Template talk:Infobox country/Archive 9

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5 ← Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 → Archive 15

Strip markers

Using <ref> in a piped link will expose the Help:strip markers; see T27417. 

              -->{{#if:{{{population_estimate_rank|}}} |<!--then:-->([[List of countries by population|{{{population_estimate_rank}}}]]) }}</td>

If someone includes a reference in population_estimate_rank, then it will expose the strip markers:

Markup Renders as 
{{Infobox country
|population_estimate=1
|population_estimate_rank=1<ref>reference</ref>
}}
Population
• Estimate
1 (1[1])

---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 17:48, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I would say that we threfore need |pop_est_footnote=, in the way that we already have |pop_den_footnote= --Redrose64 (talk) 18:43, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
I did not look at all the fields, just this one, so there may be others with the same problem. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 19:16, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
  1. ^ reference

International Organization

I think the template should display international membership info in one shape or form. When I look at an infobox I should be able to learn the UN affiliation, EU affiliation, NATO affiliation, WTO affiliation, Commonwealth affiliation, etc of the country. This information can be adapted from the existing Membership templates. I am unsure if it is necessary to display the affiliation date or just display the affiliation status. There currently is some content for EU but it doesn't for example show the membership as an entry while implying it. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 13:33, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Coat of arms size parameter

I don't know if this has been proposed before and rejected for whatever reason, but I propose that there should be an additional parameter used to change the size of a coat of arms (e.g. |symbol_size=). Similar to the images on biographies and the map on this template.

Most emblems/synmbols/coat of arms are quite small and they fit neatly next to the flag, but this isn't always the case.On some articles, like Denmark, Abkhazia, Hungary, India and even, to a lesser extent, Germany, the coat of arms is tall and so due to formatting it appears much larger than the flag. This doesn't look aesthetically pleasing, especially if the infobox is already quite large.

I think this option would have to be used sparingly as most infoboxes have the right size, but it would be a great help and it would allow some countries, like Belgium, to use the more common "lesser arms" rather than the larger arms, which they were forced to use. -- Peter Talk page 19:56, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

InterWiki

 Done, see here. Please note that {{edit protected}} is usually not required for edits to the interlanguage links of templates using a documentation subpage. You can use the 'edit' link at the top of the green "Template documentation" box to edit the documentation subpage. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:22, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Suggestion: iso3166note param

Because the iso3166code param is wrapped in a wikilink by the template, it seems it is not possible to add a reference/note after it. I propose adding:

-->{{{iso3166note|}}}<!--

to the end of the "ISO 3166 code" section of the template. I'm willing to document this and any other changes I suggest. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 16:25, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

area_magnitude

The area_magnitude param is in the documentation (without description, though), but not referenced in the template, AFAICT. Most countries seem to have this param with a value of "1 En", seeming referring to Orders of magnitude (area) ("1En" non-spaced seems more correct, though WP:MOSNUM does not even mention this format), though Singapore has "1_E8". —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 17:25, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Suggestion: ISO 3166 lookup error and alpha-3 and numeric codes

I would like to suggest:

  1. If the user does not provide the iso3166code param, and the lookup of common_name fails, show a big red error in case they don't notice (as happened in the United States article I just fixed).
  2. Add the alpha-3 and numeric ISO-3166 codes in addition to the existing alpha-2 code lookup. The lookup templates already exist ({{ISO 3166 code-3}} and {{ISO 3166 numeric}}) and could be shown as:
ISO 3166 (A2 • A3 • #)
  • US
  • USA
  • 840
or
ISO 3166 (A2)
(A3)
(#) 		US
USA
840

—[AlanM1 (talk)]— 21:16, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request - two flags

As per the discussion on the New Caledonia talkpage, I'd like to add an optional argument to this template to allow for entities with two flags to have both displayed in the infobox. I've made the changes to the sandbox (see the diff) and the test cases seem to be still behaving properly. See the discussion on the New Caledonia talk page for a demo of the new code in action. TDL (talk) 04:45, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Looks good, apart from the fact that image_flag was appearing beneath image_flag2, which struck me as a bit counterintuitive. I've edited the sandbox so that image_flag appears first. Does that look ok to you? — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 12:48, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, that probably makes much more sense. It has also been requested that this change be applied to {{Infobox former country}}. I've made some quick modifications to Template:Infobox former country/sandbox that seem to do the trick, though I haven't had a chance to thoroughly debug it yet. If it looks good to you, could you also make this change? Otherwise, I'll have more time to look at it later today. Thanks! TDL (talk) 22:00, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Done I've updated the template from my version of the sandbox (image_flag above image_flag2). Let me know if you spot any issues, and once you have debugged Template:Infobox former country/sandbox make an edit request over there. Thanks — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 08:21, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
Great, thanks a lot. Will do. TDL (talk) 09:02, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
This is a good idea...could we get a 2 flag example for this page.Moxy (talk) 22:18, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
There is one at Talk:New Caledonia#Infobox flag that TDL made. I suppose it wouldn't hurt to put one on the testcases page as well though. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 08:21, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
I've added the NC infobox to the testcases and updated the documentation. TDL (talk) 09:02, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request - coordinates

The latd, longd and other coordinate parameters are defined as the coordinates of the capital. However, this template uses type:country in the (two) {{coord}} templates. Since the coordinates are about a city, both occurences should be replaced with type:city.  thayts t  09:46, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. The infobox is for a country not a city. I believe that the documentation is wrong by stating "capital city"; many capital cities are coastal, including London, Edinburgh, Cardiff, Belfast and Dublin, but I think that the coordinates should be some reasonably central location. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:37, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
I know the infobox is for a country, but I doubt the documentation is wrong since the coordinates are displayed right beneath the capital city. The comments in the source itself also talk about the capital where the {{coord}} template is being used. In this regard it is not relevant if the city is coastal or not. If the infobox however is supposed to show the coordinates of the country, then either all the documentation (including comments in the source) is wrong and the coordinates are arguably displayed at the wrong place, or new parameters specifically for the country's coordinates should be added to make the infobox display them near, say, the title.  thayts t  14:42, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
I would expect the coordinates to be for the approximate center of the country, and with a precision appropriate for the size of the country (approx 1/10th the smallest dimension). That would be something like (40, -100) for the US or (8.6, 1.0) for Togo or (13.19, -59.58) for Barbados. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 15:10, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Normally, yes, I would expect that too. But everything indicates the coordinates are for the capital.  thayts t  15:16, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Suggestion: utc_offset_DST within nowrap

I'd like to make a suggestion (before I make an edit request, and I do hope this talk page is being watched) to do the same with utc_offset_DST as has been done with utc_offset: to put the offset within a {{nowrap}} and to remove the &nbsp; preceding it. This would prevent offsets to be wrapped for countries that have more than one time zone (and would be consistent with utc_offset, and would make the use of <br/> behind time_zone_DST unnecessary).  thayts t  23:51, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Legislatures don't always have an upper and a lower house.

