Template talk:Infobox country/Archive 5

message: Can the bolding be optional? The bolding of the Ge'ez script in the Ethiopia and Eritrea pages renders the text unreadable as the script is by nature bolded (relative to the Latin script). I'm going to be bold and make this change now. If there are objections, it can easily be reverted (and it's not a major change), and pages where the native name should be bolded can easily have that done manually, as the native name cannot be unbolded within the page. — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 20:50, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And how many nations use Ge'ez as their official script? While I understand your problem and sympathize, its effects are far too wide-ranging and result in patent absurdities. Especially when the native name of the country is in English, as with United States, United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, Nigeria, Guyana, New Zealand, Saint Lucia...Need I go on? It makes them look rather, well, weak. Even more ridiculous is the fact that the English name is more prominent for all nations whose scripts have a reasonable distinction between bold and not-bold, such as France, Italy, Germany, Egypt, Iran, Japan, South Korea, Russia, Greece and the People's Republic of China. So I'm reverting this until you can find a better solution. Lockesdonkey 22:35, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is Ge'ez the only script that can be rendered illegible by bolding? No one said that the other language pages have to be unbolded. I'm just asking that it not be part of the template so that individual country pages can have bolding or not. Sure it takes more work, but once it's done, there's no difference except a few pages don't have illegible script. — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 17:06, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Native name

message: Why? - Francis Tyers · 15:24, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks a bit odd to me as well. Then again, I'm a Lutheran. Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 16:47, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see the point, there can't be that many countries with Christianity as a state religion. I say it should be removed. - Francis Tyers · 16:51, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In any case, the title of the infobox is the official name of the country, so the patron saint should not be included for countries that don't have official patron saints (nearly all of them). Historic or popular patron saints can be mentioned in the article body. Zocky | picture popups 16:54, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ahhh! EDIT Conflict...It looks a little odd in the infobox to me as well and I'm Roman Catholic.  This kind of came up before here in September.  To keep the infobox less cluttered, stuff like this would probably be best stated within the article —maybe in a religion section.  —MJCdetroit 16:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good to me. Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 17:03, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Agree. - Francis Tyers · 17:18, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree; I've come here because the patron saint section was recently filled in for the Romania infobox, which I felt was a bit odd since Romania is not a Christian state (i.e. church and state are separated, there is no official recognition of patron saints). The whole inclusion of this into an infobox about political entities and states (i.e. official stuff) seems a bit Christiano-centric to me.  Ronline ✉ 10:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed it.  Actually, I thought that we had removed that a while ago.  —MJCdetroit 17:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We never got around to doing it. Anyway, better now than never. Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 17:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

text: My main concern is that somebody might pick up a copy of the Catholic Encyclopedia or similar and add this line everywhere. I for my part would very much like to avoid such material on the article about Denmark. Many of my countrymen would find it either a little insulting or at least nonsensical given that Denmark has been Lutheran since 1536. Come to think of it, I don't even know who Denmark's national saint was back then. Ansgar? King Canute? A second issue is that the infoboxes are already very big and we have to draw the line somewhere. Valentinian T / C 20:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Patron saint(s)

message: I would support the idea of including the optional patron saint section in the template, because if some countries like Georgia, England, Ireland and etc. would like to include the patron saints in the article, they must be able to so without creating a separate template like template:Infobox England. In addition, it must be optional to fit the cosmopilitan policy of wikipedia for the countries who do not widh to include that section. Regards, SosoMK 15:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My main concern is that somebody might pick up a copy of the Catholic Encyclopedia or similar and add this line everywhere. I for my part would very much like to avoid such material on the article about Denmark. Many of my countrymen would find it either a little insulting or at least nonsensical given that Denmark has been Lutheran since 1536. Come to think of it, I don't even know who Denmark's national saint was back then. Ansgar? King Canute? A second issue is that the infoboxes are already very big and we have to draw the line somewhere. Valentinian T / C 20:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Cosmopolitanism vs. Religious Understanding

message: How would I go about implementing this template for use in a Wiki-On-A-Stick? Any ideas? 206.116.13.184 00:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use in Wiki-on-a-Stick 

message: I've fixed the template so that it no longer links to the disambiguation page m². Previously, the template linked to m² if any of the parameters area_magnitude, FR_metropole_area_magnitude, or FR_land_area_magnitude were undefined. However, simply changing "m²" to "square metre" would create red links, because articles on different orders of magnitude for area do not use "square metre" in their titles. Creating the appropriate redirects for every single article in that category would prove to be quite annoying. Therefore, I've used the #if: ParserFunction to counter this problem. If I broke anything, please let me know. Thanks. --Ixfd64 08:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  fixed problems with disambiguating [[m²]] to [[square metre]] 

message: I removed the geocodes section of the template as they just managed to clutter the infobox and are relatively unimportant. —MJCdetroit 17:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would disagree with them being unimportant, and when I floated the idea some time back the reception was rather positive.  In any event, I don't really get the clutter argument considering they were if'ed. The Tom 21:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For these codes, it is probably enough to have the fields in the syntax but do not display these fields, treating them as metadata, similar to what we do for . - 52 Pickup 13:47, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Except what purpose would they serve as metadata?  These are important characteristics of countries, arguably just as useful to be summarized rapidly for reader's reference as, say, total area. The Tom 20:17, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with The Tom. We should keep these data. Valentinian T / C 00:14, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd at least be in favor of adding back the ISO 3199 alpha-2 and alpha-3 codes, as I mentioned below. —Angr 00:35, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cluttering the infobox with unnecessary optional info 

message: what is the reason for the green arrow in most of the country boxes?  --Astrokey44 14:38, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this (or alternatively the red downward-facing arrowhead) are meant to indicate an increase (or decrease) in the country's HDI since the previous year's evaluation... Which reminds me: maybe  and  are more appropriate (more generic) names for these arrowhead templates... Regards, David Kernow (talk) 00:49, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  arrow 

