Template talk:Infobox country/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Remark

Although for some countries no HDI value has been determined, that table row is not made optional. For such countries the absence of a value is explicitly stated with "NA", to distinguish from "It may exist, but the parameters have not yet been specified in the template call." In the latter case several triple-braced parameters appear.

I would like to see the capital coordinates wikified using the {{Coor}} template. Is it possible? It would be great to have it wikified.  =Nichalp (talk · contribs)= 17:50, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

With the following changes, the infobox would use the coor dm-format:

• Template
  • From: {{{capitals_coordinates}}}
  • To: {{coor dm|{{{latd}}}|{{{latm}}}|{{{latNS}}}|{{{longd}}}|{{{longm}}}|{{{longEW}}}|type:city}}
• Infobox, e.g. for Chile:
  • From: capitals_coordinates = 33° 26′ S 70° 40′ W|
  • To: latd=33|latm=26|latNS=S|longd=70|longm=40|longEW=W|

-- User:Docu

I tried different combinations for New Delhi (Template:India infobox), but it still did not render as a link.  =Nichalp (Talk)= 07:07, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

In my sample above, "Template" is Template:Infobox Country and "Infobox" is the page using it, Chile is such a page.

Even more confusing, Template:India infobox is also a page using Template:Infobox Country. As you didn't change Template:Infobox Country, you couldn't use the new variables on Template:India infobox.

Note that if you change Template:Infobox Country, you need to update all other infoboxes (I suppose I could do that by bot).

I just tried it out with Template:Infobox Country test and Template talk:Infobox Country test . It works BTW. -- User:Docu

I would like to move over to the coordinate based system. Let me know if you can write a bot to automatically effect these changes. If not I'll have to manually edit all. :( . Thanks,  =Nichalp (Talk)= 19:36, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I'm trying to do it. I just changed the infobox and I'm in process of updating the different country articles (e.g. Argentina). -- User:Docu

All should be converted by now. Please excuse the lag between the change in the template and its use. - User:Docu

Emblem vs Coat of Arms

In many countries the "coat of arms" is called the "emblem" of the country. I'm not sure if the two could mean the same (but I'm sure there's a clear difference). In the WordWeb dictionary, they have two similar meanings with a subtle difference: "The official symbols of a family, state, etc." as opposed to "Special design or visual object representing a quality, type, group, etc.". Since the current template automatically creates an article page for the [[coat of arms of xx]], is it possible to modify it so that [[emblem of xx]] can also be used? 19:47, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

There is a difference in meaning. Whilst "coat of arms" refers specifically and exclusively to the "shield" (or "seal") of a nation an emblem is much broader in meaning. Because an "emblem" is defined as a symbol, it can refer to coats of arms, but its use also extends to "faunal emblem" and "floral emblem" etc. --Cyberjunkie 02:40, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Infobox country test

Since an emblem and coat of arms are vastly different, I've modified the India infobox so that Emblem appears instead of coat of arms. I've linked the India infobox to Template:Infobox Country test instead of Template:Infobox Country. If editing the latter, please update the test infobox too. Thanks,  =Nichalp (Talk)= 07:44, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

ISO and IOC country codes

Any interest in including ISO three-letter country codes and IOC's Olympic Games country codes? I have them available as a side effect of {{flag}}: USA (SEWilco 17:24, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC))

This would be nice; I could then use the code {{ISO|code|{{{common_name}}}}} to fill in the ISO code. However it doesn't appear to support enough country names yet; it often comes out with an ugly broken link that would just break too many pages. In the meantime, I plan to replace the old {{{CCTLD}}}, which is not always what is needed, with {{{country_code}}} --Spudtater 19:59, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Spoken languages

Could someone add a "spoken language" box in addition to "official language"? some countries are using it. Thank you. 500LL July 2, 2005 20:25 (UTC)

I also forget. I think that a "National Emblem" box is also necessary. Thank you 500LL July 2, 2005 21:37 (UTC)

Isn't a national emblem about the same thing as a national coat of arms? Jeltz talk 2 July 2005 22:03 (UTC)

It's quite differnet. For example see Canada: it's Coat of Arms is different from its national emblem, the maple leaf.500LL July 2, 2005 22:21 (UTC)

Refer to the above discussion: Template talk:Infobox Country#Emblem vs Coat of Arms.-- Cyberjunkie ^TALK 9 July 2005 11:27 (UTC)

I added a major regional languages box. Someone changed the format of the infobox for Philippines article and this resulted in not being able to have the major regional languages listed. --Chris 9 July 2005 08:48 (UTC)

I have removed your change. While your addition might have merit, it was unwise to simply change the template without prior discussion. Because you did not notify other editors, your change caused the template to appear incomplete in every article bar the Philippines. It might be possible to create a "free label" in which you could have "major regional languages" appear in the template for the Philippines article, and not appear at all in other articles. I'll look into that, unless, of course, someone with greater knowledge of templates volunteers.-- Cyberjunkie ^TALK 9 July 2005 11:40 (UTC)

This is the right approach. I don't like this particular addition, but if it gains concensus, the change should be propogated to the articles first, by defining an extra parameter, and then added to the template once that project is complete. -- Netoholic @ 9 July 2005 15:50 (UTC)

Oh, ok. I apologize. I had no idea. I think I'll find a work around for now à la France. --Chris 9 July 2005 16:45 (UTC)

I still request the "Spoken Language" box. Why the template had no effective change? 500LL 13:58, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

It's difficult. If you add a "Spoken Language(s)" box, then you have to add data for every single country; otherwise, it will appear as Spoken Languages: {{{spoken_language}}}. It's certainly worth considering, but would be a lot of work.--Spudtater 14:04, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Should cctld be raw? eg .nl

I note that the cctld for Netherlands is assigned cctld=.nl, not cctld=nl. I am thinking that it is better to have the raw data in the cctld, and anoint it nicely in the template. I will ponder this for a few days amd hack all if I am not chased away. --NevilleDNZ 15:09, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

What about the other CCTLD variable that is used in the city coordinates section? Why that variable is not in lower case? --Timurberk 19:30, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Sometimes the cctld=[[.nl]], other times it is plain cctld=nl. Ideally the value would be a plain 'xx' in all the country pages, and annointed with the [[.xx]] from within the template. Maybe this change could be done by a bot, but in the mean time CCTLD is the plain version (it is needed for the Template:coor). --NevilleDNZ 07:37, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Imperial & metric infobox measurements

