Template talk:Infobox country/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Prepending "US" to dollar amounts under GDP in infobox

Editors agree with the proposal to add language to the infobox parameters that ambiguous currency symbols (e.g. $, ¥, ₩ etc.) should be prepended with the appropriate ISO code as prescribed by MOS:CURRENCY.

Cunard (talk) 08:42, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

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.

---

I haven't found any guidelines on this, so I apologize if this topic's been discussed and closed before.

Per MOS:CURRENCY: In country-specific articles, such as Economy of Australia, use the currency of the subject country. [...] In general, the first mention of a particular currency should use its full, unambiguous signifier (e.g. A$52), with subsequent references using just the appropriate symbol (e.g. $88), unless this would be unclear.

A quick browse of infoboxes for some existing countries shows no signifier for the type of dollar used to denote their GDP. However, the IMF seems to be universally cited for the numbers, which notes the amount is in US Dollars. That information is only viewable if the reader opens the reference link. This can be confusing for readers outside the US as the dollar sign is a currency symbol for multiple countries, including Mexico's peso, and en.Wikipedia is the most read of WMF's projects around the world.

I propose adding language to the infobox parameters that ambiguous currency symbols (e.g. $, ¥, ₩ etc.) should be prepended with the appropriate ISO code as prescribed by MOS:CURRENCY. The Examples and TemplateData section on this infobox's page should show currency code examples like US$10.5 billion or HK$10.5 billion, dependent of course on what currency the reference uses. Unambiguous symbols, like the Indian rupee (₹) should just be wikilinked without the ISO code. - GS ⋙ ☎ 07:32, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

From looking at a few examples, it does seem to be inconsistent. E.g. Australia specifies US$ for all GDP infobox values, but Canada and Hong Kong do not.

Additionally, the GDP (PPP) line in (for example) Hong Kong states "$58,322 (11th)" which in the citation states that value is being given in "Current international dollar" units. Skimming the archives, that aspect seems to have been briefly discussed in Template talk:Infobox country/Archive 7#GDP PPP is NOT in US Dollars (REQUEST WITHDRAWN) (without conclusion).

I tentatively agree with the proposal to add documentation to this template encouraging editors to specify the unit. That might need to go hand-in-hand with some additional citations/clarifications in the international dollar article, too?

I've left a pointer at Wikipedia:WikiProject Numismatics asking for relevant expertise in this area, in case they can help point out other relevant historical discussions, or aspects and options to consider. Also, ping @Pristino: per interest from last discussion.

(I'm just here via RfC feedback request service. Not watching the page.) HTH. Quiddity (talk) 18:20, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

@Quiddity: Thanks for the feedback, additional research and being an active RfC volunteer. - GS ⋙ ☎ 11:38, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Also here from RfC. I would agree that the proposal makes sense, and should help clarify the use of the various currency symbols throughout Wikipedia. Sometimes it's difficult to tell if certain symbols (particularly the dollar sign) are simply being used because of negligence or inexperience, and in cases such as Australia or Hong Kong, whether provided values are in USD, the local dollars, or a mix. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 12:01, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

---

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.

Population density

I've noticed that some countries population density numbers have not been updated when the population was, making the number incorrect. I'm not very familiar with infobox-templates, but would it not be possible to automatically calculate the density by dividing population(census) by area (km2 and sq mi2)? Hjerta92 (talk) 17:31, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Global Peace Index addition?

Shouldn't we add GPI as well in the infobox? It has score, rank and annual results. Though making it optional, as some countries GPI is too low, or undermined to be included, but its a well researched, funded and implemented measurement of nations' and regions' peacefulness. It is supported by government, countries, and its facts and figures are taken under consideration for such studies. Nauriya (talk) 17:31, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Remove font size reduction(s)

The template currently reduces the font size for the |coordinates= parameter. Per MOS:FONTSIZE last paragraph and this supporting RfC, please remove the size reduction for that and any other parameters. Thank you! ―Mandruss ☎ 21:40, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

 Done the coordinates. If there are any others please sandbox the code first, thanks. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 06:36, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

extra events

Illegitimate Barrister, It looks like you added support for event/date 14 & 15, which do display in the infobox (used at North Korea). But in preview mode it says they are unknown and North Korea is added to the Category:Pages using infobox country with unknown parameters. MB 16:47, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Frietjes, perhaps you can make this fix. MB 03:13, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Membership

Has no description, what information should be there?. Schengen2018 (talk) 11:28, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Merge status?

@Zackmann08 and Primefac: Any idea what the status of the merge with Template:Infobox former country is? It's been over one and a half year now since the decision was made, but it's still not done. Should we conclude that is is not happening and remove the merge notices? If still desirable, a new merge proposal discussion could then be started again, but for now it doesn't seem of much use to keep the notices. Thayts ••• 08:05, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm 90% of the way done; I've implemented the majority of the huge changes and just need to tweak a few things based on the testcases. Summer hit and I've been oddly busier than during the school year. I'll be finishing up by the end of August. Patience, please. Primefac (talk) 01:19, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

parameter for the official website

I'm confused about the parameter Official_website because the Description says "For geopolitical entities: do not use government website (e.g. usa.gov) for countries (e.g. [[United States]])." Does the opening clause mean "For geopolitical entites other than countries"? Nick Levinson (talk) 19:39, 14 July 2018 (UTC) (Corrected my phrasing: 19:46, 14 July 2018 (UTC))

(year^[1])

How about we have parameter such as ethnic_groups_ref and religion_ref so we don't put ref like that. The example is in United States. Hddty. (talk) 01:46, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Hddty., seems reasonable, so now added. Frietjes (talk) 15:59, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Frietjes, I've undone your edit. I too agree that it's reasonable, but if the statistics are from a specific year, we should put the reference(s) after that year. I don't know whether that means it should look like (year)[1] or (year[1]), but it should be one of those two. Of course, if the "year" parameter isn't included, then the ref would naturally fall after the "Ethnic groups" label. Primefac (talk) 16:02, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Primefac, so move it? there was really no reason to revert the edit just to move the reference after the parenthesis. Frietjes (talk) 16:06, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Because I wasn't sure if there would be a "fight" to put it in one of the locations I gave above, and I'd rather discuss it and then move it (once consensus is confirmed) than have it be edited a half-dozen times. If everyone's okay with where it is, then you're right there's nothing wrong with just re-adding it. Primefac (talk) 16:08, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Frietjes, I think the new parameter should be put before </span> because the ref looked bold in mobile site. Hddty. (talk) 19:05, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

seems reasonable and matches the format of template:infobox settlement (population_footnotes). Frietjes (talk) 19:24, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Parameter overload

This template is the best example of how merger talks have led us to inclusion fights all over. Do others remember the days before megers when we had boxs of different types for different things. Why have we let the meger squad make us deal with inclusion fights all over. Time to go back to simpler boxes that have defined parameters. Project after project has given up because of the lost of templatea all over. Time to cut back on mergerist convoluting all our templates.--Moxy (talk) 22:52, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Area documentation

I'm fixing some {{convert}} errors (currently at 1 + 2 + 3) due to bad wikitext in articles that the recent merge to this infobox has revealed. Here are a couple of points for the documentation in case anyone will be working on it. Previewing Oghuz Yabgu State before I fixed it showed unknown parameter "area" but the documentation here includes "area" as a valid parameter. Republic of Salé needs a fix to parameter stat_area4 but there is no "stat_area" in the documentation here. Johnuniq (talk) 05:44, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

The documentation is woefully out of date; as far as I can tell |area= has not been a valid parameter for some time. Similarly, it hasn't yet been updated to include the new params from the merger with Template:Infobox former country, which is where the stat_areaX params come in. They work the same as the areas (i.e. they use {{convinfobox|{{{stat_area4|}}}|km2||sqmi}}). Primefac (talk) 13:55, 13 August 2018 (UTC) /doc updated. Primefac (talk) 14:14, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Change name of parameter

