Template talk:Infobox country/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Refs

There are apparently problems with inserting refs. In the example here and here --Qualitatis (talk) 17:27, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

There is a separate parameter |area_footnote=. I fixed the error for Gaza Strip – was there another one as well? – Wdchk (talk) 18:52, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Quite hard and user-unfriendly for the common editor. I found similar problems right at the Template documentation. --Qualitatis (talk) 08:31, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

On the doc page, are you referring to the "tag name defined multiple times" errors? I fixed those too – they were caused by something else entirely.
Regarding your "quite hard" comment: I feel your pain, it is quite a complex template! I think the reason for a separate footnote parameter is because |area_km2= is used to calculate the area in square miles automatically; you'll notice that, in Gaza Strip, |area_sq_mi= is blank, but the infobox does show the area in square miles. Presumably adding a reference to the area causes a non-numeric value to be passed into the calculation, resulting in an error. (But I didn't create the template, so don't take my word for it ...) Regards, – Wdchk (talk) 15:31, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

France-specific parameters redundant

The France-specific parameter can be removed since they are now redundant to the new custom population and area parameters. I have amend France's article: [1], which has only added +48. Rob984 (talk) 11:20, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

admin_center2

The tags "admin_center_type2" and "admin_center2" are documented, but do not appear to function. --Zfish118 (talk) 20:26, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Unresolved

 – Rob984 (talk) 11:25, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

RfC announce: Religion in infoboxes

There is an RfC at Template talk:Infobox#RfC: Religion in infoboxes concerning what What should be allowed in the religion entry in infoboxes. Please join the discussion and help us to arrive at a consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:40, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Infobox micronation redirect

The two templates were merged in Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 August 24#Template:Infobox micronation, but it was a fundamentally flawed decision because the distinction between an actual country and a micronation is in many cases absolutely not arbitrary, and the fact that the templates did almost identical things was a semantic problem in and of itself - just because micronations may purport to exhibit properties of countries that does not actually mean that they do so in real life.

For the last few months I've been having a fun time over at Talk:Liberland trying to explain to people who like micronations and infoboxes that an infobox about a micronation that is formatted exactly like an infobox about a country amounts to a collection of unsourced claims (which is contrary to WP:V) that is unhelpful to readers.

What is the best way to address this? WP:TFD again? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:18, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

• I'm for the option to create a new template for micronations, so that they don't have the exactly the same appearance as countries. Many of the metadata entries in the box would be similar though - it should definitively include a map of the claimed area, for example. But some parts could be presented differently, we don't need the self-declared political titles such as "President" and "Prime Minister" there - a list of notable involved people is enough. And we don't need any reference to "citizenship" for the membership statistics of the micronation, nor timezones. - Anonimski (talk) 22:50, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
• I definitely support a demerge as described by Joy [shallot] and Anonimski here. Having just responded to the RFC at Talk:Liberland (via the feedback request service) supporting the presence of an infobox on that article, I agree with Joy that its problematic that Infobox country effectively implies that unrecognised micronations are equivalent to internationally-recognised nation-states, which seems like a violation of WP:V and WP:NPOV, no matter how much the micronation's advocates might prefer otherwise. Feel free to {{Ping}} me if any such demerger discussion is tabled somewhere. (I assume that would presumably be at WP:TFD…) — OwenBlacker (Talk) 20:52, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose a de-merge or new infobox. The original TfD was not flawed. A template fork is not the solution to the social problem you have encountered. Use WP:DR. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:20, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Can you please address the actual argument, instead of making an unsupported assertion about an undefined "social problem"? Or are you saying that we've somehow stumbled upon a micronation situation that is so unlike any other that conclusions based upon it do not extend to any others? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 21:26, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
    • Yes I can, and I did. My observation - not a mere assertion - is not unsupported; you yourself refer to "months" of "trying to explain to people"; that's a social-, not a technical-, problem. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:16, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
      • You're still being coy, but it seems to me like you're saying that I've been wrong all this time and that there's nothing wrong with having an infobox composed of not much more than assertions unverifiable in reliable sources. How does that not conflict with the relevant general policies in your mind? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 11:27, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
        • Let me know when you're going to respond to what I wrote, rather than to a fiction of your own imagining. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:59, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
          • It would help if you weren't speaking in such abstract terms. Because the templates are merged, which is apparently mainly a technical measure of reducing duplication, a lousy application of the template is practically encouraged by the syntax. When a country has a "flag" or a "location", the relevant template options are straightforward and they just plain make sense. When a micronation has a "flag" or a "location", that is not so, but the template syntax doesn't allow for any nuance itself, and we have to kludge it in a myriad of manually added labels in order to tone down the presentation of fiction as fact. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 18:03, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
• oppose, we already have the option to set |micronation=yes, which triggers certain labels. all we have to do is extend this logic so that parts of the infobox are disabled when |micronation=yes. Frietjes (talk) 20:43, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Can you clarify how that would work? How do we distinguish in syntax to encourage e.g. the use of no flag for Liberland but to keep a flag for Sealand? Can e.g. we show a parameter only if its contents include a ref tag or a sfn template? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 23:48, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

so, you want to create two forks? one for micronations without flags and one for micronations with flags? the use of a particular parameter on a per article basis should be enforced at the article level, not the template level. if there are parameters which are not appropriate for any micronation, then we enforce that at the template level. Frietjes (talk) 19:17, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

No, I don't want to create any forks. I don't actually care about any of the technicalities. I only care about making it less trivial and inviting to misuse a template. If we have an increasingly fuzzy definition of micronations (if they don't actually have to control any territory whatsoever), most parameters of infobox country become increasingly inappropriate by default. What syntax do we use to enforce something so fuzzy within the template? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 17:22, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

The appropriate syntax is optional parameters, and allow editors to make content decisions on how to use them by consensus. If some content doesn't belong, then don't use the parameter. If the consensus is against your desires to remove content at Talk:Liberland, then the solution is to follow the usual WP:DR procedure, not to try to circumvent consensus by technical means. TDL (talk) 16:02, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose forking the template simply because it is occasionally misused or lacks desired functionality. If the template is being used incorrectly then it should be corrected, or if some parameters are not appropriate for micronations then they should be modified or disabled in the template. Duplication of code is not the solution.

Yes a micronation is not an "actual country", but this template handles many things which are not an "actual country" (ie European Union, Puerto Rico, Sovereign Military Order of Malta). This is simply a technical decision to reduce work and standardize formatting. If some want to read something more into it than that, then that is their choice, but internal template names are not publicly visible to readers and as such NPOV does not apply to them. Editors can always use the Template:Infobox micronation redirect in the wikitext if they wish not to imply that it is an "actual country". That being said, if the template name bothers some, it could be renamed to something broader such as Template:Geopolitical entity. TDL (talk) 23:58, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps we're in agreement then, because the gist of the problem is that a micronation such as Liberland is not a geopolitical entity. We can't say a political entity is geographical when it doesn't occupy a geographical entity. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 13:03, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

See the dictionary definition at wikt:geopolitical_entity: "A geographical area which is associated with some sort of political structure". The political entity does not need to occupy the geographical area, just be associated with it (which is the case with Liberland.) TDL (talk) 14:45, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

That claim is dubious at best - those parcels in the swamps are not actually associated with any political structure other than the well-known countries. By reliable sources on geography, political structures, reality, ... --Joy [shallot] (talk) 17:47, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Are you trying to argue that Liberland is not a "political structure", or that it is not associated with the parcels of land? The latter is easily disproved by a Google search for "Gornja Siga", which overwhelmingly returns reliable sources on Liberland. The two are undeniably associated. And given how broad the definition of a political structure is ("groups and their relations to each other") I can't see how you could make a credible argument for the former. TDL (talk) 23:52, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

I see we have to go through this exercise every time... A google search for pyramids being used for storing grain will show an "undeniable association" of that kind, but would you put it into an infobox? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:56, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

So should I take this to mean that you accept that the territory and Liberland are indeed associated (and hence is a geopolitical entity)?

