Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries/Archive 9

message: Hello, everyone. Over the past couple of weeks, I've been working on our article on Cameroon trying to expand it and find sources for what was previously a wholly sourceless article. I've finished with everything except the infobox (the one that includes all the facts and figures). I'm guessing someone in the primordial days of Wikipedia did all these country infoboxes from the same source, and I'm guessing that the source is the CIA World Factbook, but I thought I'd check. Is this the case? I'd like to source the material if possible. Thanks! — BrianSmithson 12:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have seen references to CIA world factbook pop up for the infoboxes, although more frequently updated countries also use other sources (eg national research institute figures as these tend to be more up-to-date). I would say, put it in the infobox and add the factbook reference to it. Arnoutf 13:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infoboxes on older country articles 

message: There has been a change in the Manual of Style regarding the use of date formats in articles. Specifically, individual countries or groups of countries have been removed. The section now reads:
:If the topic itself concerns a specific country, editors may choose to use the date format used in that country. This is useful even if the dates are linked, because new users and users without a Wikipedia account do not have any date preferences set, and so they see whatever format was typed. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English for more guidance.
There is a list (of sorts) available in the Calendar date article, but one very good idea proposed during discussion was that the WikiProject for each country decide which date format is preferable for articles pertaining to that country. --Pete 00:50, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date formats 

message: I know it has been discussed, but that's been over 1,5 years ago and one of the things I noticed is the lack of Dutch people in the discussion. Some Dutch feedback would be appreciated this time. On top of that, it seems it wasn't really an unanimous discussion.
Ask any dutch person about their country and it is "the Netherlands". Not because of how it is said in a sentence, like the United States, but simply because that's what the name of the country is. You only see the use of Netherlands in lists where it is easier to have it in order under the N.
As far as official things go, both the United States Government Printing Office Style Manual (Page 25, paragraph 3.11) and the dutch government website use the Netherlands.
Please discuss here.
Cheers
JackSparrow Ninja 17:59, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move Netherlands to the Netherlands 

message: Just to remind us what we are talking about; here are the different maps:
Image:locationGermany.png|Classic map series: No vector- Public domain
Image:LocationLuxembourg.png|Classic map small states
Image:locationGermany.svg|Rei Artur map series: Vector- Public domain
Image:LocationLuxembourg.svg|Rei Artur map small states
Image:Europe location GER.png|Europe location series: No vector- Not fully released to PD
Image:Europe location LUX.png|Europe loc for small states
Image:Europe location MLT.png|Europe loc for smaller states
Image:EU location GER.png|EU location series: No vector- Not fully released to PD
Image:EU location LUX.png|EU loc for small states.
Image:EU location MLT.png|Europe loc for smaller states
Summarising some of the arguments not immediately visible on the maps: 
* Scalable Vector is the preferred format for technical reasons
* Wide application and editing would benefit from unconditional release to the public domain
* The maps should be available on WikiCommons.
* Mercator projection should preferably not be used.
Based on all above, my vote goes to the Rei-Artur maps series because they are vector, released to public domain and uploaded on wikicommons, reasonably detailed but not overly so, are limited in the amount of space they require and are not in the mercator projection. Arnoutf 10:15, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, I found this page through the AN/I about the map controversy. I did look for the aforementioned Village Pump discussion, but couldn't find one, so I'm posting this here. I don't edit Geography pages much at all, beyond requests for a few towns in the Rhineland-Pfalz of Germany(Check my contribs if needed). I went looking at a few of the EU pages, browsing edit histories, and I wanted to cast my support for the Rei-Artur maps. The pseudo-natural colors are a bit more 'legible' to the less-discerning eye, and the color, overall, attracts the eye.  Just my feelings. ThuranX 22:09, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

text: agree with Bob the Rei-Artur maps are the best choice. --Barrytalk 01:33, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Gallery of different map formats