I've just noticed that the infobox for the UK & all the subdivisions of that country notes, as with all infoboxes, the land area in km² rather than in miles², which is the official unit of distance measurement in the UK. Does anyone know if this is deliberate or if it is just due to the fact that the infoboxes were created by someone who uses Km as a matter of course & they;ve then been exported to all other countries regardless of whether this is appropriate or not. If it is the latter there really should be a seperate template for countries where imperial measurements are used rather than metric. AllanHainey 13:30, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

but km should stay, because also people from outside like to read about UK Tobias Conradi (Talk) 11:59, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. We should use the same units in all of the country infoboxes to be consistent. Kilometres is the SI standard and also the most commonly used unit. I think that it's always appropriate to use kilomtres here. I think that the reason for that all numbers are kilomtres is because they originate from the CIA factbook which only uses metric units. If the American goverment uses SI units for all countries why shouldn't we do the same? Jeltz talk 12:19, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

It was not created by someone who uses kms. kms are the most common measure unit internationally. Even though USA uses miles, the world factbook is in kms perhaps for this very same reaseon. If things would have to vary depending on every country's policy, then articles should also put the GDP in local currency, the area of a country should include territories which are disputed since maps vary depending on what a particular country claims, etc. SpiceMan 06:01, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough, I suppose those who don't use Km can always follow the links find out the conversion factor & then use a calculator to work out the size in miles. Seems awfully convoluted though, is there by any chance a conversion calculator on wikipedia for metric to imperial measurements, I've looked but can't find one, as it'd be a good idea to link to it at the bottom of country info boxes if there is. AllanHainey 08:30, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

timezones

Kenya: Moscow time - does not make sense, can this be left empty?

What about linking to pages like UTC-11?

Native name

Should we include the full English name in native_name even if English isn't an official language of the country? --Golbez 23:19, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

Or, should we add a full_english_name entry? --Golbez 23:40, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

As I have been arguing here and elsewhere, this is an English language encyclopedia, and while I am very far from being an anglocentric, I find it beneficial in terms of layout to provide the reader with the conventional longform in English within the infobox's large font text (the only large text in the article). I will refrain from any further such edits for a few days pending input. Sorry I didn't bring it here first. If in a few days there are no outstanding objections, I will then continue with the layout changes gradually, as I have been doing; i.e. whenever I encounter them on my watchlist. Thanks for reading everyone, and my thanks also goes to Golbez for taking the time to clarify and to advance this issue forward. El_C 00:14, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

You bring up a good point; I was just countering them because of the standard. (I keep saying that word :P) Adding a "full_english_name" entry into the template might be useful. It would seem bad to put ENGLISH text into the "native_name" entry. You have a point. I just went about it the wrong way. --Golbez 00:16, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm glad you also appreciate it. Yeah, that bothered me, too. Becuase I kept thinking: this isn't actually the native_name. Indeed, it wasn't. My many edit summaries of 'adding conventional longform in English to native_name' must have looked bizzare. :) El_C 00:40, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

To reiterate and rephrase somewhat: the largest text the average English reader is going to see are going to be undecipherable to them. Whereas with my changes, we ground their attention immediately in informing them —with equale-sized fonts— that, yes, Naxçıvan Muxtar Respublikası translates into Nakhichevan Autonomous Republic. El_C 01:03, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm for a full_english_name field, preferably placed right under the native_name with the same font. KissL 09:18, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

including the full english name is reundant. this information is already given in bold in the introduction. we don't need to bombard the reader with extra text. --Jiang

True; then again, the local long form is also typically written out in the introduction. --Golbez 15:11, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

perhaps native names are best left out of the into because a bunch of unintelligible text in parenthesis might throw some readers off. --Jiang 17:34, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

We can allow for a little bit of redundancy (having a large text title). What is key is having the reader's attention focused immediately and the English conventional longform makes it simpler to understand what the text/s in the native_name means. El_C 01:57, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

I am with EL C on this one. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 05:19, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

So, the general(?) consensus seemed to be to do it? I will soon if there are no objections. Having Native name and English name in the header? (Though that does screw things up a bit if the native name IS English... What to do?) --Golbez 05:57, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

There seems to be general consensus among country articles to include the English name. However, it is mostly done with a simple break tag right now, and that seems to be working. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."--naryathegreat | (talk) 05:04, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Multiple Currencies

Cuba has two offical currencies, the Cuban peso and the Cuban convertible peso which do not have a fixed rate of exchange between the two. I'm trying to convert the Cuban infobox template to use this template. However, a straightforward data entry causes a problem with the currency coding. The dual currency thing (one floating and the other convertible at a fixed rate to hard currencies) have been done before, and back in the days of gold and silver it was not ususual for a country to mint both gold and silver coins without establishing a fixed ratio between them, so while Cuba is the only country that has dual currencies at the momment, it isn't the only one to have done so. So anyway, what do people here suggest, that I kludge the entries for Cuba or that the template be adjusted to allow for multiple currencies? Caerwine 16:58, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

China also had two currencies in the 1990s. The FEC (foreign exchange coupon) and the Chinese yuan "renminbi". Tourists were only offically allowed to be issued FEC which was offically 1:1 with the renminbi. But then actual street value was nearer 1:5. NevilleDNZ 01:21, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

I went with the kludge for now, but I may consider adjusting this template if I can think of a good way of doing so. Caerwine 15:16, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Human Development Index

Why has the above field been added? =Nichalp «Talk»= 11:55, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Greetings! Why not? The HDI is a standard, synthetic measure produced annually by the UN to gauge the level of economic, educational, and human development in countries worldwide. And for a visitor who doesn't exactly know what it is, the link will take them to the relevant article. I do not propose to add every index that's comparative (e.g., Gini coefficient, etc.), but the HDI is at least authoritative. Moreover, I'd entertain suggestions about how to expeditiously and easily add this field in without manually adding them to all country's templates. Thoughts and feedback are appreciated. Thanks! E Pluribus Anthony 20:12, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

It's far beyond the basic info required in an infobox. It offers no more info than the GDP section does, unless there's some weird country out there with a tiny per-capita GDP but a huge life expectancy and literacy rate, or vice versa. It's just not useful that I can see. And there is no way to do it except to manually add it to all the templates, there are no suggestions that can be made apart from doing it, but please discuss new additions first, otherwise it just smacks of political activism. --Golbez 21:03, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Hmmm. I disagree. The HDI is a basic measure that will allow a visitor to gage how developed a nation is: I imagine most people have heard of developed countries and developing countries. And I think some would be surprised that various Gulf states, for instance, are highly developed and that the United States isn't at the peak. If the index itself is too cryptic or complex, similar categories could replace them (as the HDI is split into segments containing countries with high, medium, and low levels of development).

In addition, GDP figures can be used for political purposes and is not necessarily the best indicator of what a country is all about: the concept of purchasing power parity is likely far beyond the understanding of most visitors too (and, as part of the HDI, gives a better indication of economic 'strength').

