Template talk:Infobox country: Difference between revisions
AussieLegend (talk | contribs) |
No edit summary |
||
Line 211: | Line 211: | ||
}} |
}} |
||
:::::I don't really have a problem with including a sound file for the convenience of our readers. (Too many editors seem to forget that it is our readers we write for, not other editors.) However, even minimising the size of the sound file icon and moving it to the right (<nowiki>[[File:Filename.ext|right|35px]]</nowiki>) still results in excessive space being taken up by the media file link, as can be seen to the right. --[[User:AussieLegend|AussieLegend]] ([[User talk:AussieLegend|talk]]) 15:19, 22 April 2012 (UTC) |
:::::I don't really have a problem with including a sound file for the convenience of our readers. (Too many editors seem to forget that it is our readers we write for, not other editors.) However, even minimising the size of the sound file icon and moving it to the right (<nowiki>[[File:Filename.ext|right|35px]]</nowiki>) still results in excessive space being taken up by the media file link, as can be seen to the right. --[[User:AussieLegend|AussieLegend]] ([[User talk:AussieLegend|talk]]) 15:19, 22 April 2012 (UTC) |
||
:::well it would make a better arctitcle which i think it should be put up for the people, not the editors preference. lets take a vote. vote yes for the sound box to be up vote no for it to be on a different link and i vote yes[[User:Philpm930|Philpm930]] ([[User talk:Philpm930|talk]]) 18:34, 22 April 2012 (UTC) |
Revision as of 18:34, 22 April 2012
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Infobox country template. |
|
{{WikiProject banner shell}}
to this page and add the quality rating to that template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.![]() | Countries Template‑class | |||||||||||||
|
Index
|
|||||||||||||||
This page has archives. Sections older than 120 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
native_name_lang
Please can someone add the |native-name_lang=
parameter and associated markup, as used in {{Infobox settlement}}? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:50, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
- Can someone help, please? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:37, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Kingdom of Denmark parameters
The Kingdom of Denmark article is currently in the process of being merged into the Denmark article and we now need to include the populations, land areas and HDI for not only Denmark (proper/continental Denmark) but also Greenland and the Faroe Islands - as additional figures.
I noticed that there were separate parameters for France, and ideally we could really use separate parameters in the Denmark article. The merged Denmark article will really be a special case; Denmark, the country, and the state need to be on one article but the infobox must also account for Greenland and the Faroe Islands seperately.
I want to propose that additional parameters are created that allow three (or possibly more) figures to be displayed for the population (estimate, density), land area and HDI. The last two should be subsets of the firs, if possiblet. In the merge proposal discussion it was agreed not to include a 'Total' figures, as used on the France article, but three separate figures. See the infobox on the German wikipedia for an idea of how this could look - de:Dänemark.
Perhaps something like:
|population_estimate1 = 5,564,219 |population_estimate2 = 56,615 |population_estimate3 = 49,267 |population_estimate_year = 2011 |population_estimate_rank1 = 132nd |population_estimate_rank2 = 12th |population_estimate_rank3 = 180th
What do you think? Peter (talk) 00:09, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- It looks too much like we're referring to different estimates rather than different parts of the country. What about?
|region1=Penninsular Denmark |region2=Greenland |region3=Faroe Islands |population_estimate = 5,671,050 |population_estimate_year = 2011 |population_estimate_rank = 110 |population_estimate_region1 = 5,564,219 |population_estimate_region2 = 56,615 |population_estimate_region3 = 49,267 |population_estimate_rank_region1 = 132nd |population_estimate_rank_region2 = 12th |population_estimate_rank_region3 = 180th
— Blue-Haired Lawyer t 21:40, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
- Yes! That's the sort of thing I had in mind. Thanks! So would it be possible to add those to the infobox template? I understand that the purpose of this template is to standardise country infoboxs, but the Kingdom of Denmark is, as stated, a special case (like France). It would be great have different region parameters, and it doesn't look too confusing either. ~ Peter (Talk page) 23:39, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Is there any way we get can get a quick resolution? If a change to the infobox isn't favoured then is another solution/fix possible? Peter (Talk page) 13:31, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Name no longer centered?
