Jump to content

Template talk:Infobox country/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10

Annual Statistics

Have you ever considered removing the majority of the annual changing statistics, and replacing them with five or six statistics that describe different areas of the countries power. Any statistic that can be recreated using other numbers in the infobox and simple math (such as pop density and GDP per Capita) are repetitive in a box that is very long. I would recommend replacing the statistics with a statistic that would best represent the five areas of measuring a superpower--economical (GDP (PPP)), social (possibly HDI), military, political, and technological (maybe the Digital Opportunity Index). these numbers may better represent the different strengths and weaknesses of a country than just various economic statistics CK6569 (talk) 23:35, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

  • I fully agree with you, that the infobox is long and does not provide a comprehensive representation of a country with some aspects overrepresented (like monetary economy), while others neglected (like communications). What you say is pretty much in line with my proposal above. I don't think however that it would be always possible to use only one indicator for a broad field (like social aspects). But I see many other issues as well, other than the monetary-economy bias. For instance "drives on" is certainly not a summary of transport in a country, just as internet TLD and Calling code are not good summaries of transport and communication. These are more like travel guide information, inconsistent with WP:NOTTRAVEL. The problem is that it appears to be hard to get consensus on improving the infobox (just have a look to the archives of this talk page). I certainly would be supportive of concrete proposals which improve the content/lenght ratio of the infobox. --Elekhh (talk) 01:58, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Centering of Area and Population

I notice that the "Area" and "Population" (also "Establishment") headings are now centered in all the Infobox country iboxes. I didn't see anything in the history, so either I'm hallucinatin' or it was some sort of internal improvement? In any case, how do we standardize this? For example, {{Infobox settlement}} still has "Area" and "Population" left-justified.
 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  05:00, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I do not understand the no response. Somebody must know how those titles became centered. Frankly, they are not like all the other titles that are left-justified, so the centering seems to detract from the ibox. Can we get the centering changed back to left-justified for the "Area", "Population" and "Establishment" titles, please?
 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  11:24, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Template: Infobox

Can this template be made to call {{Infobox}}? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 14:33, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Microformat fixes

{{editprotected}}

In order to resolve an issue with this template's hCard microformat, please change [redacted]. The duplicate parameters (if any) will, according to the microformat's specification, be ignored. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 14:37, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

 Done  Ronhjones  (Talk) 00:09, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. That's working well. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 00:19, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

GDP PPP is NOT in US Dollars (REQUEST WITHDRAWN)

{{editprotected}} The "GDP (PPP)" and "GDP (PPP) per capita" items appear as "US$" units. This is incorrect. PPP data are in international dollars, also known as Geary–Khamis dollars. The abbreviation used should be "Intl. US$" or "IUS$" if space is an issue. This is completely uncontroversial. Pristino (talk) 08:10, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

  • I have two concerns. First, the article Geary–Khamis dollar doesn't seem to mention the abbreviations you suggest (granted, I did no further research than look ar the article, but I think it should have them if they are in standard use). Second, the article Purchasing power parity does use US$ when referring to PPP values. Example from the lead: "GDP per capita in the People's Republic of China is about US$1,800 while on a PPP basis it is about US$7,204." I think we shouldn't change this infobox until those two articles are clear on this issue. As such, I'm deactivating the editprotected template for now. —Waldir talk 16:00, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Request withdrawn. Nevermind, this template doesn't specify currency units. Sorry for wasting everyone's time. Pristino (talk) 07:26, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Members section should be added

Members section should be added for Infobox country template. For example if a country is a member of NATO there should be the logo of NATO in their infobox.Maverick16 (talk) 07:06, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Geopolitical organization / country infobox

There was some discussion here [1] about when should organizations use the geopolitical organization infobox template and when the organization template. I didn't manage to take part on that discussion earlier, but I would like to express my views now. I think that geopolitical organization infobox should be used when the organization in question:

1. Is mainly (inter)governmental, meaning most of the members are entities governing some territory with law, and
2. The organization focuses mainly on issues within it's own area.

If the organization does not fulfill both of these, it should use the infobox: organization. That said, the Nordic Council for example should use the geopolitical organization infobox, since the members are political entities governing certain territories and the Nordic Council focuses on work within the area of the members. The International Whaling Commission on the other hand, while fulfilling the first point, focuses on issue beyond it's own territories. Therefore it is more appropriate to use the organization infobox, as the area, population and languages are irrelevant in respect to the work of the organization. The area, population and languages are not irrelevant with the Nordic Council. Shubi (talk) 23:57, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Preceding entity

What do you think about adding a Preceding entities filed at the top of the template, like in Template:Infobox former country? It would be very helpful in researching history of a country. For example, if one reads article on Zaire, he can click on the little flag on the top of the template (looks like this: Democratic Republic of the Congo—>) and than read about it's successor Democratic Republic of the Congo, and also one like this <—Democratic Republic of the Congo to read about it's predecessor Congo (Léopoldville). But if one reads about DR Congo, there is no icon to click to read about Zaire. It think that it would be pretty useful to have this feature. Vanjagenije (talk) 22:38, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree, this is something I've been wanting to have for a long time. sephia karta | dimmi 16:46, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Guidelines for language, eg English or Australian English