message: Re-opening my request to add a Gini Index.
===Old request===
Proposal: Add "Gini Index" below HDI (Please react)
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)

text: This seems to be reasonable.  I guess we'll have to see what it looks like.  In any case, the last time this was proposed it was lumped together with national bird and national tree and plant, and automobile codes, and patron saints. Unfortunatly, it may have gotten over looked because of those other things.  —MJCdetroit 01:34, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with this proposition. It should be added next to the HDI. The Gini index is a measure of how well-distributed the wealth of the country is. If a very rich country has all of it's rich people living in one city, then it would be misleading to only state it's degree of wealth. A very good idea, and usable indeed. Danielsavoiu 18:22, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

text: No objections from me! --Ixfd64 18:31, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

text: "Gini" index is new to me, so, as other folk are endorsing it, add it and let's see what happens!  Regards, David Kernow (talk) 05:52, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Superscripted + "help cursored" the "?". P.S. You need to hover over it and check the hover tooltip.  If you didn't guess, maybe it is too hidden? R U Bn (Talk • contrib) 17:45, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Way cool! --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 01:33, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding Income inequality / Gini Index 

message: Proposal: Add "Gini Index" below HDI (Please react)
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: Old request

message: So, if no one reacts, I will add this soon---—Preceding unsigned comment added by R U Bn (talk • contribs) 
:This seems to be reasonable.  I guess we'll have to see what it looks like.  In any case, the last time this was proposed it was lumped together with national bird and national tree and plant, and automobile codes, and patron saints. Unfortunatly, it may have gotten over looked because of those other things.  —MJCdetroit 01:34, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with this proposition. It should be added next to the HDI. The Gini index is a measure of how well-distributed the wealth of the country is. If a very rich country has all of it's rich people living in one city, then it would be misleading to only state it's degree of wealth. A very good idea, and usable indeed. Danielsavoiu 18:22, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

text: No objections from me! --Ixfd64 18:31, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

text: "Gini" index is new to me, so, as other folk are endorsing it, add it and let's see what happens!  Regards, David Kernow (talk) 05:52, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New

message: OK, I guess something like this below HDI (without border then since it's also about human "equality" (Danielsavoiu agree).  
I also added the "?" which could be used in all fields of the infobox by the way...
Suggestions, thoughts ??
* Where can I find category ? Does this exist, VodkaJazz, since you suggested it ?
R U Bn (Talk • contrib) 15:59, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Superscripted + "help cursored" the "?". P.S. You need to hover over it and check the hover tooltip.  If you didn't guess, maybe it is too hidden? R U Bn (Talk • contrib) 17:45, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Trial & Suggestions

message: Sorry for the long wait, but better late then never.  And sorry for the cliché :-)
--R U Bn (Talk • contrib) 22:01, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Way cool! --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 01:33, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Implemented

message: I suggest adding a section about religions in the country. -- Walter Humala Godsave him! (wanna Talk?) 20:34, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religion 

message: What about adding the ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 and ISO 3166-1 alpha-3 codes to the infobox? They could go right under the Internet TLD. —Angr 12:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We've removed these in the past and I would oppose their addition again.—MJCdetroit 12:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why were they removed in the past? And why shouldn't they be there? —Angr 14:04, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ISO 3166 codes 

message: Is there any way someone could add a field "Unofficial flag" or "local flag" (and perhaps the same for coat of arms) to be used when the flag is unofficial (such as with overseas territories which use this template), so that it states underneath the flag "unofficial flag" or "local flag" (although it should still link to just "Flag of Common Name")?  We're having some dispute over at Saint-Pierre and Miquelon.  └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 15:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flag 

message: Can a field for portals be added? Like the one in the saints infobox? --Howard the Duck 11:23, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Portal? 

message: Can someone please get rid of the part at the bottom of the infobox that reads "This box: view • talk • edit"? It's ugly and a waste of space. Let's keep the infobox devoted to actual content. — Kelw (talk) 00:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I added these following a request; they're quite common on similar infobox templates (the "Politics of..." series comes to mind). However, they may be more useful if there's consensus for #Use Template:Infobox Countryname in articles...? below. Regards, David Kernow (talk) 07:30, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I can see how the links would be useful if your suggestion below gets implemented, but right now the links are just taking up space without being very useful. Editors mostly want to edit the content of the infobox rather than the syntax of the template, so the links are not needed. Can you remove them for now and add them back later as part of your suggested plan? — Kelw (talk) 02:12, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Kelw.  Dump the links. —MJCdetroit 02:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

text: If the template is inline, there no need for these links (and I think the template should be inline). -- Rick Block (talk) 03:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

text: * Gone!  If/when anyone queries their removal, I'll direct them here. Regards, David Kernow (talk) 06:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: View, edit, talk links

message: Following this short thread, I'm wondering if there's a consensus to use  templates rather than the  template in articles, to remove the space used by parameters for the latter in these articles' code. , for example, would consist of the  for Fooland – i.e. something like:

– meaning that the Fooland article would only need to use the one-line

rather than the full  version. The view-edit-talk links recently added to the bottom of  could then link to  rather than  itself.What do folk think...?  Regards, David Kernow (talk) 07:30, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Am I understanding you correctly, you want to create 200+ single use templates just to save a few kilobytes per article???  The reason we standardized all the country articles to use only one template was to give all articles an infobox with a similar appearance and controlled from a central location (here).  Having the code inside the article also makes it easier for editors to update the infobox.  Also, when we did standardized the templates the last hold outs against standardization were France, Australia and Western Sahara; who all had their own special templates.  After, the fight they put up over the switch then a year later to just completely reverse ourselves.  Just leave it status quo.  I would be very much against such a reversal. —MJCdetroit 16:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, avoid single-use templates and keep the code in the article. --Golbez 16:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

text: And isn't it more convenient to be able to edit the infobox contents directly from the main article? If the editors do decide to keep the status quo, then I strongly suggest removing those "View, Talk, Edit" links in the infobox because they serve little purpose under the present arrangement. — Kelw (talk) 02:04, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use Template:Infobox ''Country/territory_name'' in articles...? 

