Template talk:Infobox country/Archive 8

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 12

Previous states

Why is there not a previous state module at the top of the infobox like {{Infobox former country}}? It seems illogical that a previous nation's infobox links to a modern nation but not the other way around. --Kris159 (talk) 21:23, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

My two cent thought is that, a former country, being no longer in existence, must have been succeeded by something else. And thus, to have a full understanding of the subject, there's easy links to that - what succeeded a country is fundamental to it, so it goes with the other fundamental information in the infobox. Whereas a modern country, that material is best dealt with in the text and not crowding the infobox, since we have actual "live" information in that, what things are NOW, rather than much of the history, save for the independence. Also, what would we put for the United States? :) You could go simple and say Great Britain, or go with each of the original thirteen independent states, or also bring in the flags of Texas and Hawaii, or what about the flags of Spain, France, Russia, and Mexico...? --Golbez (talk) 21:31, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
There is an option where a list goes at the bottom of the infobox to prevent obstruction, but your valid points are hard to disagree with so I take back my proposal. Thanks for the help. --Kris159 (talk) 21:36, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I beg to differ. It may not always be easy to decide on the 'previous' state, but certainly this is not inherently more difficult for current states than for historic states? I also disagree that this would crowd the infobox, since the arrow(s) and flag(s) are quite small. I think that this would be a very useful addition, and that the current situation is inconsistent. sephia karta | dimmi 22:06, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree. I was just looking for an overview about such information, and to find it in the text is not as quick as a block on the right, if looking for that information for more than one country.
Alternatively, if history shall not go in the “Infobox country”, how about creating a new template that presents the “preceded by”-information (and since there is more space, because a present-day country does not have any sucessor information, also an additional “until”-information?) that can be put in the “History” section of every present-day country, based on that part in Template:Infobox former country? – Kalkühl (talk) 19:57, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Adding Google Public Data Explorer Link to Integrated Forecast Results

Hello All:

Google is hosting the results of the International Futures model which is an integrated assessment tool to forecast many human development measures. It would make sense to have a place to display either forecast results or to link to Google's result page, as this information is pretty interesting and useful.

Take a few examples: if there was a link to population forecasts for different countries, users would have a richer understanding of the context of country development. Afghanistan is forecasted to more than triple in population: http://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=n4ff2muj8bh2a_&ctype=l&strail=false&nselm=h&met_y=GDP&hl=en&dl=en#ctype=l&strail=false&nselm=h&met_y=POP&fdim_y=scenario:1&scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&rdim=world&idim=country:AF&hl=en&dl=en

While Japan's population will decline substantively: http://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=n4ff2muj8bh2a_&ctype=l&strail=false&nselm=h&met_y=GDP&hl=en&dl=en#ctype=l&strail=false&nselm=h&met_y=POP&fdim_y=scenario:1&scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&rdim=world&idim=country:JP&hl=en&dl=en

There are forecasts for 183 countries for the following relevant variables: Population, GDP per capita at PPP, GDP at Market Exchange Rates, fertility rates, HDI, and some more.

The model results are all made explicit and the International Futures model (while being given credibility by Google) has been used by the European Union, US National Intelligence Committee, UN and many other groups.

What do you all think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonathanmoyer (talkcontribs) 19:55, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Average wage

I would put monthly net and gross average wage in national currency and US dollars as parameter for countries. (Datastat (talk) 14:14, 16 February 2011 (UTC))

Interesting! I would agree with choosing only one to avoid too many parameters; my suggestion is the median nett wage... L.tak (talk) 17:34, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

A Median income per capita statistic using PPP would give the best relative overview for a population's poverty/wealth. The averages now used don't give a hint about this. For instance, 99% of the income could be going to 1% of the population but the averages may suggest that everyone has a decent income when they have virtually no income. The problem is I don't think such statistics exist. Anyone know where to find those stats, I haven't been able to find them. (talk) 20:17, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
The Dutch use the Mode (statistics), as about 40% of the population tends to be in this (generally low) income class, while the median may already be much higher (up to 2 times) and is also not necessarily the best estimate for the largest group. E.g. in the US the median is about 44000$, while the mode is the class of 0-25000 (or in smaller classes the class of 20000-22499 USD, or in other words the most frequently collected household income is only half (!!) the median household income. (see Household income in the United States) Arnoutf (talk) 18:10, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Lightmouse, 4 August 2011

1. Please change:


  • sq mi

in accordance with WP:OVERLINK.