The legislatures of countries like Germany and the United states don't have an upper and lower house. Please change the infobox accordingly or it can not be used for these countries. CuriousOliver (talk) 11:28, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

For unicameral legislatures the "upper" and "lower" parameters simply aren't used (see the infoboxes on Sweden, Turkey etc).
In the two examples you cite: Germany is officially unicameral, but few would argue that the Bundesrat is not, in practise, the informal upper house and is listed in the infobox as such. The United States Congress does have upper and lower chambers, and the infobox says as much.
So, as far as I can see, there is no need for any change. --Peter Talk to me 21:38, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Footnote font-size

Hi. The font-size for the footnote parameters seems to be consistently too small, i.e. something like this. Perhaps it could be changed from 80% to 85 or even 90%? 213.246.95.152 (talk) 16:53, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

  • I discovered the means to request the above, so here's a version of the code for the template's "Footnotes" section that sets the font-size to 95%. To make the edit, replace the current "Footnotes" section with the following:
Nothing else has been altered. 213.246.95.152 (talk) 02:25, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
The best way to request changes is to put your proposed code into the template's /sandbox, which I have now done. Perhaps 80% is too small but I suggest that 95% is probably little different from full-size. I have read somewhere that 88% works well and is a good "small" size on all browsers. What do you think? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:11, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Sure, 88% sounds fine. For comparison, the font-size for "Infobox former country"'s footnotes seems to work. 213.246.116.170 (talk) 02:17, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
I think we can just use <small> for this. Please check the /testcases to see if this is okay. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:07, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
No response, so I have implemented this. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:49, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Sorry not to've got back here sooner. It all looks good now, so thanks for implementing. 213.246.93.133 (talk) 18:35, 10 July 2012 (UTC)


Sorry to reopen this, but I have a minor request.

Currently <small> is being placed directly between the <tr> and <td> tags: "<tr><small><td>". This is invalid HTML, as a <tr> should only have <td>s or <th>s as children. HTML Tidy is fixing this by moving each <small> element inside each of the <td> elements ("<tr><td><small>"), but it seems unclean.

Instead of creating transient invalid HTML, can we implement <small> by adding "style=font-size:xx-small" to each of the <tr>s (or the <td>s)? Specifically, 

 old: <tr><small>
 new: <tr style="font-size:xx-small">

Also, using a css style/class attribute for presentation logic seems cleaner than using the <small> element.

I provide the recommended change below. (modified from the 2012-08-24 source)

Thanks.

Gnosygnu (talk) 23:07, 16 October 2012 (UTC) 

removed by gnosygnu on 2012-10-20; incorporated by redrose64 and text was extremely long
Per Wikipedia:Template sandbox and test cases I've put those changes into Template:Infobox country/sandbox with one small fix - in the last (footnote8) block you put <tr "style=font-size:xx-small" class="mergedbottomrow"> - I've amended this to <tr style="font-size:xx-small" class="mergedbottomrow">. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:48, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
Wow! Thanks for the quick response (and great eyes too!: sorry about the copy-paste error on the last row.)

I've reviewed it with the following procedure:

I verify the following:

  • The resultant HTML is correct: <tr style="font-size:xx-small">
  • The text shows up "small". As a side note, it's worth mentioning that xx-small was chosen because it looks exactly the same as <small> on my Firefox browser

Let me know if I need to do anything else on my side. Otherwise, thanks again!

Gnosygnu (talk) 22:38, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

OK, I've updated Template:Infobox country/testcases#France so that others may see what the difference is. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:36, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Ok. I've compared the two. I noticed that the existing <small> has no effect. Htmltidy fixes the bad <small> but dumps it in the first <td> which happens to be the footnote number, not the footnote text. The main footnote text content is unaffected. See United States, European Union, France, Germany. The left-hand-side is not "smalled" but the right hand side is. China and India do get "smalled" but that's because the text content of the footnote has an explicit <small>Gnosygnu (talk) 16:52, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Done The code looks sound and I couldn't see any objections, so I have implemented the change. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 11:42, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Bug: Mis-aligned DST offset

In the use of this template in United States, the "Summer (DST)" item is indented by a non-breaking space from the "Time Zone" item above it. I believe the problem is here:

<td>{{{DST|{{{time_zone_DST|}}}}}}&nbsp;([[Coordinated Universal Time|UTC]]{{{utc_offset_DST}}})</td>

The &nbsp; is needed only when DST or time_zone_DST is defined. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlanM1 (talk • contribs) 14:51, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 10 November 2012

Since numbers are standard for refs within an article, I've added footnote_a, footnote_b, ..., footnote_h to the version in the template sandbox as alternatives to the numbered footnotes already offered. The code added is simply an amended copy of the code for the numbered footnotes. I've done some testing using amended versions of a couple of the examples provided in the testcases area and all seems well. If this edit is accepted, I'll revisit those pages where I've seen lettered footnotes in use and update accordingly. 213.246.91.158 (talk) 02:06, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
PS Will also update documentation accordingly. 213.246.91.158 (talk) 02:10, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

See below for reactivated request.
Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. In addition, I see that your proposed changes go somewhat further than simply adding some parameters |footnote_a= etc. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:56, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Never mind. Thought I saw something somewhere about "being bold". Compared with the new footnote_X parameters, the other two tweaks are hardly "somewhat further". One of them is simply the addition of possibilities, i.e. otherwise invisible. Don't know what would count as a consensus (how many "okay"s?) but if one ever arises, great. I'm not the campaigning sort. I notice that you haven't indicated how you'd contribute to a consensus here. But thanks for acknowledging the edit request. 213.246.91.158 (talk) 12:23, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
WP:BOLD is available for uncontroversial changes, but adding new fields to infoboxes has frequently been a controversial issue. See Wikipedia:Edit requests for more details. (thanks MSGJ (talk · contribs)) --Redrose64 (talk) 15:25, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Be bold, but only if (you're confident that) the changes are uncontroversial..? That sounds as if boldness would be unnecessary. In this case, I wonder what would be controversial. Lettered footnotes are already in use with this template, but, unlike the numbered ones, don't have their linewrapping handled via tailored parameters. And, like the numbered footnote parameters, their use wouldn't be mandatory; like the numbered footnote parameters, they'd be transparent and would remain unknown to you until you saw them in use and/or happened to read that far in the documentation. Perhaps it's the width/font-size possibilities I added? I've now removed those from the sandbox version. Okay to try implementing now? – if nothing else, that might draw some people here to comment on (complain about) it and perhaps even generate some consensus. 213.246.91.158 (talk) 18:08, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Support the additions. Many infoboxes use numbered footnotes, for the reason you stated (to distinguish from the main article footnotes). These would be useful parameters. -- Peter Talk to me 18:56, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello again. Thanks for the support. If this is to go through, though, I need some assistance fixing a quirk. If you look at the first footnote (footnote_a) on the sandbox page, you'll see the "a." identifying it is riding high. I don't seem to be able to correct this and suspect it's something to do with a (missing) class setting. Help, please? 213.246.91.158 (talk) 06:38, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Minor tweak may be required

just had a quick look - as someone mentioned a footnote a "riding high" - wasn't sure what it meant exactly but if you look in the code (which I can't edit due to not being admin) you will see that this

--><tr style="font-size:xx-small" class="{{#if:{{{footnote2|}}} |<!--then:-->mergedrow |<!--else:-->mergedbottomrow}}">

seems to be missing from the footnote1 line below (or at least that's what I infer from the rest of the footnote section code). EdwardLane (talk) 10:15, 22 November 2012 (UTC)


------------Numbered------------

-->{{#if:{{{footnote1|}}} |<!--then:

--><tr style="font-size:xx-small"> suggest replace this line with the one above

<td align="right">{{lower|0.3em|<sup>1</sup>}}</td>

<td colspan="2" style="padding-left:0em;">{{{footnote1}}}</td>

</tr><!--

-->}}<!--

-->{{#if:{{{footnote2|}}} |<!--then:

--><tr style="font-size:xx-small" class="{{#if:{{{footnote3|}}} |<!--then:-->mergedrow

|<!--else:-->mergedbottomrow}}">

<td align="right">{{lower|0.3em|<sup>2</sup>}}</td>

<td colspan="2" style="padding-left:0em;">{{{footnote2}}}</td>

</tr><!--

-->}}<!--


I too have seen the a "riding high", being at the top line of a multiline note rather than the middle, which the other letters are at. If this tweak fixes that, it should be implemented. CMD (talk) 16:12, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Yes, that's the tweak I'm after. 213.246.91.158 (talk) 06:42, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your response, Edward (EdwardLane). Unfortunately, I don't think it addresses what's going on – at least, not here on a Firefox-based browser – as the code for numbered footnotes starts after that for lettered ones. I've just created Template:Infobox country/testcases#Custom challenges; can you see the "a." riding high in the righthand {{Infobox country/sandbox}} column, while the "1." (and all other letters/numbers) seem to be aligned correctly? 213.246.91.158 (talk) 06:42, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
My angle: the first numbered footnote uses the {{lower}} template and looks good. Why not use that template for the first lettered "a" one? -DePiep (talk) 20:25, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Edited the sandbox, but doesn't seem to work. Revert? -DePiep (talk) 20:30, 23 November 2012 (UTC) I recverted myself. -DePiep (talk) 21:11, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Another track. I created {{Infobox country/sandbox2}}. I copied the /sandbox, (and deleted a lot of code for my conveniance). Then I deleted all existing lettered footnote code, and copied the numbered footnotes code to the Lettered section. Then I edited the top ones: {{footnote1}} into {{footnote_a}} etc. I only used 1 and 2 so _a and _b (and _c), to show the idea. See the testpage section: it seems to work. -DePiep (talk) 21:11, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
I don't know if I actually was any help - just saw what appeared to be an inconsitancy in the existing template, it sounds like DePiep may have confirmed a variation of it works, in which case good, otherwise sorry for the distraction and good luck. I'm going to take this page off my watchlist now as I don't think I can debug the templates properly on this clunkputer. EdwardLane (talk) 01:01, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Don't worry, I don't get the origin of the problem myself. I just copied the working parts. Looks like it has to do with interaction between &st;tr> table definitions, opening rowline in the cell and CSS. From here I am lost too. -DePiep (talk) 09:44, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, EdwardL and DePiep, for your efforts. I've just refreshed the testcases page and the sandbox2 version looks pretty good here too – although I've now noticed that it and the current live template appear to indent all the footnote examples. (Maybe that's because there are only footnotes in the custom challenges.) But I'll happily take consistent indents over misalignments. I'll take a look at sandbox2 now and try transferring the code to the original sandbox version; then, if that's worked, ask for the live template to be updated accordingly. 213.246.91.158 (talk) 17:00, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

...It looks like your approach works, DePiep. Thank you. I hadn't noticed the "lower-the-superscript" used by the numbered footnotes, but if that's what works, then I'll go with it. Curious. 213.246.91.158 (talk) 17:54, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Renewed edit request

Per all the above, the lettered footnotes implementation now appears to be fixed and no-one's queried or registered any opposition to the sandbox version. Okay to try replacing the live version with the sandbox one? 213.246.91.158 (talk) 18:05, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I do not like this approach: there are other changes you, IP, made (between /sandbox and main template) than essential. Do not do that. Never. Leave stupid code alone. Changing it will confuse professional testing. -DePiep (talk) 22:01, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
What is your factual edit proposal? (I expect: diff beteen /sandbox and template). -DePiep (talk) 22:10, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Sorry if I've committed some sort of faux pas. I guess the difference you're looking for is between the sandbox as it stood before I began editing it and its current version. So, that'd be this: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3AInfobox_country%2Fsandbox&diff=524732232&oldid=518313187. I am grateful for your assistance. 213.246.91.158 (talk) 02:13, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Yep. I also appreciate the deletion of these huge spaces in the sandbox (to be into livecode). So you propose {{editprotect}}, from /sandbox and proven in /testcases? (is what I use to do ;-) )-DePiep (talk) 02:27, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I think so. Where I am, this testcase (central template) suggests all should be well, but, if not, I don't think any major rewrites will be required. At least, I hope not. 213.246.91.158 (talk) 03:45, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

 deployed. Please let me know of any errors — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:55, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Martin. I'll update the documentation, then start updating the footnote handling accordingly and report any problems found here. 213.246.94.204 (talk) 17:48, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

While starting the above, I've noticed that some of the label positioning in the languages section of the template ("Official languages" etc) isn't consistent with the rest of the template and that the "Ethnic groups" label can wrap awkwardly if/when it's suffixed by ethnic_groups_year. The present version of the template in the sandbox (28 November, edit summary "...I see why vertical-aligns best for the longer language labels", [1]) should iron out these wrinkles. 213.246.94.204 (talk) 10:32, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:22, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Thank you! 213.246.94.204 (talk) 13:19, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
So the changes are stable? Would be great.-DePiep (talk) 22:59, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
From what I've seen so far, yes, although the positions of the footnote letters seem to float up or down a little. 213.246.94.204 (talk) 19:12, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Automated HDI/Gini categorization?

Hello again. While working through some of the articles using this template, it occurred to me that some code to automate the display of the HDI and Gini indicies in the template might be worthwhile, i.e. to remove the need for (relatively complex) entries such as:

|HDI_category = <span style="color:#090;white-space:nowrap;">very high</span>

Anyone else agree? If so, I could have a go at implementing it -- or maybe this hasn't been done for a reason I've yet to realize..? 213.246.94.204 (talk) 21:30, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 5 December 2012

To avoid the kind of formatting change between sections shown here (see the Internet TLD – Website – Calling code sequence toward the bottom of the template), this sandbox version of the template [2] (03:32, 5 December 2012‎ 213.246.94.204 (talk)‎ . . (50,423 bytes) (-1)) has the calling code and subsequent patron saint sections moved above the ISO 3166 section. May it be used to update the live version of the template, please? 213.246.94.204 (talk) 03:39, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Done. Thank you! Nyttend (talk) 13:29, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 5 January 2013

Hello again. As noted above, two of the more complicated entries for this template can be the Gini and HDI data. Their categorization (low, medium, high, very high) is also unregulated by the current version of the template. So, the current version of the sandbox template here (edit summary: (reduced Gini/HDI_category and Gini/HDI_rank text size)) now includes some code in the Gini and HDI sections to achieve this. (For the sake of continuity, it doesn't replace the current system but complements it.)

In addition, I've noticed that the HDI entry can produce one of the longest unwrapped lines on the righthand side of the template (e.g. "Increase 0.698[10] (medium) (96th)" in Algeria), so I've reduced the size of the category label and any ranking (HDI_rank) supplied and combined their parentheses. (In the case of Algeria, this would become "Increase 0.698[10] (medium / 96th)"; compare the testcase examples here (scroll down to reach the Gini/HDI entries).)