message: DK, why was this made optional? I could venture to guess but I won't.  I am going to revert the change until it is explained for everyone.  If it is for the reason that I am thinking I don't think anyone would have a problem with it.  —MJCdetroit 16:43, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Area optional...why? 

message: I was wondering if someone could add the option for largest city = capital to :Template:Infobox Province or territory of Canada.  I realize that template is simple while this one is complex, but perhaps someone who's template-savvy could do it anyway.  Thanks. Lexicon (talk) 13:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Capital/Largest city 

message: The following discussion was copied/moved here from Talk:Canada20:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. See Wikipedia:Don't overuse flags.--cj | talk 13:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Talk to the editors of most countries, then, who put the coats of arms of the capital cities in infoboxes.  See, for instance, Germany, Spain, Romania, Russia, Poland... Lexicon (talk) 13:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not a compelling reason to use them. I think it's a bad idea to take an infobox which is intended to be consistent and apply to it something which is fundamentally inconsistent. These images (flags or coats of arms) cannot be applied for all countries; for example, Australia, for which city articles cover metropolitan areas that do not have equivalent images.--cj | talk 13:52, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Couldn't work for largest city, but I'd suspect it could work for capital, which is what they're generally used for, since, from my understanding, Canberra is one city. But even if there was a problem, that wouldn't be a reason to abandon the protocol.  One or two countries don't really have a coat of arms, but that doesn't mean we don't include such in our infoboxes. Lexicon (talk) 14:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The difference is that they are by and large useful and are included in the infobox proper. There really isn't a good reason to decorate the infobox with these images in this inconsistent manner. On the other hand, there are several valid reasons not to.--cj | talk 14:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Most of the arguments in that essay are completely irrelevant to the current use.  Unless you are ready to remove the capitals' coats of arms from all the counties whose articles have them, then consistency with a growing trend is a reason to include the coat 
of arms here.  Also, while I understand that overuse of decoration is unhelpful, "prettification" of articles is a good thing.  Lexicon (talk) 14:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry Lex, I tend to agree with the others.  In country infoboxes, just list the name of the capital and/or the largest city and have them wikilinked to those cities.  In the Canada infobox, I can not really tell what that blob is next to Ottawa anyway.  If a reader wants to know more about Ottawa or Toronto or any other city on any other country infobox, they can click the wikilink to the city article.  The infobox at the city articles have specific parameters to display the flag, logo, COA, and seal for the city.  Also, I would say that displaying of country and province flags in the subdivision fields of the city infobox (like Toronto) is much more acceptable than displaying flags and coat of arms for cities in the country infobox. Although, in the city infoboxes, place the flags after the subdivision names.  This keeps all the names vertically lined up.  —MJCdetroit 16:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Basically every country in the Americas and Europe has the coat of arms, I don't see why Canada should be an exception. Lexicon (talk) 17:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Canada's coat of arms is displayed.  It is to the right of the "flag" and in between "Canada" and "Motto". It is a very nice coat. —MJCdetroit 17:12, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Er, I obviously meant the coat of arms of the capital city. Lexicon (talk) 18:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

text: This discussion should probably take place over at Template talk:Infobox Country instead of Talk:Canada. MJCdetroit 20:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  (Now it is here.) I think it is in general a bad idea to add the city CoA to the templates on any of those countries; as it adds nothing (the interested reader can click the city name and see the CoA in the article). IMHO it only clutters the infobox making it less pretty and harder to read. Arnoutf 15:37, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree.  Include the country's CoA, but not any city's.  These images are too intricate to be recognizable at icon size, and including a larger version would be too intrusive.  In addition, the CoA of the capital city has very little to do with the country.  -- Rick Block (talk) 17:39, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, agreed.  Jkelly 17:47, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Rick Block; the images are too intricate to be shrunken down to be really necessary. The country's CoA is fine, since its the most important. We don't need a bazillion flags everywhere for every country. Leaving it unchcked could possibily get that way. Disinclination 18:08, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I started at discussion at wikiproject countries regarding this issue I have removed the city coat of arms from all of the EU countries their inclusion serves no purpose whatsover and can make the infobox look messy. --Barry O'Brien  entretien 02:01, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coat of Arms images next to the names of cities 

message: I'm doing some experiments on how to best print Wikipedia content. For various reasons, I have to ignore the CSS style sheet that comes with Wikipedia. Instead, I apply a newly written style sheet. However, when disregarding the style attribute, I lose valuable information. Ideally, I'd like for there to be a class attribute onto which I can attach similar styling. For example, the current template generates numeous elements that have a style attribute, but no associated class. For example:
  
I propose adding classes to these elements. For example:
  