Though you didn't actually answer my question above, it seems that you've now circled back to your original argument, that Liberland isn't a "real" country. See my original oppose for a response to that. TDL (talk) 23:41, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, let's examine that - for each of your examples above, there's a reliable source for countries that acknowledges the existence of each of them. Even for the smallest one, there's a reliable source for countries from 1113 that did so. In case of projects such as Liberland, there's no such thing. Hence the association, if any, absolutely shouldn't automagically be put in the context of countries, otherwise the encyclopedia ends up arbitrarily redefining the concept of countries. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 17:22, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Suggesting that we should censor verifiable and notable content based upon political considerations is journalistically irresponsible. Countries do not have a veto over facts as they are presented by reliable sources. If reliable sources discuss an entity in a geopolitical context, then the encyclopedia should present it in that context. That's not "redefining the concept of countries", it is presenting geopolitcal content as it is described by reliable sources, in a standardized approach. Ignoring reliable sources just because the Croatian government doesn't approve is not an encyclopedic approach.

And you've missed the point of the examples listed above. It falsified the misconception you keep repeating that this template is only for use for "real countries". No country recognizes the EU as a "country". No country recognizes the SMOM as a "country". And no country recognizes the Latin American Integration Association, British Empire, French Southern and Antarctic Lands, Hanseatic League or International Criminal Court as a "country". If you'd like an unrecognized example see Somaliland. But they all use the geopolitical infobox template because they are geopolitical entities with similar geopolitical content. Given that this template is widely used for non-countries, there is no sensible reason why it's usage should imply anything about the "countriness" of the subject, and forking based solely on such misconceptions is a waste of everybody's time and effort. TDL (talk) 16:02, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Yet again, I am looking at entirely baseless assertions that there's reliable sources recognizing Liberland as a country. It's becoming rather disruptive. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 08:49, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

If that's what you think you're looking at, then you're either WP:NOTGETTINGIT or you're intentionally throwing a straw man. I've never once suggested that it's a country, or that sources say it's a country. Obviously it's not. The point is that it's "countriness" is irrelevant since your argument is based on a false premise (that only "real countries" use this template is demonstrably untrue), so any conclusions which you draw from this premise are inherently logically invalid. TDL (talk) 02:49, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

That is not my premise. When you first presented that argument, I did not actually argue against it - I concur that there's various forms of 'countries' and various levels of being 'real'. I'm arguing that at least some of the micronations have stretched the definition of this variety well beyond of what can reasonably be expected of readers to implicitly understand. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 14:13, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

• Either way, can we please NOT have this as the very first parameter, as if the concept is somehow so real that it needs to have first place? Drmies (talk) 16:52, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Parameter order is really up to the user. Granted, users will often just copy and paste the examples on the template page, but in the end, does it really matter? In my experience, template parameter examples are sorted using one of three general patterns: in order of appearance (allowing for some give or take when this might not be completely linear), in order of prominence (e.g., required parameters first, then optional ones) or more rarely in alphabetical order. Since the micronation link currently appears just below the name, and they appear to be following the order-of-appearance rule for this template, the micronation parameter makes sense to go near the beginning as well. – Robin Hood  ^(talk) 19:52, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

• I would support the move by Joy as the micronation parameter is a highly disputed topic for Liberland and other similar micronation (as per re-used examples:) Principality of Sealand, Conch Republic, Aerican Empire, Republic of Molossia, etc.. Fundamentally micronations are hard to put a tag on, because of their lack of nobility between countries they split from or how they were created and formed, and that the micronations are either a fictional location or they're a self proclaimed land, both of which may or may not be recognized by any state/government/party. The funny thing is, Liberland (like other micronations or country-projects) isn't either a country nor fictional place, which is why this is confusing because with Liberland, being a real disputed land mass that sits on the river between Croatia and Serbia, doesn't have any inhabitants yet because of the dispute, preventing those people running the land on which they proclaimed. However with Liberland existing with similar, more structural projects (Principality of Sealand or Conch Republic for instance), it makes total sense to create a micronation parameter to fit country projects like these in order to clearly define what they are and what they aren't. Adog104 ^{Talk to me} 15:46, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
• Comment: Not sure how this turned into a vote, when that doesn't seem to have been Joy's intent, but since that seems to be where this has gone, I've followed that format as well. I wonder if perhaps the best way to address Joy's concerns might be to make the "micronation" handling a bit more explicit. So, for instance, instead of just putting "Micronation" with a link at the top, add a hoverbox or interior infobox that has a disclaimer stating that the information below may be unofficial, fictional, etc. I look at things like the "Official languages" section, and I find that kind of silly for a micronation. After all, how can you have an "official" language for a completely unofficial or made-up nation? That just doesn't make sense to me. I don't have quite as big of a problem with having specific leaders designated or what have you, as I view that more like an organizational structure than an actual national government, but again, I think a more prominent micronation disclaimer would make that sort of thing abundantly clear. – Robin Hood  ^(talk) 19:52, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

BTW it certainly wasn't my intention to have a vote, rather I was explicitly asking whether we go to a vote-like venue such as TFD or not. :) I'd say it's possible that when people reply by using the bullet syntax rather than the indent syntax, others start getting the wrong impression. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 10:50, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

This is already done in some cases. For example, the labels "Area claimed", "Purported currency", "Claimed GDP" are used for micronations rather than "Area", "Currency" and "GDP" for real countries to emphasize the tenuousness of these claims. Others could easily be modified similarly if there is consensus to do so. TDL (talk) 16:02, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

It should be noted that the mere addition of the term "micronation" with its link on top of the template is helpful, but not helpful enough. It will be sufficient when the word becomes less of a neologism - right now it's possible readers would think it's a synonym for "microstate", but it's actually something else, unofficial. The reader has to go elsewhere (follow the link, read the rest of the article, ...) to actually get a proper sense of what infobox elements with conventional names mean in context. I'm not sure how to address the issue. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 17:53, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

• I would support such a move. The country infobox should be reserved for real states, broadly interpreted, not for concepts or statements or theoretical claims or fictional creations. Why should "microstate" entities have an infobox at all? Not everything has to have an infobox. As a wider issue, over time I've seen quite a lot of infobox misuse (in particular the conflict infobox one, as well as more trivial ones like those related to architecture or historical monuments) and I think their use needs to be more firmly regulated. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:02, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Use of Country/Geopolitical Faction Infobox

subject was "Use of Country/Geopolitical Faction Infobox on Donetsk People's Republic and Luhansk People's Republic pages"

An edit war over which infobox to use on the DPR and LPR pages has been ongoing for several months now. In an attempt to remedy the situation i have opened up a discussion and request for comment here Talk:Donetsk_People's_Republic#Infobox, your opinions and comments on the issue would be much appreciated.XavierGreen (talk) 05:27, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Link to predecessor of a current political entity

I very much appreciate the links to former and subsequent political entities in following the history of a country. What I find lacking is any backward link in the info box of a current entity. If I don't already know the previous name of a current country I have to try to work it out from the history section of the article. This is sometimes not very clear. For example, try working out from the article United Arab Emirates what the predecessor entity was. It turns out to be Trucial States.

