This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Latest comment: 18 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion
Here's a little something which may be useful in converting to {{country|infobox|CountryName}}. This is based on List of countries and not all of these might be considered "countries" with Infoboxes. (SEWilco 06:50, 10 January 2006 (UTC))
* = Needs to be converted to Template:Infobox Country
The above is a workspace for this Project and updates by editors are expected. Bullet points below can be updated if they are not signed (which indicates someone's comment).
"What links here" on Infobox_Country reveals some Templates which contain the template and those should be easy to manually convert to country|infobox format.
The above links are generally the name of the country's article. Other common names will also function in {{country|infobox|CountryName}}, but that is not particularly useful because most of the Infoboxes will only be used in a single article and only have to be set up once.
The redlinks indicate articles which have no infobox info in the new template data array. Clicking on the redlink produces the edit page for the place where the infobox should be placed.
Although initially populated with Infobox_Country, the country|infobox system does not require Infobox_Country as it merely transcludes the data array content.
Whether editors should convert info to Infobox_Country is a decision for this project. (update this line!)
This table is very helpful, I think ... I'll get to it shortly. E Pluribus Anthony 07:16, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
I've gone through the above table and either updated or converted countries to the Infobox_Country template. I have filled in some of the comments in places where other editors had concerns or reverted/rejected the changes. The * means that that country stills needs to be converted to Infobox_Country template (if possible). —MJCdetroit 13:28, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
The entire scheme around the country_infobox templates is in violation of the WP:AUM policy. The developers have confirmed that templates calling or within other templates cause extra processing. This policy has been reaffirmed by the Arbitrators as valid. The template namespace is not a general data repository. Template:Infobox Country fulfills all the needs for this function, and the data for that template can and should remain readily available and stored with the article itself. -- Netoholic@ 08:49, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
What is the status of Jimbo's data storage tool? (SEWilco 09:47, 10 January 2006 (UTC))
SEWilcoBot Infobox_Country conversion
Latest comment: 18 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
SEWilcoBot is populating the infobox pages for the Infobox_Country templates which it recognizes in articles. There are several dozen candidates so far, with most of them being recognized. I'm encountering some quirks in phrasing which my parser didn't handle. Only Infobox_Country format is recognized by the bot. (SEWilco 06:50, 10 January 2006 (UTC))
Presently am only copying Infobox_Country info to the data array; updating country articles won't be done by the bot until country|infobox is ready. (SEWilco 06:50, 10 January 2006 (UTC))
I'm expressily requesting that you stop using your bot in this way. See my above post about WP:AUM. -- Netoholic@ 08:50, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
I won't implement the changes if they are no longer wanted. And I have bots which can add "deletebecause" if we need to clean up. (SEWilco 09:45, 10 January 2006 (UTC))
Infobox design
Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
The syntax can also be each entry inside of {{</nowiki and <nowiki>}}. At least that is how the transcluded chembox works. I hope the Country one can work the same way.
{{Chembox/Top|{{PAGENAME}}}} <!-- replace if not identical with the article name -->
{{Chembox/Image|{{PAGENAME}}.png|{{PAGENAME}}}} <!-- replace if not identical with th article name -->
{{Chembox/SectGeneral}}
{{Chembox/IUPACName|?}} <!-- e.g. Iron(II) chloride -->
{{Chembox/OtherNames|?}} <!-- e.g. Ferrous chloride etc, + linked mineral names -->
{{Chembox/Formula|?}} <!-- e.g. Na<sub>2</sub>CO<sub>3</sub> -->
{{Chembox/SMILES|?}} <!-- mostly for organic compounds, omit otherwise -->
{{Chembox/MolarMass|?.??}}
etc... etc...