This would make the Wikipedia markup more semantic and help reuse.
Howcome (talk) 13:10, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Use of "style" attribute

message: Can this template be improved somehow to better accommodate countries with multiple official languages? The Switzerland, India and South Africa pages all use somewhat inelegant solutions to the problem of displaying the native_name in multiple official languages. Switzerland displays all four using  for line breaks, but having so much headline text is not good for the layout. India displays the two "main" official languages and links to a separate page for the other 21, which is a reasonable solution if some languages are more official than others.  For South Africa, I've linked to a separate page for the 11 official names, but unfortunately the link appears before the heading of the infobox, which also isn't good for the layout. Zaian 20:13, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ...On second thoughts, maybe it is worthwhile. I'll make a note to take a look. Apologies for vacillation!  Regards, David (talk) 17:17, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks. There are quite a few more with multiple official languages (Belgium, Belarus, Israel, Luxembourg - see list on the page official language), and many with the official name in a different script (Russia, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, China etc), although that is a different problem. Ideally the solution should  also include the name of the language (e.g. Suid-Afrika (Afrikaans). Zaian 07:08, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

text: * Had another look and reckon the approach you've adopted at South Africa may be the most effective; the link now appears after the "Republic of South Africa" heading. Yours, David (talk) 18:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, that does look better. Regards, Zaian 08:27, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  native_name for countries with multiple official languages 

message: A number of unrecognized/de-facto countries use this infobox, but the infobox itself does not clearly indicate this status at all, which places these countries on equal standing with recognized countries. This is an important piece of information, so what are your thoughts about introducing something to accommodate this? A simple way to do it would be if you make a new field such that if "|unrecognized=yes" then an extra row is displayed at the top of the infobox, stating clearly that it is unrecognized. For former countries, a status bar like this has proven useful - for example First Hellenic Republic (a more complex example is Irish Republic where the status bar text has been edited - this setup is still under development). What do you think? - 52 Pickup 09:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that the number of unrecognized/de-facto countries should not use this infobox. --Des Grant 07:57, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Sounds reasonable; I have no objections. —MJCdetroit 16:22, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Make it more flexible, there are all sorts of non-countries using this. SchmuckyTheCat 16:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, although an entire separated row in large text seems a little much.  I'd go for small text directly under the name (and just saying "unrecognized", not "unrecognized state").  This way, it states the actuality without pushing a POV that the state is "not real" that such a prominent "unrecognized state" would tend to be viewed as saying. Lexicon (talk) 16:52, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

text: *Ah yes, I thought there was an indication of sovereignty type somewhere.  As for the "Country or territory", yes, it might be better off over there, although there are still some problems with it being used for non-countries, such as, for instance, "capital" linking to a list of national capitals, which is of little use when you're on some article like Vojvodina that uses the template but does not have its capital listed on the linked page. Lexicon (talk) 17:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Understood; since List of capitals redirects to List of national capitals, perhaps (1) a disambiguation page is needed; and/or (2) there needs to be another kind of list among those given at the start of List of national capitals...?  Regards, David (talk) 08:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unrecognized countries? 

message: How about "Other Major Languages?" Dave Runger 18:54, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That would give a lot of problems with many of the European articls. E.g. Denmark: around 5,5 million speak Danish, but it is anybody's guess if Turkish, Arabic or whatever comes 2nd, 3rd and 4th place, since the national statistics might have a number for how many persons immigrated to Denmark, but they don't categorise children, grandchildren etc. by ethnicity. I'm afraid such a list would only result in revert wars between different groups. I have a bad feeling about this one. Valentinian T / C 19:06, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I was thinking that such issues might come up, but I thought I would suggest the change because listing other major languages in addition to official languages might provide a slightly more complete picture of any given country. However, if you think the costs outweigh the benefits, I am not going to disagree. Dave Runger 09:29, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I would agree with changing it from 'Recognized regional languages' because of spelling. The 'z' looks terrible and out of place on Namibia's article, which is a Commonwealth Country.  Bennelliott • Talk • Contributions 10:41, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

text: And in the UK, hundreds of languages are spoken and seven (other than English) are officially recognised (PDF). I think infoboxes are generally too big as it is, because people feel a need to shoehorn every conceivable piece of information into it. If language is a notable feature of a country, it needs a section where it is properly covered. This allows the fuller use of sources to present the different points of view and controversies. And controversies there will be, for some articles! On the spelling: Infobox color has a parameter for choosing the style of English. Notinasnaid 10:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe it could be changed to 's' because Canada and the United States don't use the regional languages part of the infobox. Neither does the UK for that matter, but so far I've only come across one that does, and that's Namibia.  Bennelliott • Talk • Contributions 11:04, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually, the US should use regional_languages.  It has no officially mandated language at the federal level, and has no less than 6 at the level of its states and territories, including Hawaiian in Hawaii and Spanish in Puerto Rico. However, at present, the regional_langauges argument isn't rendering at all when we try to use it there, which concerns me far more than the spelling.  See below. MrZaiustalk 13:49, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why Just "Official Language"? 

message: What about to put information of economic growth rate in the template? This could be a interesting information for many. Tiwonk 17:18, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Growth rate? 

message: I'd like to add a Demonym field, any thoughts on where it should go? Vagary 07:41, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Somewhere near the bottom, I think. Perhaps near the time zone of internet code. - 52 Pickup 10:21, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good to me. Done. Vagary 00:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Demonym

message: Why not add the Reporters Without Borders (press freedom) and Transparency International (corruption) ranks? Alepik 13:22, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A good idea, but where do we stop wirh rankings? The navbar  lists a stack of rankings. - 52 Pickup 10:24, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think there are already way too many stats in the box. Have a look at e.g. Belgium; the box is about 1.5 screen tall. IMHO no single infobox for any article should be more than full screen on a decent size screen. This box seems to have grown out of control. Do we, for example really need this many economic parameters. Arnoutf 17:45, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I tend to somewhat agree with Aroutf.  I think that we should be careful about what is added to the box. —MJCdetroit 18:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh, yeah.  Gini coefficient?!  I don't think we need that in an infobox. Lexicon (talk) 18:25, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Throw a WP:NAVFRAME around sections that are getting out of hand. Using infoboxes enforces a common style which makes reading and editing pages faster. In theory it also brings us closer to a Semantic wiki. I'd take a long infobox over a really long article any day! Vagary 00:02, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Additional statistics

message: Why does it still exist? --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 08:28, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hopefully not for long. We worked too hard to get rid of these types of templates.  All country and territory articles should use the same template. Its TfD is here: Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_May_10#May_10. —MJCdetroit 16:12, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You can add Infobox Cape Verde to that list.  —MJCdetroit 16:27, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template:Infobox Israel 

message: This has probably been discussed before, but how about an elevation section, giving the highest and lowest points? - 52 Pickup 12:42, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Highest/lowest points? 