The talk page on the Australia article currently has a discussion going about whether the language in the Infobox should be "English" - possibly with a piped link to Australian English rather than English language - or "Australian English". The Infobox template gives no guidelines on this, but I think it should, because there are other countries to which this same discussion this might apply. The Australian talk page discussion mentions UK (British English), USA ([American English]]), NZ (New Zealand English), Canada (Canadian English), but there is a long list of countries where English is an official language, and also a long list of dialects of the English language. Does Wikipedia have any policy on this? Should it? Mitch Ames (talk) 13:53, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Gimelthedog, 23 July 2010

{{editprotected}} add national website [or government website] at bottom of template, e.g. usa.gov, brasil.gov.br etc. Gimelthedog (talk) 19:27, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Please give precise details of what changes you require (preferably tested in the sandbox area) and re-submit your request. Thanks. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 07:03, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Maybe, but let's scrutinise all proposed additions. Is the official website of a national government a useful and NPOV source to elevate to infobox status? Tony (talk) 08:06, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Probably more useful than drives_on, but it would be good to see a revived discussion about what is really usefull in the current infobox. --Elekhh (talk) 22:05, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

To Clarify: add a area in the Infobox Couutry like the Infobox person website area.--Gimelthedog (talk) 20:59, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Like this: | data57 = {{#if:{{{website|}}}| '''Website'''<br />{{{website}}} }}
Code from Infobox person --Gimelthedog (talk) 18:24, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

+1. For 99% of cases, this will be the de facto site for the country. In the other 1%, local consensus for the article, about which URL, if any, to use, should prevail. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:53, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Acronym

For the "Geopolitical organizations", could we have a field for the acronym(s), to go just under the official name perhaps? Green Giant (talk) 06:35, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

"Largest city"

At Wales, another editor has removed mention of the "largest city" on the basis that it is supposedly not clear whether the parameter refers to physical area or population. The view that it could refer to area seems eccentric to me, but should the notes in the template be clarified to refer specifically to population? Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:29, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I believe that we should change and/or split the wording to "most populous city" and/or "largest city by area"; the two are (quite rightly, if not obviously) distinct interpretations of the phrase "largest city". --Jza84 |  Talk  14:40, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
They are distinct, but in my view the likelihood of a reader thinking that "largest city" is defined in terms of area is extremely small. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:22, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Agree, population is the more obvious --Snowded TALK 16:33, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
I agree that it is the more obvious of the two, but is it best practice to have the ambiguity? Afterall, the "largest city" in England is the City of Carlisle... and neither of you are saying that it is the only interpretation.... :S
On reflection I think that the template should instead have provision for the most populous metropolitan area anyway, as a complete alternative. --Jza84 |  Talk  17:42, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
"Metropolitan area" is not a term used globally (not normally in the UK, for example). We should be guided by the terminology used by the best global sources and what is understandable to readers. This, for example, uses the term "urban area". In my view, the term "largest city" is the most likely to be understood by readers, and no more subject to problems of definition than any other. But the notes in the template need to make clear that it is defined on the basis of population not area, and that it is based on the best definition used by the relevant national statistical agency. For England and Wales, for example, it should, in my view, use the ONS definition of "urban area". This could be described and referenced from the infobox if there is likely to be any ambiguity. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:58, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
I still don't find this acceptable. What's the largest country in the world? --Jza84 |  Talk  11:56, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Map colors

Looking at Spain, one sees: "Location of Spain (dark green)

– on the European continent (light green & dark grey) – in the European Union (light green) — [Legend]" However, Spain is obviously in the European Union too, so the color of the EU in the legend should be listed as "(green)", right?
Ulmanor (talk) 01:03, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

ISO 3166 codes (again)

Could we please add ISO 3166 codes? It seems odd to me that we have TLD but not country code. Some articles (e.g. Belize) don't have the code anywhere in the article, and the infobox would be a convenient place to put it. Archive 4, Archive 5 and Archive 6 all have requests for ISO 3166 codes, but Archive 5 says they were dropped at some point in the past. Does anyone know why? Cxw (talk) 14:28, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Ping! Any thoughts? Any objections? Cxw (talk) 16:36, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like a reasonable idea to me. Mitch Ames (talk) 10:16, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
I've sandboxed changes to add this based on my guess at the details of the requirements. As implemented, it adds an optional parameter named iso3166code. If the parameter is set to iso3166code=omit, nothing is displayed. If it is set to anything else, its value is displayed as the code. If the parameter is omitted and an ISO 3166 code is available which matches the common_name parameter, that code is displayed. The display location is between the Cities and Languages boxes. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 05:33, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Since I'm not a regular editor of this template and I just guessed at the requirement details, I don't plan on publishing these changes in the main template; I just sandboxed them as a working draft. Feel free to comment here re their publication and/or to revise or remove my sandboxed changes. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 19:22, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Bill! I moved the 3166 code down by TLD (only because it made more sense to me there; feel free to rearrange), cleaned up formatting, and added links (diffs). See User:Cxw/Sandbox for how it looks. Any other comments before I mark this {{editprotected}}? Cxw (talk) 19:28, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

{{Editprotected}} Please copy {{Infobox country/sandbox}} to {{Infobox country}} to add ISO 3166 codes to the infobox per discussion above. Most uses of the template will require no changes since Wtmitchell's code uses the common_name parameter when present. As of this request, the only difference between the sandbox and the template is the new ISO 3166 code. — Cxw (talk) 12:37, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Not done for now: I don't like the look of those template loop warnings on the sandbox version. Could you resolve that? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:57, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Template loop warnings fixed; I added an "#if common_name" around the code that uses common_name (diffs). Thanks! — Cxw (talk) 14:06, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} Please copy {{Infobox country/sandbox}} to {{Infobox country}} to add ISO 3166 codes to the infobox per discussion above. Martin cleaned up the code somewhat and it looks like it is working fine. Thanks! — Cxw (talk) 18:14, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Done Dabomb87 (talk) 21:48, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Formatting change for Legislature section proposal