2. Please unlink square kilometre in accordance with WP:OVERLINK. It looks like it goes to the square kilometre article but it's an easter egg for orders of magnitude and adds no value. I don't know what it should be but this is the offending code:

Thanks Lightmouse (talk) 19:03, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Lightmouse (talk) 19:03, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I think this edit is what you had in mind, but I am going to leave this up for a while to allow some discussion. Ucucha 23:19, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Done. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:30, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. However, when I do 'what links to' for square mile, this template is still listed. Why is that? Lightmouse (talk) 11:19, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I removed some more overlinking; perhaps that fixes it. Ucucha (talk) 11:35, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Looks like you fixed it. It's no longer listed at 'what links to' for square mile. Thank you very much. Lightmouse (talk) 11:39, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from, 23 August 2011

In the first section "Names" is a /span tag which breaks the table. Remove the single closing span tag from the Names section (talk) 09:57, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

The problem only occurs when |conventional_long_name= is blank or omitted. It seems that the </span> has been misplaced, so rather than being removed, it should be moved to precede the pair of braces which it presently follows. At present the code reads:
{{#if:{{{conventional_long_name|}}} |<!--then:--><span class=" fn org country-name">{{{conventional_long_name|}}} }}</span>
but it should read:
{{#if:{{{conventional_long_name|}}} |<!--then:--><span class=" fn org country-name">{{{conventional_long_name|}}} </span>}}
--Redrose64 (talk) 13:07, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Done. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:47, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Greenhouse Gas Emissions

I would suggest adding "Green House Gas Emissions" and "Greenhouse Gas Emissions per Capita" to the country infobox. This data can be found, for example, in [1]. I volunteer to add this information to all countries once the country infobox template supports this. I also volunteer to change the template myself, if someone unblocks the edition of the template for me. --Ceilican (talk) 04:40, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Seems overly specific. Also ignores the fact that many countries re-absorb much of the gases. So unless it's a net effect... --Golbez (talk) 14:19, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
I agree that a net effect would be better. Do you know whether such "net effect" data exists? If it does exist, where can it be obtained? If it does not exist, I would still maintain that adding "green house gas emissions" to the country infobox is a good idea. The fact that it is not perfect cannot be used as an argument not to include it. Other statistical data, such as GDP and HDI and Gini are also not perfect (see their wikipedia pages for criticisms), and still they are part of the infobox (and it is good that they are...). --Ceilican (talk) 07:30, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
I support this idea as it's becoming more and more serious factor while talking about the country. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:53, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Other people in the past have also suggested HPI: "I would like to propose including the HPI in addition to GDP. To include GDP as the main economic indicator reflects a belief that financial wealth is the most important economic indicator, a view which may be valid but not productive in a dispassionate encyclopaedia. A discussions of the merits and disadvantages of using the HPI (as well as a plethora of other non-GDP measures) can be found in a report commissioned by the European Parliament here. Additionally, an EU conference on non-GDP measures lists a variety of background reports here. The HPI measures the extent to which citizens can live long, happy lives without overstreaching environmental resources, and its use is becoming more politically important. It would be nice to hear your views and see if we can come to some consensus. If the HPI is not considered for inclusion, I would argue that we should at least include one non-GDP measure due to the POV considerations I have mentioned above. ... I understand that HDI is already in the infobox, and that we can't add too many different indicators. However, I would still maintain that the HDI and the HPI are fundamentally different. The HDI measures things like literacy, life expectancy, and GDP per capita, whereas the HPI measures life expectancy and happiness per tonne of CO2-e emitted. That is to say, the HPI is a utilitarian-ecological measure, whereas the HDI is a broad-economic measure. The HDI is not a non-GDP measure. It would be good to include in the list a utilitarian measure of some description, or an ecological measure. Sumthingweird 12:44, 24 August 2008 (UTC)" --Ceilican (talk) 05:29, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

This is far too specific and no way near important enough or basic enough to be on the infobox. Utterly ridiculous. Sounds to me like a particular issue being pushed. Saruman-the-white (talk) 12:50, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Proposal to unlink some headings

Quite a few of the headings in this template are linked unnecessarily or unhelpfully. I suggest that the following ones should be unlinked:

  • [[List of national mottos|Motto]]: This is an Easter egg. Why would someone looking at the article on one country expect or want to see a list of mottos for every other country in the world?
  • [[National anthem|Anthem]] and [[Anthem]]: National anthem is a well understood term - no-one needs to click through to an article explaining it
  • [[Capital (political)|Capital]]: Capital is a well understood term - no-one needs to click through to an article explaining it
  • [[List of cities in {{{common_name}}}|Largest {{{largest_settlement_type|city}}}]]: This is an Easter egg too. I don't see that anyone clicking on a link labelled 'largest city' would expect to get a list of all the cities in the country
  • [[Official language|Official language(s)]] and [[Regional language|Recognised regional language]]: These are self-explanatory - no-one needs to click through to an article explaining them
  • Ethnic group: again, no explanation is required
  • Government: an ordinary everyday word. Of no value as a link
  • Legislature: a familiar well-understood term
  • [[List of countries and outlying territories by total area|Area]], [[List of countries by percentage of water area|Water (%)]], [[List of countries by population|{{{population_estimate_rank}}}]], [[List of countries by population|{{{population_estimate_rank}}}]]: All unhelpful Easter eggs
  • [[World population|Population]]: Another Easter egg, for a term that needs no explanation anyway
  • [[Population density|Density]]: a well-understood term
  • [[List of countries by GDP (PPP)|{{{GDP_PPP_rank}}}]], [[List of countries by GDP (nominal)|{{{GDP_nominal_rank}}}]], [[List of countries by income equality|{{{Gini_rank}}}]], [[List of countries by Human Development Index|{{{HDI_rank}}}]]: more Easter eggs
  • Currency, Time zone, [[Calendar date|Date formats]], [[Right- and left-hand traffic|Drives on the ...]]: more familiar concepts not requiring explanation
  • [[List of country calling codes|Calling code]]: Easter egg (if it were to link instead to [[Telephone numbers in {{{country}}}]], it could be helpful.

Colonies Chris (talk) 22:11, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I think the idea is that the template doubles as a navigation template for general articles about states and governance. An indication that X is Yth in the world is accompanied by a link to a list of countries ranked in that order. — Blue-Haired Lawyer t 14:15, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
But would any reader realise that? The linked headings give no indication that they might take you to that sort of thing, and it's doubtful whether most readers would want that even if they knew. That's what 'See also' and categories are for. Colonies Chris (talk) 15:14, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Please make requested changes to Template:Infobox country/sandbox and reactivate. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:43, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Changes made and tested in the sandbox. Colonies Chris (talk) 09:47, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
I have deactivated the template. It quite clearly says that: "This template should be used only to request edits to fully protected pages that are either uncontroversial or supported by consensus." Since the proposed edit is neither of these, the proposed changes should not go ahead. — Blue-Haired Lawyer t 12:40, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Nobody but you has commented on this at all, and you chose not to respond to my reply to you several days ago. I am therefore reactivating the request. If you want to respond to my remarks, please do so and we can have a discussion. 'Consensus' is not blocked by just one person's unsupported contrary opinion. Colonies Chris (talk) 18:37, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Disabling again. As Blue-Haired Lawyer has expressed opposition to this, it would be sensible to give him/her time to express their reasons and engage in the discussion. There is no hurry to make this change. I will pop back in few days to gauge consensus. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:11, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose any general removal, although I might support removal of individual links, if discussed on a case by case basis. I have seen similar requests elsewhere, very recently - WP:OVERLINK is not something that needs to be followed blindly. What is the problem with a few extra blue links? I'd rather see too many than too few. They're not in the main article text, after all. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:25, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
    • The point of making links is to deepen the reader's understanding of the topic. In the cases I've listed, either the reader would find the link destination a surprise (an Easter egg) or the link leads to something that any normal reader already understands (such as 'Government'). These links provide no benefit and distract from the useful links. A reader who has clicked on one of these links and found it unhelpful and only marginally relevant will be discouraged from clicking on other links that are genuinely valuable. Colonies Chris (talk) 23:00, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
    • I've itemised all the links I feel should be stripped. Which specific changes do you object to? Colonies Chris (talk) 23:00, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
  • On the other hand the way things are listed is inconsistent. To take the template as used in the Republic of Ireland as an example. "Legislature" links to Legislature, while "Independence" links to History of Ireland. In fact a great many things on the left column link to specifically Irish things, while others don't. There should surely be some consistency in this. The one unlinking I'd definitely oppose is unlinking ranks as in "243,610 km2 (80th)". I don't think this is really an Easter egg link. I think it would be fairly apparent that they're going to a list. — Blue-Haired Lawyer t 19:50, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
    • Exactly - some of these links seem to have been made just for the sake of linking them, without thought to whether a reader would think to click on them, or would reach anywhere particularly relevant if they did. Colonies Chris (talk) 23:00, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
    • The (80th) example you give is perhaps not entirely an Easter egg, I agree, but is it useful? The list it leads to is more in the nature of a reference than anything the reader might actually want to look at while reading about a specific country. Such a link probably belongs under 'See also' or 'References', if at all. Colonies Chris (talk) 23:00, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
The use involves allowing a way for readers to compare the country they're looking at with other countries, and to, for example, find out how relatively big or small a country is. If they're not interested in that information they won't click on it but I don't think we should second guess what readers might be interested in, however tangentially. Neither do I it likely that you'd find links to country lists or general topics on governance in a 'see also' section. — Blue-Haired Lawyer t 00:05, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
With every link we make (or don't make) we're making a judgment about what the reader might be interested in - too few, and the reader cannot easily gain the information they want; too many, and the reader is put off by finding that many links aren't particularly relevant or useful. I accept that the ranking links are a grey area, arguably worth keeping. So can we get rid of the others? Colonies Chris (talk) 09:02, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Yes, on reflection I really can't justify to linking government and per capita. I would suggest, however, linking "Population" to "Demographics of X" articles, "Area" to "Geography of X" articles, and "Government" to "Politics of X" articles. I think these would be useful and relevant links. — Blue-Haired Lawyer t 14:39, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Those links would still be Easter eggs, but would be an improvement nonetheless; anyone who did click on them would find something a lot more useful than the current links. Do we have a possible agreement here? To link Population, Area and Government as you suggest (where those articles exist - else leave unlinked); to retain the ranking links as they are; to unlink the other headings in my original request. Colonies Chris (talk) 19:00, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
I don't think they're Easter egg link in the context in which they are given. They are certainly no more Easter eggs than [[Telephone numbers in France|Calling code]], IMHO. But yes we are agreed. I finished tweaking the template now: here the diff and the testcases. I'll reactivate the edit request if nobody objects. — Blue-Haired Lawyer t 22:45, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Looks good to me. Colonies Chris (talk) 09:27, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 implemented — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:47, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. Colonies Chris (talk) 11:05, 13 September 2011 (UTC)