message: Several suggestions for additional rows were put up recently. I think the template as it is now is already far too long. IMHO an infobox should give at a first glance an overview of the key specifics. When an infobox is taller than one full screen height by definition it is no longer to get in all the specifics in one glance (as scrolling is needed). I would rather suggest dividing the infobox into two parts; one part with the bare essentials (to be placed on top) and a larger full width template with all the details, to be added at the back (wikilinked by the top one through for example a "see detailed information" link in that box). That box may as grow as big as anyone want as it would not hamper quick reading into the bodytext. Arnoutf 22:28, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think a better response to this problem is to split the country infobox into infoboxes for specific aspects. For example, the Government section of the infobox should appear on the Government of article (or at least subsection). Establishment should be on History of, Area should be on Geography of, Population should be on Demographics of, all the economic data should be on Economy of (mostly done), Official Languages in Culture of, etc. Then we can set a clear policy: no additions to Infobox Country unless they are general enough to not belong in any more specific infobox. If necessary, Infobox Country could provide some navigation to those articles. Vagary 23:18, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sounds like a fair idea as well. Arnoutf 12:07, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While I firmly believe that the infobox does not need anymore rows, I don't think we should split the infobox up.  That seems like a major step backwards.  —MJCdetroit 12:38, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Take a look at Template:Infobox Economy. Every country subpage/subsection should have an infobox like that. To speed navigation, Infobox Country could either include links to the standard subpages, or transclude them in navframes (see a kind of gimpy example for Economy). Every piece of well-formed data deserves an infobox, and the only way to keep bloat out of Infobox Country without discussing each extension is to find somewhere else for things to go. Vagary 20:25, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  That is a good idea, I really don't think the general country infobox needs more than a single economy indicator; or the official (ie legislation) languages, the rest can go to the XXXX language, or languages in XXXX pages. Arnoutf 08:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Please no more rows

message: The United States has no official language, so I attempted to replace the clunky "English, de facto" entry for official_language with a spoken_languages entry, but it didn't ever show up on the page.  What did I do wrong here? Could the template here be at fault?  - Thanks, MrZaiustalk 04:56, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ditto regional_languages -  - MrZaiustalk 05:07, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm relucant to make the change, given that I'm not sure how to best handle the fonts and seperators and what not, but the problem with the regional_languages seems to be that its #if is only hit if official_languages is present. MrZaiustalk 05:27, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The spoken_languages option mentioned in the /doc is entirely missing from the template. MrZaiustalk 05:30, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Resolved - Thanks! MrZaiustalk 07:17, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: spoken_languages & regional_languages missing

message: Please fix the giant space I'm noticing at Karakalpakstan and elsewhere. Do not revert to newer versions without addressing this issue, or I will be forced to protect the page in the interim. Thanks in advance. El_C 13:13, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This 6-month revert is a rather radical change. During this period, I'm sure a lot of new parameters are added (I did not follow every single one of them). With El C's revert, they are all gone for the interim..... --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 13:19, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For example, now  European Union shows  in the box. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 13:20, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I tried, but I can't figure out the rest.... Someone else please help. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 13:57, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Does this happen anywhere else? or only at Karakalpakstan? Something similar had happen over at Infobox City and blanks lines were the culprit. —MJCdetroit 14:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm pretty sure I've seen it happen elsewhere, but I don't remember. Isn't there a way to automatically list all the affected pages? El_C 14:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Found some of them, but I don't have time to edit the template.  Some blank lines are exposed.  I inserted some letters in blank lines in this sandbox and "g" and "i" showed up in a Preview of a modified Karakalpakstan.  (SEWilco 15:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Circumvented by modifying Karakalpakstan page code. ¦ Reisio 00:39, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure why but it seems to happen when the government_type field is filled in and the leader_title1 and leader_name1 are NOT filled in.  Maybe the template should have all those editors' notes () removed.  At least with that removed, it will be easier to troubleshoot. An explanation table on the /doc page would work better than all of those Ed notes. —MJCdetroit 02:50, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I think that the act of trying to make it more simple by explaining all aspects of the code in the editor's notes may have created this. I don't think complexity of the operations performed is to blame.  There are other templates out there that 10 times more complex and work fine.  One that comes to mind and is/was based on this template is :Template:Infobox Former Country.  I do admit that I am only guessing. —MJCdetroit 13:50, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

text: One editor here mentioned that they have the ability to list several other entries that suffered from this defect... If these are fine now, then all is well. But if the problem remains, then the  tag should be re-added. El_C 09:53, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

text: * I'm hoping the current version () has removed these rogue lines. If, ultimately, the code layout and annotations are the culprit, I'm surprised not to've read about the problem until now or seen it myself. Regards, David Kernow (talk) 10:52, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Earlier, felt it was too limited (time-wise, as per the then-edit war; and entry-wise) to bother. Then I forgot. I think (but am not positive) Palestinian National Authority was another affected entry. Hopefuly, SEWilco can list a few others so we can be sure. El_C 11:03, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Giant space

message: --------Add capital/admin center:--------
-->--------Add largest_city or largest_settlement (if provided):-------- -->
:The above was present above the LEAD on United States after the edits of ~3am this morning, CDT.  Performed a temporary revert until the problem's fixed - sandbox please. :) MrZaiustalk 08:23, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reverted edit