Please change |coa_size= to |coat_size=, please? --Drabdullayev17 (talk) 17:59, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

I could probably add coat_size but I can't remove coa_size as it was in {{infobox former country}} and part of the merger outcome was (initially anyway) the old params would be kept in place to avoid too much disruption. I know I'm probably stating what's already known, but it's shorthand for coat of arms (as opposed to a misspelling of coat), hence the disparity in param name. Primefac (talk) 18:05, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Common languages not bold

Me again. Unless deliberate, I noticed |common_languages='s corresponding "Common languages" isn't bold. Jay D'Easy (talk) 22:19, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

 Done. It was deliberate - there are three related un-bolded labels that show up in certain circumstances - but I guess that it is unlikely that all four would show up together. Primefac (talk) 12:57, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Former country region and continent

@Primefac: The parameters |region= and |continent= from Template:Infobox former country are missing. Is this deliberate? I notice some former country articles use these parameters. Thayts ••• 13:29, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it was deliberate - the only thing these two parameters did was provide categorization, which is now (or rather, has been for some time) strongly discouraged in infoboxes. Primefac (talk) 13:24, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Thayts ••• 16:36, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Lost categorization

While I agree that category assignment shouldn't be included in templates, the current change implies that a lot of former template-induced category assignment is just entirely lost. Is there any way we can trace the articles that lost their category assignment so that we can add the category manually? Marcocapelle (talk) 09:38, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

There are about 1000 pages using the former template. You should consider making a bot request. --Izno (talk) 12:13, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

I can re-add the category assessment found in the old version of the template, but have it set for maintenance/hidden categories, which will allow a user/bot/etc to manually add the appropriate category to the article itself. Primefac (talk) 16:21, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the list! While it is pretty huge, I think it's better to tackle this manually anyway. At a first glance many of them do not need any re-adding, either because the categorization was already manually added as well, or, with ancient and early medieval countries, because they are categorized by decade/century/millennium instead of by year. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:33, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Checked until Moldavia Dos Pilas. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:15, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

That's usually the case with WP:TEMPLATECATs, from what I've seen before. --Izno (talk) 15:15, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

FYI, there are 7 and over a 1000 more. Thayts ••• 20:47, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

• I have created three new tracking categories (1, 2, 3) based on the old categorization. For each of these categories, I have set up a PetScan search that will look for articles that are in the maintenance category but not directly in the category they should be in. For example, Ammon is listed in Cat #1 (sorted under B) but as of this edit it does not show up on the related PetScan. If/when the PetScan gives 0 results, we can then remove the tracking cats. As a minor note, I did not include Template:Infobox former country/autocat in this categorization effort, but I can if everyone feels it is necessary. Primefac (talk) 15:23, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Unnecessary non-breaking spaces

There's an issue with the use of a non-breaking space for population_estimate_year. See Denmark, where the field is assigned "April 2018", resulting in "April 2018 estimate". However there is for some reason a non-breaking space between "2018" and "estimate", resulting in:

|population_estimate_year = April 2018

April
2018 estimate

Whether or not the month should be shown, the non-breaking space here is still unnecessary.

Another case is after time_zone_DST. See France:

|time_zone_DST = Central European Summer Time<wbr/>

Central European
Summer Time<wbr/>
&nbsp;(UTC+2)

Red: Non-breaking space implemented into template.
Orange: Code added to article to counteract annoying non-breaking space.

This abuse of non-breaking spaces has got to stop, it's bad practice. I'm pretty sure these are not at all necessary to main the integrity of width of the field names, but if they are, a css property such as min-width or similar should be used instead.

Rob984 (talk) 18:47, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

 Done. Primefac (talk) 13:17, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

@Primefac: Perhaps more can be done for non-breaking spaces? In British Hong Kong, the old template had a perfect balance of whitespace between the title/office/event names and the dates. Now there's lots of unused real estate between them. The history events used to fit the whole d-m-yyyy in one line without altering the width of the entire template. Spellcast (talk) 16:37, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Issue appears to be that there's no minimum width for either side of the infobox. There aren't any non-breaking spaces causing the left side to widen in that case, just more text. I added a nowrap template to an entry on the right side as a quick fix. Rob984 (talk) 13:39, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Pretty much. If there's a breaking space, an infobox will often split the lines to keep the size down. Primefac (talk) 14:20, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

@Primefac Would there be any down-side of setting a minimum width for both sides to prevent imbalance? The infobox is doing its best to optimise use of whitespace, but the result is not always desirable. I think using nowrap templates and non-breaking spaces on articles to combat this is too much hassle. A lot of editors simply aren't aware of them and how they work, when making changes to an article's infobox. Rob984 (talk) 18:04, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

I suppose we could hardcode the {{nowrap}} templates into the infobox itself any time a date is used, but that could also cause issues if someone were to say use 31 Dec 1774 - 3 Jan 1775, since it would make the IB rather wide. Primefac (talk) 21:00, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Status and establishment

1/ If |event_pre= is used, this creates a visible but empty field called "Establishment". See British Guiana or British Hong Kong.

2/ First point definitely needs fixing but this point is about general issues with the status field. We have |status= and |status_text=. It looks like the point of the first was to have a template-induced category but that's now deprecated. And it looks like the point of the second was to have a more nuanced description that couldn't be summed up in a category name. If both were used, only the second would be displayed. In either case, it'd be displayed only at the top of the infobox below the official name.

But now, if both fields are used, it'll display |status_text= at the top and the typically more simpler |status= below the map. Personally I'm not a fan of allowing the simpler status to be displayed if |status_text= is used. Again, the point of |status_text= was to give a description or title that's not accurately given in a category. By allowing the simpler status to be shown, it's introducing info that's either a) a half-truth, b) false for a big or small portion of the entity's history, and c) simply redundant (e.g. Do we really need to show "Status: Empire" on an article like Roman Empire?).

And since Former Country was merged here, this opens the door for the status field to be used for current entities like it already is in Macau and Hong Kong. In both of them, the status is shown twice: the top of the infobox and below the map. This repetition is redundant. I think it should be shown either on the top or below the map, but not both. But I'm generally not in favour of using the status field for current entities unless it's a disputed area like say Kosovo, which again redundantly repeats it twice. Spellcast (talk) 16:09, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Done and done. Thanks. Primefac (talk) 19:08, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Timeline/rulers separator working correctly

For some reason the rulers section and timeline merge together when there is no era specified. (e.g. see Zand dynasty) Presumably the separator is dependent upon era, which I don't think it should be. Alphathon /'æɫ.fə.θɒn/ ^(talk) 13:03, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

The era reliance is really only to change "History" to "Historical era", but I've  Fixed the separator issue by adding in a dependency on |date_start=. For the record, both of these templates are/were stupid, and quite honestly I'm starting to feel like {{infobox country}} needs to be rewritten from the ground-up to avoid some of the really stupid coding decisions made to make it "look nice". Primefac (talk) 14:47, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

capital_exile

Currently the capital parameter is inserted as-is and therefore allows wikitext (links etc). capital_exile works differently in that it automatically generates a link, which disallows things like timespans and multiple capitals-in-exile. Could this be changed to follow the capital model? (I.e. change {{#if:{{{capital_exile|}}}|[[{{{capital_exile|}}}]]}} to {{#if:{{{capital_exile|}}}|{{{capital_exile|}}}}}.)