Was it the intention to no longer align the country names to the center or has something gone wrong? (Or am I now talking at the wrong template since this one hasn't been edited for a while?) Styath (talk) 21:32, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
- I think something's gone wrong. I saw this on my watchlist and hurried to a country article and I can see the name aligned to the left-hand side too. I don't know what's happened... we should probably leave it and see if it sorts itself out (hopefully..). Peter (Talk page) 21:41, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Upper house & Lower house
![]() | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Hi, these currently link to Upper House and Lower House. Can they be changed to Upper house and Lower house in order to avoid the redirect? Thanks, Snappy (talk) 20:36, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Done, only because the redirects are marked unprintworthy. Anomie⚔ 14:13, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Population density
![]() | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Hi, this currently links to List of countries by population density. Can this be changed to List of sovereign states and dependent territories by population density in order to avoid the redirect? Thanks, Snappy (talk) 20:42, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Done Skier Dude (talk) 02:36, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks. Could you also do my other request immediately above? Snappy (talk) 20:04, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Vertical alignment of section titles
Infobox country | |
---|---|
Official languages | Fish Fish Fish |
Ethnic groups | Fish Fish Fish |
A quick question about the layout of the (extremely empty) version of this template shown here. Is there a reason why the "Official languages" title appears centred vertically, while the "Ethnic groups" is top aligned? It might look better if they were both top aligned. Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 14:52, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- As much as I prefer the aesthetics here of middle aligned, top aligned would make more sense for very long lists. As far as I can tell (which may not be very well), this will just require the removal of "vertical-align:middle" from the coding. CMD (talk) 15:32, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Accession to EU date
Apparently following code has been accidently deleted by User:Lexicon per 29/11/2011:
Can somebody put this back, since it seems like this page is "infinitely locked"? ToMegaThurion (talk) 22:56, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
- Why should a general country infobox have EU accession? Such things can be included in the sovereignty changes list if needed. CMD (talk) 12:51, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Edit request on 24 March 2012 - Aircraft tail number
![]() | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The country's aircraft registration prefix could be featured in this template. A good place would be near the bottom of the template. To take Germany as a random example, it would look something like this:
... | ... |
Internet TLD | .de |
Calling code | 49 |
Aircraft tail number | D-AAAA to D-ZZZZ |
The bold part is the proposed addition.
I'd be glad if you could consider this. Thank you. (Someone made this suggestion already five years ago, but it wasn't discussed and didn't seem to go anywhere.)
79.201.94.171 (talk) 04:31, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
- Looking through some previous discussions, a lot of proposed parameters have been rejected for not being significant enough. Since this wouldn't have a lot of use outside aviation, I'll decline the request for now. However, if a consensus does develop for adding it, feel free to re-request. Tra (Talk) 00:24, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Unrecognized countries
Some dispute has arised at Azawad regarding the use of the country template there; while it's agreed this is a useful format, the concern is that it makes the article "look" too much like a country. One user has proposed that a parameter be added to the template that could be used to indicate within the infobox that a country is partially or wholly unrecognized by the world community. I've brought this suggestion here, as it seems like a useful datum for de facto countries ranging from Taiwan to Somaliland. Any thoughts on how difficult/wise this would be to do? Khazar2 (talk) 15:31, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
- What sort of parameter would be implemented? I note the Azawad map caption says "the rest of Mali in light green", which is explicitly from a completely Pro-Mali POV, and has the redundant "unilaterally declared, without international recognition" after the independence note along with a parameter "Recognition - Unrecognized". That seems like quite a lot of information already. CMD (talk) 15:48, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
- You're quite right; I should have double-checked the box again before coming here. I'm surprised that entry hasn't already resolved the issue. Khazar2 (talk) 15:50, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
- Because it's just a small note. There's no big fat UNRECOGNIZED just below the heading. --RJFF (talk) 16:46, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
- I would normally have checked further before responding like this, but my internet time is limited nowadays. I was about to suggest that this be tied to the
{{{country_code}}}
parameter but, though the docs describe this parameter, the template doesn't appear to support it. Using that parameter for this purpose would necessitate a check of current the uses of the template by country articles to confirm that those do supply the country_code parameter.
- I would normally have checked further before responding like this, but my internet time is limited nowadays. I was about to suggest that this be tied to the
- Because it's just a small note. There's no big fat UNRECOGNIZED just below the heading. --RJFF (talk) 16:46, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
- You're quite right; I should have double-checked the box again before coming here. I'm surprised that entry hasn't already resolved the issue. Khazar2 (talk) 15:50, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
- Alternatively, I see that the geopolitical organization use e.g. the
{{{admin_center_type}}}
and{{{admin_center}}}
instead of the{{{capital}}}
parameter. Perhaps usage of the{{{admin_center}}}
parameter could be interpreted as indication of unrecognized status.
