Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries/Archive 7

message: The Human Development Index (HDI) is a standard UN measure/rank of how developed a country is or is not.  It is a composite index based on GDP per capita (PPP), literacy, life expectancy, and school enrollment.  However, as it is a composite index/rank, some may challenge its usefulness or applicability as information.
Thus, the following question is put to a vote:
Should any, some, or all of the following be included in the Wikipedia country infobox/template:
:(1)  Human Development Index (HDI) for applicable countries, with year;
:(2)  Rank of country’s HDI;
:(3)  Category of country’s HDI (high, medium, or low)?
YES / NO / UNDECIDED/ABSTAIN - vote here
Thanks!
E Pluribus Anthony 01:52, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  '''[[Template_talk:Infobox_Country#VOTE.21.21_-_HDI_in_country_infobox.2Ftemplate.3F|VOTE!!]]''' - HDI in [[Wikipedia:List of infoboxes#Countries|country infobox]]/template? 

message: While I personally prefer Timor-Leste (and have explained my reasoning on other pages), it's objectively not good for this vote to only have four votes on it. That it's currently a tie just makes it worse. So, please read all the various comments on the issue, and then vote, please. Thanks!  ナイトスタリオン ✉ 16:33, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The UN official lists it as "Timor-Leste". I think that is enough. Rarelibra 17:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: '''[[Talk:East_Timor#Requested_move|VOTE!!]]''' &mdash; East Timor or Timor-Leste

message: This issue has become live again at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template: Cuba infobox. I didn't know of this page when I began using the infobox, and nor did I choose the 20 top economies, mostly chose Latin America where Brazil and a couple of others were already using it, SqueakBox 21:07, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Countryspecific infoboxes, yet again 

message: I noticed quite a few country articles are lacking pictures, even though there are plenty of pictures for many of them on Wiki Commons. I added a few to Ecuador, Peru, Italy and Saudi Arabia. It would be good to try and look through wiki commons for pictures that could be used in the country articles. Astrokey44 01:10, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pictures 

message: I have completed the section for Hungarian culture... but any improvements are welcome! -- Charm Quark?? 12:32, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hungary 

message: I was thinking about starting a Wikiproject focused on using the Library of Congress Country Studies.  These are public domain texts with good information on many countries.  I think there should be a project to track which articles have gleaned information or text from the LOCCS and work towards the goal of having all information in the LOCCS included in Wikipedia either by direct use of the texts or using them as a reference.  Is anyone interested in working on the project or does anyone have thoughts about creating such a project?--Bkwillwm 20:55, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: we have Wikipedia:Status of the porting of U.S. Dept of State info and Wikipedia:Status of the porting of U.S. Dept of State info. maybe something similar will suffice--Jiang 22:04, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was thinking of something along the lines of that page. Thanks.--Bkwillwm 22:26, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  LOC Country Studies 

message: There has been discussion and preparations for implementation to a change to Infobox_Country in Template talk:Infobox Country, unaware of the previous Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries/Infobox vote.
* The proposal is for a country page to include one line such as .  This would display the infobox information (in a format such as Infobox Country), including an "edit" link which takes one to the location of the template in case editing is needed.  It has been prepared for some countries, although I do not think any country articles actually use it yet.  See the Template Talk discussion for details. (SEWilco 09:37, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox redesign 

message: ; Should infoboxes be displayed by having a single line such as  in a country's article, with the infobox available through an edit link?
(The exact location is under the control of the template and this removes the "Infobox vote" issue of whether the Infobox should be on a subpage of the country page)  (SEWilco 09:37, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  country|infobox|Country poll 

message: #—Nightstallion (?) 10:04, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yes 

message: # Naming advantages of "country|infobox" are not really needed here.  (SEWilco 16:24, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  No 

message: *While I initially preferred having the template in the article itself, directly edittable, it seems this met with too much resistance in some articles, so this proposal seems to be a good compromise. —Nightstallion (?) 10:05, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments 

message: ; Should infoboxes be displayed by having a single line such as  in a country's article?
(Most infoboxes only will be referenced from the country's page so the convenience of the "country|infobox" is minor and the location of the Infobox is easily found by looking at the Article for a country. If template knows name of country's article the template can produce an "edit" link to the page.) (SEWilco 16:16, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Countrypage/Infobox poll 

message: # Tidies up the Country pages simply.  (SEWilco 16:16, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yes 