Lastly, I do not think inclusion of this index amounts to political activism: I was REALLY eager to include something I think of benefit to visitors, so forgive my zealousness. Separately, how is a country's calling code relevant or substantial in the infobox? Moreover, what was the process to put that or other infobox fields in place? It would be interesting to put this issue to an online vote or similar, which may sway me more this or that way. Feedback is encouraged. Thanks! E Pluribus Anthony 01:57, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Golbez that this should have first been discussed, but I find the charge of "political activism" a bit odd. I noticed this being done but was disinclined to raise the issue on the talk page because I think it a worthy inclusion. However, additions to the infobox need to be discussed beforehand both so support can be garnered, and so its implementation can be speedy. --Cyberjunkie | Talk 04:56, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

I was in a bad mood. I apologize for the charge.

As for why calling code and not HDI - Calling code is information. Capital is info, president is info, GDP is info, GDP rank is a natural rank derived from that single info, Area is info. HDI is a rank, nothing more. I don't like the precedent of adding composite ranks into infoboxes - only info and basic ranks should be there. --Golbez 07:07, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks; again, I apologise for making changes without discussion. I do believe, though, that a visitor's understanding of a country can be enhanced by including some reference to HDI (numerically, categorically, or both) in the infobox.

My question regarding calling code does not challenge that it is information per se, but its pertinence and relevance in the box and how it got there. There are likely more qualified -- not to mention quantitative -- tidbits of information which can be included: a glance in any almanac will review a wealth (pardon the pun) of information. The HDI is just as valid a bit of information and it is in and of itself not a rank, it's an index which can be ranked. IMHO ... Thoughts/feedback? E Pluribus Anthony 08:35, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

What makes this field "authoritative," as claimed above? —Cleared as filed. 03:45, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

It is authoritative in that it is a general, statistical indicator of human development – based on national and other statistics – as indicated by the UN Development Programme. Read the report here. E Pluribus Anthony 04:08, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

It seems to me that infoboxes should include facts, and ranking "human development" in this fashion requires us to use someone (a Pakistani economist)'s opinion about what factors, and how those factors are weighted, represent "human development." This particular method of ranking human development is not the only way it could be done, and I imagine it's not universally accepted as the way to do it. Indices can be manipulated to make the numbers come out a certain way, and we shouldn't be including someone's manipulation, IMHO. —Cleared as filed. 04:29, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

That is the point -- the HDI is an index, a statistical synthesis of readily quantifiable data for countries around the world: GDP, literacy rates, life expectancy ... And it is the best (though it may be imperfect) measure for this, just as nominal GDP per capita is different from PPP GDP per capita as valid indicators of national 'wealth.' Moreover, it is not merely one economist's assertion/creation: the entire UN and various governments (e.g., my own, the Canadian government) ascribe to it. E Pluribus Anthony 04:49, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

What makes it the best? What tools do we have for comparing the legitimacy of human development indices and who gets to decide? The UN has its motivations as well for having numbers come out a particular way—the United Nations' POV isn't necessarily a neutral POV. —Cleared as filed. 04:53, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

The HDI is an attempt to develop and synthesis a broad set of indicators to gauge human development. The UN is uniquely -- though not exclusively -- qualified to assess this: there are other organisations which can and do gauge individual factors (e.g., WHO, IMF, World Bank, etc.). As such the HDI is a statistical measure that integrates relevant data equitably and as best as possible. If another prominent indicator or tool that unites this data can be cited, please propose or list. Moreover, any government, organisation, or individual has motivations (and POV): in and of itself, the index is not POV; how it is assessed and used can be. E Pluribus Anthony 05:11, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

I still haven't followed the leap of logic from: the United Nations supports this index; therefore, it is the best that there could possibly be. I am not proposing another prominent indicator or tool because I feel that ANY index of this sort is designed to sell a viewpoint and Wikipedia infoboxes should stick to the facts. That doesn't mean the information shouldn't be here at all; if people are interested in the United Nations' opinion on human development, they can always visit the HDI page, and they can visit List of countries by Human Development Index. It just shouldn't be sold by Wikipedia as inviolate fact by putting it in the infobox. —Cleared as filed. 11:27, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

I think we agree to disagree. It's not necesarily because the UN produces and supports the HDI (though that may be a factor), but there is no other bit of information which -- in a summative and comparative way -- integrates basic statistics to gauge a country's level of development. And it is not a matter of 'selling' the UN, its programmes, or a viewpoint. Just as much as GDP 'sells' a viewpoint of monetary size (with the dollar itself being an 'index' of wealth either nominally or, through alteration, PPP) or population figures are based on censuses that may miss people. The HDI is a figure produced by an international organisation. And I think Wikipedia should present this information, not sell it: a user may interpret it and do with it as they see fit. E Pluribus Anthony 12:02, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

VOTE!! - HDI in country infobox/template?

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 Infobox#Countries|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)?

(Log all votes below; please sign your votes.) (Voting should continue to 1 October, but may be extended indefinitely.)

YES

1. Yes - the HDI adds useful information, especially in the cases (quite frequent) where there is a disparity between GDP per capita and other indicators of wellbeing. I'd say include at least the HDI and the rank, not sure about the category though. EcoRat 03:11, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
2. Aye, although I'm not sure about the category thing either.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 03:27, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
3. Yes - the HDI adds more useful information than literacy rates and its other component parts alone do. We can't put every little tidbit in there (eg: school enrollment) any more than we can put an entire economy article - hence, the HDI is a pretty good summation for the infobox, much like GDP/capita itself. Skip the category though - rank is sufficient. Scott Ritchie 06:44, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

   Nevermind, I'm changing my vote to No since I confused which infobox we're talking about here. The HDI does not belong on the main infobox (eg: at the right of the page Brazil), but instead belongs next to GDP/capita in the economy infobox (eg: at the right of the page Economy of Brazil.) It's far too specific for a main infobox (where we don't even include GDP/capita, for instance). Scott Ritchie 23:02, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

   Brief comment: While it wouldn't be completely out of place in the economy box/table, the HDI is not merely an economic measure: it incorporates (GDP) per capita (PPP) (which IS included in the country infobox/template (a prior inconsistency was pointed out and corrected); take a closer peek at the fields in Template:Infobox_Country under population, at Brazil, or in the general description of the infobox), life expectancy, and literacy rates/school enrollment. E Pluribus Anthony 02:29, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

   Yes. Wow, that was imperceptive of me. As a final thought, I'd put it in a format very similar to the GDP box now, with HDI: Ranked x on one line followed by Human Development Index: 0.945 on the next Scott Ritchie 05:48, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