It also feels very incomplete when following a chain of forward links to successor entities to reach a current entity and find no back link its predecessor entity.

I would like to see a section added to the infobox of current countries giving the names of the predecessor countries. —Coroboy (talk) 10:48, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Some countries have a lot of predecessors so showing them in the same style as Infobox Former country would not be appropriate. I'm not really sure how they could be added. Rob984 (talk) 11:23, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

I meant that just the immediate predecessor(s) be linked to in the same way as in the infoboxes of non-current entities where are links to both the predecessor and successor entities. —Coroboy (talk) 10:59, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

I would also like that option. Of course there will be entities like Somalia (that did not have one single predecessor), but where there is a single predecessor (like in the case of Somaliland that regards itself as the successor [unrcognised] state to State of Somaliland) it would be helpful to readers to have it shown. BushelCandle (talk) 06:35, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 8 April 2016

Link "Drive on the" to "Right- and left-hand traffic" article so that people can easily read more about the issue. Majesty of the Commons (talk) 06:05, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Done Izno (talk) 11:19, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 22 May 2016

Please consider adding the fields leader_title10 to leader_title14 to this infobox. This is as the wrapper Infobox country UK needs further fields to cover all political positions currently existent in overseas territories (governor, administrator, chief_minister, premier, chief_executive, mayor). Thanks.

extended code

-->{{#if:{{{leader_title9|}}} | <tr class="{{#if:{{{leader_title10|}}} |mergedrow |mergedbottomrow}}"> <td style="width:1.0em;padding:0 0 0 0.6em;"> • </td> <td style="padding-left:0;">{{{leader_title9}}}</td> <td>{{{leader_name9}}}</td> </tr><!-- -->}}<!-- -->{{#if:{{{leader_title10|}}} | <tr class="{{#if:{{{leader_title11|}}} |mergedrow |mergedbottomrow}}"> <td style="width:1.0em;padding:0 0 0 0.6em;"> • </td> <td style="padding-left:0;">{{{leader_title10}}}</td> <td>{{{leader_name10}}}</td> </tr><!-- -->}}<!-- -->{{#if:{{{leader_title11|}}} | <tr class="{{#if:{{{leader_title12|}}} |mergedrow |mergedbottomrow}}"> <td style="width:1.0em;padding:0 0 0 0.6em;"> • </td> <td style="padding-left:0;">{{{leader_title11}}}</td> <td>{{{leader_name11}}}</td> </tr><!-- -->}}<!-- -->{{#if:{{{leader_title12|}}} | <tr class="{{#if:{{{leader_title13|}}} |mergedrow |mergedbottomrow}}"> <td style="width:1.0em;padding:0 0 0 0.6em;"> • </td> <td style="padding-left:0;">{{{leader_title12}}}</td> <td>{{{leader_name12}}}</td> </tr><!-- -->}}<!-- -->{{#if:{{{leader_title13|}}} | <tr class="{{#if:{{{leader_title14|}}} |mergedrow |mergedbottomrow}}"> <td style="width:1.0em;padding:0 0 0 0.6em;"> • </td> <td style="padding-left:0;">{{{leader_title13}}}</td> <td>{{{leader_name13}}}</td> </tr><!-- -->}}<!-- -->{{#if:{{{leader_title14|}}} | <tr class="{{#if:{{{leader_title15|}}} |mergedrow |mergedbottomrow}}"> <td style="width:1.0em;padding:0 0 0 0.6em;"> • </td> <td style="padding-left:0;">{{{leader_title14}}}</td> <td>{{{leader_name14}}}</td> </tr><!-- -->}}<!--

RaviC (talk) 21:38, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

•  On hold @RaviC: Please make this change in the sandbox (after merging the current version of the template) and show testcases, then reactivate the request. ~ Rob^Talk 21:51, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

The change has been uploaded to the sandbox by Andy M. Wang. From the testcases, I can't see any changes to the infoboxes. --RaviC (talk) 21:58, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

@RaviC: 1. Please update the testcases with a call to {{Infobox country/sandbox}} that uses these extra params so we can take a look.

2. I made a slight modification to the def of |leader_title14=. Verify that this is indeed what's intended.

-->{{#if:{{{leader_title14|}}} | <tr class="mergedbottomrow"> <td style="width:1.0em;padding:0 0 0 0.6em;"> • </td> <td style="padding-left:0;">{{{leader_title14}}}</td> <td>{{{leader_name14}}}</td> </tr><!-- -->}}<!--

Thanks — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 22:01, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your edit. That is indeed what I'd like. I've also added the extra parameters to the testcases page. --RaviC (talk) 22:11, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Done Synced. Glad I could help. Thanks for catching that small typo too. I'll update the template doc pages. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 22:30, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Many thanks once again! --RaviC (talk) 22:36, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Environmental Performance Index InfoBox

Adding the Environmental Performance Index as part of key country information (InfoBox) in Wikipedia would go a long way to raising awareness and developing norms to solve climate change and mitigate environmental degradation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tdthe1919 (talk • contribs) 08:24, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a soapbox. --Izno (talk) 11:33, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Nonetheless, this might be a useful property to include; consider it on its merits, not the views of the proposer. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:27, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: Surely so. However, I'm going to back up a step and ask "what is the EPI?". Do we have an article on it? Is there an RS which could conceivably be used to add this information? Do you (personally) know this information? A template editor can't pursue a change like this without those things as a bare minimum, and it's not the burden of the TE in question to find it, either. --Izno (talk) 15:43, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

That's the kind of reasoning that led to the creation of a crowdsourced free-access encyclopaedia. If only Jimbo had known not to make political statements. Izkala (talk) 16:50, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Your argument is persuasive and clearly meets the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia. --Izno (talk) 10:57, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

This is a research fellow at the EPI. We're intrigued by this idea. Email us at epi@yale.edu to discuss. 2:49, 23 may 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.132.173.93 (talk) 14:38, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

I believe the RS which could be used to provide this information is http://epi.yale.edu/downloads the index of country scores is located on page 18 of the executive summary of "Final Report 2016" This report is release every year. Please let me know if you require anything else -Tdthe1919 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tdthe1919 (talk • contribs) 10:12, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Smarter ISO 3166 handling

It's sometimes very frustrating that this template goes to such lengths to produce using code-related information, but inexplicably includes only the ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 code (which is also the ISO 3166-2 code, and leaves out the ISO 3166-1 alpha-3 version, despite the frequency of use of the latter code in various context, both on and off Wikipedia. I propose tweaking this template to support the following:

• |iso3316_2letter_code=
  • Alias the current |iso3316code= parameter to the former, and remove it from the documentation (it is imprecise, and it does not match the *_code naming convention used by the rest of the template), and instead document the new name
• |iso3316_3letter_code=
• |iso3316_numeric_code=
• Have the template output provide then all on the same line.
• Use the country name to try to generate all of these codes automatically.
• Actually test for the existence of an article on each code (we do not have them for alpha-3 or numeric codes, and some alpha-2 ones might not exist yet).
  • If it is missing, link to the article on the appropriate ISO spec (ISO 3166-1 alpha-2, ISO 3166-1 alpha-3, ISO 3166-1 numeric), instead of putting up a pointless redlink.