{{editprotected}}

Legislature {{{legislature}}}
 -  Upper House {{{upper_house}}}
 -  Lower House {{{lower_house}}}

Hey all, I was noticing a possible format glitch in the {{{upper_house}}} section. This a reproduction of how the template will generate the field at the moment:

In the template the formatting is: 

{{#if:{{{upper_house|}}} |<!--then:
     -->  <td style="width:1em; padding:0 0 0 0.6em;"> - </td>
          <td style="padding-left:0em;">[[Upper House]]</td>
          <td>{{{upper_house}}}</td>
        </tr><!--
-->}}

However, in my opinion this could be improved on visually if the following code is used: 

{{#if:{{{upper_house|}}} |<!--then:
     --> <tr class="mergedrow">
          <td style="width:1em; padding:0 0 0 0.6em;"> - </td>
          <td style="padding-left:0em;">[[Upper House]]</td>
          <td>{{{upper_house}}}</td>
        </tr><!--
-->}}
Legislature {{{legislature}}}
 -  Upper House {{{upper_house}}}
 -  Lower House {{{lower_house}}}

Which results in this on the right:

Not only is the dash next to the upper house field more in-line, I also think that removing the line between Legislature and the Houses makes more sense. (Lacking the technical vocabulary to make that sentence sound more efficient.)

Would that work? What does everyone think? --ZedderZulu (talk) 15:31, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Could we not solve this - and make the whole thing easier to maintain at the same time - by switching to {{Infobox}}? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:44, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
Could this please be carried out it was myself who orginally added the legislature field into the infobox but did not know how to do the propper formating, this is how it should look.--Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 15:52, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
I implemented the request but then reverted myself as it appears to have broken the template and this is a high use template obviously. To be a little more clear, I do not know for sure that it broke the template but what did happen is that when you looked at the template page prior to the edit (i.e., as it is now) it displays no text, but after the merge it looked like this, with "{{#if: |" and "Upper House {{{upper_house}}}" appearing on the template page, which usually indicates the code has broken. I think this needs to be sandboxed and tested. If I added it wrong somehow, though it was a simple copy and paste, please describe the problem.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 10:23, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Cheers for trying to implement it, Fuhghettaboutit! I *think* I know what the problem is though - if you look at the differences between the two revisions - the original and your edit (comparison) - there appears that the following -->}}<!-- is missing from your edit, for some reason. I'm confident that this rather than the formatting will have caused the problem. I've been tinkering with templates on several other wikis for a long time and the problem you describe suggests heavily to me that an {{#if: function has been left "open", as it were, and is missing a }} in order to behave properly. Hope this helps! :) --ZedderZulu (talk) 11:01, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
And... it's done. I actually failed at a cut and paste. --Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:51, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Upper house dash

{{edit protected}} The new format for the legislature section looks great, but I've noticed that the dash next to the Upper House field is off from the rest of the infobox's dashes (it's about one space to the left of everything else). I'm don't have enough experience with syntax this complex, so I can't recommend an edit change, but could someone with knowledge and permission take a look at this?

Helmandsare (talk) 04:47, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

How does that look now? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:34, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Perfect. Thanks a ton. —  Helmandsare (talk) 00:31, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Ethnic groups parameter

I thought this might be the best place to raise this issue.
Some countries use the CIA factbook as a source of information for ethnic groups, but the source apparently gives no definition of what constitutes an ethnic group. The UN, at http://unstats.un.org/unsd/publication/SeriesM/SeriesM_19rev2E.pdf, says that the definition is variable and should always be explained:

The specific ethnic and/or national groups of the population which are of interest in each country are dependent upon individual national circumstances. Some of the criteria by which ethnic groups are identified are ethnic nationality (i.e., country or area of origin, as distinct from citizenship or country of legal nationality), race, colour, language, religion, customs of dress or eating, tribe or various combinations of these characteristics. In addition, some of the terms used, such as “race”, “origin” or “tribe”, have a number of different connotations. The definitions and criteria applied by each country investigating ethnic characteristics of the population must, therefore, be determined carefully and with the involvement of or consultation with representatives of the groups which it desires to categorize. By the nature of this topic, these categories and their definitions will vary widely from country to country; therefore, no internationally accepted criteria are possible. Because of the difficulties of interpretation which may occur, it is important that, where such data are collected, the basic criteria used should be clearly explained so that the meaning of the classification will be readily apparent.

Would it be sensible to have a template (e.g. Ethnic groups note) indicating the ambiguity of this information, so that the same note could be used for all countries. Alternatively this note could be included in this template, but then it might conflict with information taken from different sources for some articles. This problem has come up at Talk:Germany, where the CIA information has been challenged. For Germany, there is the added problem that the national statistics authorities (presumably for obvious historical reasons) are wary of supplying or asking for information on ethnicity.

It would also, help, of course, if anyone can supply information on the CIA definition. Whatever is done, the documentation should perhaps include a comment for the relevant parameter to make editors aware of the problem. --Boson (talk) 10:34, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I looked at https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/docs/notesanddefs.html#E, hoping for clarification. No joy. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:45, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

"drives_on" ?