4. Yes - A neat summary, with perhaps a few surprises that might encourage further reading. Banno 08:21, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
5. Yes - more information can't hurt. I'd be for including ranking and high/medium/low. — ナイトスタリオン _ㇳ–ㇰ — 17:12, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
6. Yes - Frequently-cited statistic in the political realm. -The Tom 14:46, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
7. Yes, indeed frequently cited. To limit impact on infobox size, however, I'd suggest just the ranking. -Joshuapaquin 16:41, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
8. Yes. It is not a perfect indicator, but then neither is GDP per capita. There are numerous criticisms of GDP as an indicator in mainstream economics. The HDI provides a different perspective, and, as noted, it is widely quoted. I would also skip the category. The rank is sufficient to illustrate the relative position. Ground Zero | t 20:29, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
9. Sure, editors of country articles are always free to make a different infobox without this entry if they don't want this in a given article. Christopher Parham (talk) 00:53, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

   And you're welcome to make your own HDI template. This argument is not sound. --Golbez 16:07, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

   While it is highly desirable to have a single template (hence this vote!), the template can be moved out into the namespace and is not prohibited. Sounds – all voices and arguments – should be heard. :) E Pluribus Anthony 15:50, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

   It's entirely sound. This field should appear in the template, I think, because it is generally going to be useful. That doesn't mean it will be useful for every country; if the editors of, say, India don't want to include the HDI field they can subst out the template and remove that field. I'd have no problem with that if they had a compelling reason to do so. The point I was trying to make is that including a field in this template does not automatically mean that information appears on the right side of every article about a country in Wikipedia. Christopher Parham (talk) 07:22, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

10. Yes, it is absolutely a good idea. It is not only a standard tool used in the world of International Affairs world, it is clearly of great use. I second the comments of Ground Zero, and I think that if we are going to include GDP then we should include HDI also. SarahPhelpsjr 12:29, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

    Actually, GDP is not included in the proposed Infobox#Countries|country infobox. --maclean25 00:34, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

    Brief comment: Actually, it is included: take a peek at the fields in Template:Infobox_Country under population, or in the general description of the infobox. Maybe the template you cite is different (used for show) or a prior version of the one I cite, which is the basis for infoboxes used. E Pluribus Anthony 02:56, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

    Oh, I thought we were debating the infobox linked in the question. --maclean25 03:09, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

    Thanks for pointing out this inconsistency; I've edited the infobox in that space so that it truly and properly represents what's in the country infobox/template (i.e., GDP) E Pluribus Anthony 03:44, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

11. Yes. Not perfect, but better than GDP per capita, as noted above. —Cantus…☎ 23:40, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
12. Yes --RaiderAspect 03:46, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
13. Yes, but as ranking (number means litle) Mariano(t/c) 08:37, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
14. Yes People can always check the indicator' page if the feel the need to know more about its value as an indicator. It offers a bit of information that can always be of use to some readers. Ghilz 22:05, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
15. Yes It is a very informative composite index, which also reserves several interesting surprises ! And the fact that it is used by the United Nations make it important enough.Qwertzy2 19:55, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
16. Yes! For various reasons cited above. E Pluribus Anthony 13:53, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
17. Yes For all reasons above, i think it would be a great addition to the infobox -- User:Charmed88 | Talk 17:57, 30 September 2005 (BST)
18. Yes, it's useful for a statistical information point of view. --Andylkl ^(talk) 06:52, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
19. Yes, it's fundamental! I often refer to this statistic. --PierreWiki ^(talk) 09:33, 1 October 2005 (EST)
20. Yes, Interesting. CG 15:11, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
21. Yes. — Instantnood 11:11, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
22. Yes. An interesting idea. --Valentinian 21:41, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
23. Yes. Pretty soon, we'll again see the Persian Gulf states topping the GDP lists. HDI adds information that GDP (PPP or not) does not provide and helps reduce potential misleading rankings provided by just GDP. Luigizanasi 02:59, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
24. Yes. At least the ranking would be useful --Martyman-(talk) 05:12, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
25. Yes. Just the ranking and not the actual index, maybe the numbers won't say much but the ranking sure does. Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 16:06, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
26. Yes. Seems like a very good idea to me. It's good information to have in an encyclopedia. Shadow demon 08:03, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
27. Yes It's something that describes a country. __earth 13:06, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
28. Why, Yes. HDI ranking says more about a society than GDP. (Freedom House rankning will produce an even more nuanced picture, but it would be too biased/controversial in pratice). //Big Adamsky 02:51, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
29. Yes The HDI is an international comparative standard, and at least as important as GDP per capita PPP. However, the tables must have detailed explanations of the calculations and summary explanations. --Martin Baldwin-Edwards 00:46, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
30. Yes At least the first two indicators. Donnerstag 15:10, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

NO

1. No. I challenge its usefulness or applicability as information. —Cleared as filed. 03:12, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
2. No — unless someone can produce evidence that it is a better predictor (of something that's both significant and not already in the Infobox) than any of its components. It would be more consistent and probably more useful to give one or more measures (such as literacy rate or life expectancy at birth) that would offer a contrast with variables like GDP/capita. Peak 03:26, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
3. No; I'm not sure I trust this as an indicator, and would like to stick to more concrete facts. Also this would require somebody add information for every country! --Spudtater 14:34, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
4. No. Not useful. --Hottentot
5. No. Useful, but inappropriate for the infobox. With the expection of GDP & population all info in the box is a static, concrete, neutral fact. The HDI is not; the ranks change yearly, as do all the contributing factors, and it is value-laden in that it only considers some of the quality-of-life factors. Also, since it is a composite of many factors, it needs to be discussed in the article. A simple statement of the country's rank would hide the high or low ranking factors that contributed to its rank. GDP should also be removed for the sake of consistency. --maclean25 02:50, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

   I don't see a problem with that; just write a section about the HDI in those countries which you consider to be of special notice. — ナイトスタリオン _ㇳ–ㇰ — 12:32, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

   Yah, it isn't a big deal. My vote is a 'weak no' bordering on neutral. I say 'no' for the sake of consistency in the infobox. With GDP and HDI it is just a collection of info with no apparent theme. If you remove the HDI & GDP suddenly the infobox describes a geopolitical unit. The HDI & GDP describe the results of how the country is run, and not the country itself (ie. name, area, codes, etc.). I just like having those underlying themes and such. --maclean25 02:24, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

6. No. Not simple, just a composite ranking, and any rank that requires an explanation in text belongs only in text. --Golbez 16:07, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

   GDP (vis a vis GNP, GNI, et al.) and PPP each require similar explanations/distinctions, particularly to visitors unfamiliar — and sometimes even to those who are familiar! — with these concepts. E Pluribus Anthony 03:56, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

7. No. The ranking is highly artificial and not widespread. It misrepresents the actual situation in many countries, especially ex-Soviet nations.--naryathegreat | (talk) 04:59, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
8. No. It is not even used by all major economists/development studyists. It is not universal (like life expectancy) or specific enough (like, say, PPP or GDP per capita). Sorry but a no, at least for now. Batmanand 22:01, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
9. No. Whatever this parameter is, even if it is correct, even if it shows relative IQ and demonstrates that Jews are smarter than Chinese, Chinese are smarter than Japanese, Japanese are smarter than Russians and Canadians are somewhere between Equadoreans and Tasmanians, even if this all is absolute truth, I consider publishing this data absolutely insulting and unacceptable. You can check what Hamlet said in this relation, and just think about it. More, the whole idea rather exposes destructive, evil tendencies in whoever suggests this. Could you please just RESPECT the people living on this planet? User:Vlad Patryshev 14:21, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

