Template talk:Infobox country/Archive 4

message: I've updated MediaWiki:Common.css so that it's possible to have a bordered infobox with "merged" rows (rows without row borders), see for example Template:Infobox U.S. state (used by all US state artices, e.g. Colorado).  Note that changing to this technique allows each row to be independently optional (using #if) and I think helps accessibility issues as well.  Would anyone mind if I changed this template to use class="infobox bordered" and the mergedtoprow and mergedrow classes?  -- Rick Block (talk) 16:44, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have a test version in User:Rick Block/Template:Infobox Country that is visually identical as far as I know using separate rows for essentially all entries (without using infobox bordered - I couldn't figure out a way to preserve the current formatting).  With each row being a separate row, some more of them could easily be optional (like DST).  If anyone objects to this version, please speak up, otherwise I'll update the template to this version in a few days. -- Rick Block (talk) 23:57, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I tested the version out on my sandbox and I don't see a difference.  If it helps, I am good with it. —MJCdetroit 13:10, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Along the same lines, I think we should add explicit parameters for each leader title and name, rather than a BR separated list.  The non-intrusive way to do this is to add the parameters first and then update the articles.  I'll include leader_title1, leader_name1, leader_title2, leader_name2, up to 5 (?) in the new version. -- Rick Block (talk) 13:32, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  bordered infobox with one row per row 

message: I've added a number of parameters to make it possible to avoid presentation rows that split across cell boundaries, specifically for the leader_titles/leader_names parameters and the sovereignty_type/established_events/established_dates parameters.  The additions are backward compatible, so articles using the existing parameters are unchanged.  Before making wholesale changes to articles using the template, I'm soliciting feedback here.  The current style is:
-------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 |   
-------------------------------------------------------------------
<BR>  |   
-------------------------------------------------------------------
where leader_titles and leader_names may both contain BRs for multiple entries and the trio of sovereignty_type, established_events, and established_dates have a complex interrelationship (first "line" of established_dates is shown adjacent to sovereignty_type and subsequent "lines" are intended to align with mutliple lines from established_events).
The changed method is:
-------------------------------------------------------------------
 -                  |   
 -                  |   
 -                  |   
 -                  |   
 -                  |   
-------------------------------------------------------------------
                 |   
 -             |   
 -             |   
with paired leader_title and leader_name params (up to 5, all optional), and a new param for a note to appear on the same line as the sovereignty_type and then paired event/date params (optional).  Other "subrows" from the template are presented with a leading dash, so this presentation information is included for these subrows in the template as well.
If there are no objections, I'll update the usage comment and start updating the articles using this template in a few days (and there are enough that if anyone is willing to help, I'd appreciate it!).  And, if anyone is wondering, the point is to make presentation of the information via a screen reader (such as a blind user might use) more understandable.  -- Rick Block (talk) 00:57, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've spent the past few days updating these parameters in the country articles using this template.  There seem to be a farily large number of country-specific templates that are not used at this point.  Is there a mass TfD pending or something?  -- Rick Block (talk) 04:38, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Template:Country alias templates are left-overs from the standardization of country-specific template to this template.  I have been meaning to put them up for TfD but keep forgeting.  There really is no reason to have them around anymore.  Unless there are objections I will start listing them for TfD in mass.—MJCdetroit 13:46, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  More parameters to eliminate more virtual rows 

message: Is it just me, or does the infobox overflow to the right side on the Opera browser? I'm using build 8.54 of Opera (the latest, I believe) on Win XP. Thanks! --  thunderboltza.k.a.Deepu Joseph |TALK 14:37, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In use on a country's page, or as shown on the template page at Template:Infobox Country?  It slops over to the right on the template page with Safari and Mozilla, but not in use on country pages. -- Rick Block (talk) 18:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While in use on a country page. I've taken a screen shot of it : see here. (Note: It appears on all pages using this template; and not just the India page). --  thunderboltza.k.a.Deepu Joseph |TALK 08:30, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Any update on this? -- thunderboltza.k.a.Deepu Joseph |TALK14:23, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I suspect this relates to the font size you're using, which makes the template width (defined in ems) narrower than the images that are included.  Does it look normal if you bump up your font size? -- Rick Block (talk) 17:35, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Browser Problems

message: The current look of this template is not easily replicated by other templates, for example the very similar template:Infobox City.  There's some discussion there about adopting this template's look.  Rather than replicating this look, I think we should create a CSS style to be used by this and similar templates (of which there are hundreds).  The "infobox" style in common.css is meant to be a common style for infoboxes.  I assume there's a sentiment that the existing infobox style is simply too plain.  I don't really care whether we improve the existing infobox style or create a new style, but I think the look of geographical infoboxes should not take custom styling per template.  -- Rick Block (talk) 14:19, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've created a simpler version using "stylable" techniques in User:Rick Block/Template:Infobox Country that looks very similar in most browsers - with the notable exception of IE (which seems to not support the border-spacing property).  I've created another version in User:Rick Block/Template:Infobox Country1 that uses "stylable" techniques that preserves essentially everything except the 1em gap between the row borders and the outside border (and this version should look the same for all browsers).  I'd like to agree on a uniform look for all the disparate geographical infoboxes.  Can we pick one of these as a proposed standard look, to be codified as a style in common.css? -- Rick Block (talk) 15:33, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I do agree that one look for all geographical infoboxes would be nice.  It goes along nicely with efforts to use a standardized template for each type of geographical location, i.e.—country, city, state, province, county, etc.  For the record, I like the User:Rick Block/Template:Infobox Country1 a little bit better.  That's my opinion.  What's yours? —MJCdetroit 01:01, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current look not stylesheet-friendly 