As a bit of side cleanup, articles like ISO 3166-2:TT should be updated to mention the ISO 3166-1 alpha-3 and numeric versions of the corresponding code, and be renamed and reworked a little, e.g. to ISO 3166: TT, etc. We do not need separate articles on the 3166-1 alpha-2, 3166-1 alpha-3, 3166-1 numeric, and 3166-2 codes for each country (for one thing, 3166-1 alpha-2 and 3166-2 are identical at that level).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  03:50, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

cuisine

I believe that a country should contain a cuisine parameter as the french cuisine : quiche , crême bruillé among others see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/France#Cuisine --Leiresaenz (talk) 07:24, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Arbitrary trivia prone to editorial conflict. This template already has too many parameters that are not intrinsic enough to the nature of the nation-state as such. Cultural matters like cuisine generally do not stop and start at political borders.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  11:03, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Census

There should be a way to link the year of census with the article of the census. For example, when one add:

|population_census_year = 2010

... and it produces 2010 census in the infobox, there should be another parameter to link it to 2010 United States Census or Russian Census (2010) or Sixth National Population Census of the People's Republic of China. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.0.113.201 (talk) 14:45, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 23 July 2016

Please remove the non-breaking space here:

              -->{{#if:{{{population_estimate_year|}}} |{{{population_estimate_year}}}&nbsp;}}<!--
              -->estimate</td>
            <td>{{{population_estimate}}}<!--

It can cause the text to wrap strangely in instances that do not simply use a year. For example, if a month is included it will cause:

July
2016 estimate

Instead, to maintain the width of the left column of the infobox, a minimum width should be set. Same for the right column. Essentially this is what the non-breaking space is crudely doing.

Thanks, Rob984 (talk) 16:38, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please make your requested changes to the template's sandbox first; see WP:TESTCASES.

As specified this would result in :

July
2016estimate

and, setting aside the pedantry, it would allow wrapping in correct usages (only year specified)

2016
estimate

in order to prevent it, according to your tastes, in incorrect usages (month & year specified).

Given that you also want minimum widths specified for the columns I'd like to see a sandbox version of that change and consensus before reactivating the request. for (;;) (talk) 17:37, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I mean replace it with a regular space. And not quite, it would result in:

July 2016
 estimate

With a space at the beginning of the second line.

It's not really a case of taste, it shouldn't wrap like that. And it is poor practice to use a non-breaking space to maintain the integrity of a table. A set minimum width would be more appropriate, negating the need for multiple non-breaking spaces and maintaining the column width regardless of what fields are in use. I'll do the sandbox version at some point.

Rob984 (talk) 20:31, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Shouldn't "estimate" be upper case?

I noticed at Sark it isn't, but "Density" is upper.

I'm not trusted, it seemed like I should have changed that line: "-->estimate</td>"

Maybe I should get permission, or not.. if I would have changed the wrong line.. comp.arch (talk) 10:14, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

No, it should always have date / year preceding it. Population figures lacking a date should be removed if the date / source cannot be found. Rob984 (talk) 14:04, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Convert to {{Infobox}}

Hey folks,

Can we convert this template to use {{Infobox}} like the majority of other Infobox templates use? -- PK2 (talk) 06:53, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

@PK2: I would love to second this... It would be nice to get Module:InfoboxImage in there as well. Has anyone looked into this? Would be happy to help work on this in the sandbox... --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 18:28, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

@PK2 and Zackmann08: I have completed a first draft of a converted template, see Template:Infobox country/testcases for a comparison. I still need to do more testing (so many parameter combinations), but it should be nearly complete. Frietjes (talk) 19:17, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

@Frietjes: HOLY CRAP!!! Nice work my friend!!! I started that like 5 times and kept giving up because it was such a cluster.... Looks fantastic!!! Let me know if I can assist in any way. --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 19:23, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

now deployed, will see if there are any problems, but I don't expect anything significant. Frietjes (talk) 21:30, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Default width of the maps

I notice there are 5px of empty space on either side of the maps, at the default width of 250px (increasing the size to 260px does not increase the width of the infobox, it just reduces these margins). So I recommending increasing the default size of image_map and image_map1 from 250px to either 260px or upright=1.16. The latter would mean the image respects the user's preferences (with the default width for upright=1.16 being 260px).

Most maps are landscape, so this will have little impact on the height of the infobox, while having the benefit of increasing the width of maps by 10px.

Eg, change both:

|size={{{map_width|}}}|sizedefault=250px|alt={{{alt_map|}}}

|size={{{map2_width|}}}|sizedefault=250px|alt={{{alt_map2|}}}

to

|size={{{map_width|}}}|sizedefault=260px|alt={{{alt_map|}}}

|size={{{map2_width|}}}|sizedefault=260px|alt={{{alt_map2|}}}

or

|image={{{image_map|}}}|size={{{map_width|}}}|sizedefault=frameless|upright=1.16|alt={{{alt_map|}}}

|image={{{image_map2|}}}|size={{{map2_width|}}}|sizedefault=frameless|upright=1.16|alt={{{alt_map2|}}}

Rob984 (talk) 00:07, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Rob984, seems reasonable, so I made the change. Frietjes (talk) 14:32, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! Rob984 (talk) 17:54, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Area

Area parameter doesn't work properly when more than one value is used. Look at Israel article: "km2" is rendered with fraction slash and without commas, while "sq mi" shows 0. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 16:12, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Consider using |area_label2 = |area_data2 = for showing alternative area figures (eg France). Rob984 (talk) 18:02, 24 December 2016 (UTC).

I fixed the Israel. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 18:09, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

area_magnitude

|area_magnitude simply isn't present in the template in spite of what the documentation would have you believe. In 2012 from /Archive 9#area_magnitude, someone noticed it before--that's all I found regarding this. Now, I could simply make an edit request to add it back but I would like to know why it was removed. I've check the template's history for a year. See Category:Pages using infobox country with unknown parameters (39) which has 361 pages, take a look at five random ones and try editing them. I've got them complaining about this missing parameter and it leads me to conclude that it was there before, won't be surprised that it is the very cause of this backlog in that category. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 07:22, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

No more does this happen and the category members have been reduced drastically. What I'm still unsure of now is whether it works? The code in the template doesn't address it as far as I can scrutinise it. This is Orders_of_magnitude_(area), right? so check India, where the field is "1 E12" yet the area shown is the basic "3,287,263 km2" with or without it. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 08:14, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Width

Currently, minimal width of this template is slightly more that that of other similar templates such as {{Infobox person}}, {{Sidebar}} or {{Contains special characters}}. Seems like there is a standard for templates placed on the right. For example, before changes were made to this template recently, in article Israel, width of the Infobox matched template {{Contains special characters}} below the Infobox. Just like Donald Trump article now with infobox and sidebar having the same width. Can somebody fix it here? --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 15:41, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

The width is determined by "geography vcard", which is the same for all geography related infoboxes. I'm not sure why it's about 10px larger then the the default width for Template:Infobox and Template:Sidebar. But I guess this infobox should be consistent with other geography related infoboxes? Maybe they should be even larger, so that the maps can be bigger? MOS:IMAGES states images can be as large as 300px in the lead, and this infobox is only about 270px. Sidebars are just lists of articles, they don't contain multiple columns, maps, etc.. Template:Infobox Settlement is a bit wider then this infobox. Rob984 (talk) 17:54, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Triggerhippie4, can you provide an example article? As far as I can tell Donald Trump isn't a country, yet. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 18:10, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