   Perhaps you could clarify just what you are trying to communicate (other than that you don't support HDI), because it reads as an outrageous rant?--Cyberjunkie | Talk 07:23, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

   Yes, I second Cj's comments. WTF? Besides: we can dually respect people AND provide information (which is what Wikipedia is all about), can't we? :) E Pluribus Anthony 14:02, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

   It seems to me that Vlad is interpreting "Human Development Index" to be a measure of the biological evolutionary progress of ethnicities. That's not quite right. -Joshuapaquin 17:15, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

   Hm, I might have been very, very wrong in interpeting the term. If so, I just admit that I did not have all the information, and acted in a hurry. User:Vlad Patryshev 14:03, 1 November 2005 (PST)

   And this, ladies and gentlemen, is why idiots get votes for president. --Golbez 22:20, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

10. NO I don't like it. I'm not convinced that measuring a country by this standard is ethical. (Narkstraws 05:50, 14 November 2005 (UTC))

UNDECIDED / ABSTAIN

1. UNDECIDED. More information draws you close to reality. The HDI nontheless is not mere information but rather knowledge synthesised according to someone's theory about reality. The UN has been invloving itself in abortion legislation/promotion in under-developed countries. I therefore abstain for fear of causing further harm. 68.165.19.176 00:22, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
2. ABSTAIN. I feel like being difficult — 195.172.14.80 15:37, 13 October 2005

Thanks!

E Pluribus Anthony 01:47, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

---

Hello, and thank you all for voting on this issue! An overwhelming majority of 68% – 29 votes total: 20 votes yes, 9 votes no – has voted to include the HDI in the country infobox/template (as of 23:59 (UTC) on 1 October 2005). We will proceed on that basis shortly.

During this period, various opinions were offered regarding how the HDI should appear in the infobox. Further discussion regarding this should occur here, the results of which will be integrated into the template. Thanks again!

E Pluribus Anthony 14:28, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

---

Now that the poll appears to be complete, and in favour of the HDI's inclusion, the parameters need to be filled in in each country article before updating the template.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 18:17, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi, Cj! FYI: as indicated above, I am working on a discussion piece that I will post shortly here (when time permits) regarding items of note in implementing this decision, the results of which will be integrated into the template. Thanks again! E Pluribus Anthony 20:26, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Sept 30 Revert

I reverted the last addition, since every page that was using the template was replaced by the Polish flag. Zach (Sound Off) 05:04, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

That was, naturally, a typo on my part. I was testing some changes with "show preview", then accidentally saved the test bits! Sorry!

I want the option of putting a border around the flag that displays in this template. For example, the flag of Poland has a lot of white, so it gets lost unless it has a border. Borders are easy to do in HTML: something like

<div style="width: 125px; border-style: solid; border-color: black; border-width: 1px">IMAGE</div>

So, I propose the following: every page that uses this template will get a new parameter, "flag_border=false". There are about 90 articles to update. Then, we add to the template the following code:

{{iftrue|{{{flag_border}}}|{{frame|width=125px|object=[[Image:{{{image_flag}}}|125px|Flag of {{{common_name}}}]]}}|[[Image:{{{image_flag}}}|125px|Flag of {{{common_name}}}]]

This uses Template:Iftrue to create a frame if the "flag_border" parameter is set to "true", with no border otherwise. Comments? dbenbenn | talk 06:03, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

As this is an optional parameter (since some may object to having borders around flags that aren't white singly or primarily), it is fine with me! Let me know if you need help updating. :) E Pluribus Anthony 11:44, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

I have devised a method for adding optional parameters only to the pages that require the optional parameter, perhapse this method could be adapted for this situation. See Template talk:Hide and Help:Template:Canadian City#Disabling parameter fields --BCKILLa 07:24, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Template:Hide is clever! The only problem is that it generates somewhat unnatural HTML, whether or not the parameter is hidden. Template:Iftrue generates the "right" HTML in either case, at the expense of an extra level of template inclusion. dbenbenn | talk 22:05, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Iftrue and Hide fail the "Wikipedia:Avoid using meta-templates" guideline. -- Netoholic @ 15:07, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Flag border

I added a 1px border around the flag; many countries have significant amounts of white in their flags and in the previous version of this template it blended with the background. The border is light-gray so it shouldn't be a problem even for those countries with colored flags. If there are flag pictures which already have a 1px border built-in, simply replace them with the Country_flag_300.png variant from the Commons.

BTW, I tested this with both MSIE and Firefox and it works fine. --Elephantus 10:22, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

What the hell?

According to the What links here feature, only about 80 countries use this template. However, according to List of countries, there are 243 of them! This is not a very powerful template if less than half of the pages we have on countries use it, and I'm not really sure why this is. Can someone please explain this? --Hottentot

I don't see why this should cause any outrage. Editors of country articles are free to use whatever template/table they wish. It needn't be imposed.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 02:17, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

But shouldn't all country articles use Infobox Country? --Hottentot

From a consistency standpoint, that would be ideal. But Infobox Country might not be appropriate for some articles. Most country articles that don't have Infobox Country, still have infoboxes formatted in essentially the same way, but with extra bits and pieces that are not necessary for others.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 04:56, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Those articles should be converted to use this one template. The extra "bits and pieces" should be moved into the article text. We've spent a long time hashing out what information should be in the infobox. Some country pages are just out of date with that standard. -- Netoholic @ 17:41, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Just a note, there may be country articles that use the template, but it's been "substed", in which case it won't show up under "What links here". --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 18:55, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Tag question

On the Template:France infobox page, after converting to this template, I noticed that a random text of ²) has appeared on the line giving the coordinates of the capital. I'm frankly at a loss as to why this is happening. Could somebody please help me?--naryathegreat | (talk) 21:17, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't know, but please don't use metatemplates. Call the infobox country template directly from France; don't call a template from France that calls this template. --Golbez 04:12, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

First of all, I'll do what I darn well please. Second of all, I don't do this because I've done it before and had to argue with people over it, and frankly the French group of editors are pretty ornery. I don't want to deal with it. Why don't you tell them?--naryathegreat | (talk) 19:26, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Attitude adjustment needed on aisle six. --Golbez 21:57, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Sorry. If you'll notice for reference, they've already reverted the thing back to before the conversion. You'd think anyone looking in the box would only want to know "real" France's population, not including their Pacific posessions. And you'd think that the area including those wasn't too important either. But dear me, I guess it is. I hate editing French articles.--naryathegreat | (talk) 00:26, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Box question

I've noticed that when converting articles to this template, many have nominal GDP in addition to GDP (PPP). Why isn't this included in the template? Also, are we using the World Bank or the IMF estimates of GDP?--naryathegreat | (talk) 00:40, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

HDI implementation discussion piece ready!

