Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries

Project Countries main pageTalkParticipantsTemplatesArticlesPicturesTo doArticle assessmentCountries portal

Category:Flag template shorthands has an RFC

Category:Flag template shorthands has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you.

Requested move at Talk:Communist state#Requested move 23 December 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Communist state#Requested move 23 December 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 12:42, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Communist state#Requested move 23 December 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Communist state#Requested move 23 December 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vestrian24Bio 04:04, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

Estonia, Lativa, Lithuania

Well @Glebushko0703, ExRat, Sbaio, CoolCuteBear, Neptuunium, and HKLionel:, I tried to create peace, concerning "short description", via consistency at Estonia, Latvia & Lithuania. But one of you reverted me at Estonia & another at Lithuania. I don't know why anybody would want inconsistency in the area, on those three articles, so I'll start the discussion here & let you all come up with a solution. Recommending that @Callanecc: monitor. GoodDay (talk) 05:31, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

As far as I’m concerned, you removed useful information from a short description in the name of consistency, which holds no weight against SD guidelines. If you want consistency, then I’d change Latvia and Lithuania to Baltic country in Northern Europe as well, as all three are Baltic states in Northern Europe, while mentioning Baltic region would make the SD too long. In your revert, you cited Sweden and Finland, which after review, I would change to Nordic country in Northern Europe as well. Imparting helpful information to the reader takes precedence above all other concerns in the field of short descriptions. HKLionel TALK 05:41, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Change them to whatever you & the others can come to a conesnsus on. GoodDay (talk) 05:44, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

I think it's time to get opinons from outsiders, on this issue. I'll be opening up a RFC here, soon. GoodDay (talk) 00:02, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

See RFC discussion. GoodDay (talk) 02:17, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

The primary topic of the RfC is the short desc used on three articles. That is not clear from the above post; therefore, it should be worded as such, like this:  You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Estonia § RFC: Short description of Baltic states. Redrose64 🦌 (talk) 13:23, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Native name

Republic of Panama República de Panamá (Spanish)
ISO 3166 code	PA

Republic of Panama República de Panamá
ISO 3166 code	PA

@Absolutiva: Why is this being done all over without a talk? Why are we removing the language tag? How the hell are our readers to know what language is being displayed? Why are you bypassing the parameter setup by the community ? Are you also removing portals all over as seen here?Moxy🍁 13:05, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

This edit will not have notified Absolutiva (talk · contribs), see WP:MENTION. --Redrose64 🦌 (talk) 14:43, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

It is redundant to have parenthesis in some major countries like Germany, Brazil, India, etc. are most examples of countries do not need parenthesis which is generally omitted for most spoken languages, like German or Portuguese, see this example. Absolutiva 14:51, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

Disagree ...we are here to help readers understand what information is being presented before them ...why would we make it hard for them to understand ? ..are they to guess? Moxy🍁 15:57, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

Take a look an example, which a {{Native name}} parameter suppress the appearance of the native language's name in a parenthesis to reduce redundancy for that purpose. A minimal infobox example of a France, which a French language is suppressed from the native language's name in a parenthesis after the native name. Absolutiva 22:32, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

Well—the information being presented to them is that it's the native name, no? If someone asks me my name, do they also want to know what language it's from? (Well, some people will ask outright if the name seems to be from what they consider to be an "exotic" culture and they're trying to figure out where in the social hierarchy of the world, as they see it, to place you, but let's not talk about those people.) If there are multiple names in different languages (Switzerland, for example), then of course we need to be explicit about the context behind each name. (I have no strong opinion on this, there just seemed to be a place for a little devilish advocacy.) Largoplazo (talk) 23:09, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

At least, one language is used for infobox like Austria, see this edit, according to Template:Infobox country. Absolutiva 23:20, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

I don't know what point you meant to make—all you did was give an example that's the reverse of the edit of yours that Moxy gave as an example—but it doesn't address what I said. Largoplazo (talk) 00:48, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

They are showing us an editor who got banned for these type of edits? Moxy🍁 15:17, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

Noticed that banned user Vellutis did on Italy, Austria and Poland, then Remsense reinstated for Austria to trunciate from {{native name}} to {{lang}} in the |native_name= parameter. Meanwhile, Freedoxm did also changing for Germany, then reinstated Remsense tell editors to stop edit warring. Absolutiva 01:04, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Yes, that makes sense. Mellk (talk) 13:18, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

Will start restoration soon. Moxy🍁 16:48, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

Unless the indentations here are wrong and your reasoning is therefore being misrepresented, I'm trying to figure out how we got from me suggesting that it's appropriate to leave the language names out, to Mellk (if they were indeed responding to me) agreeing with me, to you (if the you were indeed responding to Mellk) concluding that you're going to put the language names back. Largoplazo (talk) 17:57, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