As I understand an infobox is supposed to be a summary of important facts from an article, and in this case it would be appropriate to have a field relating to the transport section. However I doubt that the "drives_on" parameter would provide a summmary of transport in a country (rather modal share would be), or that it would be the most important fact about transport in a country, or that it would be very useful. Anybody interested in this particular info could chech Right- and left-hand traffic or any travel guide, considering WP:NOTTRAVEL. This has been discussed in the past and it would be time to remove this trivial field from the infobox to get it a tinny bit more focused. --Elekhh (talk) 11:43, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

As I understand it, an infobox should show salient data that can be presented as numbers, dates, binary choices, short enumerations, or a single selection from a short list of possibilities and should be used for data where similar information is appropriate for a large number of articles about topics belonging to a particular class or category. In other words, it is not a summary of the article but a summary of some taxonomic aspects shared by different articles (in this case articles on countries etc.) --Boson (talk) 23:10, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
You're on the right track.... salient is the key. --Elekhh (talk) 00:54, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Request for edit-protected change to label for motto

{{Edit protected}} Below the Motto section heading, please change the line

-->'''[[Motto]]: '''{{{national_motto|}}}{{{motto|}}}</td>

to

-->'''[[List of national mottos|Motto]]: '''{{{national_motto|}}}{{{motto|}}}</td>

This change replaces a generic explanatory link for the motto field to List of national mottos, a link more specific to countries. Thanks. 68.165.77.238 (talk) 02:35, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

This seems fairly uncontroversial, so  Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:03, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

note 8

{{Edit protected}} At Netherlands, we ran out of notes since the Caribbean Netherlands became part of the netherlands. Would it be possible to add a field for note 8? Rgds! L.tak (talk) 17:11, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

7 already seems like a lot of notes, and we have to limit it somewhere. The infobox on Netherlands looks a mess, frankly. I wonder if this is best method of displaying these? Would these notes not be better with the other footnotes in an article? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:33, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi Martin, I think it's best this way. When you look at that infobox, maybe one might be able to be moved into the article space, but really we can't have the info without the clarification in the infobox. They attract anon edits so fast. Thats the point of an infobox and ppl use it for the fact its short and convenient. Outback the koala (talk) 16:59, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
I can imagine the view can be improved by separating the notes (n1,n2) for the infobox and (1,2,) for the refs. However, I agree they should preferably stay on top. There's quite a lot of people feeling Frisian should be added if this is not placed rel. close... L.tak (talk) 18:46, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Okay I have added the 8th note. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:53, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Tnx! L.tak (talk) 14:00, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Infobox arrangement - flag, seal, motto, and anthem

After the country's name, the first things in the infobox are the flag, seal, motto, and anthem. I searched through the archives and didn't find anything related to this, so sorry if it was ever discussed, but why are these above everything else in the infobox? Is it a style thing, or was it at some point decided that these were more important than other aspects of the infobox. I'd say the first thing that should be shown after the countries name should be its location.

But if it's a style thing, I can understand. Anoldtreeok (talk) 08:07, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I also found that the country symbols occupy too much space upfront, to the expense of more relevant data, which is pushed to the bottom. Is logical to place the flag at the top as it is a sort of a visual ID for the country, and that goes together with the seal. However the anthem and the motto do not work as ID, have shorter history and much less significance. So I could imagine placing the later two below the location map. --Elekhh (talk) 00:43, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
I don't think putting the flag and emblem/seal/coat of arms below the map would be aesthetically displeasing, but it couldn't be moved too far away. I just find it odd that the flag would be the first thing after the country's name to appear.
I think that one might be harder to get support for though. I don't think suggesting the anthem and motto be moved further down would be controversial. We may be a minority though. Anoldtreeok (talk) 02:23, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
I found it so far impossible to get any serious discussion here on any improvement proposal. That's not to discourage you, but maybe you need to bring it up in another forum which is more frequented (like the village pump, given that this change would affect a large number of top viewed pages). --Elekhh (talk) 04:12, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Flag and coat captions

I've noticed that the automatically-generated links for the flag and coat captions on this template sometimes result in the wrong articles – see for example People's Republic of China. Of course, the value of common_name could be changed so that those links now point to the right articles, but that would cause problems with the other entries that use that value. I can think of two possible solutions for this:

  • Make linking_name take precedence over common_name, at least on captions. Those parameters are (currently) mutually exclusive, so that would not cause a conflict anywhere. Of course linking_name would contain the name used on wikilinks without affecting common_name (in the case of the PRC it would be "the People's Republic of China").
  • Make the text of the captions customizable through two new parameters. This is self-explanatory.

What should be done here? --Fibonacci (talk) 02:03, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Infobox headings

Consdering the current discussion at United Kingdom, perhaps the time has come to remove country names from the top of infoboxes. Afterall, the name is already in the article title & the opening intro. Something to consider, folks. GoodDay (talk) 09:20, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Disagree. Kittybrewster ☎ 11:08, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Main electrical power and plug types

I think that for those what may have to travel or send electrical devices to the various countries. I think that it would be a good idea to have a section in the info-box, like there is for "Drives On," for the power plug type, voltage and frequency.