{{Chembox/Bottom}}
Also, is there a wikipedia policy that dictates SI units should be used? If not, I hope that could be agreed upon. In these templates, it would also be good if numbers could be stored in a standard way. (No text, common number format). Then, future wikipedia features could be used to do things like "sort countries by population or size" automatically. The lists could be autogenerated or even the search could have advanced features of that sort. This is more difficult or doesn't work at all if there is text mixed up with the values. Jeff Carr 20:36, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Country infoboxes don't need the flexibility of taxobox-style infoboxes. Also, Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Units seems to indicate that both SI and English systems should be used in most contexts, to make it accessible throughout the world. —Wikiacc • ◊ 02:31, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Former countries
Latest comment: 18 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion
My personal preference would be for a seperate template for defunct states (though this does lead to the problem of what to include, i.e. the Roman Empire, Carthage, etc.). In the interim, use this template where possible. There's not any current consensus either way, why not take the lead and be bold! I'd love to see you make your own template and I would personally like to help you convert articles, such as Soviet Union to it.--naryathegreat | (talk) 06:00, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
That would take a lot of polishing and fine-tuning (in a field which is not my greatest strength), so I suggest just using the regular Country Infoboxes and just changing the colour. See also this Wikiproject. //Big Adamsky 13:13, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
This seems like a good idea. However, such an infobox should differ from the current one and not necessarily in colour: perhaps a parenthetical reference uptop can indicate timeframe – e.g., Confederate States of America (1861-1865). This would also make it obvious that the state no longer exists. Moreover, standards will have to be arrived at: what statistics would be included – those of the latest available period for the state? These may prove difficult for archaic states. And how about flags and other symbols? Mottos? Things like that. I'll assist, if I can. :) E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 13:28, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Exactly. It's going to be important to include the time frame and decisions on what statistics are important. Wikipedia:WikiProject Historical States is still inactive, but that's a place to start (though that template would need major overhauling). Hopefully you'll find some of the help you need there; and of course I'd love to help to. I think the final statistics for the country should be included, while possibly those when they were highest, etc. Several things won't work as well, such as official language; you might change that to just Language, for instance.--naryathegreat | (talk) 14:55, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Template usage
Latest comment: 18 years ago12 comments4 people in discussion
I'm inaugurating my own personal push to convert country articles to the use of this template. And believe me, there are far too many which don't, and in countries which you don't expect. I'd like everyone who's interested in all the hard work and consensus building that's been put into this template to help. To start off, I've created a map of the countries which use the template and can be updated when necessary.
See above: as you may recall, an attempt (around December/January) to convert and consolidate all country infoboxes/articles was – temporarily? – derailed since it involved the use of metatemplates. Frankly, I'm unsure of the status of this effort (and still support it), but will assist in implementing this or whatever a consensus agrees with. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 06:04, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
You could take a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries/Infobox vote, though I'm not sure how much consensus it represents. I think that at least we can all support the use of this template in the interim. While I'm not a fan of the other plan at all, though I do think that we can agree to disagree, as you said. In reference to metatemplates, I only believe it's important that we follow Wikipedia policy. Also, I like having the template markup in the article, since it makes it a snap to change. In any case, the use of this template is necessary whatever we choose to decide, and let's us easily implement decisions like the use of HDI (I've already uncovered several articles which don't). Also, I stumbled upon the troubling Template:Infobox Country English & Metric Units, and I promptly changed the three articles using it back. Thanks for any help you can give!--naryathegreat | (talk) 15:02, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Avoid using meta-templates is not policy. Rather it's the opinion of a group of editors. It does makes some sense, however. --cj | talk 15:33, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
You may be right. The last time I had looked the page stated that it was policy. In any case, we'll need to use this template in all of the articles anyway. It's important to use it because it brings our hard-earned consensus to these other articles, which was the whole point.--naryathegreat | (talk) 15:55, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes: we can agree to disagree – it's ironic that a well-intentioned effort to arrive at the very consistency sought, and perhaps more, is in abeyance due to (among other reasons) a cryptic, contentious guideline. In any event; however ...
all infoboxes for UN member states with HDIs for 2003 (or where they're unavailable, per p. 328 of the 2005 HDI report) were updated. Perhaps you're referring to prior states that might have assigned HDI values? Please list/clarify. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 15:59, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
I can't remember exactly, but I believe that South Africa no longer had the HDI value, and since I looked at every country article in making that map, I think I saw several more. Anyway, that's not my real reason for conversion to the template. I don't like the proposed change to the system, and juding from the vote, neither do many other people. It just works the way it is, and it works fairly well. Even if consensus eventually changed in that direction, we'd need the use of this template in every country article to make it happen. However, I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything. All I want to do is move forward with converting to this template. By the way, thanks for your input!--naryathegreat | (talk) 16:09, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
The HDI is in the South Africa infobox; if there are anomalies, please list.