The Gini index, named after its inventor Gini, is a measurement of the distribution of a variable in a population. As such, it has no meaning unless you specify what the variable is. The country infobox does not provide an explanation. It only has a reference, after the specific number, to a page in the CIA World Factbook that explains the meaning of "Gini index" in that book and shows indices for various countries. A reader who clicks on that reference could infer that our country infobox displays that same Gini index, but I don't think most readers would even know to click the link unless they wanted to see the source for this information about a specific country. Instead, the reader would click the wikilink for Gini and be taken to our article on the mathematical meaning of a Gini index.

I propose that this template be changed in either of two ways. It could include in the box some indication of what we are measuring (e.g., change Gini to Gini index of household income). Or it make the Gini wikilink point to an (as yet unwritten) article about the meaning of "Gini" in country infoboxes. Peter Chastain (talk) 10:18, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Add parameters

Please add 2 other parameters to this infobox: languages2 and languages_type2. They are needed in the article Hong Kong, Macau and Malaysia.

Hong Kong have the "Official languages" (according to the Basic Law of Hong Kong): Chinese (not explicitly specified) & English, the de facto spoken languages: Cantonese & English, and the de facto writing system: Traditional Chinese & English. Macau's the same case. Malaysia needs: "Official for some purposes" and "Official script". Now there's just one customizable parameters for languages, we need one more.

Also, It is very good to make the class name "mergedbottomrow" of <tr> able to control by a parameter, say "languages_sub" (the "mergedbottomrow" class is to make the top border of the <tr> disappeared). Now in Malaysia editors used a HTML hack, it is not good.