Thanks, Alphathon /'æɫ.fə.θɒn/ ^(talk) 12:13, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

 Done. I actually changed it to an #ifexist on the off chance that it is being used purely to provide a wikilink. Primefac (talk) 15:29, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Former country history events and event dates, and era

|date_set=|date_start= and |year_set=|year_start= do not show if |event_start= is not set. I'm not sure if this is intentional. In any case, it wasn't before. So now some pages are missing their dates. Also, events and event dates no longer appear under their own "History" header anymore. Instead, they are placed underneath "Legistlature", at least in the documentation example. This can be confusin. Finally, |era= is missing entirely. Jay D'Easy (talk) 02:11, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Jay D. Easy, not sure if there's a typo in your first line but date_set and year_set are not (and have not ever been, as far as I know) parameters. The history shouldn't be showing under Legislature, based on a quick check of the code, but I'll dig into that and see.

And yes, era is not there because it was redundant to the history/Established header, and I meant to add it back in as an appropriate part of the switch but never did. Again, I'll look into it. Primefac (talk) 02:29, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Primefac, that's my bad. It's what I get for being editing while tired. Anyways, I mean |date_start= and |year_start=. Hopefully that'll get you started. Thank you. Jay D'Easy (talk) 02:51, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

 Fixed. I don't really like having a |date_start= without a |event_start= because then you get a blank bullet, but if I don't make the change I made then none of the dates show up so I suppose people will have to just fill stuff in for the latter param. Primefac (talk) 03:03, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Good work. Tedious but someone has to do it. But I've noticed incorrect captions where the flag and coat of arms are usually located. For example, Roman Empire says "Flag" when it previously said "Aureus". And Portuguese Macau says "Emblem" when it previously said "Coat of arms". It seems this is due to "flag_type=" and "symbol_type_article=" being missing. To fix those articles is easy: just change "flag_type=" to "flag_caption" on the first one and remove "symbol_type_article=" altogether in the second one. Although I prefer minimalist coding and not introducing redundant parameters, I'm not sure how many other articles this could effecting. Spellcast (talk) 03:36, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Ugh. The caption/image formatting on the old template was a bloody nightmare. I thought I accounted for the various permutations, but apparently not. I will dig into this and see what I can do. Primefac (talk) 13:21, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Okay, so the issue here is the difference in syntax between the old and new templates. The "former" caption tested just about every combination of linked and unliked via #ifexist while this template only checks if <symbol_type_article> of <country> exists. Your fix on the Portuguese Macau worked, but I'll have to have a think about how to code it so that it works for old stuff and new stuff without becoming too convoluted... Primefac (talk) 13:55, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

@Primefac: Related to this, the default captions for |event_start= and |event_end= are missing. These were "Established" and "Disestablished" respectively. See for example Netherlands New Guinea for how it looks now. Thayts ••• 12:50, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

 Done. Didn't see that these were hardcoded in the old one. Makes a lot more sense now given the issues listed at the top of this thread. Primefac (talk) 13:21, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

@Primefac: Unfortunately, I have to annoy you again. You ready to be annoyed? OK, so that change has resulted in the whole history events section not showing. It does show if the year of establishment has a specific day and month. But it doesn't show at all if only the year is present. This is common in old entities like Portuguese Macau or Roman Empire where it's only possible to give a year, not a specific month and day. Spellcast (talk) 13:15, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

 Done. Primefac (talk) 13:38, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

This still needs a little work. Like with the flag/symbol parameters (see below), if event_start/end is listed but blank the "established/disestablished" doesn't show up. (E.g. see County of Schaumburg.) You need to use {{ifempty}} or similar. Alphathon /'æɫ.fə.θɒn/ ^(talk) 00:00, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

 Fixed. Primefac (talk) 14:32, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

​ You seem to have missed a bar/pipe in the "established" one (it is currently {{ifempty|{{{event_start|}}}Established}} but should be {{ifempty|{{{event_start|}}}|Established}}) Alphathon /'æɫ.fə.θɒn/ ^(talk) 17:43, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Gah! Thanks. Primefac (talk) 17:47, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Thousands separator in population figures

Hello yet again. The former country infobox used to use entered population (stat_pop1 etc) and area (stat_area1 etc) figures to calculate population density. I can see that this might not be a great idea for various reasons, so I understand if this isn't reimplemented. However, it required figures to be entered with no separators (e.g. 10349031 rather than 10,349,031). For the area that wasn't a problem as {{convert}} handles that automatically. For the population figures though it used {{formatnum:}} to add them. The current version of this template doesn't do that, so the figures are now presented plain.

As far as I can see this is easy enough to fix:

| data94= {{#if:{{{stat_pop1|}}}{{{stat_pop2|}}}{{{stat_pop3|}}}{{{stat_pop4|}}}{{{stat_pop5|}}}|{{infobox country/multirow|{{{stat_year1|}}}{{{ref_pop1|}}} |{{formatnum:{{{stat_pop1|}}}}}|{{{stat_year2|}}}{{{ref_pop2|}}} |{{formatnum:{{{stat_pop2|}}}}}|{{{stat_year3|}}}{{{ref_pop3|}}} |{{formatnum:{{{stat_pop3|}}}}}|{{{stat_year4|}}}{{{ref_pop4|}}} |{{formatnum:{{{stat_pop4|}}}}}|{{{stat_year5|}}}{{{ref_pop5|}}} |{{formatnum:{{{stat_pop5|}}}}} }} }}

I have tested this out on my test page and it seems to work without issue. Is there any reason not to do this? Alphathon /'æɫ.fə.θɒn/ ^(talk) 23:54, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Flag and symbol parameters a mess for former countries

Since the Infobox Country/Infobox Former Country merger the flag and symbol label/caption parameters do not work properly. Previously, when using Infobox Former Country, one could set a specific label and link for both the flag and the symbol/coat of arms using the following parameters: flag_type, flag, symbol_type and symbol_type_article*. These no longer work as intended (and yet are still listed in the documentation). Naturally they are used in many articles (I'm not sure if there an easy way to count them, but given that Infobox Former Country was used on over a thousand articles its probably fair to presume that it is not an insignificant number, probably hundreds).

*Note that before July 2017 symbol was used in place of symbol_type_article (see this conversation). I requested a bot to convert all instances of symbol to symbol_type_article but this was never completed, so there are likely to be some instances of the depreciated symbol parameter as well.

For an example of the symbol failing see this Old revision of Kingdom of Prussia (I have since fixed it to use the current parameters), where the template specifies symbol_type_article = Coat of arms of Prussia and symbol_type = Royal coat of arms. Previously this would have resulted in [[Coat of arms of Prussia|Royal coat of arms]] but instead now outputs Coat of arms of Prussia (no link and wrong text).

At least it fails gracefully in this case, as rather than displaying the text as intended it simply displays what should be the link. This is not necessarily the case though; if either symbol_type_article or symbol_type are specified as blank (this is often the case as editors will often copy the full template from the documentation and just fill in the blanks as needed) then no text will display at all. The old Infobox Former Country template didn't have this problem as it used the {{if empty}} template, which the current version doesn't.

As for flags, as far as I can tell the old flag parameter doesn't do anything at all (much like symbol_type) and flag_type is only used in the rather peculiar and specific circumstance that 1) a page called "Flag of linking_name/common_name/name/PAGENAME" exists and 2) flag_caption is not specified.

It is also the case that many will link to the wrong article as the template will auto-generate the flag link from linking_name, common_name, name and PAGENAME where possible, which is treated as the default. If any of those pages exist I don't think it is possible to specify a custom link at all, only custom text.

For an example of several of these issues see this Old revision of Cisleithania (again, I have since fixed it). It had no caption at all under the coat of arms and the flag was labelled [[Flag of Austria|]]. (Note that this isn't even the correct link; it should have been Flag of the Habsburg Monarchy.)

The current system is inconsistent (flags and symbols behave differently), isn't very robust, and doesn't handle the old parameters, breaking probably many hundreds of articles.

To be honest I don't know if there's an easy fix for some of this (it may be the case that the syntax of the two former templates is simply incompatible). If so, we might need to get a bot to go around fixing them all or something. Regardless, at least some things can be fixed (e.g. by adding {{if empty}} templates, or the full syntax it uses if preferred) and the documentation should certainly be updated.