- Alternatively, I see that the geopolitical organization use e.g. the
- I see that the First Philippine Republic article attempts to use an unsupported
{{{status}}}
parameter to indicate unrecognized status. Expected usage of this template by unrecognized countries (e.g., by unsuccessful revolutionary insurgency groups}}) needs to be better documented. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:38, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
- I see that the First Philippine Republic article attempts to use an unsupported
I disagree that this is necessary. The infobox is used for all sorts of entities, including subnational entities, micronations and historical states. Therefore, its use does not imply that Azawad is a country like any other.sephia karta | dimmi 22:06, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
- I support distinguishing between officially or universally recognized countries/states and those that have other statuses. It's helpful and doesn't mislead. As to the particulars of how to convey that distinction via the infobox, I don't really have any suggestions to offer.—Biosketch (talk) 07:22, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
- The German Wikipedia has a separate template {{Infobox de-facto regime}} and the Italian has a it:Template:Territorio conteso (disputed territory), which are both used in the respective articles on Azawad. They might be an inspiration. But I think that a new parameter "status" would already be a significant improvement. The Template:Infobox former country, by the way, already has this parameter, often used to indicate former colonies, vassals and client states. This is what I have in mind for the unrecognized states of today, too. It could also be used for the subnational entities and micronations, that Sephia karta has brought into the discussion. (There is Template:Infobox former country for historical countries, and Template:Infobox settlement for administrative units).
- Should we make an edit request to add this parameter? --RJFF (talk) 15:17, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not sure such a parameter would be a good idea. Status often isn't that clearcut (the division in the current List of sovereign states took over a year of discussion). A reader would gain more from the prose in the lead than the infobox, which should give some basic facts about the country. Far better is to have the lead begin with something like "X is a self-declared state...blahblahblah...recognised by X/no countries". CMD (talk) 16:51, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
- It contains such basic facts like the national motto and the Gini coefficient, but not that it is unrecognized and its sovereignty is disputed? I think these facts are rather basic, too. --RJFF (talk) 23:04, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
- They're more debatable. What do we label Armenia? China? Do we label the undisputed states? CMD (talk) 03:21, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
- I agree with CMD. Also, this information is already contained in the section of the infobox that lists declaration of independence & recognition, (look at Azawad) so I don't see what a new parameter would add. sephia karta | dimmi 10:49, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
- It contains such basic facts like the national motto and the Gini coefficient, but not that it is unrecognized and its sovereignty is disputed? I think these facts are rather basic, too. --RJFF (talk) 23:04, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not sure such a parameter would be a good idea. Status often isn't that clearcut (the division in the current List of sovereign states took over a year of discussion). A reader would gain more from the prose in the lead than the infobox, which should give some basic facts about the country. Far better is to have the lead begin with something like "X is a self-declared state...blahblahblah...recognised by X/no countries". CMD (talk) 16:51, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
strange vertical positioning
Much, but not all, of the text inside of parentheses in the second column of information in the country infobox is set lower than it should be. The baseline of the text aligns with the bottom of parentheses.
For example, in the country infobox for Greece the following are incorrectly positioned: Area - (96th); Population - (74th), (88th); GDP (PPP) - (37th), (29th); GDP (nominal) - (32nd), (29th); Currency - (€), (EUR)
But, in the same infobox, the following are correctly positioned: HDI - (very high), (29th); Time zone - (UTC+2), (UTC+3)
All text in parentheses in the first column is positioned correctly.
Can someone shed some light on this, and fix it? —Coroboy (talk) 17:56, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
- I can't see any difference. Have you tried viewing the article on different browsers? -- Peter Talk page 18:42, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
- No, I hadn't. But now that I have, I see that the problem shows on Safari, but not on Firefox. By comparing the display on the two browsers, I now notice that in Safari
- all the superscripts are positioned lower than they should be: references like [2] and measures like km2, and
- the text in parentheses that is incorrectly positioned is in the same line as a superscript – if there is no superscript the parenthesized text is correctly positioned.