In the infobox' source plz find:

-->{{#if:{{{languages|}}} |<!--then:
          <th colspan="2" style="vertical-align:middle; white-space:nowrap;">{{{languages_type}}}</th>

change it to:

-->{{#if:{{{languages|}}} |<!--then:
     --><tr{{#ifeq:{{{languages2_sub|}}}|yes|{{#ifeq:{{{languages_sub|}}}|yes| class="mergedrow"|}}|{{#ifeq:{{{languages_sub|}}}|yes| class="mergedbottomrow"|}}}}>
          <{{#ifeq:{{{languages_sub|}}}|yes|td|th}} colspan="2" style="vertical-align:middle; white-space:nowrap;">{{{languages_type}}}</{{#ifeq:{{{languages_sub|}}}|yes|td|th}}>
-->{{#if:{{{languages2|}}} |<!--then:
     --><tr{{#ifeq:{{{languages2_sub|}}}|yes| class="mergedbottomrow"|}}>
          <{{#ifeq:{{{languages2_sub|}}}|yes|td|th}} colspan="2" style="vertical-align:middle; white-space:nowrap;">{{{languages2_type}}}</{{#ifeq:{{{languages2_sub|}}}|yes|td|th}}>

Thx. --Tomchen1989 (talk) 10:23, 18 September 2011 (UTC) /edited @ 17:02, September 18, 2011 (UTC)

Adding a section for unofficial languages sounds dubious. We already have five vague categories for languages. Any nuances should be dealt with through footnotes. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 11:59, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
No that is not totally "unofficial", the official languages in law is "Chinese", but the law does not define it more precisely. As you can read in the aticle Chinese language, the "Chinese" includes "Simplified Chinese", "Traditional Chinese", "Mandarin" and "Cantonese", etc. So we cannot say the de facto languages "Traditional Chinese" and "Cantonese" are totally "unofficial", they are including in the definition of "Chinese".
And I mean to add more choice by adding more parameters to custom, maybe more article other than Hong Kong and Macau need that. If it causes any problem in a specific aricle, it should be discussed in the talk page of that specific article, rather than avoiding editors from adding any probably good infomation by this infobox. --Tomchen1989 (talk) 12:19, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
You said you wanted "2 parameters for "unofficial" languages to be customed", which I don't think is a good idea. If the official language is Chinese, say that, and add a footnote clarifying the dialect. You can add a note to an infobox, such as in Malaysia, which adequately suffices for any lack of nuance. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:45, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
There's a nice HTML Table hack in the parameter "official_languages" of the Infobox country in Malaysia. Why a hack there? Because it requires another parameter which this infobox lacks. So I find another example country article which needs more such parameters for languages. Btw I can also do the HTML hack to solve my problem, but it is definitely better to do in the Infobox template.--Tomchen1989 (talk) 14:40, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
A HTML hack (what is a HTML hack?) is better than a random field titled "languages2". Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:45, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
I think you might not know what an HTML hack is, this is it in Malaysia:
<!--begin hack--></td></tr><tr class="mergedbottomrow"><td colspan="2">Official for some purposes</td><td style="vertical-align:middle;">[[English language|English]]{{Ref label|English|c|}}<!--end hack-->
Because the lack of the parameter for language in this infobox, Malaysia's editor had to insert another HTML table line by adding ugly unclosed HTML tags, it can cause problems once the infobox template changes, it is no good at all for maintenance. --Tomchen1989 (talk) 14:56, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
I still fail to understand what a hack is, but if it means the note of official for some purposes, followed by the footnote, then I still prefer that. Anyway, there are already official_languages, national_languages, regional_languages, languages_type, and language fields to be filled or unfilled. More would be confusing, and add even less clarification. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:06, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
A hack is not the note or the footnote.
Malaysia's editor want to add a "Official for some purposes" there, but "official_languages" is occupied, "Official for some purposes" is not "national_languages" or "regional_languages", and the "languages_type" is already used by "Official script" (I also don't get why no parameter exist specifically for official script, editor must use the "languages_type" to custom) , so the editor magically "hacked" out that "Official for some purposes".
The problem is not about official or unofficial. This is a technical problem. In some article we may just need some parameter to custom: In Malaysia, we need "Official for some purposes" and "Official script", In Hong Kong, we may need "Spoken languages" and "Writing systems". They are unofficial? No, They are all official we can say. --Tomchen1989 (talk) 15:25, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
The use in Malaysia inspires me... We may not only add another parameter, but also add corresponding parameter of these two, to control if we need a class name of "mergedbottomrow" for that <tr /> or not. --Tomchen1989 (talk) 15:29, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
So then how would languages2 be any easier to customise? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:35, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Updated in my first post. --Tomchen1989 (talk) 17:02, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Could you explain how that works in English? :) If you're creating a flexible language parameter, it may be worth replacing the current ones rather than adding. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:30, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── In the documentation Template:Infobox country/doc#Syntax, the usage of these modified parameters may be:

|languages_type              = <!--Alternative type of languages -->
|languages                   = <!--Alternative languages list-->
|languages_sub               = <!--Is this alternative type of languages a sub-item of the previous non-sub type? ("yes" or "no")-->

|languages2_type             = <!--Second alternative type of languages -->
|languages2                  = <!--Second alternative languages list-->
|languages2_sub              = <!--Is the second alternative type of languages a sub-item of the previous non-sub type? ("yes" or "no")-->

As you can see in my sandbox User:Tomchen1989/sandbox4, it works perfectly for Malaysia and Hong Kong. --Tomchen1989 (talk) 10:07, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Okay, it's looking clearer. How come the official script is in a separate box in the Malaysia infobox and in the same box for Hong Kong? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 10:54, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
It's controled by the parameters "languages_sub" and "languages2_sub". If "Official for some purposes" is a sub-item of, and should be put togetother with "Official language(s)", make the "languages_sub" "yes". If "Official script" should be separated from the above things, make the "languages2_sub" "no". They're in the same box for Hong Kong because both "_sub" are set to "yes". --Tomchen1989 (talk) 14:00, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Gotcha. I guess this can go in and replace the current blank languages parameter. Can you write an explanation of the subs etc. for the template documentation if this goes in? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:40, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Well, I've aleardy posted the explanation above here, this is it:
You may help me to explain it better. If it is still not quite understandable, I'll take some screenshot for a further description. --Tomchen1989 (talk) 09:44, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Just for the template doc, should be easy to change if this goes in. Any admin can change. Sorry for the hassle. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 11:37, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
The template doc can be edited by anyone since it's not protected. Now I'm just waiting for any admin's respond. If my request is done, I will put this explanation into the "Syntax" section of the template doc. --Tomchen1989 (talk) 13:29, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

 Done. In future if you could just make the changes to Template:Infobox country/sandbox, it makes it slightly easier for me. Cheers — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:04, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Patron saints

Very minor change to section on patron saints to display patron saints for countries with more than one. I also removed the hidden note that suggested the only UK constituent countries had patron saints. I've made the appropriate changes to the sandbox. — Blue-Haired Lawyer t 11:52, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Why do we include patron saints here? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:34, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Why not? As it happens we already do. — Blue-Haired Lawyer t 20:49, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
I too would like to know the reasoning for focusing on one particular religion in the infobox. --Golbez (talk) 21:50, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
I suppose I have no real reason for including patron saints in this infobox. I gather it was added so that it could be used for the different bits of the UK, although I'm not sure if this template is really suitable for those places. It was also used to be used at Republic of Ireland (I've just removed it). Whatever happens the change should be made or the section should be removed completely: if it's going to stay the grammar should be right. — Blue-Haired Lawyer t 10:41, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
I've made the fix suggested by BHL. If you guys decide to remove this field, please reactivate the request. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:00, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Good argument Blue-Haired Lawyer, if I may say so myself. Anyway, I suggest removal. A patron saint isn't something one expects to see looking at basic country statistics. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 07:18, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Ranking/percentage of total for EU/Eurozone countries and/or by continent

It would be useful to indicate the ranking and percentage of total for EU and/or Eurozone countries in comparison to the larger area. This applies to population, area, and GDP figures (HDI ranking is not as useful, e.g. HDI does not typically vary dramatically within EU countries).

For example, Greece's government debt is a big issue right now, and it is not easy to quickly find out how big Greece's economy is compared to the rest of the EU or the Eurozone:

Example for Greece:

  • GDP (PPP) $318.082 billion (0.42% of World (37th); 2.1% of EU (11th); 2.8% of Eurozone (9th))
  • Population 11,125,179 (0.16% of World (74th); 2.2% of EU (10th))
  • Area 131,990 km2 (0.089% of World (97th); 3.1% of EU (10th))