It looks like both are setting the width to 22em, so it's probably one of the images which is stretching the box? I just tried lowering the upright parameter, it reduced the difference some, but not entirely for me. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 18:16, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Not sure what you are seeing, but that didn't make a difference for me. Just added margins on either side of the image. This |bodystyle = width:22em would fix the problem. The width which is slightly larger then 22em is defined in "geography vcard", and is the same for Template:Infobox islands, Template:Infobox continent, etc.. Someone could remove the discrepancy in "geography vcard" I assume? Rob984 (talk) 18:35, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Rob984, if you use "view source" in the Israel article, you will see 'width:22em' in the infobox style statement. This style is always added by Module:Infobox. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 20:16, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I did some more investigating, and it looks like MediaWiki:Common.css sets the font-size to 90% for the geography class. Adding font-size:88% fixed it for me. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 20:24, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

You corrected the minimum width, but you also put the default image size back up to upright=1.16, so now it is stretching the infobox. I requested the image size be increased to 1.16 because the infobox was wider, but now you have restored it to 22em, the image should only be 1.15 haha! Thanks, Rob984 (talk) 21:04, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Rob984, I see. Now it should really be fixed for real. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:55, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

thanks to all of you for finding and fixing the problem. we should get font-size:90% removed from MediaWiki:Common.css. Frietjes (talk) 15:17, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Edit request

^{Copied to here from Template talk:Infobox former country, now that the decision to merge has been made}

Could we please have a new parameter added to this template? I would like the ability to give the label "Capital" a wikilink. That is, if the parameter is specified, the label "Capital" is turned into a wikilink and points to a given article. Case in point is the article Colony of New Zealand, where the label should point to Capital of New Zealand. At this point, the category Capitals by country has 13 entries, so this could be useful for a number of articles. There's no hurry with this, and if the pending merge with 'Infobox country' should go ahead first, that's fine. Schwede66 07:35, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Schwede, did you try using |capital_type=? Frietjes (talk) 16:36, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

No, and Infobox former country doesn't know that parameter. Shall I just change it over to Infobox country and have a play, or would we then lose parameters that will have to be added through the merge first? Schwede66 03:55, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Up to editors what template to use. Doesn't seem worth it for one wikilink though. Rob984 (talk) 17:09, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

"Doesn't seem worth it for one wikilink though." I would agree with that. Which is why I pointed out that there are 13 articles in that category that could make use of such linking functionality. Schwede66 18:40, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Dividing line missing when no capital is given

See British Overseas Territories. When a largest city / settlement is given but not a capital, the dividing line between the largest settlement and the map does not appear. Rob984 (talk) 14:57, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Rob984, thank you for the report. should be fixed now. Frietjes (talk) 20:50, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Do not remove per WP:MOSNUM

Why does the doc encourage entering two values for area? What is the "do not remove" comment about? From Template:Infobox country/doc#Examples:

|area_km2 = 475,442
|area_sq_mi = 183,568 <!--Do not remove per [[WP:MOSNUM]]-->

Surely only one value should be entered? At any rate, what has WP:MOSNUM got to do with it? Is that comment left over from a time when the infobox did not do conversions? Johnuniq (talk) 00:26, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Johnuniq, yes, my guess is that is left over from a time before automatic unit conversion. Frietjes (talk) 20:57, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Conversion code overriding sq_mi

Can someone take a look at solving this request? CMD (talk) 12:59, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

@Chipmunkdavis and Arjayay: The issue seems to be the use of {{convinfobox}} in the infobox. The code says (see source for formatting):

| data57 = {{#if:{{{area_km2|}}}{{{area_ha|}}}{{{area_sq_mi|}}}{{{area_acre|}}} |{{#if:{{{area_km2|}}}{{{area_sq_mi|}}} |{{convinfobox|{{{area_km2|}}}|km2|{{{area_sq_mi|}}}|sqmi|0|abbr=on}} |{{#if:{{{area_ha|}}}{{{area_acre|}}} |{{convinfobox|{{{area_ha|}}}|ha|{{{area_acre|}}}|acre|0|abbr=on}} }}

Specifically I think the zero in {{convinfobox|{{{area_ha|}}}|ha|{{{area_acre|}}}|acre|0|abbr=on}} means that the template is directed to round to zero decimals for the converted square miles. If we're rounding 0.12, that would indeed round to zero as seen on Vatican City. Someone with more template coding knowledge might be able to put something in there for this case or they could change the rounding to 1 decimal. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:58, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

I thought about adding another "if" statement to check for values of "sq_mi" less than one or two, but I opted instead to use |area_acre= for Vatican City. Measuring area in a whole number of square miles fails for only about 1–2% of countries, I figure. If I'm wrong and there is a need for smarter rounding, post here and I'll fiddle around in the sandbox. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:26, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Changing the rounding code doesn't make much sense as this is an edge case, but I don't understand why the code is used if we have a separate field for sq_mi. Either there should be an if statement to check the field, or the field should be removed. CMD (talk) 23:56, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Having two parameters allows editors to enter either square miles or square kilometers and have the infobox display both automatically. If both values are provided, it looks like {{convinfobox}} uses the first value shown in the code above, in this case square kilometers. From the documentation for convinfobox: "The template currently bases conversions on the first non-blank numerical value ignoring any secondary or tertiary values."

If neither square km or square mi are provide, the infobox then checks for hectares or acres and converts and displays them. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:18, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Vatican City is now showing 109 acres (44 ha) which works but may not be ideal as 0.44 km² (0.17 sq mi) might be better. Perhaps there should be an area_raw field where a {{convert}} could be manually entered for cases like this. An unusual name like "area_raw" might avoid people always using "area" which would defeat attempts at uniformity. Johnuniq (talk) 00:22, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

@Johnuniq and Jonesey95: Based on List_of_sovereign_states_and_dependencies_by_area I think Vatican City is the only case where this rounding going to zero will be an issue. But, rounding the 0.78 sqmi of Monaco to 1.0 sqmi seems... undesirable. A area_raw wouldn't be bad for the few cases where we want to display decimals. Another option is to allow user to specify decimal places with a parameter like area_convert_decimals (or something shorter) and we just make the coding something like {{convinfobox|{{{area_km2|}}}|km2|{{{area_sq_mi|}}}|sqmi|{{{area_convert_decimals|0}}}|abbr=on}}. My template coding skills are minimal, so I'm trying to say "add specified decimal value if present, otherwise use 0"... hope I got that right. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:19, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

@Johnuniq, Jonesey95, and EvergreenFir:, per the rounding section we could using 'sigfig' instead. but, I think it would be fine to just remove |0 and have {{convert}} automatically decide the precision. a more complicated solution would be to detect small inputs and override the default precision (see Template:Infobox settlement/areadisp for an example of such complexity). Frietjes (talk) 20:57, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

I just examined List of sovereign states and dependencies by area and the converts there are all of the form {{convert|1234|km2|sqmi}} with various options unrelated to rounding. That is, the list shows what would happen if the |0 were omitted from the template. It looks like it would give good results although many sqmi values would change. For example, Ethiopia is 1,104,300 km² and currently shows 426,373 sq mi but would show 426,400 sq mi with |0 omitted. Johnuniq (talk) 01:02, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

boldly implemented. we can always revert/reconsider if there are some serious problems. but, this seems to fix more problems than it would potentially create. Frietjes (talk) 15:12, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

User mass-changing country articles (especially infobox formats)

See my post at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries. Graham87 12:45, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Religion field

Is the religion field in the infobox for state religion or demographics? For example, Greece and Iran have state religion in the infobox while Australia and the United States have demographics. -- Wrath X (talk) 12:16, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Flag width

The flag_width parameter is either poorly documented or isn't working as intended. I would expect it change the width of the flag image, but all it does is change the width of the <td> which contains it, which has no effect other than to move it around within the layout. Either this should be changed so that the image is actually scaled by the parameter or the documentation should be changed to reflect the fact that it merely changes the box's width.