message: Heeding the warning from the front page about the complexities of the template, I'm posting here first.
Under the Census section on Population, one of the thens is <-- instead of 
replies: text: Thanks, I figured it was that easy, but I didn't want to FUBAR it. Thanks. --Matt 03:13, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Then" rendering 

message: Hi! I tried to fix :kl:Template:Infobox Country, so that the latidude and longitude of the capital would be visible. But since I never edited templates before, it didn't function. Please fix it. Thanks a lot!
--Saippuakauppias 11:23, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here you go, try this User talk:Saippuakauppias#Infobox_country_code. You'll have to transfer this to the Greenlandic wiki first.  —MJCdetroit 13:09, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Greenlandic Template 

message: According to MOS:T, songs should be presented in quotes ("God Save the Queen" and so on).  Yet, quite a few country pages have songs in italics instead, which seems outright wrong to me.  In fact, the example on the template uses italics, too.  So is there something here I'm missing as to why italics would be preferred?  Perhaps italics might be proper for song titles in non-English languages (as per MOS:ITALICS#Foreign terms, but I'm not even sure there.
I can see a solid argument for leaving the quotes off entirely, for what it's worth, on grounds of simplicity and the fact that it's in an infobox where some rules might be loosened.  But the policy should definitely be consistent.  My suspicion is that "quotes everywhere" is probably the most correct.  Any thoughts? SnowFire 03:38, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems pretty clear to me that quotes should be used, and italics if the title is not in English.  I don't think “it's an infobox” is a very good reason to be inconsistent with the text.  — The Storm Surfer 10:08, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anthems: Italicized, quoted, or nothing? 

message: Some of the GDP per capita rankings on country infoboxes seem to be referring to the IMF rankings and some to the CIA rankings at List of countries by GDP (PPP) per capita (compare the UK and Netherlands articles). I would personally go for the IMF rankings, but we need to be consistent either way. Cordless Larry 23:10, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I did rank them a long time ago using imf 2005 estimates but never bothered to maintain them. Many of the countries that see less editing activity might still have the imf rankings. --Polaron | Talk 23:22, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be good to get broad agreement here on which one to use. Does anyone object to the use of the IMF rankings? Cordless Larry 16:38, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GDP per capita rankings

message: For the hCard microformat, it's required that class="fn org" appears once, and only once, on one of the name values, but subsequent edits have broken it. For example, it does not appear in Aruba. Can someone assist in fixing this, please? Thank you. Andy Mabbett 15:31, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Microformat bug in "name"  

message: I only just discovered that all country (and former country) articles where co-ordinates are given for the capital city appear in that point on Google Earth, and it doesn't really look right to have a whole country denoted by a single geographical point. This got me thinking about whether the co-ordinates section is really necessary at all for these country infoboxes. The article about each capital should have geographical co-ordinates anyway, so having the co-ordinates twice appears redundant.
What do others think about this? I've already removed that field from the Former Country infobox. - 52 Pickup 09:42, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it helps locating the country on Google Earth; perhaps redundant for large countries, but how easily can you find Luxembourg or Liechtenstein without them. In other words: keep. Arnoutf 21:48, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

text: See Google Earth Wikipedia Layer FAQ - 52 Pickup 12:57, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is the co-ordinates section necessary? 

message: I reverted edits made earlier to this template, as they were causing the template to expand in width, and including all article text as well.--padraig 16:38, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Very interesting, seeing that there was no edit possibly causing this… --Ms2ger 08:49, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reverted edits

message: I'm just wondering why there is no religion field in this infobox. In a geographic encyclopedia I have at home each country has a small box (much less detailed than this) and it always has religion. Surely it's possibly to list all the major religions of a country by percent, and if it isn't in any particular case, it can always be left blank (or a footnote used if there are other points to consider, e.g. lack of religious freedom). Richard001 22:50, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Religion

message: I would like the calling code as link, e.g. +33, +49, see :Category:Redirects from telephone number. Sometimes (e.g. France) there is extra data beside the number in the variable "calling_code" so + does not work. Maybe just put the extra data to another variable? Do you know other examples like France that are problematic? NoGringo 19:39, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Calling code as link 

message: Is HDI_year the year of the report or the year of the data?  For example, the current report is from 2006 but Poland's data in that report is for 2004. Appleseed (Talk) 18:08, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  HDI 

message: I think a good addition to the Country Infobox would be the Democracy Index. This will allow users to kind of get an idea of the type of goverment of a country without having to read in detail (unless they choose to do so). 
Agree / Disagree? --Rhykin 06:01, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: disagree. 2 reasons. there is too much in the template as it is. The index is not validated nor common in the scientific press, hence open to critique and possibly biasedArnoutf 17:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Disagree - I think it biases towards the western viewpoint. --Matt 18:07, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Disagree per Arnoutf. - I think this has come up here before (and voted down). —MJCdetroit 20:16, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Disagree - The economist is far from neutral. A lot of what comes from that organization could be considered propaganda, especially regarding anything that opposes western views and values.Sbw01f (talk) 01:27, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Agree - The Economist is a very responsible and balanced magazine, I would agree to see that index included.⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 16:47, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Democracy Index 

message: What about population growth? This has to be as important as population and population density. Often both a current estimate and a census population are given; if there are concerns about infobox size I would favour giving only one population figure in exchange for information on population growth data in the infobox. Richard001 05:53, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe population change.  The birth rate in many countries is less than the replacement rate.  But what is a meaningful figure?  Total or percent change?  Per month, year, decade, centennial?  How should the info be annotated, such as if the numbers are from governments with different methods for producing the statistics?  (SEWilco 20:27, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Regarding change, see my comment at List of countries by population growth. I tend to agree with you that we should move away from using 'growth' and start using something more direction neutral, i.e. change. Richard001 (talk) 03:40, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Can someone go ahead and implement this? I find it appalling that information on population growth isn't even available in my own country's article (except that we seem to be aiming for a 1% exponential growth). Growth of the human population is probably the biggest problem the world is facing right now, but the absence of data makes it look like the subject is some sort of taboo. Richard001 (talk) 21:48, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: RfC: Population growth/change