message: # The idea and intent Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries/Infobox vote still holds true. Data should be contained solely in the article itself, so that it can be updated and matched with the inline text.  This is a solution in search of a problem. -- 22:39, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  No 

message: * Hmmm.  Why not ?  Can an underscore be used instead – e.g.,  or ?  Or a colon – e.g., ?   What other examples are there for comparison?  Whatever prevails/works.  E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 16:50, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments 

message: I think this discussion has stayed for quite a while and a consensus seems to have crystalised itself:
----
The country introduction reads:
:Xxxxx, officially the Yyyyyy of Xxxx (Republic of Xxxxx, or Kingdom of Xxxxxx, etc.), is a country located on the Xxxxx of Xxxx.  It shares borders with Xxxx ...
For example, the introduction to France should read:
:France (pronounced /fʀɑ̃s/ in French), officially the French Republic (French: République française, pronounced /ʀepyblik fʀɑ̃sɛz/), is a country in western Europe....
Exceptions: If the official name and the most common name are synonymous, the entry is left with only one name, as is the case in the articles United States, United Kingdom, Romania, Mongolia, etc. For example:
:The United States of America is a federal republic situated primarily in North America.
:or
:Romania (Romanian: România /ro.mɨ'ni.a/) is a country in central Europe.
In cases where there is a thorough explanation of the official name, the official name in the lead sentence may be dropped, as long as it is explained later.  This exception is illustrated in the article Canada.
----
That's it, that's my proposal. Any polishing is welcome as long as it does not change the content. Gryffindor 20:35, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds fine to me. —Nightstallion (?) Seen this already? 19:01, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

text: The phrasing seems OK, but the first mention of each country name should be Wiki-emphasized; this helps people arriving through various redirected country names to find that name and understand why they're in this article.  (SEWilco 02:51, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Emphasis now looks good.  (SEWilco 02:53, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

text: This generally seems fine to me; I've tweaked the above ... more for clarity and formatting.  Take another glance at Germany, et al. if any refinements are needed.  Otherwise, onward ho! E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 20:21, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have now added our agreement to the main page of the project, WikiProject_Countries#Country_introduction. (I think it's in the right section, correct me if I am wrong). Thanks everyone for your contributions and participation, this debate is now closed. Gryffindor 10:30, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal

message: It seems a little dispute has arisen on the Third World page which I believe could benefit from the perspective of the WikiProject.  A vote is now occurring at Talk:Third World/countries vote, which is trying to determine which countries should appear how on the map of the third world.  I personally believe that it would be more appropriate to have Third World redirect to developing world (as opposed to the way it is now, the other way around), as the latter term is much more widespread in today's usage and seems more neutral.  Please leave comments and vote.--naryathegreat | (talk) 03:38, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Third World]] vote

message: For some crazy reason, no one seems to have pointed out the vote on this subpage, which involves basically the real function of the project.  A vote is occurring at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Countries/Infobox_vote which has gained enough votes so far to have legitimacy in my opinion, but more votes is always good.--naryathegreat | (talk) 03:52, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Country Infobox vote

message: I went ahead and started WikiProject Library of Congress Country Studies.  So far I'm the only member, which defeats the purpose, so take a look.  Also, I've run into a few areas that might be best addressed in this project.  For instance, there doesn't seem to be a consensus on having articles that are Health in X or Healthcare in X.  Likewise, environment is usually titled Environment of X or Environment in X.  Personally, I think it should be Environmental issues in X.  Take a look at the project and let me know if I'm missing a naming policy.--Bkwillwm 07:32, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: LOC Country Studies

message: I'm inaugurating my own personal push to convert country articles to the use of :Template:Infobox Country. And believe me, there are far too many which don't, and in countries which you don't expect. I'd like everyone who's interested in all the hard work and consensus building that's been put into this template to help.  To start off, I've created a map of the countries which use the template and can be updated when necessary.
thumb|center|550pxThanks for your work. Please note that I placed a similar message at Template talk:Infobox Country--naryathegreat | (talk) 06:00, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Template usage

message: A poll is currently underway to determine the rendition of the island, nation-state, and disambiguation articles/titles for Ireland in Wp.  Please weigh in! E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 08:32, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Talk:Republic_of_Ireland#Poll:_Ireland_article_titles|Poll: Ireland article titles]] 

message: As well, another poll is underway to determine if the article at United States should be renamed and moved to the lengthier rendition United States of America.
Additional details for the US and Ireland polls appear on their respective talk pages.  The results of these polls might have implications on conventions for other country articles in Wp.  Please weigh in, and thanks for your input! E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 18:21, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Talk:United_States#Vote_-_Should_this_article_be_moved_to_United_States_of_America.3F|Poll: ''United States'' or ''United States of America''?]] 