message: I noticed the overuse of the progress arrows    in country infoboxes, manely in the HDI field. I'm against their use not only because they mess up the box with flashy colors but because they might be used also for all numbers that appears in the infobox (population, GDP...). It's the problem when Users try to fit too much information in an infobox. Any thoughts? CG 15:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see the problem (yet, anyway). When it comes to a rating like the HDI, it seems relevant to show if the number is going up or down. If the use of these arrows spreads into other infobox entries, then I might reconsider, but at the moment, I don't see a problem. Just my thoughts. Valentinian T / C 01:02, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overuse of progress arrows 

message: Are so-called countries, like Abkhazia in this project's scope? - Patricknoddy 4:18pm, January 31, 2007
:I assume only UN recognized countries within the recognized territories should be represented on the maps. If there's an article about a separatist region then is normal to show a map with that region, but otherwise when the article presents the recognized country is should display it in its entirety. -- AdrianTM 21:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  So-called countries 

message: I propose that we create a common infobox for all regional blocs, so that we won't have disparities in the way infoboxes appear and are implemented, as you would see if you contrast the two articles Association of Southeast Asian Nations and European Union. However, I know only basic Wikimedia syntax. Ariedartin JECJY Talk 12:27, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regional Bloc Infobox 

message: * Colour, scheme, general looks and feel should be discussed here.Arnoutf 10:40, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Aesthetics

message: * How should we deal with small countries?
* Where should the map be centered upon, (the country and its neighbours or a larger structure)?
* How detailed should borders and coastlines be defined?
* What other structures should be presented on the map (e.g. ocean depth, mountains, rivers, or none)?Arnoutf 10:40, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Usability

message: It looks like something is wrong with the template added to article talk pages. If no rank is given, the template gives a default value indicating "This article has been rated as NA-Class on its quality ", which can't be correct. I've cleaned up the template on the affected articles, but they still need assessment. This affects Iceland, Iraq, Kuwait, and Tuvalu. Valentinian T / C 10:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Four unassessed articles. 

message: People's Republic of China has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.
SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:22, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: People's Republic of China FAR

message: # NikoSilver 21:13, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Support

message: ===Wildlife of Iraq===
Kindly contribute to this article when you get time, and request others too.Thanks — Atulsnischal 17:53, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We need senior administrators or people who are long in Wikipedia to help us with the templates and for other further helps. Details can be seen in its talk page. IT's urgent. We want this wkiproject to be added to the exsisting WP:IND banner. Amartyabag  TALK2ME 05:02, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Environment, Wildlife, Conservation and Nature

message: Kindly contribute to this article when you get time, and request others too.Thanks — Atulsnischal 17:53, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wildlife of Iraq]]

message: .... and kindly contribute to these new articles when you get time, and request others too.See Wildlife of India for reference.Thanks — Atulsnischal 18:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: '''Please create more "[[Wildlife of .....]]" articles for all countries.'''

message: If you are interested in Environment, Wildlife, Conservation and Nature etc. please join in to contribute, even starting off with making new stub class articles will be a great contribution.Sincerely — Atulsnischal 16:36, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We need senior administrators or people who are long in Wikipedia to help us with the templates and for other further helps. Details can be seen in its talk page. IT's urgent. We want this wkiproject to be added to the exsisting WP:IND banner. Amartyabag  TALK2ME 05:02, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: '''Invitation for [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Protected areas of India]] & Conservation'''

message: I notice many countries are using non-standard locator maps in the infobox (France, United States). Shouldn't the locator maps be standardised? (We'd need to convert to svg format first) =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:23, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL thousands of bits have been sacrificed in continued squabbling over the issue: just scroll through half of the current page!  I seriously suggest reading through at least some of that stuff (as tedious as it is), because it covers a whole spectrum of issues with locator maps and you would avoid repeating what's already been discussed if you go through it.  Personally I just got exasperated after a while and stopped giving a damn once the David Liuzzo license issue was resolved.  Kelvinc 08:46, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Locator maps 

message: Please see this map dispute. Your input would be helpful. Thanks. Xiner (talk, email) 20:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  China vs. Taiwan 