message: The Failed States Index rank was recently added to the infobox. I would like to request comment on its inclusion or removal. I personally favour removal, for the following two reasons:
*The template is already quite long.
*This is a general-purpose infobox, but the FSI rank is largely irrelevant to stable countries like Norway or Ireland (indeed, to most countries in the latter half of the list of countries by Failed States Index rank).
*The FSI is a relatively recent index (2-3 years old) and likely does not merit the same level of attention as the HDI or a variable like GDP.
Any thoughts? Black Falcon (Talk) 20:48, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While I voted for the inclusion, I see where the community by and large is coming from on this.  Sinhala freedom 19:49, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like I missed the boat on this but for what it's worth I'd vote not to include this. —MJCdetroit 23:47, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mayve I come pretty late :D, but here's my opinion - Failed States Index is not even SERIOUS ENOUGH, to be included in the country infobox. But it's still there - why ? -  Tourbillon A ? 14:40, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Failed States Index rank 

message: I propose that we remove the parameters for the Gini index from the infobox. This is an already-long general-purpose infobox, yet the Gini coefficient is a fairly specialised statistic measuring income inequality. Compared to the other parameters (capital city, population, official language, and so on), the Gini index seems out-of-place in a template that is supposed to provide a brief overview of an entire country. Also, although it is arguably the best-known measure of income inequality, I doubt that many non-economists have heard of it or really understand what the numbers mean. Any thoughts? – Black Falcon (Talk) 20:45, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say remove from the main article infobox. If it is listed under economy of the country fine, but the main infobox is already too long for practical use. Arnoutf 14:43, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal: Removal of Gini index 

message: This recent change seems to have broken the HDI part where additional templates (e.g. , ) are present. The evaluation returns Expression error: Unrecognised word "expression" (see United Kingdom for an example). Rl 08:40, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  HDI broken 

message: To the right is an illustration taken from the a cut-down version of the current Philippines article.  The "33rd" links to List of countries by GDP (nominal), which currently ranks the Philippines either 47th with a GDP of $117,562B according to a cited IMF source or 38th with a GDP of $145,841B according a cited World Bank source. Perhaps some prior version of that page might have ranked the Philippines 33rd with a GDP of $146.05 billion, or perhaps not.
I perceive similar problems with links to other Wilipedia "List of ..." articles.
WP:V, a Wikipedia policy, says: "Articles and posts on Wikipedia should never be used as third-party sources.".
Comments? -- Boracay Bill (talk) 13:38, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template:Infobox Country considered in harmful violation of policy 

message: ...why not add them into the infobox? --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 21:40, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As in Speakers, Presidents of National Assemblies, and so on?  I can't say I think those are super-important, at least in the context of most countries with a parliamentary system.  I suppose there's a better case for their inclusion in countries with a fully-separated executive--I think nobody would dispute that Nancy Pelosi is one of the more relevant politicians in Washington, for instance--but I don't know if it passes muster, really.  There's also the clutter risk if you couldn't justifiably include the heads of one half of a bicameral legislature without the other. The Tom (talk) 22:32, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, for most of Europe it is - it nicely gathers around all three primary statesmen in a country: President of the State, the Government and the Parliament. Supreme Judge could also be added but I think that's out of the administrative context. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 12:29, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not so sure the chairman of the Parliament is an important primary statesman in many European countries (it is not in the Netherolands, Belgium and France as far as I know). Arnoutf (talk) 14:19, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: At least it is in Eastern. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 00:28, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't make it a mandatory field, place a remark like "only to be used if this is an important post in the country" or similar, otherwise this already cluttered infobox will further expand, even for countries where this information is truly irrelevant. Arnoutf (talk) 10:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Legislature heads 

message: Why don't we have an extended version of the infobox available as a separate page. Basically like an article on the country in infobox form. A lot of people aren't going to be looking for a prose article but just a quick, perhaps quantitative overview. A separate page with a much more detailed infobox would be ideal for this. Details not considered important enough for the main infobox or left out for other reasons could be included. Since we already have data-heavy content like lists of countries by population density etc, I don't see how this would be much different. The reader could access the page from the normal infobox, which would have 'view detailed version' or something like that on it. Richard001 (talk) 22:44, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Extended infobox

message: How about including UN M.49 codes? They can be used with RFC 4646 language tags for instance. 62.226.182.253 (talk) 15:27, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  UN M.49 

message: Is country_code a valid field?  It's not in the template itself, but is shown as a blank field in the example and is also in use in a number of articles.  (Adding a country's ISO 3166 code does not seem to display anything.) Socrates2008 (Talk) 09:05, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Country code

message: Why are -'s produced in lower levels?  For example in Canada, in the "Establishment" cell of its infobox, it has:
Establishment
 -British North America Act July 1, 1867
 -Statute of Westminster December 11, 1931
 -Canada Act April 17, 1982
Or something alone those lines.  Why are these -'s (hyphens or whatever) created?Asrghasrhiojadrhr (talk) 01:37, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  -'s 

message: The article List of countries by GDP (PPP) per capita lists three different rankings, with three different sources (International Monetary Fund, World Bank and Central Intelligence Agency).  There are considerable discrepancies A Luxembourger's income according to the IMF is more than 18,000 international dollars higher than the World Bank thinks it is, Ireland drops from 2nd place to 8th depending on which column one looks at, and Kuwait's position varies from 4th to 38th, with a 61% per capita income drop.  I have no strong feling over which is uused, but there must be clarity and consistency.  Kevin McE (talk) 09:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Which GDP PPP figure? 