Not sure what anyone is saying I guess. You're of the opinion we shouldn't tell readers what language they're reading? Thus far Absolutiva has pointed to a template documentation page (that has the status of an essay) and an edit by a blocked user to justify the removal of these all over. I think in many cases this is necessary..... We should educate people that in Mexico they don't speak Mexican.Moxy🍁 18:12, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

You: "we are here to help readers understand what information is being presented before them". Me: "the information being presented to them is that it's the native name, no? If someone asks me my name, do they also want to know what language it's from?" When I write my name (in real life), do people need to know what language they're reading? Whether my name is Pierre or Yoshihiko or Tesfaye or Cuautemoc, the information I'm giving them is that it's my name. They don't need to know what language it is and I don't provide that information by default. So, why are countries different? Largoplazo (talk) 18:37, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

I'm not understanding this jumbled talk. You don't think it's best we tell our readers the language of the translated text? Japan should just be blank? Moxy🍁 18:43, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

It's as straightforward as I can make it without simply saying, as if by fiat, "Omit the language" without the courtesy of explaining why that is my opinion. Omit the language. Because those are just native names. Just like I don't need to tell people what language my formal name is in, we don't need to tell people what language countries' native names are in. The previous sentence is as bare-bones a manner in which I can state my analogy. Largoplazo (talk) 18:48, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

To address a point of yours that I didn't before: We should educate people that in Mexico they don't speak Mexican. If I'm Swiss and I tell people my name is Johannes, is it desirable at that moment to educate them, unprompted, that there is no Swiss language and that my name is actually German? That would be a digression and people would probably look at me funny. Largoplazo (talk) 18:53, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

Then, as I acknowledged, it makes sense to provide the languages to identify each alternative when there are alternatives, as for Switzerland. The human name analogy could be someone like former king Baudouin of Belgium, whose names in the official Belgian languages are Baudouin in French, Boudewijn in Dutch, and Balduin in German. (In that case, the names are in fact given further down in the infobox.) The need to indicate the languages there would be slightly more marked if English speakers had recognized him as "Baldwin", the equivalent name, and I've always wondered why they didn't. But, in any event, when we give the full name of monarchs of countries like Denmark or Liechtenstein, we don't specify what languages their names are. Largoplazo (talk) 18:44, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

Why don't we for bios (I generally avoid biographies) ? Seems like a glaring omission as something like "Иосиф Сталин

იოსებ სტალინი is meaningless without context. Moxy🍁 18:53, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

When you read the newspaper, does it report what language the name of every person being reported on comes from? But, anyway, that you're asking that tells me that I made a mistaken assumption in presenting my analogy, that you would agree as a matter of course that we don't identify the languages people's names come from. I really was not expecting that you'd want the languages of people's names included. Largoplazo (talk) 18:54, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

Newspapers wouldn't print the foreign language name. I guess it's best our readers just guess at what the text is for country names. Moxy🍁 19:01, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

Don't mistake me as having taken an insistent position on that. As I remarked at the end of my original comment, I was playing devil's advocate on that one point, and I'd had no intention of standing strongly by it. The only reason I pursued it with you is not because you disagreed with my point and I was digging in my heels in combat but because you seemed to be agreeing with my point based on an understanding that it was the opposite of what it was. Which has turned out to be the case. It was confusing, that's all! Largoplazo (talk) 19:20, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

France is the same as French, but not to avoid repetition itself within the title. Absolutiva 00:34, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Last thing we want is our readers to actually think this ..No, France (the country) is not the same as French (the language) they're not a translation of each other. Wondering how many people think in Mexico they speak Mexican. Moxy🍁 00:43, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Not me, coloniser demonym (Not the people of the country) (most often) = colony's language.

Example: Demonym of Spain, coloniser of Mexico is Spanish (not the people), and Mexico speaks it.

Also, "France is the same thing as French", you

sure

about

that

pal?

Didn't know colonising 1/3 of Africa is the same thing as eating a baguette and saying Bonjour everyday. MosquitoDestroyer (talk | mosquitoes destroyed) 02:46, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

@Moxy: Wondering how many people think in Mexico they speak Mexican. ¡Ask a Mexican! --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:19, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

I asked AI and the answer I got was "Yes, in Mexico they speak Mexican Spanish. Moxy🍁 20:52, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Birth/death places discussion

There is a discussion at WT:MOSBIO § Tallinn, Soviet Union, regarding the birth and death place names of Estonian/Latvian/Lithuanians outside of infoboxes. GoodDay (talk) 16:51, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Areas, centres, cities

I don't see {{Largest Urban areas}}, {{Largest population centres}}, and {{Largest cities}} as improvements to articles and am posting here to inform editors of the issue. Logoshimpo (talk) 01:06, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

Could you explain the inherent problems with these templates that have been around for a few decades? Is your intent to nominate these for deletions from thousands of articles or is it some sort of general comment? I've always been concerned about general accessibility ....is this the concern?Moxy🍁 01:50, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