I would also note that the corresponding parameter for the symbol/coat of arms (symbol_width) does change that image's width, suggesting to me that this is an error rather than poor documentation. From what I can tell it does so using the code |size={{{symbol_width|}}} within {{#invoke:InfoboxImage|...}}.

Alphathon /'æɫ.fə.θɒn/ ^(talk) 15:58, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

To editor Alphathon: I think you're correct in that there has been an error for at least since last April, 2016, even before conversion and before the merge discussion. I hesitate to make the change I've placed in the sandbox, since there is still a template merge in progress. I tested the change and it does work, but it might be just a temporary fix, and other editors might be able to do it better.  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  12:17, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

To editors Frietjes, Primefac and Jonesey95: I'd like to maybe get you to look at the sandbox to see if my flag_width change is okay within the merge process, or if it can be done better? (I'm not happy with the way both flag and CoA get pushed to the left border when |flag_width= is used.)  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  12:29, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

@Paine Ellsworth and Alphathon: I implemented the change, but in a slightly different way. checking the documentation, it mentions using "%" units for the flag size, which I do not think works with Module:InfoboxImage. so, that may be something to fix. Frietjes (talk) 13:02, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Frietjes!  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  13:13, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Year field for religion demographics?

The religion field is now often being used for demographics (see United Kingdom, European Union, etc.) but lacks a field for adding the year in brackets next to it, unlike the ethnic groups section. Could someone please add a religion_year field? i.e:

Replace

| label17 = Religion
| data17 = {{{religion|}}}

with

| label17 = Religion <!--
           -->{{#if:{{{religion_year|}}} |<span style="font-weight:normal;">({{{religion_year}}})</span>}}
| data17 = {{{religion|}}}

Thanks,

Rob984 (talk) 20:11, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Am I correct in understanding that, unlike the ethnic groups field, the religion field is typically only used for countries with an official religion (e.g., England, Sweden, Saudi Arabia)? If so, there's no reason to have a year parameter added. 142.160.131.202 (talk) 23:16, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Typically it is used for either. Many use it for data, e.g. United Kingdom, France, United States, European Union, Germany, and Spain. Maybe there should be a separate field for "State religion", but regardless, adding an optional year field doesn't affect articles using it for specifying a state religion. Rob984 (talk) 00:59, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

seems fine as an optional parameter, so now done! Frietjes (talk) 14:42, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! Rob984 (talk) 10:26, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Pronunciation parameter

Could a pronunciation parameter be added to this template, please? This is data that should be in the infobox. Thanks Jytdog (talk) 21:08, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Coat of arms in mobile site too small

In desktop flag and coat of arms have same height, can someone fix it? Hddty. (talk) 04:59, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

The mobile website ignores table structure styling and shrinks images that don't fit on the page. I figured out a fix which largely alleviates the problem by adding a div around the COA/symbol with its width specified as the default width of the COA/symbol (85px). See diff and test cases: mobile desktop. Ideally, this should really match the width of the COA/symbol if it has been specified with symbol_width, but that's a little complicated because it's a sub-template. Rob984 (talk) 11:05, 30 June 2017 (UTC) Actually I made a better solution, just replacing the table with divs. See diff and test cases: mobile desktop. Rob984 (talk) 12:22, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

@Hddty. and Rob984: looks good to me, so now implemented. thank you! Frietjes (talk) 14:39, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

@Frietjes: Can you edit Template:Infobox former country too. Thank you. Hddty. (talk) 19:43, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Hddty., I ported the subtable code from this template to that template, which should also help with the merger (whenever that happens). Frietjes (talk) 14:46, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 11 July 2017

Change:

([[List of countries by population|{{{population_estimate_rank}}}]])}}

to

([[List of countries and dependencies by population|{{{population_estimate_rank}}}]])}}

---

Change:

([[List of countries by population|{{{population_census_rank}}}]])}}

to

([[List of countries and dependencies by population|{{{population_census_rank}}}]])}}

---

Change:

([[List of sovereign states and dependent territories by population density|{{{population_density_rank}}}]])}}

to

([[List of countries and territories by population density|{{{population_density_rank}}}]])}}

So that we link to the list pages accurately. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (address) 19:58, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

probably done, let me know if I missed one. Frietjes (talk) 21:19, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Frietjes: All done fine, thanks. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (message) 16:44, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Fix text sizes in violation of WP:ACCESS

Per WP:ACCESS, text sizes should not "drop below 85% of the page font size (or 11px)".

The article body text size (by default) is 14px.

This infobox's font size is set to 88%. Rounded to the nearest .05px (as browsers do):

88% of 14px is 12.3px

However, within the infobox, some font sizes are further reduced to 85% of this:

85% of 12.3px is 10.45px

10.45px is less then 11px, so in violation of WP:ACCESS. To fix this, any cases of font-size=85%, {{small| or <small> should be replaced with font-size=90%, since:

90% of 12.3px is 11.1px

11.1px is still visually distinctly smaller then the rest of the text in the infobox.

I know this is a small difference, but these font-sizes are too small in my opinion (it's only just legible to me and I'm in my twenties with OK vision). I would probably prefer everything other then the footnotes to be left at the infobox's standard font-size, but at the very least to have compliance with WP:ACCESS.

I've made the change in the the sandbox (diff & testcases) and the improvement is noticeable. It doesn't appear to cause any problems. If the request is accepted, please note that the sandbox uses Template:Infobox country/imagetable/sandbox in place of Template:Infobox country/imagetable (diff). Make sure to remove the "/sandbox" when syncing it to the main space.

Thanks,

Rob984 (talk) 15:46, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

The request is reasonable IMO. --Izno (talk) 18:07, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

now done. Frietjes (talk) 19:45, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Fix for flag_caption not working when it is not linked

If Flag of {{{linking_name|{{{common_name|{{{name|{{PAGENAME}}}}}}}}}}} doesn't exist, the infobox will just display "Flag" unlinked. In the code, flag_caption currently only modifies the linked caption, so it doesn't work on articles where the caption is not linked. |Flag just needs to be changed to |{{{flag_caption|Flag}}}.

I.e., change:

    |caption1= {{#ifexist:Flag of {{{linking_name|{{{common_name|{{{name|{{PAGENAME}}}}}}}}}}} |[[Flag of {{{linking_name|{{{common_name|{{{name|{{PAGENAME}}}}}}}}}}}|{{{flag_caption|Flag}}}]] |Flag }}

to:

    |caption1= {{#ifexist:Flag of {{{linking_name|{{{common_name|{{{name|{{PAGENAME}}}}}}}}}}} |[[Flag of {{{linking_name|{{{common_name|{{{name|{{PAGENAME}}}}}}}}}}}|{{{flag_caption|Flag}}}]] |{{{flag_caption|Flag}}} }}

Thanks.

Rob984 (talk) 14:05, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Rob984, should work now. thank you. Frietjes (talk) 14:15, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Rob984, I just checked {{infobox former country}} and for that template, |flag_caption= overrides all automatic linking/captioning. should we do the same here? Frietjes (talk) 14:18, 2 August 2017 (UTC).