Hello to you all! As promised, in support of the majority vote to include the HDI in the country/infobox template and to accommodate for various user opinions, a discussion piece is now ready to finalise implementation.

Have at it! Thank you all again for your participation, patience, and input!

E Pluribus Anthony 02:58, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

The discussion has been concluded, and results implemented; see below and therein. E Pluribus Anthony 19:45, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Adjectivial Form

I'm surprised nobody's suggested/requested this before, in light of the prolonged discussions on the "Fooish Nouns / Nouns of Foo-place" naming conventions for, well, seems like everything, but does anyone besides me wonder if it might be helpful for the adjectivial form of a country's name to be included in the infobox? I.E., a space in the infobox where Greece would have "Greek", Democratic Republic of the Congo would have "Congolese", and Thailand would have "Thai"? The Literate Engineer 08:22, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

HDI in country infobox/template ... completed!

Hello to you all. In support of the earlier vote and recent discussion (concluded), I'm pleased to announce the inclusion of the Human Development Index (HDI) in the country infobox/template. Indeed: good things come to those who wait. Enjoy!

My thanks to everyone for their patience and who assisted with this venture ... particularly to Nightstallion (ナイトスタリオン), who entered metadata for a supermajority of countries at high warp speed. I have promised NS the name of my first born, undoubtedly this will be a designation of the equine variety.

Merci beaucoup! E Pluribus Anthony 19:45, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Conversion to infobox

Recently, someone requested a bot to convert all album articles to use the album infobox template. I tagged onto the request and asked if the same could be done for the country articles. What we need now is a) consensus, and if a) then b) a list of articles which still have a separate infobox template or no template at all. ナイトスタリオン ✉ 10:03, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Hello! I'm all for this; I can't organise it currently, but will gladly assist. Please advise. E Pluribus Anthony 06:30, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, basically, someone / a group of people should go through the list of countries and jot down which countries have their own, separate infoboxes (which should subsequently be deleted, and which don't use infoboxes at all but hardcode the table. If I find time later today, I'll do it; else, anybody's welcome to help. ナイトスタリオン ✉ 09:21, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Makes sense; I will aim to do so shortly (like before year's end, but cannot today); as a result of the HDI data entry, I already know of some of these. The only challenge I forsee is that some countries may have unique infoboxes at the pleasure of the editors for those articles (e.g., accounting for unique monarchical or other idiosyncratic issues), and those editors may be resistant to part with them. Anyhow, I'm always wanton to go perusing for a bruising ... :) Let me know if you need additional assistance. E Pluribus Anthony 10:08, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Complete list available now. Now what? ナイトスタリオン ✉ 13:01, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Complete list of country articles not directly using {{Infobox Country}}

No infobox: Heard Island and McDonald Islands, Bouvet Island, Christmas Island, Cocos (Keeling) Islands, New Caledonia

Hardcoded infobox: Abkhazia, American Samoa, Andorra, Anguilla, Antigua and Barbuda, Aruba, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Benin, Bermuda, Botswana, British Indian Ocean Territory, Brunei, Cape Verde, Chad, Cook Islands, Djibouti, Ecuador, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Europe, Falkland Islands, Faroe Islands, Fiji, Finland, French Polynesia, French Southern and Antarctic Lands, Gambia, Ghana, Gibraltar, Greece, Greenland, Grenada, Guam, Guernsey, Guinea-Bissau, Hungary, Iceland, Iraq, Italy, Jersey, Kazakhstan, Kiribati, South Korea, Kosovo, Kuwait, Laos, Latvia, Lesotho, Liberia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Macau, North Macedonia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Isle of Man, Marshall Islands, Mauritius, Federated States of Micronesia, Nagorno-Karabakh Republic, Namibia, Netherlands Antilles, Nigeria, Nigeria, Niue, Northern Cyprus, Northern Mariana Islands, Oman, Palau, Palestinian National Authority, Pitcairn Islands, Portugal, Qatar, Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha, Saint Lucia, Saint Pierre and Miquelon, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, San Marino, São Tomé and Príncipe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia and Montenegro, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Slovakia, Solomon Islands, South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands, South Ossetia, Sri Lanka, Svalbard, Eswatini, Syria, Tajikistan, Togo, Tokelau, Tonga, Transnistria, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkmenistan, Turks and Caicos Islands, Tuvalu, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Vatican City, British Virgin Islands, United States Virgin Islands, Wallis and Futuna, Western Sahara, Yemen

Uses its own infobox, which in turn uses {{Infobox Country}}: Australia

Uses its own infobox, which is hardcoded: Barbados, Belize, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Cambodia, Colombia, Costa Rica, Dominica, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, France, Guatemala, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hong Kong, Jamaica, Japan, Montenegro, Nicaragua, Norfolk Island, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Saint Kitts and Nevis, South Africa, Taiwan, Timor-Leste, Uruguay, Venezuela, Zimbabwe

Joy! :) Before year's end, it is. Let me know if you need additional assistance. E Pluribus Anthony 14:04, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm currently clarifying the three special cases (Australia, Cayman Islands, Spain). ナイトスタリオン ✉ 09:51, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

sighs I officially give up the prospect of standardizing {{Infobox Country}} use. swears ナイトスタリオン ✉ 14:29, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Why? I'll desist you insist, but I had every intention of proceeding before year's end. Indeed, patience is a virtue. Feel free to comment here or on my user page. E Pluribus Anthony 19:59, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Just a quick flash of frustration. I s'pose what I lack in patience, I make up for with persistence, or something like that... ナイトスタリオン ✉ 21:56, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Grand! Good things come to those who wait ... but we don't necessarily need to wait for Nirvana. :) E Pluribus Anthony 23:16, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I just had an idea which I think is rather good. (I assume you're aware of the flag template? If not, take a quick look at it.)