What does everyone think? Facts707 (talk) 13:01, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it's that important. Only a few countries are EU countries, and despite the EUs special sui generis status, I don't see the need for interEU comparisons in the infobox. That's what EU articles would be for. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:35, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

linking_name and common_name

Right now, for the "Flag of..." and "Emblem of..." fields, the common_name field takes priority over linking_name. This is problematic for pages like China, where the common name is China, but Flag of China is a disambiguation page. In the infobox on that page, the linking_name field is filled in with the intention of correctly pointing the links to Flag of the People's Republic of China, and so on. Should these parameters simply be reversed in the template source code? —Akrabbimtalk 20:18, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

The common name is the linking name for countries, it has no effect on the infobox other than an ISO code. THe linking name is only in the geopolitical organisation syntax here, though whether it works in the country template I don't know. The common name in the China infobox should by "People's Republic of China" (for now), just like the common name field in Georgia is "Georgia (country)". Chipmunkdavis (talk) 09:18, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
OK then. Perhaps the documentation should be updated to make this more clear, since these have somewhat non-intuitive uses. Because if you ingnored their uses in the infobox, China's conventional long name is "People's Republic of China" and it's common name is "China". —Akrabbimtalk 11:57, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
The template documentation does say "used as wikilink". Feel free to edit it to make it clearer. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:22, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

ITU prefix

Can anybody insert ITU prefix in this tempate. TQ <*)))>< Mr Ikan (talk) 13:03, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Inequality-adjusted HDI

As things stand, of the two HDI figures published by the UNDP, only one is represented on the infobox, viz. HDI unadjusted for inequality. Is there any reason not to include the figure for HDI adjusted for inequality in a similar way that a distinction is made between GDP (PPP) and GDP (nominal)? Uranium grenade (talk) 13:33, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Specific parameters

Currently we have France UK and EU specific parameters (at least in the documentation). None of these seem very important, and adding specifics for some defeats the point of a general template (in addition the EU field can easily be replaced by another sovereignty note if thought necessary). Also, the antipodes field should be removed. Uninformative trivia. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:09, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

No objections? Thoughts? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:47, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Consistency between template and consolidated data

Looking at various list or compendium articles within Wikipedia, I find that there is often some discrepancy between information presented with a country's info box and that in the listing. Usually minor matters of style, but occasionally something more substantial. For example, in List of national anthems the national anthem of Andorra is shown as El Gran Carlemany, but El Gran Carlemany, Mon Pare in the country infobox. Well, which is the correct title? In the case of Central African Republic, two anthems are listed in the country infobox, but only one in the consolidated list. Just clicking on countries at random brings up other discrepancies, sometimes in spelling, sometimes more problematic. We should not be presenting different information to our readers depending on which article they go to - that is just common sense. My feeling is that the information in a country's article is generally the result of work by many editors who know the topic well, but that compilation articles are not subject to as many informed eyes scrutinising them. In fact, the regular maintainers of articles on countries may be unaware of any consolidated lists, and if (say) a new president is elected, they would quickly change the information in the info box, but the consolidated listing of heads of government may languish uncorrected for some time. Palestine is a case in point. The country infobox lists only one person (President Mahmoud Abbas) in the Government section, whereas List of current heads of state and government shows four - two presidents and two prime ministers. The same list shows North Korea as having three leaders, none of whom is Kim Jong-il, who gets second ranking (after his embalmed father) in the country infobox. --Pete (talk) 19:11, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, a widespread problem. I find politicians are very well maintained, there are some very dedicated editors who seem to keep track of every election. You're right about the rest though. Is there anything we can do besides just check on each piece of information on a case by case basis? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 00:56, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
I've been thinking about this. I'd like to see the information we present to our readers be as accurate and consistent and accessible to as possible, but at the same time keep everybody happy. The sort of editor who is interested in maintaining lists and templates likes things to be just so. Uniform formats, elegant presentation, no accumulation of cruft and lichen in the form of notes and exceptions and so on. Keep things as simple as possible in other words. On the other hand, those who control the actual information that is poured into these containers tend to be keen on telling the story their way, with as much detail and colour as may be jammed in. Flag images, different languages, diacritical marks and local scripts. I've seen some epic battles develop over the smallest details, with clerics and warriors assaulting each other, calling on wizards and gods to support their crusades.
Identifying mismatches in data is a task in itself. Obviously if there's an election or revolution, the data changes, and there will be a period of time when there is a disparity between infobox data and list data. A common occurrence is for one side to win an election, and the jubilant vassals of that lord whip off to expunge the name of their defeated foe from the tablets of wikistone and inscribe their liege in letters of gold, quite forgetting that there is usually some ceremony held in the real world, with priests and blood oaths sworn, bands playing and salutes fired by the militia, and this happens some time after the election night. Months, in the case of the US.
Once data becomes stable and is identified as being inconsistent between two locations, changing one to match the other becomes problematic, as there will often be champions of both locations, anxious for their view to prevail. Simply changing one to match the other could trigger a war. There should be some protocol to advise of discrepancies, to provide a place for discussion and consensus-forming, to agree on formats, to call down divine intervention if negotiations fail. Most of the time, there would be no problem, and the work could be handled by industrious gnomes, but some times, wizards and saints might be better placed to avoid carnage. I'm thinking about some of those national anthems here - if some barbarian warrior wants their battle song rendered in the appropriate runes, and the clerics who maintain a list pursue a no-rune policy, well, the claymores might be unsheathed. --Pete (talk) 19:00, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
The anthems listed should tally with corresponding article names: in the majority of instances it will be the infobox which needs to be changed for consistency. This is the case with Andorra. As for the Central African Republic, the relevant article suggests that La Renaissance and E Zingo are the same song in two different languages.