message: Hi. Great job on this template! I made a minor correction according to Internet Explorer 5.2 (the last version to Macintosh platform, I think). I hope I didn't mess something. The text I changed was aligned to the left, now is correct (centered). (sorry if my english is not very good). Mosca2 23:13, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes 

message: This template have problems when someone try to print on Firefox. For example, try to print (at least preview) United States on Firefox 1.5.0.4 (Mac or PC) and look at the second page, the Infobox disappears. Can someone solve this? Mosca2 15:37, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Promlems 

message: This template goes horribly wrong in Opera 9. Fix it please, template boffins! --estavisti 17:59, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you provide a screenshot?  Or is it like the one discussed above? -- Rick Block (talk) 18:53, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opera problems 

message: I've created page for discussion about creating a standard look and feel for geographical infoboxes, please contribute at Wikipedia:Geographical infoboxes if you're interested. -- Rick Block (talk) 17:39, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal for common look and feel for geographical infoboxes 

message: It is a very bad idea to put your own font-family into this template (or anywhere for that matter). Wikipedia has a system of stylesheets that works very well, allowing a consistent default look, and also allowing people the ability to customize the entire site with their own stylesheets if they so desire. The problem arises now that you've put a font-family directive here, away from all the centralized, predictable places.
For example, in my own stylesheet, I've changed the fonts to "serif". Bang, I get a consistent look all across Wikipedia that I like. Your style, in addition to naming a specific font, goes for a default of "sans-serif". Now whenever I read a country article, the infobox stands out like a sore thumb.
Twice now people have attempted to undo this unfortunate element of the infobox, but it looks like some editors here are very attached to it. I just wanted you to know that there are good reasons for not overriding the font-family, and that you are breaking a well-designed system and causing inconvenience by doing so. --Yath 02:04, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: From Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Formatting issues: It is also almost never a good idea to use other style changes, such as font family or color.  Unless someone can come up with a really good reason this particular template is a special case, I'd say the font override needs to go. -- Rick Block (talk) 03:56, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

text: How do I change in my monobook.css the font for this particular template if it doesn't seem to be tagged by a class, if you know what I mean? ☆ CieloEstrellado 00:23, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm trying to drum up support for use of "infobox geography" (which is now a class).  I've changed template:Infobox U.S. state to use it, see for example Michigan.  I think if you override the font you'll see that it looks very much (except for the issue discussed below) like your version of this template. -- Rick Block (talk) 16:28, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no objections to the use of "infobox geography" class. —MJCdetroit 16:40, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overriding font-family 

message: The current version of this template seems to create rendering problems if the enclosed table is too narrow (I see this with Iraq and various other countries) and in conditions I don't quite understand (see #Browser Problems, I suspect the problem shows up when the em-width of the div is less than the pixel width of the map - try setting your font size really small).  I suggest we use a simpler markup, like the one at User:Rick Block/Template:Infobox Country1.  Anyone have any problems with me making a stab in this direction? -- Rick Block (talk) 00:17, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would agree to your proposed version if you manage to make it look exactly the same as the one currently in use. I still see some differences, like the dividing lines occupying the full length of the box in your version, whereas in the current version they do not. And some code "ifs" do not seem to be implemented yet. ☆ CieloEstrellado 00:36, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a vesion in User:Rick Block/Template:Infobox Country that preserves the "not quite full width" separator lines, but it doesn't work in IE (I think this is a bug, but I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for Microsoft to fix it).  I starting working on this before some of the more recent ifs were added, and would certainly preserve all the existing parameter handling.  Can you find a way to do the not full width separators without using a table in a div? -- Rick Block (talk) 04:51, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

text: And, there's a version using class="infobox geography" in User:Rick Block/Template:Infobox Country2.  This one is what I'd actually like to migrate to (nearly all the styling is directly from the infobox geography class, rather than inline). -- Rick Block (talk) 18:58, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Note that common.css is apparently configured (by developer setting somewhere) to only be reloaded if it's more than 31 days out of date.  To view this last version (which uses a style added to common.css less than 31 days ago!), do a "forced reload" (probably shift+reload) in your browser.  -- Rick Block (talk) 01:26, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I would stick to the not-full width of separator lines. More aesthetically appealing. --physicq210 18:58, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The issue is that this format, with the not quite full width separator lines, cannot be easily replicated by other infoboxes and causes display issues (like I suggest above, try a really small font size).  Don't get me wrong, I like the not quite full width lines as well.  I just think "easily replicated" and "looks good at all font sizes" are more important.  -- Rick Block (talk) 01:06, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problems with table in a div in a div 