Examples:

| electrical_outlet = nominal volts, frequency, outlet shape or type.
North America
| electrical_outlet = 120 v 60 hz NEMA 5
Indonesia.
| electrical_outlet = 220v 50 hz Europlug or CEE 7/17
With a result in the info-box like
Mains Power: 220 volts, 50 hz, Europlug or CEE 7/17

Bdelisle (talk) 19:23, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Oppose per WP:NOTTRAVEL. It would also only further clutter the infobox with information of very limited value. In fact "Drives_on" should be removed for the same reason. --Elekhh (talk) 20:03, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Corruption index

Edit request from Zuggernaut, 19 January 2011 {{edit protected}} It would be a good idea to have Transparency International's (or some other) Corruption index as a parameter in the infobox. Zuggernaut (talk) 16:17, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:05, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
I think this would be a bad idea because it is just one survey about perceptions. It is not objective like the other data presented in the infobox for countries. There is also the fact that including one such survey to the exclusion of other corruption stats lists would be biased in favour of the particular one included anyway. Munci (talk) 18:39, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
so you are saying HDI or GNP PPP are "objective data"? --dab (𒁳) 18:19, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
To be honest, I'm not sure about HDI being there either but both of those are still closer to be something which you can just add up and there it is. I mean to decide on the country's HDI, you don't just go around asking people in the country "do you think people live long here?". They actually add up the life expectancy and take that into account. Also, PPP is at least an attempt to document something objective whereas the Transparency International's Corruption index only attempts to document impressions. Munci (talk) 19:44, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
The index itself is objective - it gives a rank and a rating on a scale of 10. Let us not get into original research of how Transparency International did the translation from the perception to the numbers. Zuggernaut (talk) 02:54, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
I think this is a good idea as it would contribute to a more nuanced and balanced infobox summary of government. Just consider the meaning of "democratic republic" in the infobox of Sudan for example. In conjunction with a corruption index ranking of 172 of 178 the summary of governance in Sudan would be more meaningful and balanced. --Elekhh (talk) 17:44, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
That could be done in a better way than including a survey of impressions. As for that specific example of Sudan, corruption isn't really the issue, it's more the fact of the authoritarianism and accusations of genocide of the ruling party, one which came into power through miltiary coup. So it's qualitatively difference in scale. Thus things like "authoritarian" and "rule established by coup d'etat" could be added to Sudan's infobox, provided the inclusion of sources. I mean, if Corruption Index had been around at the same time as Nazi Germany, putting in that it would have a bad Corruption Index score would just miss the point, on top of the fact that it is jsut based on impressions. Munci (talk) 20:46, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
I disagree with you regarding the relevance of social research. Also disagree about the relevance of corruption in Sudan or any other country. You might call it "just impressions" but is an important component of what makes people happy or unhappy. And simply because we cannot perfectly quantify "just impressions" is no reason to completely disregard human perceptions, particularly in the context of political power. While the index is not perfect (as nothing human) so are the other indicators currently in the infobox imperfect as well. If one considers the criticism section of the GDP article for example, is unclear why four versions (doubled by rankings) of the same flawed economic measure are included. In terms of neutrality, the index in the infobox would be the equivalent of the criticism section in the article. The status quo of the infobox has a strong bias towards current government power (official symbols, official status and structure). The proposed index would help balance that. Its broad presence in the media, coverage of almost all countries, and yearly update make it a reasonable option. --Elekhh (talk) 00:45, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
As the original proposer of this addition, I obviously support the addition. As Munci pointed out the index might just be a perception but the relative positions look alright to me with the European/Western countries at the top and the major Asian and African lower down. Perhaps India could be further down. Overall the index seems to make sense but I am open to any other index measuring corruption. This index will add some balance to country articles like India which go on and on about how it is a regional power, the third most powerful nation, a great growing economy, etc while ignoring many important issues like corruption, poverty (on which it has only limited coverage). Zuggernaut (talk) 02:54, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Well, besides basic population area etc, all the infobox currently has it GDP Gini and HDI. Gini covers inequality (so poverty) and HDI gives a basic overview of quality of life. I'm not sure what it would add to a countries basic information to see a corruption index. I read some article by an Indian a while ago criticising the index for being biased anyway. The argument went something along the lines of Indians by default see their leaders as corrupt, and need proof that they're not, while americans don't assume corruption by default, and assume that they are. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 03:07, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
What does it add: (1) it reflects peoples' trust in their own government (2) is an indication of perceived equity within the political system beyond its official designation, such as "democratic" or "people's republic" (3) provides a non-governmental POV in balance to the official POV of government, which currently, implicitly and uncritically is assumed to be neutral, but often enough is not. --Elekhh (talk) 03:51, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
GDP Gini and HDI don't give an indication of poverty directly. You would have to examine two parameters to compute poverty. But we make an exception for population density and include it as an independent parameter when we already have population and area. Zuggernaut (talk) 05:09, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Where on the current infobox does it promote government POV? As for the reflection of people's trust, that is an interesting point. However, the CPI changes so much from year to year, changing sources etc. I don't think something with the level of criticism of its methodology that the CPI has should be a standard across countries. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 04:56, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Gave example before, i.e Sudan "=democratic republic". Regarding "the level of criticism of its methodology" compare with Gross domestic product#Limitations of GDP to judge the health of an economy. --Elekhh (talk) 05:16, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
CPI is used by multiple, independent secondary and tertiary reliable sources. Examples are a variety of very well respected media organizations like the BBC, The Economist, New York Times, Washington Post, Telegraph, Times of India, The Hindu and so on. Why do we need to indulge in to original research and question the methodology when its use is so widespread? Zuggernaut (talk) 05:09, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Elekh, you still didn't respond to the point that, with Sudan at least, corruption is not really the big problem and that there are other ways to solve that. We don't call Nazi Germany democratic even if the Nazis did win election, and, had they called themselves democratic, we would be ignoring it. Here's a citation for Sudan's government being authoritarian: [2]. In fact, it already says "Sudan is widely recognized as an authoritarian state where all effective political power is obtained by President Omar al-Bashir and the ruling National Congress Party (NCP)." in the article Politics of Sudan. It could easily be added to Sudan's infobox. Also, see here [3] where Corruption Index is introduced as controversial. Noone would do that with GDP.
Zuggernaut, the article on India already has corruption and poverty and more mentioned in the lede, in contrast to many other countries. Also, the worth of statistics is not judged by it fitting in with your preconceptions but by its methodology and reputation. What do you say about Chipmunkdavis's good point? Munci (talk) 14:29, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
I understand that the government form field for Sudan can be changed based on consensus on that page, but that was not my point, I only referred to it as an example. Where we differ is that you argue that corruption is not generally relevant, whereas I argue that it is very relevant. I also argue that there is a bias for inclusion of official data (flag, emblem, motto, anthem, etc) since it is "non-controversial", in comparison with critical NGO data which is "controversial". But is really the official motto more relevant than corruption? --Elekhh (talk) 03:45, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes, the India article has some of it in the lead only to make it look like it was a thing of the past in later sections (see the line starting "From the 1950s to the 1980s...") This is clearly misleading - take a look at 2G spectrum scam (~ $40 billion scam), Suresh Kalmadi, Adarsh Housing Society Mumbai, etc for some of the recent controversies. Like I've said above, it's not about meeting of someone's preconceptions - it's about widespread usage in secondary and tertiary reliable sources. The Guardian link provided by Chipmunkdavis also calls it the most credible measure of corruption. Given that there is no other better measure, we should use the one that's most credible today. I agree that the India article addresses the poverty issue to the extent feasible in this article. Zuggernaut (talk) 05:09, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Zuggernaut, you still didn't address the fact that people in different countries perceive of their politicians. And in the India article it states "however, the country continues to face several poverty, illiteracy, corruption and public health related challenges.". Elekh, what is your argument in favour of the relevance of corruption however? Do you really think it would improve the Saudi Arabia article to say they have a CPI of 4.7? Well for a start the article is about the country, not about the government which is why most information which pertains only to the government, not the populace as a whole, like corruption, should not be there. If it would go anywhere, it would go at Government of X country, not at X country. Munci (talk) 16:16, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Assuming you are referring to the Chipmunkdavis' point about the differences in they way Americans and Indians perceive their politicians, I can only say that it is Chipmunkdavis' own personal opinion. The United States and India have legal systems based on English common law and both assume innocence until proven guilty. And yes, corruption is mentioned in the India article but the reader gets no clue as to how rampant it is. Adding this index to the infobox will make it possible for the reader to get a gauge of where it really stands. It can even be of practical use to a visitor to India in the same way information on weather, temperatures and pollution is. Zuggernaut (talk) 02:46, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
It's not my opinion, it was an article in a newspaper (by an Indian) after the Barack Obama visit. Additionally, the legal system has nothing to do with public perception. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 04:15, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Poverty's very much different from corruption. Adding this would not give people a better idea of what corruption is like but rather of Indians' impression of this. How do you expect this to be useful to tourists? That they would decide not go in the end? Also, common law's irrelevant. In civil law, it's just the same. What do you think about yellow journalism in any case? Munci (talk) 17:12, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, I meant corruption instead of poverty (now fixed in this edit). Zuggernaut (talk) 17:21, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Oh right. Well, yeah they do get to see because if they want to know about corruption in India, they'll click on the link to that article. And the link's already provided like twice. And it's already a lot more than is written in many other country articles, including many countries which are well below India on the rankings. The way it currently is over all the country articles inappropriately gives the impression that India's corruption is one of the worst in the world which goes against any evidence, no matter how subjective (It's actually about the middle, in fact better than the median, on world standards). Munci (talk) 01:36, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Adding the CPI to the infobox will allow the reader to get an objective idea of the corruption perception in the respective country right there and then. Also we need to note that not all countries have an article titled Corruption in XYZ. Zuggernaut (talk) 04:57, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Reasons to Include CPI in infobox