message: In the current version of the locator maps of for EU-members a map caption is given along the lines of:Location of Countryname (deep orange)– on the European continent  (light orange &  white)– in the European Union  (light orange)     [Legend].
I think we should be very careful adding captions as this clutters the infobox; and I think most readers are sufficiently intelligent to understand the map without the caption. 
If we nevertheless decide on any caption I would prefer a shorter caption that reads Location of Countryname (dark orange) within the EU (light orange) and the larger European continent (white).
I think the reference to the legend should not be used for 2 reasons. First of all, the map is pretty much self-explanatory; so no need for a legend. Second and in my opinion essential is that the legend is bilingual German-English. In my opinion this combination of languages can be used in German wiki for articles that deal with English speaking countries, or on English wiki for German speaking countries. It is however very strange to refer to e.g. Italy or the Netherlands on English wiki using a legend containing German texts. As the legend is not essential anyway, I suggest to remove reference to the legend from the caption.
If people think there is a need to maintain the legend, a solo-lingual (if such a word exists) version should be made in English for use on English wiki. Arnoutf 21:57, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: PS User:Noira has taken prompt action and made an English only version. Without objections, I will start replacing the wikilinks on the other EU countries toward this En only legend soon. Arnoutf 09:29, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You could simply use  and keep legends off the maps. Zocky | picture popups 10:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is about locator maps inside a country infobox (e.g. see Netherlands). I think you suggestion would inflate the size taken up by the locator map to unreasonable proportion. I would prefer no legend at all, as it was in the good ol' days of the green-gray maps; but the new maps are much more complex. Arnoutf 15:57, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Captions with locator maps

message: Editors at WikiProject Spain have undertaken the task of getting Spain through a Peer review process and up to GA status (and up to FA if possible).  If any editors in this WikiProject would like to lend a hand, or offer any advice and suggestions, your assistance is solicited. EspanaViva 00:01, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Getting [[Spain]] to Peer review and GA status 

message: I requested that Cameroon be peer reviewed. The subpage is Wikipedia:Africa-related regional notice board/Peer review/Cameroon. I would be most appreciative of comments from the members of this project. You know better than anyone what it takes to make a featured article on a country. Thanks, — Brian (talk) 11:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Cameroon]] at peer review 

message: Éire has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.
SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:13, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Éire FAR

message: I have noticed that many of the country articles have the Coat of arms of the capital city in the infobox I have started removing them as they serve no point what so ever in fact they can make the infobox look messy but they seem to keep getting added in, there is no need for them to be included if the user wants to see the city coat of arms then they can go to the city page is there any consensus as to whether they should be removed from the infobox --Barry O'Brien  entretien 03:59, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with your argument, we should not overfill the infoboxes with irrelevant details; that will only diminsh readability and the overall quality of Wiki country articles. Arnoutf 15:47, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: F.Y.I.: This exact discussion seems to be occurring in more than one location. The bulk of the discussions were moved over to Template talk:Infobox Country.  You should comment over there and for the record I think they are unnecessary.  —MJCdetroit 00:24, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  City coat of arms in the [[Template:Infobox Country]] 

message: Hey, folks. I've nominated Cameroon as a featured article candidate. Feedback of all kinds is welcome on the nomination page. Thanks, — Brian (talk) 05:29, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cameroon 

message: I would like to invite you all to participate in a discussion at this thread regarding bilateral relations between two countries. All articles related to foreign relations between countries are now under the scope of WikiProject Foreign relations, a newly created project. We hope that the discussion will result in a more clean and organized way of explaining such relationships. Thank you. Ed ¿Cómo estás? 17:56, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Bilateral relations discussion

message: World Bank has setup a website (doingbusiness.org) with very useful information that might be of interest of anyone wishing to expand the "business climate" coverage of an article.  Just an FYI... ---J.S  (T/C/WRE) 00:39, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Busness sections in country articles. 