Lastly, I've stripped the template's code of nearly all the "then" and "else" comments and, in compensation, reformatted it a little so that anyone aware of the basic {{#if : |... |...}} structure should still be able to follow it fairly easily.

So, if all that seems in order, the edit request is:

Please replace the current version of the template with that in the sandbox identified above.

There should be no visible impact on the articles using the template (see testcases page), but, if/when the edit is made, I'll then start converting the templates in those articles to use the new, more automated code.

Hope I've covered everything. 213.246.94.204 (talk) 06:16, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

One oversight: I fixed the code for the positioning of footnote_e and footnote_f (looked like a couple of typos). 213.246.94.204 (talk) 10:11, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Done. Nice work on the code! Don't forget to update the documentation as well. Best — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 17:26, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. I've just noticed, though, that the new version can omit a close-bracket in certain circumstances, so here's a corrected version in the sandbox: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Infobox_country/sandbox&oldid=531950219.
Meanwhile, yes, I'll now update the documentation, then start amending parameters in articles where possible / appropriate. 213.246.118.196 (talk) 13:30, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Ok, Done — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 20:01, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Use of largest settlement when cities exist

The infobox for Trinidad and Tobago lists Chaguanas as the largest town. That might be true, but as I read the infobox conventions, largest town should only be included if there are no cities. Am I correct, or am I misreading "<!--Type of settlement if largest settlement not a city-->"--SPhilbrick(Talk) 20:22, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit request: Bug in Gini coefficient code

{{edit protected}} There's a tiny bug in the Gini code. Please change 

   -----Add Gini_category/_rank if either or
                              both supplied:-----
   -->{{#if:{{{Gini_category|}}}
       | {{small|({{{Gini_category}}}}}<!--
       -->{{#if:{{{Gini_rank|}}}
            |{{small|{{\}}[[List of countries by income equality|{{{Gini_rank}}}]])}}<!--
            |{{small|)}}
        -->}}<!--

to 

   -----Add Gini_category/_rank if either or
                              both supplied:-----
   -->{{#if:{{{Gini_category|}}}
       | {{small|({{{Gini_category}}}}}<!--
       -->{{#if:{{{Gini_rank|}}}
           |{{small|{{\}}[[List of countries by income equality|{{{Gini_rank}}}]])}}
           |{{small|)}}
          }}<!--

Note the removal of the comment starting on the longer line and ending on the last line of this excerpt. This will enable the close parenthesis to be displayed when {{{Gini_category}}} is supplied but {{{Gini_rank}}} is not, such as in the article Austria. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 23:05, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Having just looked properly at the history, it's line 837, where the correction to the missing parenth was inadvertently put into the middle of a comment, without closing and reopening the comment. Hope this helps! — OwenBlacker (Talk) 23:10, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Done. --Closedmouth (talk) 01:16, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Gini evaluation

The wikicode to evaluate the Gini index and categorise it doesn't seem to work too well, as it only says if it's low or medium, while it still says it's medium even if the coefficient is above 46.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 06:02, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

  • I've also wondered about this and will take a closer look when I submit an edit request that simplifies the code for this and the HDI formatting (and corrects the formatting of map captions). 213.246.82.234 (talk) 04:07, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 22 February 2013

pls fix the over sized images - Map at 250 is way to big - pls lower to 220 - same with the flags are to big pls lower from 85px to 75px.Moxy (talk) 19:49, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't think the maps are too big, and neither are the flags. Nothing would be accomplished by making the images smaller either, because the information below is often wider than the map. There is a case for reducing the size of coats of arms which can be too large. -- Hazhk Talk to me 20:23, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Someone has changed something - now there all oversize look at European Union and Canada this is not the norm we have had for years. Not sure what has happened was at 220 for years - now 250 looks odd - biggest images on the pages, Moxy (talk) 20:46, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
  • For the sake of smaller screens/windows on/in which Wikipedia appears, I agree that 220 px (i.e. something closer to 200 px than 250 px) should be the norm. (Ideally, I suppose, the units would be proportional.) CsDix (talk) 20:55, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Not done: Sorry, but this template is a big and complex beast, and I'd like to see some test cases set up to show that everything is working before I update it. You can see how to go about this at WP:TESTCASES. If you have any questions about this, please feel free to ask on my talk page. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 13:57, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
We just what it reverted back to what it was - the norm for years and years.... "map_width|250px" back to "map_width|220px" and symbol_"width|85px" back to "symbol_width|75px" that is allMoxy (talk) 22:12, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
I can't see any recent edits to the template that might have had that effect. Perhaps the change was made on another template called by this one? — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 05:46, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 18 February 2013

Virtually all instances of this template now supply the parameters for the recently-streamlined Gini and HDI handling. This sandbox version of the template now assumes this handling is the norm and places each Gini/HDI [category · rank] pairing on its own line back at a more readable 100% font-size. The seemingly unreliable Gini evaluation noted above should now work correctly. The category colo/urs have also been tweaked slightly (to become named web colo/urs) and should now appear a little more distinct against a white background. So, if all looks in order, please update the live version of the template accordingly. 213.246.82.207 (talk) 08:16, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Question: The HDI is broken in one of the test cases - see Template:Infobox country/testcases#Nakhchivan. Any idea what's causing this, and whether it can be fixed? — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 13:55, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Thank you for spotting. I took this on and found two errors in the amended Gini/HDI code (missing/surplus brackets) which I think (hope) are now corrected in this sandbox version. CsDix (talk) 01:43, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Thank you! CsDix (talk) 15:14, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
  • ... and reverted, per this discussion on my talk page. It looks like there are more bugs lurking in that code... — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 00:55, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
  • And reverted again per my user talk. It looks like I'll need to do a full review of this code myself before I try and put it up again, rather than just rely on the test cases, but I don't have the time just now. I might have another look some time this week. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 14:24, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Sorry about this. I think, though, the situation might be better than it looks. Unless I've missed something, the problems still reported relate to the examples on the template page, which, as I've been focused on the test-cases page, I've overlooked. I've now updated the parameters for those examples, so you may find (i.e. I hope you find) they work with the template version most recently reverted and hence that version may be reinstated. CsDix (talk) 01:46, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Yep, you were right - your code was good, but the invocation on the /doc subpage was out of date. I've reinstated the edit and added some error handling to make it clearer what exactly is going wrong. I've also set up the template to add the page to Category:Country articles requiring maintenance if there are any errors in the HDI or Gini values. So far this has already caught an error at the Kyrgyzstan article, and it also found a grand total of 94 pages with errors in non-article namespaces. I don't think we need to worry about going round and fixing all of those, so I restricted the category to mainspace pages instead. However, if we wanted to it would easy to set up one category for mainspace and another for all other namespaces. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 11:36, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks for sorting out. The error handling etc looks a good idea. CsDix (talk) 14:26, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Spacing before area footnote

Area footnotes are being rendered with a preceding space. Can this be fixed?