Thanks Frietjes

Could you make if so it checks for a link using the provided flag caption, but otherwise has no link? i.e.:
{{#ifexist:{{{flag_caption|Flag}}} of {{{linking_name|{{{common_name|{{{name|{{PAGENAME}}}}}}}}}}}

Things are a little confusing at {{infobox former country}}. flag_caption is unlinked, while flag_type is linked as:
[[Flag of {{{linking_name|{{{common_name}}}}}}|{{if empty|{{{flag_type|}}}|Flag}}]]

I think these should really be the same and again linked as:
{{#ifexist:{{{flag_type|{{{flag_caption|Flag}}}}}} of {{{linking_name|{{{common_name}}}}}}

Also, by the way, flag_caption is missing from the "Check for unknown parameters".

Rob984 (talk) 14:43, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Oh, and this is the way that symbol_type works on both templates. Rob984 (talk) 14:50, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Rob984, the syntax is definitely a mess. (1) |symbol_type_article= makes sense, but there is no equivalent |flag_article_type=, (2) |symbol_type= makes sense, but there is no equivalent |flag_type= in this template, (3) it looks like I added the |flag_caption= and |symbol_caption= to the former country template when I upgraded it to use the imagetable template, in an attempt to have it better match this template. so, those parameters are probably not being used (or are very rarely used). I, personally, think that |flag_caption= should mean the caption for the flag image, and |flag_type= should allow you to change the text "flag" to say "former flag" or "old flag" or whatever. perhaps the best thing to do at this point is to figure out how |flag_type= and |flag_caption= are being used in the articles to make sure we don't break anything when/if we change the syntax? Frietjes (talk) 15:23, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

@Frietjes Honestly there's just too many different parameters and I don't even know what they do. I think it's just easier to have a single field for modifying the flag caption and another for modifying the symbol caption.

Right now symbol_type works perfectly for modifying the symbol's caption in both infoboxes. If you don't use it, the template defaults to "Coat of arms" or (if exists) "[[Coat of arms of [country name]|Coat of arms]]". If you set it to something like "Royal Banner", it produces "Royal Banner" or (if exists) "[[Royal Banner of [country name]|Royal Banner]]". If you set it to something like "[[Coat of arms of [country name]|Coat of arms]] (1800-1900)" it's going to show that and not try to link it. This is very straight forward. Potentially the only problem is an undesired link, whereby [[Coat of arms of [country name]]] exists but isn't applicable to the article, so maybe a "symbol_link=none" parameter could be implemented to override it. Though I've never had that problem. I think flag_type and flag_caption should be the same thing and should work the same as symbol_type does currently. This way there's no need for any other fields.

To give you an example, at the article Republic of Ireland, linking_name is set to "the Republic of Ireland" so that links such as "Politics of the Republic of Ireland" are generated. However both the flag and coat of arms caption's should direct to "of Ireland" articles.

To prevent these linking to redirects rather then the actual article I set |symbol_type = [[Coat of arms of Ireland|Coat of arms]], and it works perfectly. However if I do the same for the flag: |flag_caption = [[Flag of Ireland|Flag]] it doesn't work and still tries to pipe it producing: [[Flag of the Republic of Ireland|[[Flag of Ireland|Flag]]]].

Implementing something like flag_caption_article to change the linked article has a limitation: you might not want to link the whole caption (for example "[[Flag of [country name]|Flag]] (1800-1900)"). Also, it's just not very intuitive. Whereas it is to just have the template intelligently check if "[Flag / flag_caption] of [county name]" is linkable or not, and allow editors to manually link the caption themselves. And frankly, any cases infoboxes auto-linking should have a if-exists condition to prevent unwanted linking.

Rob984 (talk) 20:19, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Here's another example of where I'm having a problem with the auto-linking: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Saint_Helena,_Ascension_and_Tristan_da_Cunha&diff=793604851&oldid=792645889

The article Flag of Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha exists but the caption should actually link to Flag of the United Kingdom. There should be an if-exist condition so that the infobox produces the desired output "[[Flag of the United Kingdom]]", rather than "[[Flag of Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha|[[Flag of the United Kingdom]]]]". This way the editor doesn't even have to think about it, they just link the caption as they want it linked in order to override the infobox's default behaviour.

Rob984 (talk) 20:38, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Rob984, I agree we should try to simplify the syntax if possible. I am definitely not opposed to simplify where possible. do you have any suggested replacement code? we could try to emulate {{infobox settlement}} which has far more transclusions than this template. Frietjes (talk) 21:01, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Official religion

How about removing the parameter "Religion" and replacing it with "Official religion"? or add "Official religion" parameter. There are various statistics, often unreliable for various countries. Plus, edit wars are occuring. Any thoughts?Ernio48 (talk) 16:27, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose: both because very few countries have an official/state religion, and because many readers are interested in which religions are the major ones in each country. I also have a question to you Ernio48: why have you started to remove religious data from country articles because of them not being "state religions", even before anyone has had a chance to reply here? - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 20:00, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

  Don't you think it's a lack of consistency when England has Church of England in its religion parameter, while some other country has 60% Christianity, 20% Islam, etc.Ernio48 (talk) 20:05, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

  What has that got to do with your proposal? If you feel it's inconsistent then start a discussion on Talk:England, don't make a proposal here that, if passed, would remove all info about religion from the infobox of articles about 90% of the countries of the world, because of them not having a state/official religion... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 20:09, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

  Most countries don't have anything written in that parameter. Shouldn't retaining consistency in articles be a quality for Wikipedia to uphold?Ernio48 (talk) 20:12, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

  Yes, but what to standardise on isn't up to you to decide on your own. As you tried to do in your edit on Finland... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 21:00, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

  England has Church of England because the Head of State is also the Supreme Governor of the Church. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:21, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

  Ernio, Why remove the religion statistics for all countries? Poorly or unsourced data should be removed, but that's not always the case. See United Kingdom. I'd support your second proposal to add a separate "Official religion" parameter to address the consistency issue. I think both religion statistics and a state's official religion are significant and so should be in the infobox. Rob984 (talk) 22:46, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Add IHDI for countries which have a rating, along with HDI?

The following discussion 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.

---

The Inequality-adjusted Human Development Index is spoken by the UNHDP as the 'true' level of human development, with inequality added. This renders the current and more popular HDI as just a potential human development indicator, if there was little or no inequality. Currently there is the Gini index, which only reflects upon the country's economic inequality and nothing else. I consider the IHDI to the most helpful factor of informing readers about the true human development of a country, and would be a worthy addition to the infobox. Would like thoughts. ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 17:07, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Hmm, there has been a lack of response to this. I will set up an RfC to generate some discussion. ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 16:20, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Should the IHDI be included in the infobox along with the HDI? See my rationale above. My name is not dave (talk/contribs) 16:20, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Support

• Support I agree with My name is not dave's comments, it's a helpful indicator. IHDI is widely used in academic work, inferring it has a fair degree of creditability. There is an FAQ page by the UNDP which explains what IHDI shows here: [2]. Rob984 (talk) 10:55, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support Appears a relevant addition. It does seem to overcome the overemphasis on economic equality from GINI. Arnoutf (talk) 10:04, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support as additional useful data from reliable, independent sources. The fact that it can disagree with HDI and HDI+GINI is a plus – it helps the reader understand that these indices are still somewhat subjective, like pretty much everything in sociology, socio-economics, and related fields – that there are professional differences of opinion, and that WP is not reporting HDI as "Truth".  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  22:24, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Oppose

• Oppose if something is going to be placed in the infobox for countries there should be a very good reason why. I think the box already includes too many things, but adding another one won't help. Why should this measure be given unusual weight and prominence over other measures. I don't think a good case has been presented that it should AlasdairEdits (talk) 22:41, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose too many countries with missing IHDI compared to HDI, according to List of countries by inequality-adjusted HDI#Missing data. Plus, is this index a measurement so commonly used we should add this to the infobox of every country where possible? In any case HDI + Gini can serve the same function. feminist 15:54, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose, as per above arguments. Borsoka (talk) 09:01, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. Use Gini and HDI, following most non-technical sources. We can move to IHDI when more English-speaking sources do. Matt's talk 22:59, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
• Opppose, not a well-known indicator. As others have pointed out, HDI plus Gini serve the same purpose while also providing the insight of a possible discrepancy between human development and financial equality. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:16, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

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.