message: ===Official language===
Should we change "official language" to just "languages"? See discussion at Talk:United States#Official language.
Arguments for:
* Many or most countries do not actually have any official language, so the answer seems to be "None" in most cases.
* Changing the title to "languages" would allow us to use specific description of the status each language enjoys.--Cruzian 19:11, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd support that change. —Nightstallion (?) 20:43, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We should be very careful with this one (if changed).  It should be limited to only major and official/de facto languages with perhaps some way to distingish order.  For example, in the United States English is the de facto offical language and Spanish the second most spoken language.  French (I believe, not 100% positive) is the third most spoken lanuage in the US.  I would say that it is fair to have English with a description stating that it is the de facto language and Spanish as the second most spoken but that French (and any other language) be left off.  I wouldn't want this to be a green light to have just any language posted up there.  We all know that someone will try. —MJCdetroit 01:04, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I think the vertical alignment, although a clever way to reduce the amount of vertical space consumed by these codes, is likely to make this information hard to understand for anyone using a screen reader (i.e. it introduces an accessibility issue).  Perhaps these should simply be additional rows, combined with the internet TLD and calling code in a section labeled something like "Country codes"?  Doing it this way, the shaded background and changed font and embedded table issues would all go away as well. The new section might look something like this.  -- Rick Block (talk) 15:17, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I reverted the most recent changes by User:Rich Farmbrough and that seemed to help.  The census above the country name was not his intension. —MJCdetroit 21:32, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, should be fixed now. Rich Farmbrough 22:05 23  June 2006 (GMT).
=== Legacy infoboxes ===
Hello,
I am member of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Numismatics. I am all for using 1 template for all instances of the same object type. As I was doing my currency clean up, I still find that there are many legacy country infoboxes. For example, I still see 4 for Bosnia and Herzegovina:
# Template:Bosnia and Herzegovina
# Template:Bosnia and Herzegovina infobox
# Template:Infobox Bosnia and Herzegovina
# Template:Country infobox data Bosnia and Herzegovina
I'm just wondering, is there anyone doing anything about those? --Chochopk 03:02, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I am working on a mass delete of the Template:Country infobox data XXX infoboxes (your #4).—MJCdetroit 03:08, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, the size of the image and flags currently imposed in the template is not always sightly. --Bob 00:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

text:  I second. I would make it exactly like the HDI (value, rank, high/med/low), especially since there are a number of countries which are ranked but have no Gini value. └ VodkaJazz / talk ┐ 12:33, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Content Talk 

message: Should we change "official language" to just "languages"? See discussion at Talk:United States#Official language.
Arguments for:
* Many or most countries do not actually have any official language, so the answer seems to be "None" in most cases.
* Changing the title to "languages" would allow us to use specific description of the status each language enjoys.--Cruzian 19:11, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd support that change. —Nightstallion (?) 20:43, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We should be very careful with this one (if changed).  It should be limited to only major and official/de facto languages with perhaps some way to distingish order.  For example, in the United States English is the de facto offical language and Spanish the second most spoken language.  French (I believe, not 100% positive) is the third most spoken lanuage in the US.  I would say that it is fair to have English with a description stating that it is the de facto language and Spanish as the second most spoken but that French (and any other language) be left off.  I wouldn't want this to be a green light to have just any language posted up there.  We all know that someone will try. —MJCdetroit 01:04, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Official language

message: 

I threw together :Template:Infobox Country2 as a testbed for finding some way of adding a quick reference guide to the various identifying codes used for various countries.  I think this sort of stuff is notably absent from the current template, and it can be midly interesting in terms of sorting out how countries can go under different TLAs in different circumstances.  Before I go any further though, I'd like to see if I'm entirely on my own on this one.
For this current draft, getting table syntax to sit happily inside an #if proved tricky, so I cheated and bumped the variables again into a second template, :Template:Infobox Countrycodes, which I know is less than desireable in terms of maintenance ease and server load.  If someone knows how to move the relevate code back to within that #if they will earn my undying affection, which may be turned out should that make them feel less creeped out.
I've inserted the field for now at the bottom just above the footnotes, but it's admittedly a little odd there, espectially as two codes derived from the ISO alpha2 (the currency code and the internet TLD) would appear above the original.  Didn't have the chutzpah to try and stick it up somewhere more prominent, though, like under the map.
At the moment, I think the most useful codes to include are the two-letter and three-letter versions of the ISO code, a space most likely to be used by the IOC code (but should that be the same as the ISO, and the FIFA one be different, the FIFA could be used for variety's sake), and a space for the international vehicle registration code.
In terms of implementation, this could be rolled out onto the main template right now if we wanted, and various countries could gain this functionality only once the various lines were added to their initial includes, with the new section otherwise remaining hidden.
Alongside are some examples.  I'm quite open to alternatives. The Tom 00:55, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the vertical alignment, although a clever way to reduce the amount of vertical space consumed by these codes, is likely to make this information hard to understand for anyone using a screen reader (i.e. it introduces an accessibility issue).  Perhaps these should simply be additional rows, combined with the internet TLD and calling code in a section labeled something like "Country codes"?  Doing it this way, the shaded background and changed font and embedded table issues would all go away as well. The new section might look something like this.  -- Rick Block (talk) 15:17, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed addition of country codes 

