Republic of Ireland is causing '<tr class="mergedbottomrow">' to appear at the top of the article (on the left). It's a very long infobox so I cannot see what could be doing it. Could somebody who understands these things take a look, please? 86.41.35.110 (talk) 10:48, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

I fixed this. See User talk:Frietjes#Bug?. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:40, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Many thanks. 86.41.40.104 (talk) 23:56, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Mains electricity

Mains electricity by country

This template should include a section providing information about residential voltage (230V 50Hz/ 110V 60 Hz etc.) Chinese Wikipedia already include it. Genhuan (talk) 03:06, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Sugestion: simply adding parenthesis to "official languages" template

While maybe almost a hundred of countries do have more than one official language, the remaining hundred or so do not (i.e, each one of them has only one official language). The current template here, though, is "official languages", always in plural, but it doesn't make much sense for countries like Germany ("official languages: German"), Mexico ("official languages: Spanish"), and well, Japan, Brazil and about a hundred others. Couldn't it be easily fixed by simply putting the final "s" in "languages" between parentheses? Making it "official language(s)" instead of "official languages"? MissionFix (talk) 23:39, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Suggestion: add links to historical countries/empires which occupied land

As a historian, one feature I really like about the template for historical countries/empires is the flag links in the infobox to previous and following countries/empires overlapping the land of the country/empire in question. I find it really annoying that this isn't done for modern/currently existing countries too. Maybe we should be adding these to currently existing countries too? Emilystremel (talk) 22:18, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

That could be difficult for some countries. For example, the UK: Would it have the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland as its "before"? Or is that just a reconfiguration of the Kingdom of Great Britain? And then there's the US... at the very least, you'd have at least 20 different icons (13 colonies, Hawaii, Mexico, Kingdom of Great Britain, France, Spain... just off the top of my head) for the before, and potentially several in the after (Philippines, Cuba, Panama...). I see the Soviet Union article has a workaround for this, but even that has some issues; shouldn't Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia also be in the "before"? Or is the "before" solely the initial seeds from which the country was formed? What if the country changes? I'm not sure of the utility of this in general, let alone for modern countries. It might be good for a quick check, but it doesn't seem like it's useful in detail. Also, for existing countries, you generally have the 'history' section of the infobox. --Golbez (talk) 06:08, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 23 March 2015

When I added data to the the field "nationalities" in Svalbard, it didn't show up. It doesn't seem to exist in the source code. Can someone with editing privileges fix it? It should be of the same layout as the field "ethnic_groups". - Anonimski (talk) 14:59, 23 March 2015 (UTC) Anonimski (talk) 14:59, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

@Anonimski: I take it this is in relation to this edit? There is no such parameter as |nationalities=; if you undo that edit it will display again. But if you want an entirely new parameter, Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit template-protected}} template. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:10, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

It exists in the template documentation, that's why I submitted this request. Anyway, what do you think about adding the field? Some countries keep statistics of ethnicities, while others register nationalities only. - Anonimski (talk) 17:33, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

It's in the documentation because of these edits by Le Sabre (talk · contribs). At that time, the template had no parameter of that name, and I cannot find any subsequent addition or removal, so it appears to have been added to the documentation in error. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:12, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Anyway, what is your opinion on having such a field? The current template is somewhat incompatible with nations and regions that keep track on nationalities and not ethnic backgrounds. - Anonimski (talk) 21:58, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

ping @Redrose64: - Anonimski (talk) 15:51, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't personally have an opinion. It's the sort of thing that should be discussed by those who actually use the infobox, perhaps at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:55, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Unlinking a parameter

Hello, is there any way to force a parameter not to be wikilinked? I'm trying to remove the link from the demonym parameter on Republic of the Congo. It's currently pointing to a dab page, which it shouldn't. And there isn't a specific article for the people of Congo-Brazzaville as well, it should simply be unlinked. Thanks, --Midas02 (talk) 16:13, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

I fixed it for you. Basically, anything that prevents the '#ifexist' from working will do it. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 20:34, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I had tried to fix it by adding an invisible character, but then a bot came along and undid it again. So I'll make a note of your solution. Rgds, --Midas02 (talk) 23:36, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 9 May 2015 Suggestion

Can the borders and/or size of image_map and image_map2 be made the same? Right now the first one is 250 px and the second is 280 for some reason. Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:33, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

This is the offending edit. Since no justification was given, and the author is now blocked, meaning we can't ask them to explain it, I've restored the second map's original width default. Alakzi (talk) 19:43, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

--Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:49, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Flag captions

The article for Sweden includes a "state and civil flag" in the infobox captioned simply as "Flag" with a wikilink to Flag of Sweden, which is fine. However, further down, the infobox has a footnote:

^ Above the civil and state flag. Here the naval flag:

However, the footnote symbol was not linked to anywhere. The flag caption should have a footnote link to it (similar to the corresponding footnote for the coat of arms), like so:

Flag|center

I tried several options utilising the undocumented flag_caption parameter before I finally figured out how to do it:

• | flag_caption = Flag{{ref label|aaa|a}} → [[Flag of Sweden | Flag]]
• | flag_caption = Flag]]{{ref label|aaa|a}} → Flag]]
• | flag_caption = Flag]]{{ref label|aaa|a}}<span style="display:none"> → Flag

This is a workaround to break the wikilink automatically created by the template and stop the errant ]] wikicode inserted by the template from showing in the infobox. Is there a neater way to fix this? —sroc 💬 22:18, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

I would question whether this footnote is necessary. Alakzi (talk) 22:27, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

That's a question for the article's talk page and rather misses the point of the question about how to customise the flag caption on this template. —sroc 💬 22:45, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

There's no point in adding a feature there's no use for; my response was right on point. Alakzi (talk) 22:52, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Why is there no point in allowing footnotes in flag captions? And why is this footnote "unnecessary"? —sroc 💬 22:54, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Because no use case has been identified. It is not a coincidence that the naval flag is not found in any other country infobox. It is because the infobox serves as a summary of key points; the naval flag variant is not one such key point. Kindly peruse WP:IBX. Alakzi (talk) 23:01, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Again, if you think the article is wrong in having the footnote, you should direct your comment to that article's talk page. —sroc 💬 23:41, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

This is an alright place to discuss whether a naval flag belongs in this very infobox, and whether it would merit the addition of a new flag footnote parameter to this very infobox. Alakzi (talk) 00:01, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 17 June 2015: link for "drives_on"

Please make the text "Drives on the" be a link to Right- and left-hand traffic. This would be clearer and more consistent than some countries making "right" or "left" link to that page.

Jruderman (talk) 02:12, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

@Jruderman: Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit template-protected}} template. It was removed at 13:47, 12 September 2011 by MSGJ (talk · contribs), as part of this discussion. --Redrose64 (talk) 07:41, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 14 July 2015

Hello,
I would like to add the Real gross domestic product, the Unemployment rate and the General government gross debt.
Cordialy Appaches (talk) 14:36, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

 Not done Please propose the change and gain consensus for adding more parameters before using {{edit template-protected}}. Once you have shown consensus (or at least, a lack of opposition), feel free to reopen the request by changing answered=yes to answered=no. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 19:10, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

@Ahecht: I must propose these changes on the talk page of the infobox? --Appaches (talk) 19:34, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

@Appaches: You would propose them here on the talk page of the infobox template. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 19:56, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Gini index categories

Per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Infobox_country/Archive_9#Explanation, it still seems ridiculous that there are 14 countries labeled "low", 105 labeled "medium", and 34 labeled "high". Medium seems far too large with no basis in literature or common sense. Scott Illini (talk) 06:07, 28 July 2015 (UTC)