―Lgfcd (talk) 12:33, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Can you link to an example, please? CsDix (talk) 14:27, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Sure. Just take a look at Israel or Korea: there is a space before the footnote call in the area item.
―Lgfcd (talk) 03:13, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit request 13 March 2013

There is a version in the sandbox that updates a country list link, removes the extra space before a footnote number (see section above), and allows space breaks, instead of non-breaking spaces in a few spots where it was pulling the footnote number down to the next line. Hopefully, someone can update this template? Thanks --Funandtrvl (talk) 00:53, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Done — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 15:29, 14 March 2013 (UTC)


Edit request 19 March 2013

Categories for Human Development Index (HDI) had some changes now in the new 2013 Human Development Report, and it should be corrected to current values, because countries like Uruguay and Belarus appears to be countries with "very high HDI" when actually they are just "high HDI" countries; same with Jordan that appears as "high HDI" country (when is a "medium HDI" country) or Congo (it appears as "medium HDI" country and it is a "low HDI" country).

Very high development index >0.789 0.801

High development index >0.699 0.711

Medium development index >0.519 0.535/Low development index <0.519 0.535

★ Nacho ★ Mailbox ★ 18:16, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

HDI_change

Is that meant to be a change in value or change in rank? Thanks, --Lfdder (talk) 22:32, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

  • Either / both, I imagine. CsDix (talk) 01:12, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Well, I think that it should probably be made clear. Change in rank is probably more meaningful in terms of HDI. HDI_change is also missing from the documentation. --Lfdder (talk) 11:28, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Apologies for my previous vague reply – it's a change in value (which may or may not trigger a change in rank). Thanks for the documentation alert. CsDix (talk) 02:58, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Gini index categories

Changes

From this: 

          ---------Evaluate and add Gini category:----------
          --><span style="white-space:nowrap;"><!--
             -->{{#iferror:<!--
                -->{{#ifexpr:{{{Gini}}}>100 <!--
                 -->| {{error|Error: Gini value above 100}}<!--Handled by outer #iferror, not visible to users--><!--
                 -->| {{#ifexpr:{{{Gini}}}>=60 |{{color|red|very high}}<!--
                    -->| {{#ifexpr:{{{Gini}}}>=46 <!--
                       -->| {{color|darkred|high}}<!--
                       -->| {{#ifexpr:{{{Gini}}}>=30 <!--
                          -->| {{color|orange|medium}}<!--
                          -->| {{#ifexpr:{{{Gini}}}>=0 <!--
                             -->| {{color|forestgreen|low}}<!--
                             -->| {{error|Error:Gini value below 0}}<!--Handled by outer #iferror, not visible to users--><!--

To this: 

          ---------Evaluate and add Gini category:----------
          --><span style="white-space:nowrap;"><!--
             -->{{#iferror:<!--
                -->{{#ifexpr:{{{Gini}}}>100 <!--
                 -->| {{error|Error: Gini value above 100}}<!--Handled by outer #iferror, not visible to users--><!--
                 -->| {{#ifexpr:{{{Gini}}}>=45.52 |{{color|red|very high}}<!--
                    -->| {{#ifexpr:{{{Gini}}}>=38.92 <!--
                       -->| {{color|darkred|high}}<!--
                       -->| {{#ifexpr:{{{Gini}}}>=33.66 <!--
                          -->| {{color|orange|medium}}<!--
                          -->| {{#ifexpr:{{{Gini}}}>=0 <!--
                             -->| {{color|forestgreen|low}}<!--
                             -->| {{error|Error:Gini value below 0}}<!--Handled by outer #iferror, not visible to users--><!--

Explanation

I see no criteria given for the current Gini index categories. I propose using the same criteria used by the Human Development Report for its HDI rankings. The four HDI categories represent each a group of 25% of countries on the list. The top 25% of countries are categorized as "very high", the next 25% as "high", the next 25% as "medium" and the bottom 25% as "low".

According to the World Bank, there are 157 countries with a known Gini index. From lowest to highest, they range from Denmark (24.70) to Seychelles (65.77). If we follow the same criteria used above, these thresholds should be:

  • Very High: 45.52 and over (39 countries)
  • High: 38.92 to 45.51 (39 countries)
  • Medium: From 33.66 to 38.91 (39 countries)
  • Low: From 0 to 33.65 (40 countries)

Here's the full list so you can make your own calculations:

Country Gini index Category
 Denmark 24.70 Low
 Japan 24.85 Low
 Sweden 25.00 Low
 Norway 25.79 Low
 Czech Republic 25.82 Low
 Slovakia 26.00 Low
 Ukraine 26.44 Low
 Finland 26.88 Low
 Belarus 27.22 Low
 Serbia 27.80 Low
 Afghanistan 27.82 Low
 Bulgaria 28.19 Low
 Germany 28.31 Low
 Kazakhstan 29.04 Low
 Austria 29.15 Low
 Ethiopia 29.83 Low
 Montenegro 29.99 Low
 Romania 30.00 Low
 Pakistan 30.02 Low
 Luxembourg 30.76 Low
 Egypt 30.77 Low
 Tajikistan 30.83 Low
 Armenia 30.86 Low
 Iraq 30.86 Low
 Netherlands 30.90 Low
 Slovenia 31.15 Low
 Hungary 31.18 Low
 Korea, South 31.59 Low
 East Timor 31.93 Low
 Bangladesh 32.12 Low
 Canada 32.56 Low
 France 32.74 Low
   Nepal 32.82 Low
 Belgium 32.97 Low
 Mali 33.02 Low
 Moldova 33.03 Low
 Burundi 33.27 Low
 India 33.38 Low
 Croatia 33.65 Low
  Switzerland 33.68 Medium
 Azerbaijan 33.71 Medium
 Indonesia 34.01 Medium
 Poland 34.07 Medium
 Greece 34.27 Medium
 Ireland 34.28 Medium
 Togo 34.41 Medium
 Albania 34.51 Medium
 Niger 34.55 Medium
 Spain 34.66 Medium
 Australia 35.19 Medium
 Sudan 35.29 Medium
 Algeria 35.33 Medium
 Jordan 35.43 Medium
 Palestine, State of 35.50 Medium
 Guinea-Bissau 35.52 Medium
 Vietnam 35.57 Medium
 Syria 35.78 Medium
 United Kingdom 35.97 Medium
 Estonia 36.00 Medium
 Italy 36.03 Medium
 New Zealand 36.17 Medium
 Kyrgyzstan 36.19 Medium
 Bosnia and Herzegovina 36.21 Medium
 Mongolia 36.52 Medium
 Latvia 36.61 Medium
 Uzbekistan 36.72 Medium
 Laos 36.74 Medium
 Maldives 37.37 Medium
 Lithuania 37.57 Medium
 Tanzania 37.58 Medium
 Yemen 37.69 Medium
 Cambodia 37.85 Medium
 Bhutan 38.06 Medium
 Liberia 38.16 Medium
 Iran 38.28 Medium
 Portugal 38.45 Medium
 Benin 38.62 Medium
 Cameroon 38.91 Medium
 Turkey 38.95 High
 Malawi 39.02 High
 Senegal 39.19 High
 Israel 39.20 High
 Guinea 39.35 High
 Chad 39.78 High
 Burkina Faso 39.79 High
 Djibouti 39.96 High
 Thailand 40.02 High
 Russia 40.11 High
 Sri Lanka 40.26 High
 Trinidad and Tobago 40.27 High
 Mauritania 40.46 High
 Nicaragua 40.47 High
 Turkmenistan 40.77 High
 United States 40.81 High
 Morocco 40.88 High
 Qatar 41.10 High
 Georgia 41.34 High
 Tunisia 41.42 High
 Gabon 41.45 High
 Côte d'Ivoire 41.50 High
 China 42.48 High
 Singapore 42.48 High
 Sierra Leone 42.52 High
 Saint Lucia 42.58 High
 Ghana 42.76 High
 Fiji 42.83 High
 Philippines 42.98 High
 Macedonia, Republic of 43.17 High
 Hong Kong 43.44 High
 Madagascar 44.11 High
 Uganda 44.30 High
 Congo, Democratic Republic of the 44.43 High
 Argentina 44.49 High
 Guyana 44.54 High
 Venezuela 44.77 High
 Uruguay 45.32 High
 Jamaica 45.51 High
 South Sudan 45.53 Very High
 Mozambique 45.66 Very High
 Malaysia 46.21 Very High
 Dominican Republic 47.20 Very High
 Gambia, The 47.28 Very High
 Congo, Republic of the 47.32 Very High
 Kenya 47.68 Very High
 Peru 48.14 Very High
 Mexico 48.28 Very High
 El Salvador 48.33 Very High
 Nigeria 48.83 Very High
 Ecuador 49.26 Very High
 Zimbabwe 50.10 Very High
 Cape Verde 50.52 Very High
 Costa Rica 50.73 Very High
 Rwanda 50.82 Very High
 São Tomé and Príncipe 50.82 Very High
 Papua New Guinea 50.88 Very High
 Swaziland 51.49 Very High
 Panama 51.92 Very High
 Chile 52.06 Very High
 Paraguay 52.42 Very High
 Lesotho 52.50 Very High
 Suriname 52.88 Very High
 Belize 53.13 Very High
 Zambia 54.63 Very High
 Brazil 54.69 Very High
 Guatemala 55.89 Very High
 Colombia 55.91 Very High
 Bolivia 56.29 Very High
 Central African Republic 56.30 Very High
 Honduras 56.95 Very High
 Angola 58.64 Very High
 Haiti 59.21 Very High
 Botswana 60.96 Very High
 Micronesia, Federated States of 61.10 Very High
 South Africa 63.14 Very High
 Namibia 63.90 Very High
 Comoros 64.30 Very High
 Seychelles 65.77 Very High