message: Hello,
I am member of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Numismatics. I am all for using 1 template for all instances of the same object type. As I was doing my currency clean up, I still find that there are many legacy country infoboxes. For example, I still see 4 for Bosnia and Herzegovina:
# Template:Bosnia and Herzegovina
# Template:Bosnia and Herzegovina infobox
# Template:Infobox Bosnia and Herzegovina
# Template:Country infobox data Bosnia and Herzegovina
I'm just wondering, is there anyone doing anything about those? --Chochopk 03:02, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am working on a mass delete of the Template:Country infobox data XXX infoboxes (your #4).—MJCdetroit 03:08, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Legacy infoboxes 

message: We should add to the template the name of the inhabitants of the country, i.e., for Spain: Spaniards, for Philippines: Filipinos, etc. I would add it myself, but never touched a template before. --euyyn 20:14, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name of the inhabitants 

message: Is there anyway to allow multiple population estimates to be represented in the table? I want to include both the CSA projection for Ethiopia from the 1994 census, as well as under it the 2005 UN estimate. — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 21:27, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Population estimates 

message: The flag/coat of arms/map images are currently requred, but as there has been some dispute over the validy of the image for Thailand's coat of arms, the Thailand page is currently broken. Could the template be modified to allow for non-inclusion of the coat of arms (and other images) in the case they are unavailable? (I might edit the page to temporarily show the prior version of the image.) Paul C 20:22, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, the size of the image and flags currently imposed in the template is not always sightly. --Bob 00:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Required images 

message: I think that besides givin the GDP and a HDI which give average values over a whole country only, it's very important to also mention the inequality within the country itself.  I think it's one of the basic facts to know about a country and deserves to be in this ttemplate.  For one thing, it makes the figures GDP and HDI more weight, beacuse otherwise they may be so misleading for certain issues.
Therefor I propose to add the often used "Gini Index" here.
Is anyone against this ?  If no reactions, I would like to include this in couple of days / weeks.  
R U Bn @ e-builds 13:24, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I second. I would make it exactly like the HDI (value, rank, high/med/low), especially since there are a number of countries which are ranked but have no Gini value. └ VodkaJazz / talk ┐ 12:33, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal:  Add "Gini Index" below HDI (Please react) 

message: These tags were present in the Malta box before we migrated it to the infbox country. Maybe a couple of them will prove popular and be added:
* religion
* percent_religion
* national_bird
* national_plant
* national_tree
* national_poet
└ VodkaJazz / talk ┐ 12:33, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible additions (as optional parameters) 

message: I propose to add an optional field below the country's image so that it is possible to add a little comment below the shown picture. I found this need already twice when seeing images with ambiguous content.
For example, see Italy: The picture "Europe location ITA.png" marks two things: Not only it higlights Italy but it also highlights the European Union states. Now, what shall someone think of this picture in case it's unfamiliar to him/her? It could well be that what are the EU states would be Italy and the what's Italy would be its capital. How shall one tell? Either the picture needs to be replaced or the template should allow a comment explaining what the picture shows.
If you agree and add this option, please leave me a note on my Talk page and I'll update the Italy page (unless you want to do that) and will do so on other pages I might run into.
Tempel 07:02, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image field needs optional text field for comments 

message: === TfD nomination of Template:Zimbabwe infobox ===
Template:Zimbabwe infobox has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. This maybe the last country specific template.  MJCdetroit 19:57, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other Talk 

message: Template:Zimbabwe infobox has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. This maybe the last country specific template.  MJCdetroit 19:57, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  TfD nomination of Template:Zimbabwe infobox 

message: Template:Template:Country_infobox_data_(multiple TfDs) has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. This is to delete the templates that were created when the various country specific infoboxes were switched to this one.  There have been some requests (see above) to delete them.  Here is your chance to delete all of them at once.MJCdetroit 01:36, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  TfD nomination of Template:Template:Country_infobox_data_(multiple TfDs) 

message: A bunch of country specific infoboxes have been nominated for deletion. You are all invited to comment on the discussion at the link above. Thank you. This is to delete the templates that were created when the various country specific infoboxes were switched to this one. Here is a further chance to delete another bunch of them at once. --Bob 22:09, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: and there are now a whole lot more up for deletion at :Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion#September 7  --Bob 00:27, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion#September 6]]

message: I am proposing to move the above article to List of countries by population in 2005, but also leaving it there and removing reference to 2005 UN data. This would allow list of countries by population to be updated with more recent data (which people are constantly doing anyway). Since this infobox references the article, I thought I would mention it here to see if there are objections. - DavidWBrooks 23:24, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK no objections, so move done. - DavidWBrooks 19:22, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[List of countries by population]] 

