Template talk:Infobox economy

message: Example of usage is to the right. Contact me if you have any problems. I think this is a pretty good listing of pertinent economic data; obviously not everything can be on here. The infobox is modeled after the old infobox for Germany and Canada's economies.LittleDantalk 19:07, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Example 

message: The economic growth of Pakistan is 4.7% is 2008, but I see 5.8%. (Dewan S. Ahsan 19:53, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Economy of Pakistan

message: The box on the right shows that the GDP (PPP) of India is over $5 trillion. This is far higher than the 2007 estimate of $2-3 trillion. I suspect someone inflated the figures, as India's GDP (PPP) simply did not double in a year.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.229.121.13 (talk) 22:15, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Inflated figures

message: I'm just wondering why this uses British spelling? I wouldn't mind, really, except it looks kinda strange on the Economy of the United States page to have British spelling. David Fuchs (talk) 23:15, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It actually has a parameter for US spelling—just add "|spelling = US" to the infobox and it'll be changed automatically. I've just fixed the Economy of the United States. Mr. Absurd (talk) 00:43, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  British spellings? 

message: Can someone fix the extra space this template gives at the top of every article? Thanks. ☆ CieloEstrellado 02:54, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Extra space??

message: I noticed that this template was adding extra space to the top of articles (see here, here, and here for examples). I went into the template code to fix it and I also saw that the template used old code and wasn't based off of Template:Infobox, so I rewrote it. I've checked it over as best as I could, but if you notice any minor mistakes, please change them right away. If there are any serious issues (I'll be checking the usage in actual articles, so there shouldn't be any), please revert immediately and leave a notice here or on my talk page. 
Probably the biggest (and hopefully only) difference is that Template:Infobox adds a small "This box: view • talk • edit" link section at the bottom. It's either non-optional or I don't know how to remove it. In any case, I don't think it's a negative thing, so it can probably stay.
I removed the :Template:Intricate template—if I understand its usage correctly, it's no longer needed. Mr. Absurd (talk) 01:06, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The view/talk/edit links are optional (wasn't originally but there were requests :), simply omit the "name" parameter entirely and it goes away. Bryan Derksen (talk) 21:12, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reworking with [[Template:Infobox]] 

message: why isn't there a nominal GDP data line?  does nobody care?
Anatoly.bourov (talk) 14:55, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  nominal GDP 

message: Come on guys we need to take this out this is ridiculous.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.104.106.204 (talk) 15:45, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Guinea Pigs 

message: all these numbers are wrong, there is no way the uk owes 865 trillion in debt  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.178.85.7 (talk) 22:01, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  box needs to be fixed 

message: The documentation for Template:Infobox Economy includes a line with "rank = " after "Trade organisations". This "rank" field does not show in the actual template and it is not included in the template code. Please fix. --Zlerman (talk) 03:15, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Rank" 

message: The "German armies" joke in the "Import goods" section (top-right box) might be considered funny. However, it might also be puzzling for non native English speakers or people not knowing French history. For example, a possible mistake is to understand that France imports military equipments from Germany, which is a serious nonsense.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.178.72.57 (talk) 16:34, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  the "German armies" joke 

message: Can anyone explain why this is considered, informally, the Holy Grail of statistical data at Wikipedia? Is it just that people are too lazy to go to the original sources, and so use this secondary source? The World Bank, IMF or even the UN would be far more credible, ah, more useful, er more neutral um, more direct sources. DOR (HK) (talk) 05:16, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  CIA World Factbook 

message: Somebody put a Reflist into the template at Economy of Germany (and there may be others), which breaks display of the CIA Worldbook link. What to do? Lars T. (talk) 01:20, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: . If this happens in the future, you can edit the document, and remove the redundant  from within the infobox.--Gyrobo (talk) 01:56, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reflist inside this template 

message: There are articles for countries like Indonesia that list the ppp gdp which is almost double that of nominal gdp, it doesn't give a clear picture of the actual size of the economy (the gdp that it includes for Indonesia would be about the size of Australia's nominal gdp, but it is actually behind it by a lot).  The Economy of Australia article includes nominal gdp while the economies of developing nations like Indonesia only includes the ppp gdp.  Many countries are only showing the gdp with the higher number.
Grmike (talk) 00:42, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Where two economies are highly similar, sharing typical production and consumption patterns, it may be useful to compare identical baskets of goods to determine an indicative purchasing power parity exchange rate. Where countries are not highly similar – China and the US, for example, or India and Belgium – PPP adds no value. Moreover, where economies are enormously externally oriented, such as Singapore or Hong Kong, PPP has little to offer, since no one in their right mind would sell anything of value for any number of PPP currency units. Hence, PPP at best may be considered of secondary (or lower) value to the typical Wikipedia user. DOR (HK) (talk) 06:42, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Can nominal gdp be added or at least clarify when ppp gdp is used

message: Why are deficits, rather than balances included? Not all economies run budget deficits, trade deficits or any other kind. Can we please make the categories NPOV? DOR (HK) (talk) 02:21, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Deficits

message: I would put employment rate in economy infobox. See also List of countries by employment rate (Datastat (talk) 17:22, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. There are many reasons why people choose not to be part of the labor force, and at the same time some economies where there is so little reward for work that everyone has to find some employment just to make ends meet. The proper measure is the unemployment rate, which uses as a denominator those who wish to work, rather than some arbitrary age group. DOR (HK) (talk) 06:11, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Employment rate