message: Belgium has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.
LuciferMorgan 11:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Belgium FAR

message: Bhutan has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.
--Victor12 00:47, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Bhutan FAR

message: What are the guidelines for "government type" information within this project?  One editor's "golden paradise" is another editor's "totalitarian dictatorship."  Are we primarily interested in what the country officially calls itself (in which case, the Soviet Union would have been listed as a Democracy) or in terms more relevant to political scientists?  I'm asking because the North Korea article has an editor who insists on calling it a Juche state (after the leader's published philosophy) rather than anything useful like "dictatorship" or the more apt "Communist state one-man dictatorship".  Thoughts?  Rklawton 16:48, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In general I would say use the name the country uses itself under the condition the used concept is generalisable beyond the border of that country. In the case of North Korea I would say the Juche is NOT generalisable and is a NK relevant only. So I would suggest to go to the first acceptable overarching category (that may well be "one-man communism" althoug CIA factbook not necessarily have a NPOV). If we start with adding Juche, we might as well call the US state form "Bushian Democracy", or the UK's "Blairian Democarcy" or the Cuban rule "Castroist Communism" etc etc, that is a nonsensical part and we should not go there. Arnoutf 17:17, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Here's the response I received after posting objections in the article's talk page.  In short, it doesn't look like the editor wishes to discuss the matter.  It's his way or the highway.  Rklawton 17:24, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Question - while I've implemented your idea exactly as you suggested, it just occurred to me that "one-man" seems to be an awfully nice way of saying "dictatorship".  Is there a difference?  Is that the standard for country articles?  Rklawton 17:38, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sorry not necessarily the best suggestion, just a brainstorm. I "dictator" is not necessarily correct as the government type is not standard dictatorship. Typical seems to be the almost "divine" power attributed to the leader. How we exactly word this maybe subject of dicussion, but I think that should be on the North Korea page not here. Arnoutf 17:44, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not opposed to discussing it on the North Korean talk page, but I thought that the current government type is such an aberration to the country project that it might bear some discussion here with some resolution added to the project page.  Rklawton 23:17, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree with treating it as a generic issue here, but we were going into the NK specific details, and I think that should not be here. Arnoutf 20:47, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Government type

message: After a major overhaul of the Chad article, if anybody has some time to spare I would greatly appreciate to hear the opinions of the major number of people possible at Wikipedia:Africa-related regional notice board/Peer review/Chad. Ciao,--Aldux 00:13, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Chad]] Peer review

message: An external link tha is great finding out things about contries is  but um ya I thought some one mite want to add it to some countries because i dont want to incase i would mess something up.
--Sivad4991 02:13, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: CIA factvook s indeed often used as a reference in the country articles. Arnoutf 16:58, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  external links for contries  

message: Hello!  I've uploaded six test maps (for Spain), which exhibit variations dealt with above and not.  Thanks for your patience:
		