message: Hi, given the occasion (), is there any consensus here about what exactly the field "Common languages" is supposed to be used for?
#A country's principal language, in those cases where it's not legally the "official language" (like English in the USA)?
#A country's significant minority languages besides the principal/official language?
I'd say number 1 makes more sense (and then maybe we should actually have another optional field for "significant minority languages"), I just can't quickly find if that has been discussed before. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have reverted the page, appears to be okay. This is a major infobox used by many important articles. - SimonLyall 15:18, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I know - but you sort of didn't really answer my question, did you? :-) Point is, a newbie was mass-inserting empty "common language" fields into all those places where the template was used, and that has triggered the question what the field is actually supposed to stand for. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:26, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

text: P.S. Sorry, my misunderstanding. I didn't notice you had actually removed the field from the template - I thought you meant you had removed the entry from some of the articles. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:47, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Common languages" 

message: I added in some optional parameters so that the box may be used on the France article. ie parameters which allow for the addition on data from the metropolitan area of France. These would also work for other countries in the same position as France such as the US if wanted. --Bob 21:02, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: I added optional parameters

message: I would like to suggest that the template have spots for the electrical standard a country uses (e.g. 120 Volt 60 Hertz, 230 Volt 50 Hertz, etc.) as well as video broadcast standards (NTSC, PAL). I'm not excited about making the modification to the template myself -- out of fear of messing things up. It would also be nice to know what others think about including these pieces of information. --Miken2005 00:26, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No.  Not here. It would clutter the box too much. Could you create an article or list on this subject somewhere else in Wikipedia? MJCdetroit 03:14, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Include electrical and broadcast standards?

message: I have taken this infobox and modified it for countries which no longer exist - :Template:Infobox Historical State
Main differences:
# Unnecessary modern fields have been removed
# Many fields are hidden, since not all information is available
# Multiple entries for population, if values from different time periods are known
# Similarly, multiple entries for area are possible, but this has been disabled for the moment
# (and this is a big one) A start_date-end_date row near the top. It is possible to use this as a section to jump to previous and successive states, if known. The implementation of this is not so easy to document, so it is best to go to the sample one that I have put up in the entry on the German Empire
Secondly, I have modified this template futher to suit provinces that no longer exist - :Template:Infobox Historical Province
The only difference here, apart from removing a few more fields, is the addition of sections for listing the entities that constituted the province, and those that this province then became. There is also a field for listing where this province exists today, but I might get rid of that
An example of this is in the entry on the Province of Westphalia.
Feedback and assistance would be greatly appreciated. — 52 Pickup 17:01, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Modification for extinct states and provinces 

message: The flag and seal images are in different table rows than the links to the captions which are links to articles about the flag and seal.  user:Suruena has suggested that this creates an issue for non-visual browsers similar to the other accessibility problems recently fixed.  Curiously, I think the fix for this issue is to put the image and caption of the flag in a single table cell, and the image and caption for the seal in another cell, rather than have the images in one row and the captions in a different row.  Note that this is effectively the inverse of what we did with the other fields.  The difference here is that the semantic coupling is not row-centric but column centric, i.e. it's not
  first row header in this column:    | corresponding value in this column
  second row header in this column:   | corresponding value in this column
but
  <image of flag>    |  <image of seal>
   flag caption      |   seal caption
I don't think there's a way to fix this without changing the appearance.  In particular, currently the captions are on the same "line".  I'm thinking the change could be to put the image and caption in the same cell, separated with an HTML break.  We could "bottom align" these cells, which would make the text line up but the images would not be vertically centered.  Please see Template talk:Infobox Country test for how this looks.  Anyone have any preferences about this? -- Rick Block (talk) 13:26, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flag and seal accessibility issue 