We have had certain countries [and states] have this sort of template removed. They were added back but they aren't on all countries. I don't consider this an improvement and have linked to the full list on articles. Logoshimpo (talk) 02:09, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your showing us here ....in 2012 an editor remove these all over.... they were reinstated by multiple editors almost immediately and there was no discussion that took place.. can you explain what the problem is? Moxy🍁 02:17, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

See this edit summary. Some countries use {{Largest cities}}, others use {{Largest population centres}}, and still others use {{Largest Urban areas}}. Neither Saint Lucia nor India use it. Logoshimpo (talk) 02:29, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

oh..... You're the individual that remove these randomly all over. Can you explain the inherent problem with them..... To be honest if there's a rational reason I can support this...... Simply not a fan of graphs and charts over prose text. I am the one that recently promoted the discontinuation of little mini images of these. Moxy🍁 02:37, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

I've never been a fan for a few reasons. Firstly they didn't use to appear on mobile, not sure if that's still the case but it caused effectively empty sections when these for some reason had a section header. Content-wise they set an arbitrary number that likely has no relevance to the particular country. They are also vulnerable to issues surrounding the definition of what a city is, and this can greatly alter a list. CMD (talk) 02:42, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

I'd be more than willing to be involved in some sort of campaign to get rid of these. However I see by many deletion discussions about these many people find them an attribute to articles. Perhaps we should discuss about removing them from country articles and see how things goes and take it from there? I'm willing to remove them from country articles and see what kind of feedback I get. Moxy🍁 02:57, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

I have many examples where they are detrimental to articles. Did you need more examples User:Moxy? Logoshimpo (talk) 02:37, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

i also found Template:Largest municipalities which is a wrapper which is outside my expertise. Logoshimpo (talk) 03:15, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

Mühlviertel

The article has been unsourced since 2006. If anyone can add a reference it would be appreciated. Unfortunately WP:WikiProject Austria is not active, so this is only spot I could think of to place a notice. Best.4meter4 (talk) 16:11, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Consistency in the treatment of ethnic composition in country infoboxes

I would like to raise a methodological concern regarding how ethnic composition data is handled on this article in comparison with other country articles across Wikipedia. On the Turkey page, ethnic group percentages are presented as approximate ranges (for example, estimates such as 70–80%), explicitly labeled as academic or secondary estimates rather than census-based data. This approach acknowledges uncertainty and reflects the reality that official ethnic statistics are not collected, while still providing readers with a broad demographic framework supported by scholarly literature. However, similar academic estimates are systematically absent from the articles of many European countries (such as Germany, France, the United Kingdom, and others), despite the existence of extensive peer-reviewed research, demographic reconstructions, migration-background statistics, parental-origin data, and language-use surveys. In these cases, ethnic composition sections are often omitted entirely, even where uncertainty ranges would be comparable or substantially narrower (for example, estimates in the range of 1–6% for specific groups). From a demographic and statistical methodology perspective, uncertainty ranges of 1–6% for smaller population groups are widely regarded as acceptable, particularly when assumptions are transparent and sources are clearly cited. In relative terms, such estimates often involve less proportional uncertainty than broad majority estimates such as 70–80%. This raises questions about internal consistency in editorial standards. Moreover, this asymmetry appears to follow a broader geographic pattern. Articles on countries commonly classified as “Eastern” or “non-Western” (e.g. Turkey, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Egypt, Afghanistan) frequently include ethnic percentage estimates based on non-census academic sources, while articles on Western European states do not, even when the epistemic basis for estimation is comparable. This selective application risks reproducing a form of epistemic imbalance, where demographic fragmentation is emphasized in some regions but avoided in others. My concern is not about advocating for particular numerical values, nor about promoting ethnic categorization as an end in itself. Rather, it is about whether Wikipedia applies a consistent methodological standard across countries. Either clearly labeled academic estimates should be treated uniformly wherever reliable sources exist, or such estimates should be avoided altogether to maintain symmetry and neutrality. I would appreciate clarification on the rationale behind this apparent asymmetry and guidance on what constitutes best practice for handling ethnic composition data in cases where official statistics are unavailable but scholarly estimates exist.

The ethnic composition field should be removed from the Turkey infobox. Infoboxes are intended to summarize standardized and broadly comparable information. In Turkey’s case, ethnic composition figures are not based on an official census and rely on secondary estimates (such as the CIA World Factbook). Comparable secondary estimates are not included in the infoboxes of most other countries, particularly European states, even when similar data exists. Retaining such figures in the Turkey infobox therefore gives the article exceptional treatment, placing non-standardized demographic estimates in a highly prominent position that is not used elsewhere. This proposal does not require removing discussion of ethnicity from the article body. Qualitative or sourced academic discussion can remain in the relevant section, where nuance and limitations can be properly explained. The suggested change is solely to align the Turkey infobox with prevailing Wikipedia practice by removing ethnic composition from the infobox. Mailbox1978 (talk) 16:57, 3 February 2026 (UTC)