message: Changed the code from this
|belowstyle = background:lightblue;
|below=  All values, unless otherwise stated, 
are in US dollars''
to this
|belowstyle = 
|below= 
</br>
Tested as much as I could for backward compatibility; anyway, as far as I can tell there is no reason not to be backwards compatible; correct me of course, if I'm wrong in any way. </br>
Added btw also comments (, ) and structured in such a way so that it could be more readable and helpful to future editors.</br>
This change gives page editors the additional options of controlling the bottom small box:
*1.Setting usebelowbox to no makes the bottom box disappear; usage, reasons of change and to use, obvious, i.e where the main source is not the CIA FactBook and the US$ is not the mainly used currency. Obviously the default value is yes (or whatever), hence the backwards compatibility.
*2.Setting presentUS$asdefault to no makes the statement  disappear from the aforementioned little bottom box; usage, reasons, again pretty obvious. Obviously the default value is yes (or whatever), hence the backwards compatibility.
I've done this change due to the Economy of Greece article where both statements, i.e.  and  are inaccurate. In fact so inaccurate and hence so disrespectful to the hard work-edits that has been done on that article that reading them makes me mad... :D </br> Thanatos|talk 08:23, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bottom box code change 

message: *1.
**a.Net international investment position-NIIP, being closely related to (thankfully already included) gross external debt is perhaps a sine qua non in most international financial crises, balance of payment crises etc, of the past, present and future. One might think of it as something close to the net external debt and as such the most "real" debt a country can have, as the thing closest to what is commonly meant by debt. Domestic debt in comparison, though certainly important itself, can be thought of as debt a country owes to itself ; public-government debt, if mostly held domestically, is likewise something like a debt of a country to itself. Hence they are or can be manyatimes very misleading. E.g the present Eurozone crisis is mostly about external debt (in a foreign currency etc) and therefore also about NIIP.</br> It would therefore be a very useful and educating indicator-field to include.
**b.Balance of payments or current account balance (I'm talking about 1 thing only, name depends on terminology). In the same way we speak about public debt and deficit, this refers to the external deficit. Imports/exports do not suffice; this is, let's say, the superset of imports/exports surplus/deficit that includes e.g. capital flows.
*2.The presently available indicators on salaries-wages, i.e. gross&net average-mean salaries are not representative enough of salaries-wages in any country as the relevant distribution (I'm simplifying) is not a gaussian one; the averages are in fact in most cases very misleading. </br>Median salaries imo should be at least added.
*I can code these in myself, no need to trouble anyone; I just need the consensus' approval. Thanatos|talk 14:13, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Since noone has commented, either in agreement or disagreement, I went ahead and added the indicators anyway; their use is anyway not mandatory... ;-) Thanatos|talk 08:34, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal to include 1.a.Net international investment position b.external deficit/surplus (current account balance) 2.Median salary (net and/or gross) 

message: What is this field for? Rank of what? Real GDP? PPP GDP? Revenues? Kaldari (talk) 23:41, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Kaldari, no clue.  could check to see if you can find an article which uses it? it was added by Trust Is All You Need in this edit. Frietjes (talk) 15:51, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

text: ,  can't remember doing it, but a look at the Economy of the Soviet Union infobox explains. --TIAYN (talk) 16:29, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:   thanks for the example.  seems like this could be split into more specific rank parameters? Frietjes (talk) 16:34, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

text:  now tracking with :Category:Pages using infobox economy with rank parameter. Frietjes (talk) 16:37, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

text:  added  so we can probably replace most of the  Frietjes (talk) 17:09, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I finished migrating all the pages that were using rank (except for this talk page). I'll go ahead and remove the param. Kaldari (talk) 21:18, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rank 

message: change ((Bank Rate|Base Borrowing Rate)) to ((Bank rate|Base borrowing rate))
: Done Kharkiv07Talk 00:13, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bank rate 

message: Most uses of this infobox include flag icons (like this: ) in 'Main export partners' and 'Main import partners'. Has this been discussed before somewhere? This usage is pretty consistent from what I've seen. Personally, I think it's unnecessary and distracting, and WP:MOS advises against it (WP:INFOBOXFLAG). In Economy of Poland, for example,  Russia is right above Netherlands, and the similarity makes it just confusing enough to be a stumbling block, especially surrounded by other flags and infobox details:
 27.3%,   12.2%,   5.9%,   5.4%,  5.2%,  4.3%,   4.2% (2012 est.)
Notice how something resembling the flag of Austria makes an uninvited appearance ()? It's not impossible to visually parse, but I'm not really sure what the flags are adding. If this has been discussed before, or if editors are strongly attached to the practice, I won't raise a stink about it. Grayfell (talk) 08:13, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I would strongly recommend removing the flags. Jolly Ω Janner 21:16, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of flags 

message: Some pages using this infobox express the Gini coefficient on a scale of 0 to 1, others do it on a scale of 0 to 100.  This makes it look a bit strange if you're comparing countries.
Should a scale be chosen and mentioned in the documentation as the scale to use?  If so, I'd vote for 0 to 1, as that's the scale used for the text on Gini coefficient (although one graph uses the 0 to 100 scale). Guy Harris (talk) 04:20, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scale for Gini coefficient? 

message: The URL scheme has changed:
:https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/bx.html -> https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/countries/brunei/
Two things to be changed:
# The template to reflect the new base URL
# Every instance of the template eg.  -> 
A map of the code -> name is needed for #2. I have that. -- GreenC 02:45, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: 1 and 2 are done. -- GreenC 03:18, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  CIA Factbook URL change 

message: Given its (a) apparent irregularity and (b) discontinuation, would suggest removal of the Ease of Doing Business parameter. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 19:45, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove Ease of Doing Business index 

message: I would suggest that we remove the footnote, since most economies use IMF or World Bank data.  Vyvagaba (talk) 10:32, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I'm not aware of any other templates which use a fixed source like this. I feel it encourages editors not to add relevant sources to fields. Dgp4004 (talk) 08:20, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion: Removal of "Main data source: CIA World Fact Book" footnote