What does everyone think? Pristino (talk) 20:34, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. If you have only just invited opinion, it's clear that there is no consensus yet. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:00, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
The use of the template was precisely to invite opinion. Pristino (talk) 02:58, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
The purpose of the template is not to invite opinion. See {{edit protected}}, particularly "This template should be used only to request edits to fully protected pages that are either uncontroversial or supported by consensus. If the proposed edit might be controversial, discuss it on the protected page's talk page before using this template." (in the template itself) and "consensus should be obtained before the template is added." (in the documentation). At Wikipedia:Edit requests#General considerations it explicitly states "Please do not add the {{edit protected}} template merely to attract attention to the change, as it clutters up the relevant edit request category with unactionable requests." --Redrose64 (talk) 11:20, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
Well... I'm very sorry, then! Pristino (talk) 21:30, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
I think it would be a great idea, but my concern is that the World Bank has outdated and/or old statistics for almost all countries. For example, Eurostat states that France's Gini index is 30.8 for 2011, the World Bank's 32.7 value is from 2008. And it is even worst for non-European countries: according to the UNECLAC (also known as ECLAC or CEPAL), Venezuela's Gini index reached 39.7 in 2011, the World Bank's 44.7 figure is from 2006.
Multiple sources might be used instead of just one. ★ Nacho ★ Mailbox ★ 03:39, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
Unfortunately we can't use multiple sources in the case of Gini values, because the method of calculation and the income considered can vary widely. For the same year and for the same country, the OECD might calculate one Gini index under one methodology, Eurostat may use income not included in the OECD estimation and the World Bank may have a completely different way of calculating the index. Secondly, it would be nearly impossible to have a Gini value for the same year for all countries, as Gini indices are calculated based on national household surveys, and these are not usually carried out every year. Pristino (talk) 21:29, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

additions for Denmark

please update to this version of the sandbox, which adds support for a third custom area, and custom population fields. this is needed to make this work without using the sandbox, and thus eliminating the hacks used to wedge in more data. thank you. Frietjes (talk) 16:51, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

This seems like a useful change. It also means we should be able to remove the France-specific parameters, which are used for a similar situation in that article. CMD (talk) 17:45, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Done! Please update the documentation, and let me know if you want any help with transitioning the France-specific parameters. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:19, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Population density

How should population density be calculated when using this template? Should it be population/total area or population/land area? Pseudonymous Rex (talk) 20:38, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

EU accession date

Just curious, why doesn't |accessionEUdate = , located under European Union-specific parameters, work? It is written in the code on some articles (like The Netherlands) but does not show up. --Gimelthedog (talk) 18:41, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Looks like it was removed with this edit, though I was unable to find any discussion which lead to its removal. TDL (talk) 19:37, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
Was it functionally different than the normal dates in the infobox? CMD (talk) 19:49, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
It seems to have a different "box" than the establishment "box". Maybe we should reintroduce it?? --Gimelthedog (talk) 02:47, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, there is a horizontal line separating it from the "Formation" box, which it is directly below. If we used the "established_event" parameter to indicate the date they joined the EU, it would be listed under the heading "Formation" and indented with a dash. I'm not sure that really makes sense, so I'd agree that we should probably restore the parameter. TDL (talk) 04:29, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
It's not a formation box, it's a sovereignty/establishment box. Whether or not EU ascension belongs there, I hardly see why it needs a separate box. CMD (talk) 13:19, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Right, but my point was that (using France as an example which sets "sovereignty_type = [[History of France|Formation]]") every "established_event" is listed as a bulleted item under the heading Formation. I'm not sure that is the appropriate place for the EU membership date, hence we need a separate parameter. I do agree that it could be further improved upon though, for example by putting it in the same box as the "Formation" dates. TDL (talk) 21:10, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
It could also be integrated into the "Formation" box, but keeping the syntax (|accessionEUdate =). Many EU country articles have the parameter already in the infobox, but it is not being displayed because the parameter was removed.--Gimelthedog (talk) 21:58, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
So I've restored the code to the sandbox, but improved it so that it doesn't create a separate box for the date. However, it uses a distinct header cell so that the item isn't listed under the "Formation" title. You can see it in action at Template:Infobox_country/testcases (for France and Germany). Any objections to this? If not, I'll make an edit request. TDL (talk) 23:47, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
I disagree with according it more prominence than other levels of state development. I don't see how it's any less "Formation" than "Current constitution". CMD (talk) 17:45, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Well, I'd argue that the current French constitution, which established the French Fifth Republic (modern day France), is pretty relevant to the formation of France, while France joining the EU doesn't really have anything to do with the formation of France. (Though it would probably make more sense if we inverted that line of France's infobox to emphasize the republic rather than the constitution.)
Also, the title of the section is customizable and varies considerably across articles. In cases where "Independence" is used (Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, Estonia, Finland, Republic of Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Slovakia) I think the EU accession date belongs even less. TDL (talk) 18:25, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
If the EU accession date is so unimportant that it doesn't belong to the sovereignty section, then it doesn't belong in these infoboxes. CMD (talk) 18:49, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
the edit that TDL did on the sandbox looks really good and in place. I think it should be added to infobox. If we can't agree on adding the accession date into the infobox, we should add somthing to show that that country is a EU member state. The Spanish Wikipedia has somthing that says a country is a EU member state. (see An example here, France in Spanish Wikipedia ). --Gimelthedog (talk) 23:14, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Each EU member state has a map that shows this clearly and visually, and a caption that should go with it. CMD (talk) 23:20, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
CMD, I never said the date was unimportant, just that it wasn't related to France's formation or independence. There are lots of other important details included in the template (the flag, capital, language, currency, etc) which I likewise don't think would make sense to list under the heading "Formation", but that doesn't diminish their significance or relevance to the topic (and hence infobox) as a whole. TDL (talk) 00:44, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
I disagree that the date of EU accession is a significant and relevant topic for the world's countries. It applies to a very small selection of countries, and even for them it doesn't seem to me to garner the same importance as other items which obtain their own field. EU membership is highly relevant to the political development of France, which is what that section is for, regardless of what particular word various infoboxes use. Your own sandbox even places it in the same section. CMD (talk) 22:36, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

No wrap

In some cases the rank wraps alone (look in "total GDP" here or in "total area" here).