message: I'm looking forward to found the Wikipedia:WikiProject Venezuela. I had the idea of creating it when I first made the portal. The project will have the main objective of centrating efforts into a more complete information and a higher quality of the articles in Wikipedia, other media in the sister projects, and the portal itself.
However, the rules say that I should have at least five to ten members willing to integrate and contribute to the wikiproject. So if some of you guys want to join in, then leave me a message, or in this page. I will be back in a few days to see how things are going on. 
Go to Wikipedia:Wikiproject/List_of_proposed_projects#Venezuela and list yourselves if you are willing to join.
--Alex Coiro 04:12, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject Venezuela 

message: This user believes in the application of the factbook to standardize Wikipedia
and here is the coding info


	This user believes in the application of the factbook to standardize Wikipedia

I WOULD BE INTERESTED TO KNOW WHO USES THIS..please note usage here...User:Nmpenguin/projects
Nmpenguin 20:55, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  factbook userbox 

message: Which source do you prefer to use when ranking countries in the country infobox?
* Please indicate single, affirmative votes below.  This vote will transpire until 30 April 2006 23:59 UTC but may be extended if a single option doesn't garner a clear plurality of support.
==== Option #1: CIA World Factbook ====
* source: 
# Because it's updated the most often and has the most amount of research, time, and money put into it. That also means that it's probably more accurate. And it's also public domain, which means it's completely compatible with Wikipedia.--naryathegreat | (talk) 02:00, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: VOTE!

message: * source: 
# Because it's updated the most often and has the most amount of research, time, and money put into it. That also means that it's probably more accurate. And it's also public domain, which means it's completely compatible with Wikipedia.--naryathegreat | (talk) 02:00, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Option #1: [[CIA World Factbook]] 

message: * used in 2005 HDI report; source:  – GDP per capita (PPP US$) & GDP per capita (US$)
#Support UN is the most neutral and thorough, CIA World Factbook could be seen by some users as biased. Gryffindor 14:46, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Option #3: [[United Nations|United Nations]] 

message: * source: 
#(Tentative support) Certain privately maintained data compilations rely on World Bank data, which might be worth using as inspiration, if nothing more. :v) //Big Adamsky 09:03, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Option #4: [[World Bank]] 

message: Proposal: Following Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy, which to me is an unshakable foundation of Wikipedia, I am wondering what other users think about countries that have multiple official languages. I have noticed over time, that listing the name of the country/territory/province/whatever in the lead sentence and on templates in multiple languages sometimes leads to edit wars because one language group wants to be put first in front of the other. My point is not who is right and wrong, but in order to avoid such edit conflicts over language, I propose that in such cases where there are multiple official languages, they will be listed alphabetically in order to be most neutral (this obviously excludes English, which will always be listed first). This would make sense for countries and other places that are suffering from ethnic strife and tension, and would save Wikipedia a lot of trouble when it comes to edit wars about which language is supposed to be mentioned first. Gryffindor 17:46, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you look at Talk:Palestine, you will see considerable disagreement with this idea. Palmiro | Talk 01:00, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think alphabetically is a good policy. But just because we decide it here doesn't mean we can force anybody to do it. Of course the phrase "consensus produced a result in favor months ago" usually helps out in adding legitimacy.--naryathegreat | (talk) 02:43, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So Palmiro you are saying because of the Palestine issue, everything else should not work? That Palestine case would actually underscore my point, with the alphabetic order, which btw is also used at the United Nations, this issue could be solved. As naryathegreat pointed out, we can't force anyone, however this would be an the most neutral guideline. And I believe in neutrality. Gryffindor 10:55, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be equally neutral to use number of users to order the languages. Agathoclea 11:44, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not actually taking up any position, just pointing out as a caution an example of where the position proposed here was angrily rejected by a number of users (because it put Arabic before Hebrew). Though I should add that, Palestine not being a state, official languages are not an issue in this case. Palmiro | Talk 19:58, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