But let's say that for argument's sake there is a systemic problem. My suggestion would be to do a quarterly or biannual audit of the relevant lists. That would involve painstakingly careful cross-checking of each list, the listed item(s), and the corresponding country for each entry, and making corrections as necessary. We could take steps to reduce the risk of one article being updated and not the others, such as commented notes next to the relevant parameter or to do lists on the relevant talk page, but the fact of the matter is that there are no guarantees that someone who cares will notice. —WFC— 07:20, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

They'll notice if it isn't what they want. Most changes would be non-problematic, but there'd be a few that would spark conflict. Going around and updating each entry where there is a difference is a big job, not in the edits involved so much, but in doing the research you indicate, and then dealing with a lot of editors very attached to whatever format they think is best for their national pride or their obsession with having uniformity in a list. There's always a few. --Pete (talk) 09:27, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Add debt parameter

Lettres (talk) 22:12, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Would this be an absolute number? A percentage of GDP? In dollars? Local currency? --Golbez (talk) 22:27, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Just in USD like the GDP. Thats not to much for this Infobox i think. Lettres (talk) 22:44, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Is it a necessary and fundamental part of understanding a nation's economy? One can still have a strong economy with high debt, and a weak economy with a surplus. Also, is this private or public debt? --Golbez (talk) 22:50, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Thats right. I think the public debt tells you if a country is healthy through the taxes by the GDP. Lettres (talk) 23:35, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Social Security and Standard & Poor's etc. ratings healthy Lettres (talk) 01:18, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
There's zero reason to include the opinion of one single company. I don't know what you mean by 'social security.' --Golbez (talk) 03:41, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
just wanted to discribe healthy country. still only want the debt parameter. Lettres (talk) 04:50, 8 December 2011 (UTC)


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)

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)
See WP:VPT#Alignment of infobox labels. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 02:30, 15 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
|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)

Population density

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)

Upper house & Lower house

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)

Vertical alignment of section titles

Official languages Fish
Ethnic groups 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

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.) (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.
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.
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 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)

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)

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)

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
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)
I'm not fundamentally against including the file if the icon can be made (much) smaller than the actual one. But the thing is, I don't think the average reader will be interested to play the anthem when visiting the country article and since the infobox is already pretty large it would make sense to have the sound link only in the anthem article (which is only a click away). mgeo talk 07:12, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Is there no way we can make the icon smaller (and perhaps lose the "i"nfo completely)? Mitch Ames (talk) 11:19, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
The "i" seems to be peculiar to media files. and the "play" icon won't get any smaller. Unless there's some other way of linking to media files, I think that's the best we can do. --AussieLegend (talk) 11:51, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
The "i" is a clickable icon, and displays the file description page - in this case File:U.S. Navy Band, Advance Australia Fair (instrumental).ogg. Some means of reaching that page is required for attribution purposes, so a clickable link must exist in some form. Visual media such as images don't have the "i" icon, because clicking the image itself has the same effect. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:31, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Dont believe we need to add a file to begin with as most have articles on the topic with playable versions. That said if the outcome of the talk is that anthems are a viable inclusion, special care should be taken in the choosing of the files themselves. Adding an American Naval version of other national anthems to every article is not the best chooses. Official or traditional version should be sought after over Non native versions.Moxy (talk) 19:22, 26 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).