  1. Fits WP:RS since multiple, independent highly reliable secondary sources such as BBC, The New York Times, The Guardian, The Hindu and pretty much all major newspapers, and media organizations regularly report CPI numbers.
  2. The index has been called the most credible index per this source.
  3. The arguments against inclusion have been mostly WP:OR questioning the methodology of the CPI. This isn't necessary since the secondary sources do their homework while reporting it. Zuggernaut (talk) 04:57, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
1. There was never a doubt RS used it
2. The most credible out of many bad ones doesn't make it great.
3. They haven't, it's well documented in the article etc. It is simply not an objective point. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 07:55, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
1. If we followed this argument we would have to include the results of other equally subjective polls which are also published in newspapers, for instance, the Happy Planet Index
2. As Chipmunkdavis said the "most credible" is just a relative measure not an objective one
3. There are plenty reliable sources available that raise doubts on CPI methodology, for instance, check on Google Books Measuring corruption by Charles J. G. Sampford page 86 or The political economy of corruption by Arvind K. Jain pages 162-168. --Victor12 (talk) 13:41, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
1. Following your argument, anything too hard to be quantified should be ignored. That rationale leads to the over-valuation of the trivial and ignorance of the essential. Regarding the HPI example: the HPI is composed of three datasets, two of which are technical/objective, only one of three is about subjective wellbeing.
2. Everything is relative, and the best human measure is simply the best we can have.
3. There are plenty of reliable sources available that raise severe doubts about the use, relevance and methodology of the GDP, yet the infobox displays 4x2 measures of it. Why not apply the same standard to all fields? If you stand by your argument that a measure with considerable criticism shouldn't be in the infobox, please start campaigning for the removal of the GDP. --Elekhh (talk) 21:52, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
1. You mean HDI? Anyway, I disagree it leads to over-valuation. We have few things in the infobox, nothing is overvalued.
2. That doesn't mean we must include it.
3. The methodology of GDP? Please show these sources. The method used is fairly standard. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 00:36, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
1. No, my answer was to Victor12 regarding Happy Planet Index (HPI). I will not provide another link to the GDP article.
2. Indeed it doesn't mean we must include it, but it also does not mean we must not include it. It only means is the best to be considered.
3. If you would read the GDP article, you would discover criticisms regarding to what is included and excluded, what is extracted or subtracted in the calculation of the GDP. --Elekhh (talk) 02:20, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
The same standard should be applied to all fields, the main difference between CPI (as well as HPI) and all the others (GDP et all) is that CPI is subjective, based on perception whereas GDP and similar indexes are based on hard numbers, that's the line that I think should be drawn to decide whether to include any additional field in this infobox. --Victor12 (talk) 02:27, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Great: there is no corruption, no black market, no mafia, no electoral fraud, no political lies, no unhappy citizens, no social research... I got it. --Elekhh (talk) 03:20, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Of course there is but there is no easy way to convert that into numbers, those kinds of variables are better dealt with in a qualitative way, in the text of the article. --Victor12 (talk) 03:28, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
4. The index provides a Non-governmental view on government, consistent with Wikipedia's NPOV policy, and balancing the set of official data
5. Corruption is one of the most essential aspects of governance, qualifying other aspects presented in the infobox (such as form of government.) --Elekhh (talk) 21:52, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
4. There is no official data in the infobox.
5. I disagree, form of government is different for each country, corruption is open to all (although admittedly it does differ). There is also no need to qualify anything. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 00:36, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
4. Except for the Flag, Emblem, Anthem, Motto, GDP etc.
5. OK we will not agree on this, since you simply dismiss the relevance of the different levels of corruption. --Elekhh (talk) 02:20, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
4. I don't see that as data rather then facts of the state. They'd be the same no matter how much corruption there was. GDP is not a government statistic anyway.
5. I think it's important, I don't think the CPI should be included in the infobox. If it's important, it will be in the text somewhere. If it's really important, it'll be in the lede. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 04:03, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
5. An oppresive government that does all it says it will is significantly different and worse one that's corrupt. And if either is "one of the most essential aspects of governance", it's the former. In any case, I say putting CPI in the lede is also too much. It refers only to the government, not the the people as a whole. So it should only be in the 'Government' section at most. Munci (talk) 14:44, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Munci (talk) 14:44, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