Most of the opposition apparently is a result of the "huge wad of code" at the top of the editting box. What if we somehow coded {{Infobox Country}} in a way similar to {{Flag}}, so that when editting the article itself you only see {{Infobox Country|Australia}} at the top of the article, and the "huge wad of code" can be editted in the same way that the flag template values can be editted (by inserting {{countryedit|Australia|AUS|AUS}} into any page, clicking preview, and then clicking one of the various "edit" links), or we could link to all of the sub-templates directly from a list page. This would also allow for more flexibility in accounting for the various quirks and special properties of a few "difficult" cases. The coding would have to be left to someone who knows how to do it (SEWilco comes to my mind, since he wrote {{flag}} from scratch AFAIK). What do you think? ナイトスタリオン ✉ 06:49, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi! This seems to make sense to me; let me probe a bit and get back to you. :) E Pluribus Anthony 13:14, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

So, any news? ;) ナイトスタリオン ✉ 22:26, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Sounds nice.. but frankly I still cannot figure out how the flag templates are working.. :-) — Instantnood 14:24, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Quite frankly, I sometimes need to look details up, myself; but the system is rather ingenious and has been copied by a number of other language editions... ;) ナイトスタリオン ✉ 22:26, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Anyone still here except for me? ;p ナイトスタリオン ✉ 07:48, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Mea culpa. Trust me: I haven't forgotten! I've been a little swamped; give me a couple (more) days to review? In any event, I don't see a reason to not proceed as you suggest. :) E Pluribus Anthony 08:00, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, I'll contact SEWilco then; he's the one who created the flag templates. Good to hear you're still here. ;) ナイトスタリオン ✉ 09:01, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I'll work on it during the weekend. In the first minute of thought I think I see a way to do it. (SEWilco 15:45, 16 December 2005 (UTC))

Great! Thanks a lot! ナイトスタリオン ✉ 22:41, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

OK, turned out to be easier than I thought. {{country_infobox}} (t/l) is the template (suggest a better name to prevent obvious confusion?) The name has to begin with "country_" so it can be called through "country|infobox|CountryName". Try it with "Australia", because I coded it so it works with the existing {{Infobox Australia}}. See the list of template names which begin with "Infobox": [1]. The country infoboxes should actually have more distinctive names now, such as "infobox_country_CountryName" so the second word can reduce name conflicts with other templates. You're in charge of it. (SEWilco 03:29, 19 December 2005 (UTC))

Mh, that should do, yes. EPA, shall we two try to implement the changes to the two hundreds of articles? ;) ナイトスタリオン ✉ 09:44, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi! I support everything dicussed ... and accept the challenge without reservation! The only proviso is that I be given until the end of the year to do this; I'm swamped! :) E Pluribus Anthony 11:01, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

First, the name of the data array templates should be changed in {{country_infobox}} to reduce conflict. Then the existing "Infobox_CountryName" templates need to be renamed to match the new pattern, although this can be done as they are encountered during conversion. I don't know if I can participate further, the Arbitration Committee is threatening me because I added citations to articles and because I reported probation violations. (SEWilco 14:34, 19 December 2005 (UTC))

Thanks for the pointers! I'll get on it ... slooowly. As for the ArbCom, try not to worry: it has its challenges, and hopefully the impending elections (rules/process still undecided) will help ameliorate any real or imaginary imbalance there. :) E Pluribus Anthony 23:15, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Incidentally, I assume all here are aware of Jimbo's expressed desire for some sort of data storage tool, such as having the name of the seat of government of a country in a way it can be retrieved for use in an article. The country infoboxes are both an obvious source from which to collect such details for initialization of such a data collection, and a future consumer of such data. At the moment you're obviously trying to standardize the infoboxes, but a side effect may be the collection of the organized data. I did design the {{country}} template with such usage in mind, but am intentionally not using it as a metatemplate for storage and retrieval of such many thousands of such details. I'm a programmer and recognize it could cause permanent damage to the DB developers :-). (SEWilco 05:09, 21 December 2005 (UTC))

Infobox conversion

I'm working with some new bot technology, and this would be a useful test. Want me to try to convert articles to the new "country|infobox|Countryname"? I think I have a parser which will let me deal with nested templates so I can grab the whole template from the article. Then I can copy the existing template from the country's article out to "infobox_country_CountryName" and replace the original with "{{country|infobox|CountryName}}". (23:04, 19 December 2005 (UTC))

Yeah, that would be great! There might be some problems, however, since quite a lot of countries which use hard-coded infoboxes have some non-standard fields or lack information for certain fields... Can your bot cope with that, too? ナイトスタリオン ✉ 23:14, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

My template is not actually interacting as an infobox, it just retrieves an infobox stored in a template data array. It is a tool for simplification of the articles (and the editing of the articles) and is not dealing with the infobox design or usage issues. At the moment I'm only aware of a need to grab the infobox from near the top of the article and move it to the new data array location, replacing the original with "county|infobox|CountryName". The content of the template does not matter as the whole thing will still be interpreted as it currently is. One special case: an infobox which already is being transcluded from elsewhere; unless this is common I'd just report the situation and it can be examined manually. (SEWilco 04:55, 21 December 2005 (UTC))

Yeah, I had apparently misunderstood what you intended to do. No harm done, however; what you're doing now is still highly useful to us, we'll just have to do our other project afterwards. Thanks! ナイトスタリオン ✉ 06:40, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I was briefly blocked but that only impeded my ability to comment here. I'm making progress on the infobox move bot. One thing for y'all to consider: Should the infobox display an "edit" link (connected to the page where the infobox is stored) or should it something less obvious be used (such as an "edit" link added to {{countryedit}}? For the former, the "edit" link could be part of country_infobox so would appear for all countries despite infobox definition. (SEWilco 02:11, 27 December 2005 (UTC))

I think an obvious edit link would be a good idea. ^N_i^g_h^t_s^t_a^l_lⁱ_oⁿ ✉ 07:21, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Now is a good time for you to tinker with {{country_infobox}} before the conversion. Add the edit link there. Is "infobox_country_CountryName" a good name for the template array, or "infobox_country_data_CountryName" in case variants are wanted for country_infobox (to avoid collisions between a "country_infobox_brief" and a possible country named "brief")? My bot has reached the stage of having located and parsed the infobox; boundary and copying code is my next task. (SEWilco 16:14, 27 December 2005 (UTC))

Will do. I will assist – let me know when it's safe to proceed. :) E Pluribus Anthony 16:22, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

(resetting indentation level)

Go ahead and tune country_infobox. My conversion will move infoboxes to the template data array and replace them with "{{country|infobox|CountryName}}" and thus is not sensitive to the template itself. Except the conversion has to use the right data array name, so is "infobox_country_data_CountryName" OK? For testing, I suggest copying the Australia infobox to the desired location; we don't need to alter the Australia article yet as we can test in our own User sandboxes. (SEWilco 03:10, 28 December 2005 (UTC))

OK; I'll peruse the template (and tweak it, if need be); I'll let you know soon. I would, of course, suggest template names that are consistent with the ones already in place (can "common_name" be used, as in the current infobox, or is that too cryptic?), and will work on any edits straightaway! Pointers? E Pluribus Anthony 04:07, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