P.S. just as a quick test I checked all of the entries listed in List of empires whose names begin with an A. Out of the eleven which had infoboxes containing a flag and/or symbol, five (Angevin Empire, Armenian Empire, Austrian Empire, Austria-Hungary and Aztec Empire) had flag or symbol labelling issues as a result of this (seven if you count the two Persian empires – Achaemenid Empire and Afsharid dynasty – which automatically link to Flag of Persia – a redirect – rather than Flag of Iran as is specified in both articles' code).

Alphathon /'æɫ.fə.θɒn/ ^(talk) 22:37, 30 August 2018 (UTC), edited 22:53, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

I've had another look at the code and I think the code/logic for the coat of arms/symbol is broken generally due to a misplaced }}}. Currently, the code reads:

{{#ifexist:{{{symbol_type_article|{{{symbol_type|Coat of arms}}}}}} of {{{linking_name|{{{common_name|{{{name|{{PAGENAME}}}}}}}}}}} |[[{{{symbol_type_article|{{{symbol_type|Coat of arms}}}}}} of {{{linking_name|{{{common_name|{{{name|{{PAGENAME}}}}}}}}}}} | {{{symbol_type|Coat of arms}}}]] |{{{symbol_type_article|{{{symbol_type|Coat of arms}}}}}} }}

This treats {{{symbol_type_article|{{{symbol_type|Coat of arms}}}}}} as a single item (which returns either symbol_type_article, symbol_type or "Coat of arms") and then appends "of name" (where name is either "linking_name", "common_name", "name" or "PAGENAME" in that order). As such, what it actually checks for is "symbol_type_article of name", not "symbol_type_article", so if symbol_type_article = Coat of arms of Exampleland and name = Kingdom of Exampleland then what it actually checks is "Coat of arms of Exampleland of Kingdom of Exampleland".

To correct this I think it should read:

{{#ifexist:{{{symbol_type_article|{{{symbol_type|Coat of arms}}} of {{{linking_name|{{{common_name|{{{name|{{PAGENAME}}}}}}}}}}}}}} |[[{{{symbol_type_article|{{{symbol_type|Coat of arms}}} of {{{linking_name|{{{common_name|{{{name|{{PAGENAME}}}}}}}}}}}}}} | {{{symbol_type|Coat of arms}}}]] |{{{symbol_type_article|{{{symbol_type|Coat of arms}}}}}} }}

For example, Swedish Empire uses symbol = Coat of arms of Sweden and symbol_type = Royal coat of arms, which is supposed to output [[Coat of arms of Sweden|Royal coat of arms]].

At the moment it uses the depreciated symbol rather than symbol_type_article (see above). If we leave that uncorrected then there is no symbol_type_article, so it checks symbol_type. There is no linking_name so we use common_name, which is "Sweden". There is no article called "Royal coat of arms of Sweden" so it simply writes symbol_type, i.e. "Royal coat of arms" with no link.

If we instead update it to use the current symbol_type_article name it checks symbol_type_article. There is no linking_name so we use common_name, which is "Sweden". There is no article called "Coat of arms of Sweden of Sweden" [sic] so it simply writes symbol_type_article, i.e. "Coat of arms of Sweden" with no link.

However, if we use symbol_type_article = Coat of arms then it links to the right article "Coat of arms of Sweden". (This is not a good workaround though, as once this is fixed it will instead link to Coat of arms. It does however demonstrate what is going wrong.)

I would also note that even after being fixed, if symbol_type_article has a value, whether it corresponds to an article or not, it will never check "symbol_type of name"; it will only ever do that if symbol_type_article has no value. (This may be by design.) However, this implies that symbol_type_article is only ever meant to be used as a link, which is not what it does if no such article exists. Instead, if there is a symbol_type_article it writes that. If there isn't it tries symbol_type. If that is also missing it defaults to "Coat of arms". I think it should instead either ignore symbol_type_article entirely or give precedence to symbol_type (giving {{{symbol_type|{{{symbol_type_article|Coat of arms}}}}}} or {{{symbol_type|Coat of arms}}}). This would also allow symbol_type_article to be used much like WP:REDLINK suggests (i.e. if the article is created the link will be ready to go straight away) except without actually rendering a red link.

As such, I think it should read:

{{#ifexist:{{{symbol_type_article|{{{symbol_type|Coat of arms}}} of {{{linking_name|{{{common_name|{{{name|{{PAGENAME}}}}}}}}}}}}}} |[[{{{symbol_type_article|{{{symbol_type|Coat of arms}}} of {{{linking_name|{{{common_name|{{{name|{{PAGENAME}}}}}}}}}}}}}} | {{{symbol_type|Coat of arms}}}]] |{{{symbol_type|Coat of arms}}} }}

This of course doesn't account for {{if empty}} issues.

I haven't looked in-depth at the flag code yet.

Alphathon /'æɫ.fə.θɒn/ ^(talk) 16:56, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

OK, I've had a look at the flag code ({{#ifexist:Flag of {{{linking_name|{{{common_name|{{{name|{{PAGENAME}}}}}}}}}}} |[[Flag of {{{linking_name|{{{common_name|{{{name|{{PAGENAME}}}}}}}}}}}|{{{flag_caption|{{{flag_type|Flag}}}}}}]] |{{{flag_caption|Flag}}} }}).

I think a good place to start might be something like this:

{{#ifexist: {{{flag_type_article|{{{flag|Flag of {{{linking_name|{{{common_name|{{{name|{{PAGENAME}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}} | [[{{{flag_type_article|{{{flag|Flag of {{{linking_name|{{{common_name|{{{name|{{PAGENAME}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}|{{{flag_caption|{{{flag_type|Flag}}}}}}]] | {{{flag_caption|{{{flag_type|Flag}}}}}} }}

This would allow the flag_type and flag to continue to be used, and would allow migration from flag to flag_type_article, similar to the symbol parameter. (If this were done it might be worth doing something similar for symbol, and possibly adding a category similar to the symbol caption or type category. That said, I suggested something similar when symbol was originally changed, and it was suggested that it would "unnecessarily complicate the code ... [and] waste parser time for no benefit."; see this conversation.)

Alphathon /'æɫ.fə.θɒn/ ^(talk) 17:55, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

​ Looks reasonable. Sandbox it, makes sure it all works, and I'll gladly update the code. Primefac (talk) 14:54, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

​ I wasn't sure exactly how to go about doing that for a template (I know there's template: infobox country/sandbox but wasn't sure about the procedures for using it) so I created one on my personal sandbox (here) and tested it using all the infoboxes I previously mentioned weren't working (here). Everything now seems to be working as intended using the code listed below. I have included versions both with and without flag_type_article and symbol. Are there any standard test cases I should try? (Edit: I found template: infobox country/testcases have tested them. They all seem to still work as intended. I am now testing those at template: infobox former country/testcases 20:39, 1 September 2018 (UTC))

Flag code

|caption1= {{#ifexist:{{if empty |{{{flag_type_article|}}} |{{{flag|}}} | {{if empty |{{{flag_type|}}} |Flag}} of {{if empty |{{{linking_name|}}} |{{{common_name|}}} |{{{name|}}} |{{PAGENAME}} }} }} |[[{{if empty |{{{flag_type_article|}}} |{{{flag|}}} |{{if empty |{{{flag_type|}}} |Flag}} of {{if empty |{{{linking_name|}}} |{{{common_name|}}} |{{{name|}}} |{{PAGENAME}} }} }}|{{if empty |{{{flag_caption|}}} |{{{flag_type|}}} |Flag}}]] |{{if empty |{{{flag_caption|}}} |{{{flag_type|}}} |Flag}} }}