{{edit protected}} Some article now use this template via an intermediate template such as Template:Infobox European Union and Template:Republic of Kosovo. It would be useful if there was a parameter which would insert a {{navbar}} template in the last table row so that editors could edit these templates. — Blue-Haired Lawyer t 23:08, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I've now tested a altered version of the template here. You can see the results here. — Blue-Haired Lawyer t 15:40, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. It would help if you could provide details here of the exact change you want made. -- Ϫ 03:14, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
To be even more specific the following code
        </tr><!--
-->}}<!--

================================================================
                            Navbox
================================================================
-->{{#if:{{{navbar|}}} |<!--then:
     --><tr class="mergedtoprow noprint">
          <td colspan="3" style="text-align:center;">{{navbar|{{{navbar|}}}}}</td>
needs to be inserted after the following line in the template:
          <td colspan="2" style="padding-left:0em;">{{{footnote8}}}</td>
That we should facilitate editors who may be unfamiliar with the intricacies of Wikipedia templates but who may wish to edit the content of templates, should IMHO be taken as a given. — Blue-Haired Lawyer t 20:26, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 Done. I thought your first request was perfectly clear as well :) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:25, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. — Blue-Haired Lawyer t 13:58, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Unlinking population

There's no value in linking the heading Population - it's just an ordinary dictionary word. Can it be unlinked please, per WP:OVERLINK? Colonies Chris (talk) 22:07, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

That would pose an aesthetic issue as all titles are linked and blue. However the link could be changed to a more useful link like List of countries by population, consistent with the link of "Area" and the country ranking profile of this infobox. --Elekhh (talk) 22:19, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} Since no objections, please change Population link to List of countries by population. --Elekhh (talk) 00:11, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Currently the population_estimate_rank parameter links to List of countries by population. Is it appropriate to link both to the same place? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:32, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
I think part of the problem is that the article on population is not very helpful and indeed provides not that much info. If the list is already linked, I suggest linking to world population, which is human population and thus more exactly what's meant here and much more informative... L.tak (talk) 10:31, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:23, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

There is a question of information presentation at List of current heads of state and government, resulting in a Mediation Cabal case over how the relevant information for Australia (and similar nations) should be presented. Frankly, the discussion on constitutional points over who is the head of state and the nature of representation is a mess, and agreement seems remote. To cut through the crap, I have proposed that instead of the information being maintained separately, we simply copy across the titles, names and presentation from each nation's infobox. The editors for each national article presumably know their topic and can sort out the exact title and spelling of the occupant of each position, and the list then reflects that work. Otherwise there will be discrepancies and dispute. I'd be keen to hear the thoughts of editors here on the discussion there. My skills on table formatting are pretty rough and I'm sure it could be handled better. --Pete (talk) 19:10, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

National Anthem?