		
1 = green-grey colour scheme, white borders, blue coastlines, white water, Robinson locator  (save the blue coastlines, this map format is consistent with the green-grey colour ones found in many other locator maps
2 = green-grey colour scheme, white borders, blue coastlines, blue water, Robinson locator
3 = orange-grey colour scheme, white borders, blue coastlines, white water, Robinson locator
4 = orange-grey colour scheme, black borders, blue coastlines, blue water, Robinson locator
5 = orange-grey colour scheme, white borders, blue coastlines, blue water, Robinson locator
6 = orange-white-grey colour scheme, black borders, blue coastlines, blue water, Robinson locator (this is closest to the D L/Ss locator maps)
A few caveats:
* An innovation all images share is the presence of blue coastline.  As well, the country of note is pinpointed in the Robinson worldview.  I've also added some details, like islands for the Aegean Archipelago and elsewhere.
* The scope of the main map of Europe is somewhat larger than Ss's versions, but less than in my original creation; however, it is my intent to change this slightly depending on the rough location of the country.  For instance, the scope of the current map (for Spain) will be used for all countries in Southern Europe (e.g., Malta, Cyprus); the southern frontier will move up for others.  Conversely, the northern frontier of the map will move upward for Norway and Iceland.  For most other countries, the scope of the maps will be in between these two extremes.
* The worldview map will hark of the main map (in terms of border/coastline colours) in the final versions; they may not yet, and this is is somewhat unworkable given the size and complexity of each image version.
* The camel may need to be toned down -- CorelDraw lists this colour as 'sand'.
* For ease, these are PNG maps; once standards are agreed upon, I will create and upload SVG versions.
Also note that the same basic map is used by Ss and in the above maps I've created.
Thoughts?  Quizimodo 04:48, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The first sample map is the best. I like the design and green color scheme. Signaturebrendel 00:50, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I also like map #1, but some of the others (particularly #3 and #6, with modifications) also have merit, and I do not believe we yet have a critical mass to decide this issue without controversy.  And now we have a hodge-podge of sorts, with #1-like maps in some European articles and D L maps (a la #6) in others.  Shall I proceed to produce consistent maps for the rest of the continent (like #1 or, as a conciliation, #3?), and then we can deal with possible inequities after that? Quizimodo 01:01, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  On my LCD screen I cannot see the white borders in the reduced size (as they are presented on the page), so that is not ok. Also the world-locator map is too small, I hardly recognise it as the world, let alone being able to find the location of interest. Arnoutf 08:06, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I will try to increase the thickness of the borders (as in Ss's maps), without the image becoming too malformed; this may have more to do with the sample maps being PNGs (though final versions will be SVGs).  However, I can hardly resolve the borders on the DL locator maps let alone those for Canada, United States, etc.; perhaps that is one advantage of Ss's maps: country borders can clearly be resolved.  Nonetheless, the colours/contrast for the topic country are sufficient and the zoom feature will nonetheless provide more detail.  For me to increase the size of the worldview without occluding any significant territories, I believe I must extend the northern frontier farther northward (consult the first green map); I will try to change the contrast as well.  However, I wonder whether we've come full circle. Quizimodo 15:00, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Note that these locator maps have a function to show at first glance all the relevant information. Zooming is nice, but should not be necessary to see the relevant information. I think basically that the black-colour contrast is stronger comared to white colour (theories of human vision agree with this in that black fonts seem stronger, even if the absolute contrast is the same, that is why you often have to use bold fonts when printing white on black, but not when you print black on white), and therefore in my opinion black lines are to be preferredArnoutf 15:09, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK: another primary function for these maps is to highlight the relevant country -- which some do better than others.  I am not convinced that the white-bordered maps will not resolve more clearly when in SVG format.  I'll upload some other variations soon. Quizimodo 15:19, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

text: A smallish point, but Lampedusa is missing (the third Italian island south of Sicily, WSW of Malta,  .) I would think it should certainly be present in the Italy locator map as its very proximity to the African coast has lent it significance in terms of Italian and EU borders. —Ian Spackman 07:01, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sample maps

message: I've discovered that the football teams of some subnational entities of Spain, France, Britain, China and a few other countries have been called "national teams" in our encyclopedia. So now we have articles such as Andalucia national football team, Corsica national football team, Cornwall national football team, or even, believe it or not, Cartagena national football team (that's the city of Cartagena, Spain). I think except in those few cases were subnational entities are recognized as "nations" by their parent states (such as is the case with Québec or Scotland), the use of the word "national" is POV, as it implies that these subnational entities are somehow separate nations. I've tried to replace the word "national" with the word "regional" in some of these articles, but I was immediately reverted and I was told that supposedly there exists a consensus to use the word "national". Since I can't find such consensus on the talk pages, I opened a vote to remove the word "national" from these titles. Please take part in the vote, whatever your opinion may be. You can vote here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#"national" team for subnational entities?. Godefroy 02:07, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this may be sensitive for some reqions that have nationalistic feelings (e.g. Corsica). For Cartagena, it seems obvious that this is a municipal team and not a national. Nevertheless I think this has to be discussed on an articel by article basis; (IMHO) building a guideline would be using a heavy canon to get rid of a mosquito (to use a Dutch proverb). Arnoutf 07:43, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Choosing the wording Regional could be seen as POV too, given the old argument of "Nacionalidades históricas" Vs. standard Spanish regions (i.e. the Spanish word "nacionalidad" in that sense does not equal the English language word "Nationality"). If it is of any help, the official name in Spanish of the team referred above as Andalucia national football team is "Selección Andaluza", which could be translated as "Andalusia [select] team". Personally, I would simply go for All-Andalusia Football Team, All-Corsica Football Team, and so on. Regards, --Asteriontalk 23:07, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  National football teams - please vote