Area Rank

For Countries defined in the List of countries and dependencies by area, the area rank should match the list. For small Islands that aren't countries but are using the infobox, current rules say that the area rank should be from List of islands by area. Many people are using the CIA world factbook for a broad list instead despite inconsistencies with the factbook and the listing in the List of countries and dependencies by area (World factbook contains Greenland, Falkland Islands, Christmas Island among others) while the List of countries and dependencies by area is Wikipedia consensus. Otherwise there will be multiple "countries" as the 140th, 130th largest country (out of error, not territorial dispute). The area rank number links to the article List of countries and dependencies by area, so they should be consistent.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 18:55, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

"Anthems" parameter

Alongside the "national anthem", "anthem" and "royal anthems" paremeters, would it be possible to add a pluralised title? "Anthems" is a suggestion. This would be useful for current nations such as Denmark and New Zealand which use multiple anthems of equal status, as well as former nations which have used successive anthems. (I assume the merge with the former_countries navbox is still going ahead?) I don't think this change would be difficult to implement and it would improve those articles. --Hazhk (talk) 01:53, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Alternate native name

I'd like to see a new param Alt native name or Native name-2 or some such, especially for former countries coming in from the merge from Template:Infobox former country.

Many countries and former countries have two native names; I'm thinking in particular of former French colonies in the Maghreb as well as kingdoms and sultanates which predate colonialism but overlap with it later, which normally have a native Arabic (or some other language) name as well as an alternate in French which is sufficiently commonly used locally to be of interest to English readers. The alt versions should definitely be redirects, but the Infobox seems like a good place to call these out. Mathglot (talk) 01:46, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

There are actually three local names in the Maghreb territories: Berber toponyms (from the autochthonous Berber languages), Arabic toponyms (from the adopted Arabic language), and French (from the colonial French language). There are also ancient Romano-Berber toponyms, but these are primarily in the old stone cities. Nonetheless, alt native name or native name-2 parameters could perhaps work as an alternative to the simple <br> markup that's used with the other native name template(s). Soupforone (talk) 05:11, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

RfC: Add SPI?

The Social Progress Index cover a lot of information about social progress, which includes a range of relevant parameters about health, education, jobs, violence, etc. It's a very complete and reputable ranking (and – only an opinion - more relevant than the HDI ahd GPD, for example). Futhermore, there is no information in the infobox about these social issues. Therefore, I think this index should be added in the infobox of the countries. Haran (talk) 21:21, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

• No Highly subjective index. Displaying it would make Wikipedia take political POV equating gvmt services with progress.Icewhiz (talk) 05:50, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

This critical statement doesn't seem to me a fair one (and it's not a frequent statement either). For example, about "health and weallness", the criteria adopted are "life expectancy at 60", "premature deaths from non-communicable diseases", "suicide rate". This criteria concerns pure results, it make no difference if the state is a welfare state or a night-watchman one, for example. And it's (almost) as subjective as any index build from averages of a certain number of criteria, I think. This is also the case of HDI. Haran (talk) 17:34, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

There are over 40 sub-scores I believe ([3]). Including "Greenhouse emissions", "affordable housing", "Satisfied demand for contraception", "Community safety net" (from a Gallup World poll - and one must note that many of the metrics here are polling data), "Years of tertiary schooling", "Inequality in attainment of education" (from a UN development program ranking) - all thrown into a PCA. Some inputs are fairly objective (e.g. life expectancy at 60), others are opinion polls or opinions of personnel in some agency.Icewhiz (talk) 11:10, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Incorrect handling of missing ISO 3166 code?

In cases like Eurasian Economic Union article, a combination of missing ISO 3166 code ("iso3166code" tag) and uncommon "common_name" produces undesired effects. Can this template possible be modified to handle such cases gracefully? cherkash (talk) 16:18, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

cherkash, I fixed it for you. you either need to (a) not use |common_name= (which is the typical choice) or (b) use |iso3166code=omit. Frietjes (talk) 14:59, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Frietjes, why couldn't the template be modified to treat "iso3166code" similar to how "calling_code" is treated – i.e., if some structure (e.g. a list) is supplied, then it could be used instead of some auto-expansion? cherkash (talk) 19:38, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

And in addition, since it's listed as an optional parameter, shouldn't its output be suppressed if it's not provided? Currently it doesn't behave this way, and hence my original request. cherkash (talk) 19:48, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Non-standard time is incorrectly assumed to be in Summer

The template incorrectly assumes that the non-standard time is always in summer, and contains a literal Summer text.

Irish Standard Time at UTC+1 is the legal standard time in Ireland, observed in summer. The deviation from that is the observance of (UTC+0) in winter. This is a negative relative offset, contrary to the usual positive hour. This cannot be reflected correctly using the template. Also see the tzdata change. -- Turing (talk) 13:56, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 29 December 2017

Please adopt the implementation of the singular parameters "official_language", "national_language", "regional_language" and the "recogni(s|z)ed" variants as I did in the sandbox to allow for labels like "Official language" in case there is only one applicable language. Plural parameters take precedence over singular. Thayts ••• 20:11, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit template-protected}} template. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:11, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Well then, who agrees? Thayts ••• 22:21, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

By the way, here is the diff. Because plural takes precedence over singular, I had to make sure that e.g. the singular "recognized_language" (when it's not empty) would not make 'Recognized' be selected whilst the plural "recognised_languages" is also not empty. Thayts ••• 22:35, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

head of state as nontitular and probably head of government likewise

I suggest the Infobox either list the head of state and the head of government regardless of official titles held or link to List of current heads of state and government. For a reader not familiar with the given nation, knowing who the titular leaders are doesn't much help in figuring out who has the role of head of state or head of government, especially the former. In that vein, we should title the parameters with sentence case and not title case: e.g., "Head of state", not "Head of State". Nick Levinson (talk) 00:32, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Separate capital and admin_center?

Hi. Is it possible to split capital and admin_center and put them on different rows? At the Netherlands article I'd like to mark The Hague as the administrative center next to the capital of Amsterdam. Thanks. Thayts ••• 00:24, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Thayts, should work now. let me know if there is a problem. Frietjes (talk) 17:37, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

@Frietjes: that works nicely! Thank you very much. Thayts ••• 19:43, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

ISO 3166 alpha-3

Countries have two ISO 3166-codes, one alpha-2 and one alpha-3, but the row named "ISO 3166 code" only allows the alpha-2. Why not show both? --bdijkstra (talk) 11:33, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

I think we'd have to look at the situation where |iso3166code= is blank or absent, which is when the |common_name= parameter is used to extract information from Module:Country extract: {{#invoke:Country extract|main|France}} → FR. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 12:51, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Even when the parameter is not blank, it is wrapped by a link to the country-specific ISO 3166-2 page. --bdijkstra (talk) 13:59, 17 February 2018 (UTC)