message: The current template uses the 'ex' unit to set the width of an infobox. Is there a good reason for this? 'Ex' is a little-used unit which is dependent on the font. However, not all fonts provide information about the ex height, so it's -- in most cases -- better to use the 'em' unit. Howcome (talk) 16:18, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  CSS Units: why is the width set in 'ex'? 

message: 04-April-2008: For articles that report the area as 2 separate regions, I have expanded the Area section to allow parameter area_label (default: "Total") and added customized area fields as new parameters area_label2 displayed beside area_data2.  For generality, area_data2 is just raw text, such as "161 sqkm (100 sq mi)" and not a numeric field. Thereby, area_data2 could be just an explanatory note, rather than an area measurement at all.  To have an empty label, use a blank-code value (area_label= ).  I didn't add any other custom fields, since having 2 areas was the only limitation I noticed now. -Wikid77 (talk) 16:08, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Added parameters area_label, area_label2, area_data2

message: 12-April-2008: I have created this sub-topic about the "More general" because the upper title "Wales country specific infobox" seems to be begging the question "When will you stop using/beating the Wales-specific infobox?"  That infobox is not "Wales-specific" but has been used in the "Wales" article.  Perhaps calling it "Wales country specific" tends to slant the discussion, but the broader reality is that Infobox_Country_styled is, in fact, a more generalized template than Infobox_Country, due to generalizing the choice of border/background colours, rather than limiting to black & white.  Wow, what a difference from "country-specific":  is a more general infobox, with more font/color choices than Infobox_Country. Isn't truth amazing? -Wikid77 (talk) 20:08, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: More general infobox Template:Infobox_Country_styled

message: Copied from user talk:Rick Block
12-April-2008: In attempting to categorize the intent of Template:Infobox_Country_styled as a sandbox or a fork, I suppose it is both.  That answer is not intended as a confusing contradiction, but a recognition of the complexity of the situation.  The problem revolves around the concept of testing "real-world" results versus a hypothetical change to an implied template-upgrade bureacracy.  The apparent contradiction is a form of "catch-22" situation about testing: people want to test new Infobox styling on a real article, however, formal sandbox templates cannot be used on real articles, hence the testing would not be real, thus the "catch" in the system. The implied bureaucracy stems from the concept of pre-approving Infobox style before changing, whereas the reality is that hundreds of Wikipedia real mainspace articles are changed per minute without pre-approval, of course, even allowing anonymous changes.  A simple solution is to create a limited-use fork template, as a type of sandbox-like non-sandbox.  Users focus on changing actual template features, rather than the approval process for changing a template. As a result, Template:Infobox_Country_styled can be used in real mainspace articles, with the understanding that the usage is somewhat temporary, with the need long-term to reconcile new features with the standard Template:Infobox_Country, balancing Wikipedia's mode of non-pre-approved changes with the after-the-fact adjustment of changes to align with broader policies.  Restating that concept: the usage of the template fork fits the reality that changes to Wikipedia are approved, just not pre-approved.  Non-pre-approved changes can be made to T:Infobox_Country_styled without the danger of changing T:Infobox_Country, which is used in over 500 high-importance articles: in the major articles for each nation of the world. Those same 500 articles could each be hacked in many other ways, but using the variation Infobox_Country_styled attempts to find patterns and purpose to that change, without the widespread risk of affecting the prior Template:Infobox_Country impacting 500 articles.  Note that changing anything can be approved by a "consensus" of perhaps 6 people, but agreement doesn't ensure real-world testing against mainspace articles for weeks, which a fork has allowed. Perhaps 80% of readers who comment about a real article, using a fork template, would not join the hypothetical template discussion to improve Wikipedia. I hope these viewpoints about configuration management for controlling uncontrolled changes with real-world readers make sense, in explaining the sandbox-like non-sandbox. I regret that most of Wikipedia is written by mere skeleton crews of volunteers, but that's why formal approval processes can be fatal in causing volunteers to quit. Wikipedia's mode of open changes creates upgrade clashes with pre-approved templates, and I guess I'll stop here for your opinions about the concept of balancing of non-pre-approved changes. -Wikid77 (talk) 11:54, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If I'm reading this correctly, you're basically saying the intent is for it to be a permanent 'live testbed".  I don't think this is remotely necessary.  Major changes to this template have been made in the past, using a formal sandbox mechanism (see for example, User talk:Rick Block/Template:Infobox Country, which led to a significant change in the template's implementation). The point of using a sandbox is exactly the point you make about allowing editors to focus on the template features rather than the approval process.  When you have something working you'd like to propose as a change, then you present it here.  With your approach, you're setting up a fork for people to use who don't want to be bothered with the "bureaucracy" of gaining consensus for changes.  What happens if there is a change in the fork that the editors of the "main" template disagree with (which I suspect might be where this is headed)?  On an ongoing basis are editors here supposed to implement all changes twice - once here, and again in the fork?  -- Rick Block (talk) 14:11, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't seen any consensus for this fork to exist or be used, and in this capacity, intend to remove it from mainspace soon if one is not formed per WP:BRD --Jza84 |  Talk   21:04, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Wikid77, the basis behind your argument to keep this fork is all personal experience type stuff. Where is your announcement that you'd like to try these things? Where did you hold your discussion with the community as to what they want/don't want? Most importantly, where is the consensus to keep this fork? If you want a "termination date" for it, I say something more like 19-Apr-2008 is suitable. Discussion is a fundamental editorial process at Wikipedia, but as of yet, I've seen no proper historical discussion about this template in Wikipedia talk space and no policies or principles cited to support your preference. --Jza84 |  Talk   21:55, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Intent of styled infobox