- This is only happening inside the infobox, not in the body of the article. For example the sentence beginning with "Due to its highly indented coastline" is displayed correctly. —Coroboy (talk) 13:06, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
- No, I hadn't. But now that I have, I see that the problem shows on Safari, but not on Firefox. By comparing the display on the two browsers, I now notice that in Safari
Add 2 more leader fields
I wish to propose that this template be edited to match this sandbox revision which adds 2 additional political leader fields. This change is necessary to accommodate the Republic of China's government which has 5 coequal branches. Any objections? --Cybercobra (talk) 22:52, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
- No objections, it increases flexibility slightly, but I question why you'd need 7 names. I'd expect mostly head of state and head of government in these infoboxes. CMD (talk) 02:15, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
- For comparison, United States lists 4 leaders (one for each of the 3 branches, plus the VP):
- President: Barack Obama (D)
- Vice President: Joe Biden (D)
- Speaker of the House: John Boehner (R)
- Chief Justice: John Roberts
- The ROC, which based its constitution in part off of the USA's, has 2 additional coequal branches (Examination Yuan, Control Yuan), so 4+2=6, and also has a Premier (similar to a Prime Minister) due to using a semi-presidential system, yielding a final total of 7. I added the additional offices to the infobox on Taiwan ~10 days ago; there has yet to be an objection. I have tested the correctness of the changes by previewing both Taiwan and United Kingdom with the sandboxed version of this template. --Cybercobra (talk) 04:12, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
- Now United Kingdom, that's nice and neat, a queen and a prime minister. Still, if there's 7, it'd be best to add a couple extra boxes, just in case they're needed. Often elected but not yet in power leaders are placed in the infobox as well, under titles like President-elect. I've updated the sandbox. CMD (talk) 04:44, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
- And I've fixed your update (my but this template is complex). --Cybercobra (talk) 05:06, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks. You'd think there'd be a way to program a "leader_namen" coding of some sort. CMD (talk) 06:22, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
- And I've fixed your update (my but this template is complex). --Cybercobra (talk) 05:06, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
- Now United Kingdom, that's nice and neat, a queen and a prime minister. Still, if there's 7, it'd be best to add a couple extra boxes, just in case they're needed. Often elected but not yet in power leaders are placed in the infobox as well, under titles like President-elect. I've updated the sandbox. CMD (talk) 04:44, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
- For comparison, United States lists 4 leaders (one for each of the 3 branches, plus the VP):
![]() | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change this template so that it matches its sandbox version (Template:Infobox_country/sandbox); see justification above. --Cybercobra (talk) 05:07, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Done --Redrose64 (talk) 15:05, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Can we add a small button to play the anthem?
Is it feasible to modify {{infobox country}} to allow inclusion of a sound link with a much smaller visual impact than the large button we get if we do this:
|national_anthem = "[[Advance Australia Fair]][[File:U.S. Navy Band, Advance Australia Fair (instrumental).ogg]]"
Eg, can we add a separate optional parameter "national_anthem_sound_file" (or subparameter to national_anthem) that puts a small "play" button next to the anthem's name/link, ie to the right of the name/link and of about the same height as that text. The large button (example) is unnecessarily obtrusive. A smaller button would allow easy playing of the sound without such a large visual impact.
Such an option would help resolve debates such as the current one at Talk:Australia#Sound file for National Anthem. Mitch Ames (talk) 02:34, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
- Why include it at all whether the icon is large or small? An info box doesn't have to have ALL info - articles on the anthems can linked and people can click on that if they are interested. Why have it in the country page? Indeed, where to stop? The info boxes are over bloated as it is. And, it's not like prominence is an issue - anthems are place above more fundamental info such as population, GDP, etc. --Merbabu (talk) 03:11, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
"Why include it at all...?"
- for the convenience of the reader. The same reason we show a picture of the flag, instead of making the user follow the link to (for example) Flag of Australia. I agree that the infoboxes are bloated, but we are talking about an option not a compulsory field, (even if we expect that somebody will probably go add that option to many instances) and an option with minimal visual impact. As to prominence / ordering of fields - that's a separate problem, not within the scope of this discussion. Mitch Ames (talk) 03:28, 22 April 2012 (UTC)- I understand (a) your intention for "optional" and (b) you understanding that the fields are poorly ordered in the info boxes, however, (a) I'm sure editors would you use your proposal will to argue we "must" include it (as is currently being done in the GSTQ debate) and (b) your proposal makes problem (b) worse. --Merbabu (talk) 03:34, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
- Help:Infobox#Editing the target article is quite clear that "Optional parameters may be left empty or omitted entirely." Perhaps {{Infobox country}} needs to be clearer about which parameters are optional and which are compulsory. Perhaps allowing inclusion of the anthem sound file at all, including in "national_anthem", is a bad idea - in which case we should probably say so explicitly in the existing infobox documentation for "national_anthem".
- Presumably other editors have an opinion on this, and will express it here. Mitch Ames (talk) 04:00, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Commonwealth of Australia | |
---|---|
Anthem: "Advance Australia Fair |
- I don't really have a problem with including a sound file for the convenience of our readers. (Too many editors seem to forget that it is our readers we write for, not other editors.) However, even minimising the size of the sound file icon and moving it to the right ([[File:Filename.ext|right|35px]]) still results in excessive space being taken up by the media file link, as can be seen to the right. --AussieLegend (talk) 15:19, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
- well it would make a better arctitcle which i think it should be put up for the people, not the editors preference. lets take a vote. vote yes for the sound box to be up vote no for it to be on a different link and i vote yesPhilpm930 (talk) 18:34, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Cite error: There are <ref group=N>
tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=N}}
template (see the help page).