Flag code without flag_type_article

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

Symbol/coat of arms code

|caption2= {{#ifexist:{{if empty |{{{symbol_type_article|}}} |{{{symbol|}}} |{{if empty |{{{symbol_type|}}} |Coat of arms}} of {{if empty |{{{linking_name|}}} |{{{common_name|}}} |{{{name|}}} |{{PAGENAME}} }} }} |[[{{if empty |{{{symbol_type_article|}}} |{{{symbol|}}} |{{if empty |{{{symbol_type|}}} |Coat of arms}} of {{if empty |{{{linking_name|}}} |{{{common_name|}}} |{{{name|}}} |{{PAGENAME}} }} }} | {{if empty |{{{symbol_type|}}} |Coat of arms}}]] |{{if empty |{{{symbol_type|}}} |Coat of arms}} }}

Symbol/coat of arms code without symbol

|caption2= {{#ifexist:{{if empty |{{{symbol_type_article|}}} |{{if empty |{{{symbol_type|}}} |Coat of arms}} of {{if empty |{{{linking_name|}}} |{{{common_name|}}} |{{{name|}}} |{{PAGENAME}} }} }} |[[{{if empty |{{{symbol_type_article|}}} |{{if empty |{{{symbol_type|}}} |Coat of arms}} of {{if empty |{{{linking_name|}}} |{{{common_name|}}} |{{{name|}}} |{{PAGENAME}} }} }} | {{if empty |{{{symbol_type|}}} |Coat of arms}}]] |{{if empty |{{{symbol_type|}}} |Coat of arms}} }}

Alphathon /'æɫ.fə.θɒn/ ^(talk) 17:38, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Update: I have finished checking the infobox former country test cases and all worked as expected; Tanganyika and New Caledonia used flag_type in a non-standard way so they didn't work until that was corrected. (They failed gracefully by just displaying the text, not linking it). The Tuvan People's Republic flag linked correctly (links to Flag of the Tuvan People's Republic; when the current template is used, it links to Flag of Tuva instead). The Kingdom of Nepal correctly displays the label "Flag (before 1962)"; the current code just shows "Flag".

Unless there are any other tests to do it seems to work correctly.

Alphathon /'æɫ.fə.θɒn/ ^(talk) 21:23, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Cool. As soon as I'm not doing something else (i.e. real-world work) I'll update the template. Thanks for doing the legwork on this one! Primefac (talk) 21:24, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

 Done. Primefac (talk) 15:33, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Don't forget to add the new params to the list of accepted ones. Alphathon /'æɫ.fə.θɒn/ ^(talk) 17:09, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Title/hover text

There's another minor issue I overlooked: the "title"/hover text.

I think it should probably be the same as the caption with "of X" appended in most circumstances, which appears to be what it is coded to: |title=Flag of {{{common_name|{{{name|{{{linking_name|{{PAGENAME}}}}}}}}}}} and |title={{if empty |{{{symbol_type|}}} |Coat of arms}} of {{{common_name|{{{name|{{{linking_name|{{PAGENAME}}}}}}}}}}}. This gives similar results to (and therefore has similar problems as) the current caption code. It should therefore at least be changed to an {{if empty}} and to use flag_type when present, i.e. |title={{if empty| {{{flag_type|}}} |Flag}} of {{if empty |{{{common_name|}}} |{{{name|}}} |{{{linking_name|}}} |{{PAGENAME}} }} and |title={{if empty |{{{symbol_type|}}} |Coat of arms}} of {{if empty |{{{common_name|}}} |{{{name|}}} |{{{linking_name|}}} |{{PAGENAME}} }} (both tested and working).

There are, of course, a few caveats.

• There is no way to account for states whose name has a (grammatical) article – "the" (as is usually the case with Empires, and when using things like "Kingdom of"). For example, "Vexillum of Roman Empire" rather than "Vexillum of the Roman Empire".
• There is no way to account for non-standard usages, such as on Roman Empire, where the "flag" is actually a coin, yet has the hover text "Flag of Roman Empire". (Note: it is not hugely uncommon to use the flag or symbol slot in such a way for historical states which did not have modern-style symbols.)
• It is possible to have two flags; for them both to have the same hover text doesn't necessarily make sense. (Currently, only flag 1 has hover text.)
• Sometimes the flag/symbol type doesn't quite work when "of X" is added, e.g. it has a date range after the type or is spread across two lines (line breaks are simply ignored, which squishes the two lines together without even a space between them). This is especially problematic for articles such as Kingdom of Armenia (antiquity), which also suffers from the two-flag issue, and so ends up with something like "Left: standard of the Artaxiad dynastyRight: standard of the Arsacid dynasty of Kingdom of Armernia".
• Sometimes the flag isn't strictly that of the state in question, e.g. New Caledonia, where the "Flag of France" is erroneously labelled "Flag of New Caledonia"

I think the best solution to all these problems would simply be to introduce override parameters: flag1_hover, flag2_hover and symbol_hover, which would give |title={{if empty |{{{flag1_hover|}}} |{{if empty| {{{flag_type|}}} |Flag}} of {{if empty |{{{common_name|}}} |{{{name|}}} |{{{linking_name|}}} |{{PAGENAME}} }} }}, |title={{if empty |{{{flag2_hover|}}} | }} and |title={{if empty |{{{symbol_hover|}}} |{{if empty |{{{symbol_type|}}} |Coat of arms}} of {{if empty |{{{common_name|}}} |{{{name|}}} |{{{linking_name|}}} |{{PAGENAME}} }} }}. Again, I have tested this and it seems to work fine.

Alphathon /'æɫ.fə.θɒn/ ^(talk) 14:47, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 11 September 2018

Add |continent= and |region= to the part of the template that says "Check for unknown parameters".

Those two parameters are in template code and the documentation, yet pages with them are placed into "Pages using infobox country with unknown parameters" and a warning is shown on preview saying that those parameters are unknown. Please fix this. Thank you.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  17:47, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: Both of those parameters are deprecated post-merge. I have removed their usage in the /doc. Primefac (talk) 19:28, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Edit request timezone

Just as in was done in template "Infobox settlement", I propose to reorder the presentation of timezones. Currently the time zone is represented like: EST (UTC−5). However codes like EST are globally not very well defined. Therefore I propose to reverse the order to UTC−5 (EST), putting the absolutely clear and unambiguous one first.−Woodstone (talk) 10:18, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

 Done Enterprisey (talk!) 21:15, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for agreeing to this change. However the implementation is not complete. Unlike in the "settlement" template, when the offset is not given, the "timezone" is preceded by a blank and is still within brackets. Furthermore the DST should be treated as well. −Woodstone (talk) 07:01, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Woodstone, should work now. Frietjes (talk) 13:37, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Confirmed and thanks again. −Woodstone (talk) 15:52, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 21 September 2018

| label124= [[Right- and left-hand traffic|Drives on the]]

Minor change, please change Right- and left-hand traffic to Left- and right-hand traffic, as the previous one has become a redirect after a page move. Cheers – Wefk423 (talk) 13:55, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

changed. Frietjes (talk) 14:02, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Edit request to native_name

I'd like to propose changing the appearance of |native_name= to be unbolded text and a smaller font size than |conventional_long_name=. The current default appearance can be particularly messy when dealing with countries that have multiple native languages/transliteration styles to account for. Thanks, Horserice (talk) 21:49, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Support unbolding, but oppose smaller text. Smaller text is an accessibility issue. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 12:21, 9 October 2018 (UTC).

 Done. Primefac (talk) 13:49, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Should the same be done with {{Infobox settlement}}? Thayts ••• 19:36, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Proposal of change to the Infobox

Hello, Rebestalic here.

I think the 'drives on the' element of the Infobox should be changed to 'driving side'. This would improve formality.