message: The old code contained a lot of redundant code thatI have removed, as some people appear to be afraid of visual changes, I have not changed the title format this time. →AzaToth 20:02, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not saying I condone unilateral changes of this magnitude, but if there's going to be a shit-storm anyway I went ahead and changed the template to use the "infobox geography" class (which removes nearly all of the template-specific formatting code).  What is that quote from Where The Wild Things Are?  Ah yes, "Let the wild rumpus begin!" -- Rick Block (talk) 03:27, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Other than "separator lines extend full width rather than not quite full width" what, exactly, is different now? The problem with the old style is that it was not done with CSS styles, making it not usable by all the other geographical infoboxes.  See Wikipedia:Geographical infoboxes.  User:AzaToth sort of forced the issue, but now that s/he has done this can we agree there's no important difference?  -- Rick Block (talk) 04:24, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, the version before I reverted included the name being outside the infobox. And while I commend the effort to standardize geographical infoboxes, I believe forcing it wasn't a good idea. Going beyond process, I will disclose my thoughts: I like the current infobox country style better, with name inside the box instead of outside (at least for countries) and separator lines not extending full width. However, I am will to go with any solution that incorporates both of these requirements. --210physicq (c) 04:33, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I see you unilaterally reverted the recent changes.  So, the version at Template:Infobox Country test is the version immediately preceding the latest (reverted) version.  Side by side diff can be seen at Template talk:Infobox Country test (well, will be available there very soon). I'd encourage folks to carefully examine these, and make your preferences known.  The "newer" version (now the "test" version) relies only on CSS styles from wikipedia:common.css and looks exactly the same as template:Infobox U.S. state, template:Infobox City, and template:Japanese prefecture.  -- Rick Block (talk) 04:38, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unilaterally? Nay, two others reverted before I did. Anyway, I don't see why there is a need to comply with CSS styles (or maybe due to my ignorance). --210physicq (c) 04:41, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see Wikipedia:Geographical infoboxes.  Creating "one off" templates with their own distinct look and feel, not easily reusable by the tens or hundreds of other similar templates at Wikipedia, is (IMO) a bad idea.  Using CSS for the "style" is exactly what CSS is for, and allows us to create (and modify) a site-wide "style". -- Rick Block (talk) 04:49, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I've changed the version at Template:Infobox Country test so that it includes the name inside the box.  To my eyes, the only significant difference is now the "full width separator lines" vs. "not quite full width lines" (and the test version has better behavior under some weird conditions, like if you set your font size very, very small).  Unless anyone objects to this version, I'll update the actual version to this version on (let's say) Wednesday. -- Rick Block (talk) 14:05, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: user:AzaToth reverted back to the "new" version.  I've copied the "old" version to template:Infobox Country test1 and changed the side-by-side comparison at Template talk:Infobox Country test to show the old one vs. the new one (regardless of which one is currently "live"), so folks can see the differences.  I would encourage everyone to please stop reverting, and please start discussing. -- Rick Block (talk) 19:19, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm happy with the current (changed) version. However, I would wish AzaToth would be less combative in changing the template. --210physicq (c) 22:47, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A bit off topic: As a lurker of this tiny episode here, I agree that Carl (AzaToth) might have better proposed the new template aside. Sometimes he's, um, a bit bold :] (I remember when I first met him last year on a citation template and my reaction was a plain knee-jerk-revert as well :-). But he's a good template engineer and an overall nice guy and a good wiki-worker. The problem here might have been a little bit pre-triggered by the commentary-lacking revert by Nick C, who was obviously and understandably surprised by Carl's "boldness" (I was confused myself by Carl's initial edit summary). Nick's revert led in turn to a re-revert by Carl with a question mark as the edit summary — as a sign that he didn't know why his edit was refused. I do by no means have the intention to retro-inflate anything here and I applaud the end result that has been reached. I hope nobody bears grudges about this change here. As always, Rick did a fine job in mediating and Carl sponsoring his template whizzardry. Thanks to all for the good end result. --Ligulem 18:53, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, yea, I'm sorry for beeing to fast this time, I'll let it cool down now. →AzaToth 19:00, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I do not have any objections with standardizing the CSS to the same as other geographical infoboxes.  It's just a good idea and I actually thought this was done a while ago.  There's not much of a difference (visually) when the side-by-side comparsion is done.  Looks good.  —MJCdetroit 00:45, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleaned up the template 

message: What is happening to the infobox? What is wrong with the old style and what is with the changes without consensus? --210physicq (c) 04:02, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Other than "separator lines extend full width rather than not quite full width" what, exactly, is different now? The problem with the old style is that it was not done with CSS styles, making it not usable by all the other geographical infoboxes.  See Wikipedia:Geographical infoboxes.  User:AzaToth sort of forced the issue, but now that s/he has done this can we agree there's no important difference?  -- Rick Block (talk) 04:24, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, the version before I reverted included the name being outside the infobox. And while I commend the effort to standardize geographical infoboxes, I believe forcing it wasn't a good idea. Going beyond process, I will disclose my thoughts: I like the current infobox country style better, with name inside the box instead of outside (at least for countries) and separator lines not extending full width. However, I am will to go with any solution that incorporates both of these requirements. --210physicq (c) 04:33, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I see you unilaterally reverted the recent changes.  So, the version at Template:Infobox Country test is the version immediately preceding the latest (reverted) version.  Side by side diff can be seen at Template talk:Infobox Country test (well, will be available there very soon). I'd encourage folks to carefully examine these, and make your preferences known.  The "newer" version (now the "test" version) relies only on CSS styles from wikipedia:common.css and looks exactly the same as template:Infobox U.S. state, template:Infobox City, and template:Japanese prefecture.  -- Rick Block (talk) 04:38, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unilaterally? Nay, two others reverted before I did. Anyway, I don't see why there is a need to comply with CSS styles (or maybe due to my ignorance). --210physicq (c) 04:41, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see Wikipedia:Geographical infoboxes.  Creating "one off" templates with their own distinct look and feel, not easily reusable by the tens or hundreds of other similar templates at Wikipedia, is (IMO) a bad idea.  Using CSS for the "style" is exactly what CSS is for, and allows us to create (and modify) a site-wide "style". -- Rick Block (talk) 04:49, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I've changed the version at Template:Infobox Country test so that it includes the name inside the box.  To my eyes, the only significant difference is now the "full width separator lines" vs. "not quite full width lines" (and the test version has better behavior under some weird conditions, like if you set your font size very, very small).  Unless anyone objects to this version, I'll update the actual version to this version on (let's say) Wednesday. -- Rick Block (talk) 14:05, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: user:AzaToth reverted back to the "new" version.  I've copied the "old" version to template:Infobox Country test1 and changed the side-by-side comparison at Template talk:Infobox Country test to show the old one vs. the new one (regardless of which one is currently "live"), so folks can see the differences.  I would encourage everyone to please stop reverting, and please start discussing. -- Rick Block (talk) 19:19, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm happy with the current (changed) version. However, I would wish AzaToth would be less combative in changing the template. --210physicq (c) 22:47, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A bit off topic: As a lurker of this tiny episode here, I agree that Carl (AzaToth) might have better proposed the new template aside. Sometimes he's, um, a bit bold :] (I remember when I first met him last year on a citation template and my reaction was a plain knee-jerk-revert as well :-). But he's a good template engineer and an overall nice guy and a good wiki-worker. The problem here might have been a little bit pre-triggered by the commentary-lacking revert by Nick C, who was obviously and understandably surprised by Carl's "boldness" (I was confused myself by Carl's initial edit summary). Nick's revert led in turn to a re-revert by Carl with a question mark as the edit summary — as a sign that he didn't know why his edit was refused. I do by no means have the intention to retro-inflate anything here and I applaud the end result that has been reached. I hope nobody bears grudges about this change here. As always, Rick did a fine job in mediating and Carl sponsoring his template whizzardry. Thanks to all for the good end result. --Ligulem 18:53, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, yea, I'm sorry for beeing to fast this time, I'll let it cool down now. →AzaToth 19:00, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I do not have any objections with standardizing the CSS to the same as other geographical infoboxes.  It's just a good idea and I actually thought this was done a while ago.  There's not much of a difference (visually) when the side-by-side comparsion is done.  Looks good.  —MJCdetroit 00:45, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Radical changes? 