The CountryName will be a common country name, although I haven't chosen the list yet. It shouldn't matter much as it will not be invoked much (and the name can be easily found in the invocation in the country's Article). Or were you proposing that the template data array use the pattern "common_name_CountryName"? There should be some unique prefix so as to avoid collisions with names used for other purposes; "Australia" is not a good name because that scatters names across the namespace and there may already be templates named after countries. As there will be an "edit" link people won't need to often find or type the name. Using a prefix of "country_infobox_data_" both helps identify the template using the data and groups the data so it has similar names. (SEWilco 06:58, 28 December 2005 (UTC))

I understand. Hey: perhaps you should use the three-letter ISO country codes/list of names? I was actually proposing "infobox_country_data_CountryName" or "infobox_country_data_common_name" (or "infobox_country_data_CountryCode"), but I'll defer to whatever you choose. I hope this makes some sorta sense. :) E Pluribus Anthony 07:15, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh, you thought for CountryName I meant "CostaRica"? I meant "Costa Rica"; I was using CamelCase to indicate a variable to be substituted. So infoboxes will be in "infobox_country_data_common name". I changed country_infobox and copied Australia's infobox so {{country|infobox|Australia}} works. (SEWilco 16:26, 28 December 2005 (UTC))

Yup. I'm glad we're on the same page, strabismus notwithstanding. :) I'll get on it. E Pluribus Anthony 16:41, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Happy new year! I'm emerging from recovery, and will get on this straightaway: give me a few days. Sorry for the delay ... :) E Pluribus Anthony 09:54, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I had some parsing problems but it looks back on track. After local testing, I'll first be copying Infobox info to the new locations so we can examine things. When things look OK I'll fire off the final step of recopying the Infobox data and updating the country's Article with the new brief reference. We can tune the country_infobox template while I'm doing the first stage because the copying does not affect Articles. After country_infobox is ready then the actual conversion can be done. (SEWilco 05:08, 4 January 2006 (UTC))

Great; when you're ready, please let me know when and how to proceed. E Pluribus Anthony 05:12, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries/Infobox vote, it was decided via poll that the best practice for the coutnry infobox is to use a single template and keep the data within each country article. Any deviation from that should be decided on the WikiProject's talk page, not this one (which should only focus on the operation of this specific template). -- Netoholic @ 09:03, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Official language

Hello. Please check whether the official language row has something to do with it. On article Sweden people several times changed "official language" to "Swedish", and I was contemplating changing the wording "official language" to just "language", but the current wording seems to be acceptable by all. Cheers and good luck with your project ;-) / Fred-Chess 17:15, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

A label "language" would encourage it to become "languages" and fill with every language used; quite a problem for India, I'm sure. At the moment I suggest "official language" is best, and those interested in that topic should start by improving the official language article as a way to gather material on the topic in one place. Once that article figures out some distinctions between "official language", "major languages" and other subtleties then it may become more apparent what is the best term for this specialized usage. (SEWilco 18:56, 18 December 2005 (UTC))

Location map stretching problem

Hi. There is a problem with the location maps and this template. The country locators are all 250px wide, but this infobox stretches them to 250px. This upscaling isn't handled very well and is ugly. See, for example: Iran. Can we change this back to 250px? Morwen - Talk 23:52, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I assume you meant "stretches them to 290px", right? ナイトスタリオン ✉ 07:42, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, that. Morwen - Talk 07:48, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Right, I've changed the size of the location map to 250px, without changing the width of the actual infobox itself. This leads to some empty space, but Indonesia (which was mentioned in the history as a problem) looks adequate, without the horrible stretching. Morwen - Talk 14:17, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, seems good enough. ^N_i^g_h^t_s^t_a^l_lⁱ_oⁿ ✉ 07:21, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Making parameters optional

Take a look at the chemical element infobox, e.g. at Chlorine. This way, we could leave out HDI information for territories to which it does not apply, and many similarily useful things could be done... What do you say? ナイトスタリオン ✉ 14:38, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

The Elementbox is a poor implementation, so don't use it as a model.

If you want to encourage people to add HDI information, you should leave it visible. -- Netoholic @ 14:58, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I concur with Netoholic in that taxobox format is unnecessary here. Certain parameters are already optional: a few weeks back I made population_census (and population_census_year) optional (for an example see the infobox at Afghanistan). It would not be difficult to make HDI (and HDI_year, HDI_rank and HDI_category) optional by changing its row to the following:

|- class="hiddenStructure{{{HDI|}}}"

therefore hiding the entire row if the HDI parameter is not given or blank. Please comment. --Wikiacc (talk) 20:10, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

It'd be as easy as that? Good to know. Thanks! ^N_i^g_h^t_s^t_a^l_lⁱ_oⁿ ✉ 07:21, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree with the general notion of hiding fields; however, this option should be available for any field. Why is the HDI being singled out in such a manner? If merely and only as an example or test, fine. But a vote and lengthy discussion determined that the HDI should be included, so (as per Netoholic) this should not be hidden in the template or removed (as is now the case). As well, some countries (as per the HDI listing) have no tabulated values, so it's better to know that they are unavailable (e.g., NA) within a consistent infobox and for comparison. Unless I'm missing something ... E Pluribus Anthony 20:55, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

To that end, I've restored the prior infobox template, w/HDI. E Pluribus Anthony 04:07, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Hello, I'm kind of butting in but since I like to work on country articles and I was reading the talk page I thought I would like to tell my opinion. I agree with E Pluribus that because the HDI went through a pretty lengthy process to be included in the first place, it should probably be included in each and every country article. I think hidden structure should only be used when a great many countries have no data, such as with the census field.--naryathegreat | (talk) 18:09, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

More on HDI

I'm not sure whether this has been suggested, but in seeing the HDI discussion, I realized that most of the data used to tabulate the ratings wasn't presented. I think it'd be additionally helpful/instructive if we added a rating/measure/info of adult literacy, life expectancy, infant mortality, etc. Although, perhaps that's excessive for an infobox? Sorry, still a bit new to this. --mwazzap 07:45, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

The information in this infobox, being that it is used on country articles, should be information about the country itself - as an entity. The above suggestions are better suited for presentation on the "Demographics of Xxxx" articles. -- Netoholic @ 08:13, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Hello! Mw, this would be too much for the infobox: the HDI is a synthesis of various data/criteria, and HDI infobox information links to appropriate articles. Arguably (as per Net), the infobox shouldn't include the kitchen sink too and would become unwieldy if it did. Annually, as the article indicates, the UN issues a report that includes all data, indices, and rationale for countries in the given year: here's the report for 2005.

In addition to a plethora of data note that, in Table 1, the HDI/report is also comprised of indices for each of the main criteria (life expectancy, education, GDP). I thought about placing these in a table, either part of or separate to the HDI table/list of countries, but I ditched that notion given the manageability of doing so: e.g., vandalism reverts, time-consuming annual updates. Perhaps we should move or conduct this discussion on the HDI talk page? E Pluribus Anthony 08:26, 5 January 2006 (UTC)