Thank you, Rebestalic (talk) 00:15, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Seems reasonable. Will leave for a bit for other comment. If no objections in a few days, I'll make the change. Primefac (talk) 14:24, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Support. I feel like the wording would be much better this newer way, and I don't see why it would be a problem. Primefac, do you want to go ahead and add it? It's been a few weeks now and no one's opposed the change.--SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 02:46, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

 Done Galobtter (pingó mió) 04:38, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

I think the word right/left should be written in sentence case. --Hddty. (talk) 11:17, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Usage of template on other wikipedia

Hello. I use this template on Azerbaijani Wikipedia. But I want change somethings, for example you use |gini= parameter like 39.6 but I have to use like 39,7 (with comma). How I can change it? --Drabdullayev17 (talk) 12:20, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Moving predecessor/successor information upwards for former countries

Since the templates for former and current countries merged a few years ago, the information about the entities preceding and succeeding former countries have been moved from the top of the infobox to the very bottom. In my experience, this information is very important and widely used when browsing historical countries, certainly more than mottos and anthems, which are near the top now, and I believe it would aid navigation and improve the experience significantly if it was moved to the top of the infobox instead. Therefore, I propose that it be moved to a position below the dates of the country's existence, but above the flag and coat of arms (or alternatively immediately below them). For those countries which have long predecessor and/or successor lists, it could optionally be collapsed and click-to-expand. Kranix (talk | contribs) 13:57, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

In the last pre-redirect version of {{infobox former country}} the preceding/succeeding flags would only be shown if |successorflags=yes; otherwise, they would show at the bottom. In coding, testing, and example-checking the merger I found that there were no instances of the template using this specific parameter, and so I felt no need to include the duplicate coding to allow such an option. Primefac (talk) 02:00, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Ah, I thought the merger was much older – in fact, this was changed while the templates were still separate. IIRC, the justification was that the successorflags option displayed the countries' flags only, and it was deemed unlikely that readers would be able to recognize this. What I am proposing is not an icon-only format, but a format with icon and text much like the one currently used at the bottom of the infobox, just at the top instead – for pages on which this would not be too unwiedly. Kranix (talk | contribs) 15:57, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Missing parameter in known parameters list

The {{{flag}}} parameter exists, but is not included in the known parameters list, causing the template to show a warning message in preview mode:

Warning: Page using Template:Infobox country with unknown parameter "flag" (this message is shown only in preview).

Could someone please add it? Thanks. Thayts ••• 19:14, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

 Done Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:23, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

year_leader problem

leader1 does not display if there is no corresponding year_leader1. Koopinator (talk) 07:05, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Example: This revision of Reichskommissariat Moskowien does not tell who was the Reichskommissar was, even though the information was present in the infobox.

I'd solve this by inserting a <br> whenever there is no year inserted but there is a leader inserted.

I think your fix works better, because if there's no year listed, there shouldn't be a leader there. Primefac (talk) 15:50, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

But it still omits information that has been inserted. Besides, in older versions of the template it used to be displayed (archive) even if there was no corresponding year. Koopinator (talk) 18:17, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

The template was merged and changes were made. I see zero reason why you would want to include a leader but not the year(s) they held that position. Primefac (talk) 18:45, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Because all information that was previously inserted under the presumption that it would be displayed even if there was no year, is now no longer displayed. Take the example i provided: I added no new information, i just moved a string to get it to display properly again. Koopinator (talk) 19:34, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

The way the merged template is set up is that there needs to be a year_leaderX in order to display. This is to avoid having a blank bullet point, which was an issue brought up when the templates were first merged. Primefac (talk) 19:40, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Flag_caption automatically linking to an article?

Is there a way to prevent the flag_caption parameter from automatically linking to a page regardless of the caption text? This is very problematic in situations where one entity has multiple equally official flags which should ideally link the reader to two different pages. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 20:45, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

BrendonTheWizard can you point to a particular article? Frietjes (talk) 18:18, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

An example would be New Caledonia which has two equally official flags, one of which is the Flag of France. Though not critically necessary, it would be ideal if the infobox could link to both the article for the French flag and the article for the co-official flag. Unfortunately, it is not currently possible to link to both articles in the caption, as it attempts to automatically link to one article. It would automatically link to "Flag of New Caledonia" but it would be beneficial if this template could support uncommon cases like this where we would want two articles. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 00:15, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

But the linked article does explain why there are two flags. Primefac (talk) 00:36, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

It is still ideal if the readers can quickly access the articles for both flags from the country page, as the Flag of New Caledonia article doesn't have any information about the Flag of France. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 02:04, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Largest cities of countries

@BrendonTheWizard, Primefac, and Koopinator: In the infoboxes of the countries, we state the largest cities of different countries. However, there are many ways to determine the largest/most populous city of a country. You can measure the population of the metropolitan area or the city proper. Do Wikipedia have set guidelines on what to consider the largest city of a country? Has there ever been a discussion on what to consider the largest city? --Mstrojny (talk) 23:06, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

I've got limited on-wiki search capabilities at the moment, but from the few discussions I've seen in random places it looks like it depends on what the references say. If it's not sourced, it shouldn't be in the IB? Primefac (talk) 23:43, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

@BrendonTheWizard, Primefac, and Koopinator: The articles China and India say that Shanghai and Mumbai respectively are the largest cities in those countries. I looked at some sources to confirm this and they all have different cities as the largest cities. Here are some that I looked at: The Largest Cities In China, The 20 Largest Cities in China , Population of Cities in China (2018), The Biggest Cities In India, Top 10 Largest Cities in India by Population [Latest Figures and Numbers], List of the Largest Cities in India . Hope this helps. --Mstrojny (talk) 00:30, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

It's another template, but I've noticed that Template:Largest cities of Israel seems to be set up exclusively for the benefit of administrative subdivision geeks, and does almost nothing to help ordinary people find out the things that they would want to know if they asked what was the largest city in Israel. It's also apparently the basis of the the arguably wrong largest city in the infobox of the "Israel" article... AnonMoos (talk) 18:49, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

With no objective way of determining what method is better, it seems like the best thing is to ensure that we at least use the same metric across the board. Our article on largest cities provides a list of three commonly used definitions (presumably there are other contenders as well). Will one of them serve? Matt Deres (talk) 20:55, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Minor History section issue?

So I noticed that in infoboxes with only one entry in the history section, there tended to be a random bar separating the main event and the events/dates below it. See Botswana and Gabon as examples. Not a big deal but it looks it a bit off from the usual format. - Bokmanrocks01 (talk) 22:44, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

dup parameter

The template seems to accept undocumented |map_caption= and documented |image_map_caption= using the last one specified. MB 16:40, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Primefac, very minor fix requested. Thanks. MB 19:28, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what you're asking for - generally if a parameter is undocumented it's either a deprecated param (which too many transclusions to just remove easily) or an alternate spelling/wording just in case people forget/mistype the main/documented one. Primefac (talk) 22:40, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

There is just some ambiguity if both parameters are used simultaneously. It looks like in that case, the undocumented |map_caption= has preference. Someone could not get the caption they intended by following the documentation if they didn't notice the other field was also used. I think |map_caption= should be fully deprecated. MB 00:35, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Auto wikilinking parameter

The template automatically wikilinks |s= Kingdom of the Videhas has a reference on the field, and the infobox shows a mal-formed link. I assume this is the same with |p= and both sequences. Can this be fixed? MB 23:23, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Depends on the weight of the numbers. If this is a one-off failure of the template, then I'd say let's stick with the common usage. If there are more instances of this than "normal" parameter names, then I'd say correct this usage and call it good. The third option, which is the most technically convoluted, is to code it so that it auto-links if there's nothing other than a name, but that gets hella complicated. Primefac (talk) 00:01, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

I don't follow what you are saying. This may be a on-off failure. But what do you mean be correct his usage? Remove the ref? (I guess a ref for the same fact in the article would suffice). MB 00:40, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

I think I mistyped. Option 1: This is the only (or one of the only) instances, and we just fix it (in this case, by removing the ref). Option 2: default to not-wikilinked text because this sort of thing happens a lot. Primefac (talk) 04:33, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 3 February 2019

Please, open! Marie Gulleya (talk) 07:09, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. — JJMC89 (T·C) 07:17, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Proposed Addition to Infoboxes

What is the formal process for proposing an addition to country info boxes? The info boxes are already quite amazing for quick glances relating to economics, linguistics, demographics, geography, etc. but they seem to be lacking in political science information. The Democracy-Dictatorship Index (DD Index) and the Polity IV Dataset are used extensively throughout the field of comparative politics and international relations yet their coding for each country are only available on their respective pages. Up until recently the DD Index coding was not even available in the article (I have since added it).