message: It looks like somebody is editing this template for one reason or another. Will that person *please* restore the vertical location of the flag and coat of arms? I can't remember if the flag used to be centred vertically or aligned with the top of the coat of arms. Several countries don't use a round seal, but an elongated coats of arms, in some cases with either a crown or crest on top. See e.g. Denmark, Hungary, Norway, Greenland, Netherlands Antilles and Albania. A number of other articles are affected as well, but to a lesser degree, e.g. Croatia and Azores. When I look at any of these articles at the moment, it looks like the country in question has just lost a war with the enemy throwing its flag in the dirt. 
Please fix this. I definitely don't like seeing my flag used this way. Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 18:35, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: These used to be vertically middle aligned, and are again. The text used to be in a separate row, bottom aligned, but is now in the same table cell as the image (so the "caption" text for the flag and coat of arms is generally not aligned).  Putting the image and text in the same table cell makes these cells of the table more accessible for (usually blind) folks using a screen reader.  -- Rick Block (talk) 18:54, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The caption is a minor matter and this version looks a lot better. Thanks! Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 19:05, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flag position 

message: There appears an extra apostrophe in the title of some of the infoboxes, such as Canada and the United States.  I can't figure how to get rid of it.  Anyone else knows? -- Jeff3000 01:13, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed. -- Rick Block (talk) 01:31, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extra apostrophe 

message: The template produces a line "largest city", but that produces an AE/BE difference - in AE, the largest "city" in a country is the largest town, while in BE that isn't the case (London, for example, isn't a city, although it contains two).  I noticed that the United Kingdom template has been modified, and I was wondering how to do that for other places that use the BE definition of "city".  Thanks.  Guettarda 14:25, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Resolved! Cogito ergo sumo 19:03, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Modifying template 

message: The flags used to have a think gray line around them, which is very benefitial for country flags that have a large white sections on their edges. See Japan and slovakia for  examples, it just does not look good. Compare with Japan 
The US State template continues to have the grey border, see Texas
Can someone help?
Thanks,
--JuanPDP 03:38, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for mentioning this (it's fixed now). -- Rick Block (talk) 04:30, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flag border? 

message: I had some questions related to Poland, (I created a user page that has the top of the article at User:Juanpdp/Test to show the issues.
Please note it contains something like:
 area_rank = 68th |
 area_magnitude = 1 E11 |
 area=312,685 \<ref\>Administration area of Poland ... Law) - 322 577 km²\<\/ref\>|
 footnotes = open bracket references  / closing bracket |
When the page is displayed
1) The first reference is in smaller font, but not the subsequent ones, (Tried withh div references-small, then everything is smaller, but the first line is the  smallest.
2) The Area 1 E11 should display a reference to [3] but instead it displays a strange number,
3) On the Captial coordinates, it contains a "2]" that actually points to reference 1 (and also notice the missing opening square braquet
Or maybe just references should be avoided from the country infobox? They seem to work fairly well in Slovakia, (Except for the first reference that is in smaller font)
Thanks in advance,
--JuanPDP 17:30, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Footnotes and references question 

message: Might be another IE 6.0 issue (Mozilla is ok)
printable version displays the coordinates (no http for the tools geohack URL, that is good)
but if you do printpreview (or ac--JuanPDP 17:41, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coordinates in IE printable version - print preview 