It looks bad. In the case where the affected rows are meant to be short (e.g. GDP, population density, area, etc) the whole line could be defined with a "white-space:nowrap" style to fix this. Windroff (talk) 01:54, 29 June 2013 (UTC)


Merge of Template:Infobox micronation

As per the consensus at TfD, I've merged the functionality of {{Infobox micronation}} into the sandbox version of this template. The testcases appear to be working, and I've added Sealand as an extra example to demonstrate the new "micronation code". TDL (talk) 07:12, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Question: rather than further complicating this template would it be preferable to make Template:Infobox micronation a wrapper for this template? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:41, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
not sure that would work, since you would still need to be able to change the labels for micronation specific labels. this appears to be the best way to go. Frietjes (talk) 15:48, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, what Frietjes said. If we want to have micronation specific labels for several parameters (which is what was suggested at the TfD) then I'm not sure a wrapper would be any simpler as this template would then have to have parameters for all the labels. TDL (talk) 18:54, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Sandbox copied over. If I made a mistake, leave a note at my talk and I'll be happy to self-revert, or ask any other admin. Nyttend (talk) 00:51, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks! TDL (talk) 01:59, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Formatting improvements

I've fixed several formatting issues in the sandbox version of this template:

  • Set a default value for the caption of the flag and coat of arms in the case where no working wikilink is found.
  • Removed an extra linebreak, which only shows up when the "native_name" parameter is used.
  • Fixed the formatting of the "Membership" label. Currently both "Population" and "Membership" headings appears if "nummembers" is set but a population parameter is not set.

All the testcases appear to be working. I've configured the Sealand example to display all the changes. TDL (talk) 04:52, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

No comments/opposition after 4 days, so  Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:55, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

State religion

Could we add a parameter for state religion, per File:Map of state religions.svg? Could be set for default 'none' if no value entered, to save work. — kwami (talk) 21:01, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

seems reasonable, but where should the field be placed, what label should be used, and what variable name should be used? Frietjes (talk) 16:46, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Would probably fit logically below "Official languages". TDL (talk) 17:30, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
We have two maps which often contradict each other. In some cases at least this is because the status of religion in many states is ambiguous, but others are probably due to carelessness or dated info. If we add the field to this box as I'd like, and use it in the articles, we'd presumably pass through a period of instability until the less obvious or more obscure cases get RS'd and worked out, but once that happens we should be able to respond to political changes as they occur and use the research in our country articles for the maps, making them much more reliable than the rather sorry state they're in now. — kwami (talk) 22:48, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
@Kwamikagami and Frietjes: I've added a parameter to the sandbox to display the state religion. Check out China's entry in the testcases. What do you think? TDL (talk) 04:01, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
Looks good. Thanks! — kwami (talk) 05:40, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
How does it tie in to the current 'religion' field? — kwami (talk) 06:02, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
Oh yes, I forgot I had added that a while back. Maybe we should just use the "religion" field for this purpose? I can still rename the header "State religion". TDL (talk) 17:29, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

HDI indicates "high" for North Korea which is ranked 157th

An editor opened a SPER on North Korea because the infobox indicates "high" even though the HDI rank is 157. Korea was not included in the more recent rankings and the number they received in 2009, 0.733, would be in the range of "high" is they received it in 2013. I think the template needs to test HDI year and not indicate "high" if the number is from a previous year. I can look at it and open an edit request with a requested change, but I'm hoping a more capable editor will step in before I do. :) Thanks, Celestra (talk) 04:00, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Em dash

Today I visited the article Burma, and saw that the "map_caption" parameter of this template includes a spaced em dash, which is contrary to WP:DASH. This should be fixed. Toccata quarta (talk) 11:57, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Religion again

Discussed before, but to formalise, can we change the current "Religion" field to "Official religion"/"State religion" or something similar? This would be more useful than a regurgitation of percentages. CMD (talk) 17:21, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the religion field isn't much used, and the %ages don't have much to do with the state as a polity, the way official/state religions do. We might want to make the field display itself a parameter, so we can distinguish state religions from state-supported religions from state churches from official religions, to avoid arguments over what exactly qualifies as a an "official" religion – no matter which wording we choose, it'll be too specific for some cases. — kwami (talk) 23:57, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Unless a country declares a specific religion to be the religion of that country, I don't see why the field should be used in the infobox. Of course, that's my opinion. I'm sure implementation could be discussed per article, however, it won't be if the field is as poor as it currently is. CMD (talk) 15:33, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Yes, and it could lead to endless debates over how significant a religion needs to be in order to be included. Better to stick with official pronouncements. — kwami (talk) 16:12, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
I would support removal of the field altogether. There are as many different relationships between states and religions as there are states. Trying to shoehorn them all into 1 generic religion field is unhelpful. This is exactly the sort of information that belongs in the article body, not in the infobox. Kaldari (talk) 16:28, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
I don't understand kwami, how would only including a religion which has been declared a religion of the country not be sticking to official pronouncements? I wouldn't oppose a removal, although if this is removed than the patron_saint and patron_saints fields should be removed as well (in fact, whether or not religion as the overall field is kept, patron saints is very specific). CMD (talk) 18:32, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
I meant that it wouldn't necessarily be an "official" religion. It might have some other state-supported status. If we insisted on it being "official", we would certainly get into arguments over its exact status, as we have on the maps of state religions. But I think it would be a bad idea to include any religion some office of the state mentions as existing in the country, if it doesn't have some sort of legal status in the country. — kwami (talk) 04:20, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Toggle-able 1px flag border

Please add a parameter that turns off the 1px border that surrounds country flags (e.g. "flag_border=no" or the like). For example, Nepal's flag in its infobox has a border around it, when it is not shaped like a quadrilateral. Illegitimate Barrister (talk) 18:16, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

added and added |flag2_border=. Frietjes (talk) 17:24, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Any documentation on how it is to be used? Illegitimate Barrister (talk) 21:13, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Never mind. Illegitimate Barrister (talk) 21:43, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Pornographic vandalism. Please remove it.