The info-boxes already contain the "official" categorization of each country's government and legislature but these are largely not used within the field of political science. There is however abundant information already available for economics and some international politics like GDP, PPP, Gini, and HDI. I would like to propose adding additional information to the info-boxes either immediately after the "Government" and "Legislature" sections or immediately after the "Gini" and "HDI" sections: the DD Index categorization (there are six possible) and the Polity IV ranking (both number and categorical name). These could be roughly of the format (using Nigeria as an example):

DD Index (2008) Presidential Democracy

Polity IV (2017) Democracy (7)

DD Index data exist since 1946 and Polity IV goes back to 1800.

As I've said, DD Index and Polity IV are used extensively throughout the field of political science and especially comparative politics. In an introductory textbook in comparative politics they are listed as the two most common ways of measuring democracy. I'm currently studying comparative politics and have used both datasets in my undergraduate research and for numerous assignments as well as my own personal knowledge. As of the writing on this post, the latest data for Democracy-Dictatorship Index has 641 citations and the Polity dataset (of which Polity IV is the latest)

I just want to know the official route I can go down to propose this? I'm a bit new to the background workings of Wikipedia but I've been editing for quite a while.

Thanks--Olfbir (talk) 11:48, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

You've just done so. Other editors will likely comment here and either support or oppose your proposal. Primefac (talk) 15:04, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

When will it be officially decided on? Is there a formal vote of sorts after a certain time has passed?--Olfbir (talk) 15:32, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Depends on when/if people see this notice, how they feel about the proposal, etc. Could be a few days, could end up being turned into an RFC that lasts a month. Primefac (talk) 17:16, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

So the thread has been archived do to a lack of activity. Can I assume this means that no one objects or should I make a RfC on the topic?Olfbir (talk) 21:27, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

It hasn't even been a week. Please be patient. Primefac (talk) 15:07, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

References

Additional infobox language options

On the Republic of Macedonia page a new linguistic situation has occurred with laws and so on and a new need has arisen for more alternatives to accommodate things. Is it possible to extend one of the options (i.e |languages2_type) in the infobox for language. For the infobox template what needed is |languages3_type, |languages3 =, |languages3_sub =. @Illegitimate Barrister:, if possible and when time permits could you do it. Best.Resnjari (talk) 01:42, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Issue has been resolved at the article.Resnjari (talk) 15:37, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Parameters

Primefac, I've gone through all the errors in Category:Pages using infobox country with unknown parameters and fixed most. Most remaining have more data in a "series" that the infobox allows. Should we increase these to accommodate the handful of articles that have a unusually large number of leaders or important events? Details below. MB 23:34, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

event & date_event (done)

• French Indochina, event 7-8
• British America, event 7-9
• County of Nice, event7-8
• Kingdom of Jerusalem, event7
• Macedonia (ancient kingdom), event 7
• Ngô dynasty, event 7
• Portuguese Empire, event 7-9
• Shule Kingdom, event 7-8
• Ethiopian Empire, event 7

leader & year_leader (done)

• Ahmadnagar Sultanate, leader 12-14
• Duchy of Württemberg, leader 12-15
• Lanfang Republic, leader 12-13
• Cai (state), leader 12-15
• Kingdom of Pontus, leader 12-14

established_event & established_date

• Ukraine, established_event 16-17

pred/suc

• Mongol Empire, p16
• Ottoman Empire, p16-17, s16-20

deputy & year_deputy (done)

• Kingdom of Great Britain, deputy 7
• Icelandic Commonwealth, deputy 7-13

Should be doable. I'll put it on my list. Primefac (talk) 16:32, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

event, leader, and deputy were easy since it only involved adding some more params. Will come back and do the others later. Primefac (talk) 16:48, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 11 March 2019

If I read the code correctly, this template sets the size of |image_map_caption= to 90%. This results in 79.2% of the page default, well below the 85% minimum specified at MOS:SMALLFONT: "In no case should the resulting font size of any text drop below 85% of the page's default font size." If that guideline is not enough, it was clearly affirmed in this RfC. This is an accessibility issue. Please modify the template to eliminate reduction of |image_map_caption=—or, at minimum, change the reduction to 97%, which would result in 85.4% of the page default.

I am not competent in these internals, so I may be wrong that this fix is sufficient. If possible, please use a tool to verify that the size of the resulting text is not below 85% of the page default. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:55, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

 Done I removed the small font size formatting from the three map captions as well as the footnote text, and maybe one or two other places. I made the edit in the sandbox first and checked the testcases page to ensure that I did not break anything, since this template is highly visible. Ping me here with any problems. – Jonesey95 (talk) 12:31, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

 Thank you very much! ―Mandruss ☎ 21:08, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Excessive, pointless flag icons

FYI

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

This template's overuse, even misuse, of flag icons is under discussion at WT:MOSICONS#Flagicons in predecessor/successor.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:08, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Should definition of "Regional languages" be amended?

Currently the requirements for inclusion are here: [1], and they state Languages recognised or associated with particular regions within the country/territory. This is far too broad and ill-defined a requirement because a given place can have an almost endless list of languages associated with it. For example, Latin can be associated as a regional language with the UK, or Dutch with NY state. Less absurd but still questionable would be to add Polish to the England infobox. Here [2] is an old discussion about this, although it does not relate directly to the point I am raising. Without a change, the infobox can be abused by editors promoting their own favourite language. I suggest the requirements for inclusion should be tightened, with ideas being welcome. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 04:45, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

We could change it to official status in administrative units or something similar, which would be tighter and I think prevent it getting too long. CMD (talk) 14:28, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

But that presumes that national and/or regional officialdom officializes the status of regional languages, and does that in a manner that satisfies this WP template's criteria. I'm somewhat aware of the status in the Philippines, which has ~185 languages ([3]), so I have that in mind as an example. The infobox in the Philippines article tries to do the job, listing languages officialized for schools (since a citeable officialized language list exists for that); the listings are per-province (Philippine provinces are sort-of administratively grouped into regions). Also, the Languages of the Philippines article says, "[Besides Filipino and English, the nationwide official languages], [t]he other regional languages are given official auxiliary status in their respective places according to the constitution but particular languages are not specified." (I've just tweaked that language). In short, the situation is messy, with the details of the messiness probably varying on a per-country basis. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 19:10, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

The need for some form of officialisation was intentional within my suggestion, as it provides a limit. Officialised for schools could be a reasonable interpretation of that limit, but it could also be cut down to perhaps just Iloko. That would be something that could be discussed. It'll be impossible to find a clear definition that fits the nuances of every country, but I think moving from "associated with particular regions" would be a good idea. CMD (talk) 10:55, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

I was also thinking along the lines of the language having an official status of some sort. Another possibility would be to use only languages that are spoken as L1 and indigenous first languages in a country. That would capture, say, Scots Gaelic but exclude Manx and Cornish from the UK site. There would be problems with this though, particularly around whether a language is spoken as an L1 or L2. Whatever, I agree that no system is perfect but some form of tighter definition is needed and having official status seems a good starting point. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 11:22, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Demonym or Nationality?