On the Spanish language Wikipedia there is a tool in the country infobox that plays a recording of the country's national anthem (for example: http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA). Would it be worth considering adding this to the English articles? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.203.194.54 (talk) 11:08, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

On the one hand, I personally don't see the point - if people want to hear it, they can go to its article. On the other hand, that applies to a great many things - for example, it could be said that, if someone wants to see a flag, they can go to its article. so I'm split on the whole thing. --Golbez (talk) 15:31, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Suggest adding Political capital + Local capital.

In some cases there is a local capital of an area but in the case of say Montserrat the overall Political capital would be London. (This would be the case on Bermuda, Cayman Islands, British Virigin Islands, Anguilla, Turks and Caicos Islands, etc, infoboxes.) So as to not break existing info boxes Capital could continue to be the same but the attributes Local_capital and Political_capital should be added. As another example, the local Capital of Puerto Rico would be San Juan, whereas the Political Capital would be Washington, D.C. CaribDigita (talk) 14:39, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

As those cities are not part of the areas covered, they aren't capitals of those areas. They are capitals of the controlling states, something which can be discussed in the Sovereignty section or equivalent in infoboxes. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:12, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
I was going to say something similar, but on the other hand, the Montserrat box (for example) mentions Elizabeth II, even though she is the queen of the UK, not specifically of Montserrat. If she gets mentioned, why not her seat of power, London? I'm not saying I agree with the proposal, just asking, if one can be justified, why can't the other be justified in the same way? --Golbez (talk) 15:29, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Because the capital of something is most definitely located in that area. By the argument above, all local units would have to include capitals of higher units, such as Scotland having London as a capital and perhaps even the UK having Brussels as a capital. On the other hand, although I am not familiar with the arrangements of Montserrat politics, I'd assume the Queen is has some sort of position as the head of Montserrat. She after all manages to be head of the other realms without being there. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:54, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Location isn't specifically required; there are rare circumstances of a state capital or county seat being located outside said area. For example, Kingston upon Thames is the administrative center of Surrey, yet located in Greater London. And while it makes sense to include Elizabeth II as Queen of, say, Jamaica, I'm not sure it makes sense to include her in Montserrat's box, as she is not Queen of Montserrat. She's queen of the UK, which possesses Montserrat. But that's reaching into another debate entirely. --Golbez (talk) 18:46, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Interesting, I didn't know that. At any rate, you wouldn't say that the capital of Montserrat is London. According to our articles she's the Queen of Montserrat, represented by Chief Minister of Montserrat, but I suppose that's for the local articles to decide. In summary, the "Political capital"'s don't have to be mentioned separately from the controlling state. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 18:59, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

W

Not entirely related, but I think Golbez is mistaking Elizabeth II as being solely the Queen of the UK. She is the Queen of many countries. She is, along with the UK, the Queen of Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, and others. She is not simply "Queen of the UK", and it wouldn't make sense to have London as the capital of all the countries she is Queen of. Anoldtreeok (talk) 22:44, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
The other 16 realms she is queen of are irrelevant to the topic of Montserrat, which is a British possession, not an Australian, or Canadian, or New Zealan... dish? What adjective do they use? Anyway, I know she is queen of seventeen realms, not one of which is Montserrat. She is queen of the UK, of which Montserrat is possessed by but is not part of, nor is it a possession of the crown directly. I'm not entirely confident I'd be similarly okay with Puerto Rico's article mentioning Barack Obama, so I'm definitely not okay with it mentioning Washington. Just to make it clear, I'm against mentioning the capital of the possessor in the cases of territories. But, if we're going to omit that, then I wonder why we include the political structure of the possessor as well, instead of merely the local actors. (A state wouldn't say Obama, it would have its governor; likewise, it seems to me that Montserrat's infobox should end at the chief minister. QE2 is of course relevant to Australia's infobox, but not to Queensland's and, similarly, I would say Norfolk Island's) --Golbez (talk) 23:09, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for weighing in everyone. I asked because overseas territories generally have their politics handled in their national capitals as the seat of true power. If there was any transgression towards the US Virgin Islands or Puerto Rico the political capitol would have to intervene. In the case of Montserrat, that island wishes to join the Caribbean Community's Single Market and Economy, but the government in London (which is the seat of Montserrat's defence and International politics) has yet to allow it.[4] Territories can't unilaterally sign deals unless their larger counterpart signs off on it, plus their aid and development grants very often are decided in those political capitals as the base of true power. I can see perspective of allowing that idea to be decided on a case-by-case basis in the sovereign territories though. However note Puerto Rico maintains its seat of Power in D.C. as well. (See Puerto Rico Federal Affairs Administration). Or British overseas territories in London (See Foreign and Commonwealth Office.) -- CaribDigita (talk) 01:51, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Infobox_country/Archive_7&oldid=1132882311"