message: Perhaps a perennial request (if so, apologies!) but since many countries' capitals also seem to be their largest cities, how about a #if: to combine the two in one entry ("Capital and largest city") rather than maintain the redundancy of the same city appearing twice...?  Regards, David Kernow (talk) 03:55, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think "Capital and largest city" is simply too much text for the "label" side of the infobox.  Does listing the same city twice really bother you? -- Rick Block (talk) 04:13, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Good point; might it be possible to automate adding (say) an asterisked footnote...?  Listing the city twice (and in succession) doesn't really bother me, but struck me as inefficient in the context of an infobox...  Yours, David (talk) 04:33, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conditional linking capital and largest_city...? 

message: There is a discussion going on to change the image for the country map to a new style i think its important to the template. its on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries - Fabhcún 02:03, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For those of you who were unaware of this, you should give it a look and offer your opinion as it is important to the standardization of this template. —MJCdetroit 18:12, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Location image

message: Recent changes created a bug in the template. Now the map and COA image is squeezed to the right and sometimes even cut of. See for example Lithuania. I don't have to dig out the problem, but please fix. Thanks! Renata 14:26, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see the problem (PC-win2000pro, Netscape 8.1 (mozilla) or IE 6.0, (see below) with the monobook skin).  What are you using (OS, browser, skin)?  Does anyone else see this?  —MJCdetroit 20:19, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

text: No display problems with Lithuania here either, Renata (PC, WinXP, Firefox 1.0.7, monobook.css); is it now in order for you...?  If not, my apologies, as it would be my efforts to improve the template that have caused the problem; more examples would be welcome so I may try to repair it. Thanks, David Kernow (talk) 20:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

text: ...Just spotted your coat-of-arms image change; did this solved the problem...?  Regards, David (talk) 20:31, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The image is not the problem. Same problem with Denmark, Romania, Cyprus etc. I can't see a problem in Firefox but IE 6 moves the images so far to the right that there is no border on the right-hand image and a few pixels are actually cut off. In the arms of Cyprus, the right-hand border is located in the middle of the right part of the wreath. In the Danish example, it cuts through the crown and the heart in the top-right corner of the shield. "Upgrade": Take out old bugs put new ones in. I wonder if IE 7 works any differently? I haven't tried it since Micro$oft hasn't translated it yet. Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 21:03, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what is happening but 1) it didn't solve the problem in IE, 2) the infobox on Sweden has committed suicide. In IE it just looks like a string of Wikicode. It looks exactly like this:  
  
Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 21:37, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I've fixed the Swedish box but we still have the positioning problem. Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 22:08, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Does the Sweden infobox seem to "work" correctly now...?  What I don't understand is that if the problem's in the template code, why should amending the layout of the values given to its parameters on a page suddenly solve the problem... Meanwhile, still no problem here, before, during or after... Puzzling, David (talk) 05:42, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks, Renata, to you et al for supplying this feedback and your patience. Naturally I hope this may be resolved without reverting all/much of my efforts to improve/harmoniz/se the template; does anyone know one or more Wikipedians expert in cross-browser/cross-whatever issues who might be able to indicate what's amiss...?  Hopefully, David (talk) 05:42, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The box on Sweden is back to life, I've tweaked the motto thing a bit. Unfortunately, the problem described by Renata still exists (again, IE 7 might do the trick? Don't know).  Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 10:11, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks for taking the trouble to include the above, MJCdetroit. I'll aim to visit the sandbox sometime soon to see if anything might be salvaged. Maybe on second/third viewing I might gain some inkling why the template started falling apart. Regards, David Kernow (talk) 02:45, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Bug

message: Sorry David but I had to revert all of your changes to the "live template".  I created a sandbox for us to play in (see above).  That sandbox currently holds your last edit (as of 16:20, 31 October 2006) to the "live template". I hope this is a good compromise for all and that we will soon see your tested edits in the live template soon.  —I'm MJCdetroit, and I approved this message.—01:42, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for taking the trouble to include the above, MJCdetroit. I'll aim to visit the sandbox sometime soon to see if anything might be salvaged. Maybe on second/third viewing I might gain some inkling why the template started falling apart. Regards, David Kernow (talk) 02:45, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Revert of [[User:David Kernow|David]]'s edits

message: Hi, I just added the nominal GDP spaces to the template, as giving only GDP PPP is somewhat misleading. Giving only one GDP figure is only telling half the story, espcially in cases such as Norway or Japan. The differences in ranking and figures are so great I cannot see how we can afford to omit nominal GDP figures from our articles. Anyways, please check my edits for mistakes and feel free to contact me with any suggestions you might have. Thank you and best regards, SignaturebrendelNow under review! 18:30, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, it is not up to us to decide whether or not our readers only get the PPP or nominal figures. Which we think are better in reflecting a country's actual GDP is irrelevant according to WP policy. We are obligated to give our readers nominal figures as well as PPP figures. SignaturebrendelNow under review! 07:57, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added Nominal GDP