I think states don't define themselves usually with Demonyms and usually Demonym isn't part of a country's information. We usually find nationality instead so I think that nationality is more appropriate and more comprehensive term to use not Demonyms. Thanks--SharabSalam (talk) 19:13, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I was wondering why I haven't got a reply since 3 days?!. Anyway the factbook use Nationality not Demonym. the two words arent synonyms. The word Demonym will couse conflicts in some or many articles since people have verious understandings of what the word demonym mean like what is happening here. also The word that is used in the "factbook" is nationality also other non-wikipedia articles use mostly nationality in regard to informations about countries. Thanks--SharabSalam (talk) 18:49, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit template-protected}} template. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:59, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Oh sorry, I didnt know of this rule. So I should now make a new disscusion again? or I should wait until someone reply to me?--SharabSalam (talk) 21:28, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

@SharabSalam Nationality is a word with several meanings. The citizens of a sovereign state or of a country is only one meaning. For that reason it is better to use another word. Denonym is less commonly used in English but is more accurate and therefore is a better word to use in the infobox. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 09:17, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Roger 8 Roger, Hi, Sorry I just noticed your reply, I went to google to see the other meaning the word nationality has it was "the status of belonging to a particular nation." it doesnt seem very different. As I said the word Demonym has unclear meaning and I mentioned a case where the word caused conflicting ideas of its meaning--SharabSalam (talk) 13:41, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 11 May 2019

In addition to the largest city parameter, can you add the largest metro area parameter underneath the largest city parameter as in the Template:Infobox U.S. state and the Template:Infobox province or territory of Canada? Interstellarity (talk) 17:16, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit template-protected}} template. I have this feeling that this issue was discussed before and there was a lot of contention (mostly around the definition of what a "metro area" actually entails). However, I cannot find the discussion so let's start a new one and get opinions. Primefac (talk) 13:27, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

@Primefac: I have started the discussion below. Can you let others know of the discussion please? Interstellarity (talk) 15:10, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Uzbek Soviet Socialist Republic - ISO 3166 code UZ

Uzbek Soviet Socialist Republic - where does ISO 3166 code UZ come from? 78.55.22.17 (talk) 21:31, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi 78.55.22.17, that's a tricky question. I first thought it's from the Wikidata entry Q168811. However, it is not.

If you view the source code of Template:Infobox country and search for "ISO 3166", you'll notice a fallback template being used, Template:ISO 3166 code, which itself uses Module:ISO 3166. This module imports data from Module:ISO 3166/data/National. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:15, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Multiple name parameters

The infobox should have parameters for more than one name at the top as many defunct states have had more than one name throughout their existence, such as the Moldovan SSR, the Tajik SSR, the Estonian SSR, and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia/Serbia and Montenegro. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 11:49, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

I would argue that having multiple names in the title/above space would be problematic, but I could potentially see an "other names" parameter that would go under maybe the flag/COA. Some might also feel that such information would be best left to the opening sentence. I can code up whatever consensus decides, though. Primefac (talk) 11:17, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

I would like to see more details for how this would look. If one name is more dominant, for reasons of duration or current usage or other criteria, it may be better to keep that one prominent, and do something like South Africa does for the others. CMD (talk) 18:05, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

It would presumably look something like this ad-hoc method. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 12:53, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Proposal to re-remove the patron saint parameter

The patron saint parameter was removed in 2007 per consensus here. However, it was later re-added without discussion or even an edit summary. I would like to re-remove the parameter for the following reasons:

• It is Christian-centric. We do not provide any other religion-specific parameters in the infobox such as caliph or national god.
• It is often misused. Although many countries have an unofficial national patron saint (like Romania), only a few explicitly Christian governments have an official patron saint. People seem to fill in this parameter whether it official or not, however.
• It is trivial information and doesn't belong in the infobox. The country infobox is already crufty enough without adding fields such as this that are of limited interest and usefulness.

Does anyone have any other opinions on the matter? Kaldari (talk) 14:18, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Re-addition of a parameter after consensus determined it should be removed is enough for me to get rid of it. I'll leave it in the parameter check for now in case there is opposition, but if there's no movement in a week or two then I'll go through and remove the params from the 50ish pages that use it. Primefac (talk) 14:43, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Metro area parameter

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is no consensus to implement this parameter, however with only two opinions other than the proposer there is no prejudice against simply re-opening this as a discussion. Primefac (talk) 16:06, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

---

@Primefac, Fowler&fowler, and SshibumXZ: For this template, I was wondering if we should add the largest metro area parameter like we do with Template:Infobox U.S. state and Template:Infobox province or territory of Canada. See this discussion: Talk:India#Largest_city. Interstellarity (talk) 15:09, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

• Comment In general this is a bad idea, because most countries do not have official definitions of metropolitan areas. Cobblet (talk) 21:52, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

@Cobblet: Maybe we could put the largest metropolitan area by that country's definition of a metropolitan area. Please see discussion Talk:India#Largest_city. Interstellarity (talk) 23:06, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

• Support — Cobblet's comment notwithstanding, we, in India, do have well-defined metropolitan regions and authorities; see: National Capital Region, Mumbai Metropolitan Region, Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority, and National Capital Regional Planning Board. Hence, I would say that adding the proposed parameter won't hurt and would have a good amount of benefits. Regards, SshibumXZ (talk · contribs). 17:14, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

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.

official_language (singular)

I think there ought to be a singular alternative to official_languages, since the majority of countries have just one. Also because something just feels off when a country's sole official language is accompanied by a label in plural. Code has been tested in the sandbox. Don't forget to add official_language to the unknown parameter check.

| rowclass12 = mergedtoprow
| label12 = Official {{#if:{{{official_language|}}}|language|languages}}
| data12 = {{if empty| {{{official_language|}}} | {{{official_languages|}}} }}

Take care! Jay D. Easy (t • c) 13:47, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

 Done Primefac (talk) 13:52, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Primefac: thanks! You did, however, forget to add it to the unknown parameter check. Jay D. Easy (t • c) 19:56, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Whoops! Thanks. Primefac (talk) 13:10, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Update: I can't seem to get it to save... getting a JSON error... will keep trying. Primefac (talk) 13:15, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

A bit fast there, no time for discussion or consensus. I do not see anything particularly strange about having only one language noted under 'official languages'. A better change would be to have something to distinguish the importance /weight given to each official language. As it stands, all official languages are treated as equally important within a country, when they are not. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 14:50, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

It's a relatively uncontroversial edit that I've made to dozens of templates over the years; there was no need for discussion or consensus. However, since there is now opposition, I have rolled back these changes. Primefac (talk) 10:32, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

This is exactly why I put in this request without checking for consensus. I judged it to be a minor and uncontroversial request, solely for grammatic purposes. I do believe Roger 8 Roger is reading too much into it, and to be honest, I do not understand what is meant by "As it stands, all official languages are treated as equally important within a country, when they are not." Jay D. Easy (t • c) 07:25, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

I see your point and just to be clear, I do not really object to your change, I just see it as not particularly necessary. Sorry if it can across as an objection. My position is best described as neutral. About the other point I made -- many countries have more than one official language. Some of those are official because a particular piece of legislation gives them that status. However, those languages are invariable only official in a limited capacity, as defined by the legislation. An example is NZ with three official languages. English is 100% official in every situation; Maori is official in many situations, as defined by its own Maori language act; NZ sign language also has statute making it official but in very limited situations. If used in the infobox all three would be seen as equally important, ie they are all 'official', but they clearly are not equal. This creates undue weight being given, in this example, to Maori and particularly to NZ sign language. How to stop that happening is really the point of my earlier comment. Sorry for not being clearer. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 09:15, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Anthem para

On another singular/plural issue, |anthem= and |anthems= both seem to work, but |anthems= nevertheless causes a error. See Greenland. MB 04:04, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

 Fixed. Param wasn't in the catcheck. Primefac (talk) 00:07, 27 June 2019 (UTC)