This article is within the scope of WikiProject Countries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of countries on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CountriesWikipedia:WikiProject CountriesTemplate:WikiProject Countriescountry articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
Sdkb Definitely there was a reason it was removed in the main article. Technically are all the colors non-compliant, but the yellow is almost unreadable with my blue light filter. The rest of the article also has a bunch of accessibility issues. --Trialpears (talk) 22:55, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
To not merge the region articles, given the current structure works for readers; no consensus for alternative proposals with stale discussion. Klbrain (talk) 09:55, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
These articles have always been of varying quality with often outdated information and much repetition. By combining them all to a page with a bunch of complete lists we could make it easier for readers to look at all different groups and make maintenance significantly easier. I also have major concerns about numbers being changed and noone catching it. That was a significant problem at both HDI and List of countries by HDI before protection and I have no reason to believe that isn't the case here as well but without it being noticed. I even saw this being reported yesterday with someone having changed the Brazilian HDI by 0.100. The main benefit I see with separate articles is that it would be easier to incorporate more discussion about human development in the region. This is however not done today and if it's desired some discussion could be added here and creating a Human Development in Continent series would be more appropriate for in depth discussion anyway. --Trialpears (talk) 14:08, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think those articles are probably a bit redundant with this one existing but I am not sure. I am updating this article atm anyway. And that sort of vandalism is very problematic, it is difficult to catch and I have seen it in articles on gdp per capita. Maybe it is the same person, I am not sure Heikocvijic (talk) 19:45, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The current content is fine with the List of countries by Human Development Index by region listing the Top 10 countries of each region and each region's own article containing the full list of countries. Otherwise, we would have a lengthy article containing more than 200 countries. Not a good idea.
What is the benefit of this? Plenty of international orgs work on an Asia-Pacific basis and a Latin American basis (although they include the Caribbean in this). CMD (talk) 02:24, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If we are splitting, we should follow the same divisions UNDP does: Eastern Europe and Central Asia, Latin America and the Caribbean, Middle East and North Africa, Sub-Saharan Africa, Western Europe and North America, Asia and the Pacific. CMD (talk) 03:39, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.