Clicking on the "show" link of the "Country or territory" subsection of the "Examples" section leads to an image of a person playing with a penis. This is clearly pornographic vandalism. Please remove it as soon as possible. I can not do it, as the page is currently protected, and can be edited only by template editors and administrators (which I am not). --Intelligentguy89 (talk) 21:07, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Not when I look at it. I see an infobox of Cameroun. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:12, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Not sure what Intelligentguy89 seeing ...as i dont see this...do you see it in this page or a specific country page? -- Moxy (talk) 21:14, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
It was there earlier, in the template page. It has been removed now.
The doc is not protected, anyone can edit it, but there's been only one recent edit, and it's not vandalism. — kwami (talk) 21:20, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
That might have been the vandalism that was added to {{native name}} at 20:47 UTC. It was reverted and the template was protected fourteen minutes later. SiBr4 ("CyberFour") (talk) 08:13, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

coordinate usage

I don't seen any explicit documentation on this, but based on the way they display and they way they're used in e.g. the Russia and United States of America articles, it looks like the lat and long parameters are of the capital city, not the whole country. But it seems like there should be a single well-defined way of specifying coordinates for the whole country, too. Am I missing something? —Steve Summit (talk) 22:05, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

If there are no objections, I think I'll try to rework the template to have explicit capital_lat and capital_long parameters for the coordinates of the capital city, so that lat and long can then be reworked to be of the country itself. —Steve Summit (talk) 02:42, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
It seems to me that we already have a place for the capital city's co-ordinates – the capital city's article. What we don't have is another place for the country's co-ordinates, which is what I believe the co-ordinates in this infobox should be used for. As with any other object, I'd expect them to refer to the centroid of the object (i.e. the geographic center of the country) with precision and scale value appropriate for the size of the object. It seems like that would require re-sourcing those co-ords from somewhere (many choices available), changing the title in the template, and maybe getting the capital info moved to Wikidata versus duplicating/reconciling it with the capital articles? —[AlanM1(talk)]— 14:53, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
They primary coordinates (i.e. those at the top of the article, and the first given in the infobox) should the approximate centre of the map that shows the entity under discussion, and we make nor assert no other claim about them. The coordinates of near-coastal Washington DC do not represent the map of the USA. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:19, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Electricity

Down somewhere around where we say whether you drive on the right or the left, IMO it would be useful to have the voltage & frequency of the electrical supply, as well as the kind of electrical plug you need. Info is available here. — kwami (talk) 04:26, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

sounds useful, what label and variable name would you like to use for this? Frietjes (talk) 17:26, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, very handy if you're traveling and need to plan on an adapter for your laptop, or want to know if your recharger will work. Name: Idunno. What about just "Electricity"? Anything more precise ("electrical supply and socket"?) might take up an undue amount of space: It's useful, but I wouldn't want to make it look too important. — kwami (talk) 21:23, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Support. Though I suggest two parameters: Electricity for voltage and frequency (i.e. electricity=230V/50Hz) and Electric plug for electric plugs (i.e. electric_plug=C, F). --Heb (talk) 08:11, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Support. I would also like to see the average Electricity Consumption (kWh per person per year) - as it relates to Human Development Index.--Graham Proud (talk) 05:08, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 31 March 2014: Electricity

I propose two changes:

  1. 1 Add electricity voltage and frequency as per discussion on talk page
  2. 2 Add electricity consumption (kWh per person per year) to position each country in rank, similar to HDI rank - see this graph as an example/

Graham Proud (talk) 05:17, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please make your requested changes to the template's sandbox first; see WP:TESTCASES. Jackmcbarn (talk) 20:33, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Link to Flag article

It would be really useful to have an automatic link from the flag caption to the related article. This could be done by replacing the text "Flag" under the flag image with

{{#ifexist: Flag of {{PAGENAME}}| [[Flag of {{PAGENAME}}|Flag]] | Flag }}

Alternatively, could you please add a |flag_caption= similar to the |map_caption=? Thanks, —capmo (talk) 16:41, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

There already is an automatic link, for both the flag and the coat of arms. This can be seen in any country page. What specific issue have you found? CMD (talk) 16:49, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, you're correct. I took for granted there wasn't yet an automated link when I saw this failed attempt to add one to the Guinea article. The problem was elsewhere (in |common_name=, not very intuitive: [3]). —capmo (talk) 17:05, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes, common name is not very intuitive, and I've seen that field cause issue before. It should probably be changed to "link name" or something, but I don't know how to code that and run an automatic change through all existing articles. CMD (talk) 18:13, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
It's called "common_name" because it's used for more than just linking. For example, the hovering text and captions of images. However, there is a parameter called "linking_name" that can be used in cases where the common name and linking name differ (ie due to disambiguation). By default, linking_name=common_name. For example, compare this with this when you hover over the flag/coat of arms. TDL (talk) 18:30, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Useful. Always more to learn. Misunderstandings with that field have actually come up on Georgia before, so it was a good one to change. Can you update the doc with this and any other effects, it seems to only mention links and the ISO code (which can by itself be set manually so I don't know how that works either). CMD (talk) 19:15, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Just a moment! Danlaycock's second example just exposed a bug in the code: |common_name= is taking precedence over |linking_name= even inside the links. Some instances of {{{common_name|{{{linking_name| should be replaced with {{{linking_name|{{{common_name|.
The captions that go inside both images also need to be changed: the {{{linking_name| portion should be removed altogether, it's not necessary. —capmo (talk) 20:07, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Ah yes, you're absolutely correct, those lines of code are written backwards! I can't think of any sensible reason why common_name should take precedence over linking_name inside links. Though I'm not sure the parameter should be removed from the captions since we need to consider cases where only "linking_name" has been specified. (PAGENAME does provide a fallback default though.) I'll do some testing in the sandbox. As for the documentation, the parameter is mentioned in the "Geopolitical organization" syntax example. Perhaps it would be a good idea to merge the two syntaxes into one to avoid duplication as there is no bright line to divide geopolitical parameters from country parameters. TDL (talk) 20:16, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
OK, check out Template:Infobox_country/testcases#United_States where I have set "common_name=the USA" and "linking_name=the United States" to demonstrate the difference. The only changes is in the caption of the flag/coat of arms. TDL (talk) 20:41, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Everything seems to be alright now, thanks! —capmo (talk) 06:19, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
OK, I moved it live. Thanks for catching that extra pipe for me! TDL (talk) 15:41, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Missing link

| ethnic_groups = may be linked to Ethnic group --Wickey-nl (talk) 07:13, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please make your requested changes to the template's sandbox first; see WP:TESTCASES. Jackmcbarn (talk) 18:51, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Come on, people! He is asking for the addition of a mere wikilink! It's a ridiculously simple change:
============================================================
  Ethnic groups
============================================================
 -->{{#if:{{{ethnic_groups|}}}
     | <tr>
         <td colspan="2">'''[[Ethnic group|Ethnic&nbsp;groups]]'''<!--
           -->{{#if:{{{ethnic_groups_year|}}} |({{{ethnic_groups_year}}})}}</td>
         <td>{{{ethnic_groups}}}</td>
       </tr><!--
 -->}}<!--
I ask the admins who maintain this template to please be more condescending with the people who make simple requests, as this one and the one below this. Not everyone is knowledgeable enough to test a complex template like this. If they're not asking for much, why not take a few minutes to study their request and implement the changes, if they are reasonable. Regards, —capmo (talk) 19:51, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Done Jackmcbarn (talk) 19:54, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Thank you!! :) —capmo (talk) 19:57, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Infobox_country/Archive_9&oldid=1118295254"