text: If youre going to do it alphabetically, you shouldnt make english an exception -- Astrokey44|talk 12:48, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think numerically is such a good idea. It works in the UK, Germany, etc. but not so much in Africa. I believe English as an exception on the English Wikipedia is a good step in principle.--naryathegreat | (talk) 01:14, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with naryathegreat that numerical is a very very bad idea, because minorities get simply outvoted in that case. If the language is official, it does not matter. I am talking of the United Nations principle again where every nation gets one vote, no matter how large or small they are. And English is obviously always used first to introduce the article, that is completely outside the discussion, since we are on the English Wikipedia. Take a look for example at Belgium, which does a good job at listing it alphabetically, as well as Official names of South Africa. Gryffindor 15:10, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Countries with multiple official languages 

message: A few other editors and I are trying to improve the article on Japan, ideally to featured status. We ask for your assistance in the article and your suggestions at Talk:Japan. Best regards, Fg2 06:04, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Japan: Suggestions wanted 

message: Just thought I'd cross-post a query I stuck on Talk:List of countries—in a nutshell, do Taliban declarations of statehood and de facto military control of Waziristan get it into the Abkhazia club statuswise?  Replies would be appreciated over there.  Thanks, The Tom 23:04, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Taliban statelet in N. Pakistan 

message: Is there a standardization for the title of articles discussing a countries media?  Both "Media of" and "Media in" are being used.  This page has the break down of usage. If there is no set practice yet, what should title format should be used?--Bkwillwm 05:05, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Media of vs. Media in

message: I think the Libya article should be put on the list for countries which are close to having featured status? Does everybody agree because I'd like to add it. Jaw101ie 12:48, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Libya

message: Given ongoing discussions and recent edit warring, a poll is currently underway to decide the rendition of the lead for the Republic of Macedonia article.  Please weigh in! E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 01:04, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Talk:Republic of Macedonia#POLL: Introduction for Republic of Macedonia article|POLL: Introduction for Republic of Macedonia article]] 

message: Hello. I'm a member of the Version 1.0 Editorial Team, which is looking to identify quality articles in Wikipedia for future publication on CD or paper. We recently began assessing articles using these criteria, and we are are asking for your help. As you are most aware of the issues surrounding your focus area, we are wondering if you could provide us with a list of the articles that fall within the scope of your WikiProject, and that are either featured, A-class, B-class, or Good articles, with no POV or copyright problems. Do you have any recommendations? If you do, please post your suggestions at the listing of all active Places WikiProjects, and if you have any questions, ask me in the Work Via WikiProjects talk page or directly in my talk page. Thanks a lot! Titoxd(?!? - help us) 05:20, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team|Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team]] cooperation

message: One thing I have been interested in are the citizens of a country. For example, Iran has been in the news. There has been a lot said about how radical the country is. But, what I want to know is what the average Joe/Jane thinks, and what they want in life. My opinion is that their opinions do not reflect that of the leadership, and I think it is important. 69.6.162.160 20:29, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  People of a country 

message: I recommend we take out the Holiday section from the template.  During the FAC process for Canada, many editors commented that the holiday section should be removed. -- Jeff3000 20:40, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Holiday section  

message: Currently, the 2005/2006 population figures are from a mix of sources, mainly the CIA World factbook and the UN Population Division, along with some national census estimates. Would everyone be OK with standardizing the population estimates with UN figures instead of Factbook figures? It has been indicated in Talk:List of countries by population/Archive 1 that the Factbook figures overestimate populations of less developed countries. I am proposing we use the UN World Population Prospects estimates for 2005 for standardization across all country articles. Of course, if a more recent national government estimate is available, that has higher priority. What do people think about this? Polaron | Talk 00:34, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  standardizing figures for population estimates 

message: See Template:Danube Countries. It was done poorly, I fixed it up a bit now, but it's still theoretically fodder. --Joy [shallot] 03:09, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  another footer template 

message: I hope to include all countries in a release version of Wikipedia. Articles can be nominated at Wikipedia:Version 0.5 Nominations. Maurreen 12:31, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Version 0.5

message: Economy of the Republic of Ireland is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality.  Sandy 21:49, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Economy of the Republic of Ireland

message: Sealand is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality.  Sandy 22:09, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sealand

message: Economy of Africa is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality. Sandy 14:11, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Economy of Africa

message: Economy of India is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality. Sandy 14:11, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Economy of India

message: Cambodia is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality.  Sandy 16:11, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cambodia