I don't want to belabour this, but it's arguable that the status quo is sufficient and has contributed to the current hodge-podge. In any event, I'll update states as I come across them. And thanks for your input, too! E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 16:16, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
I decided to move back over here so it doesn't get to long :). I'm sorry, I mispoke, it was Ethiopia (it has it now because I updated to the template). I'll try and come up with others, but for the most part they're in Africa I think.--naryathegreat | (talk) 17:17, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
The template in the Algeria article is missing info. Can anyone replace the question marks with the proper numbers? Thanks. --Khoikhoi 02:53, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
It's fixed! I'm glad you pointed that out.--naryathegreat | (talk) 01:18, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Latest comment: 18 years ago10 comments6 people in discussion
There seems to be some new spacing that makes the image of the flag on pages a lot farther up than it used to be. See Azerbaijan for an example. Is there any way to fix that? --Khoikhoi 01:51, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
I noticed that too, but I thought it was my browser having a coniption fit. :) I agree that the current flag placement is awkward: the prior vertical alignment should be restored. I don't know how to do this, but would if I could. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 03:37, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
I also agree. However, I can't see where it has been changed. The only changes to the template since the HDI have been to correct esoteric code and the capitalisation of coat of arms ( which actually seems incorrect, given the template refers to a specific national emblem ). --cj | talk 04:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Just hang on and I'm sure we can fix it without breaking other boxes. ¦ Reisio 01:58, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Are there any boxes you claim that my fix "broke" besides Switzerland? It looked alright to me. Uris 02:05, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
I haven't seen any, but trust me we can fix it for everything. I'm coding it up right now. ¦ Reisio 02:10, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Okay, cool... I made a fix just having them 145/90 (they were 125/110), pretty simple and looks decently good but yours may very well be better if you are coding it up well. Can't wait to see the result, and good luck. Uris 02:22, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Okay this is basically just the old widths plus vertical-align: middle;'s:
You can see a comparison of Azerbaijan & Switzerland at User:Reisio/Sandbox. ¦ Reisio 04:52, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Looks good to me. Thanks for the work! I, for one, appreciate your quick work on this problem.--naryathegreat | (talk) 04:55, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Looks great, Reisio. I went ahead and plugged it in, works well with every country I've looked at! Uris 13:34, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Semi-protected
Latest comment: 18 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
I just semi-protected this template because it is under a vandalism attack by a user (or more) who likes to add penis images to the template. Because this is a high visibility template, I thought it better not to add {{semiprotected}}, but feel free to add it if you think it's a good idea. — mark✎ 21:12, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
The penile vandal(s) has been hyperactive since yesterday - at least on the pages that are on my watchlist. It's a very tasteless practical joke. //Big Adamsky 21:27, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
I've placed a note on WP:AN/I, too, because I've blocked the IP for one week when I learned that it's a returning vandal. — mark✎ 21:31, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Two naming polls!
Latest comment: 18 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hello! For our collective efforts, there are a couple of polls currently underway regarding the rendition of two country-related topics:
Poll: Ireland article titles A poll to determine the rendition of the island, nation-state, and disambiguation articles/titles for "Ireland" in Wp. The vote will continue until 28 February 2006 but might be extended beyond that if necessary.
Other details for each appear on their respective talk pages. The results of these polls might have implications on conventions for other country articles in Wp. Please weigh in! E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 18:09, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Neither of these is relevant to this template. --cj | talk 06:26, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm not so sure about that: they underlie the possible importance of standards regarding usage of short- and long-form names (or, as per the template, common and native names) for country articles – templates and otherwise – in Wp. Anyhow, FYI. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 08:26, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
United States
Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Please try to alter the template so that all links will be right. It is set up so that the link in the United States article will link to the name Flag of United States. Anyone know how to fix this?? Georgia guy 01:48, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
It's fixed. I simply changed the common_name tag to the United States instead of United States.--naryathegreat | (talk) 01:58, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Multiples of events
Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
The Baltic states consider themselves continuous with their post-WWI selves. As such, they require their original date of independence as well as their date of re-establishing independence. The template only appears to aggregate one occurrence and using line breaks or horizontal rules is a poor (and visually unpredictable) substitute. Any suggestions? Pēters 04:37, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Include both if you must, but it's a little silly. WWII happened and there are breaks in the independence of some countries. What about all of the former Soviet states? Should their periods of independence shortly after WWI be included too?--naryathegreat | (talk) 23:28, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Changed "Coats of Arms"
Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I changed the phrase "Coat of Arms of" to "National Emblem of," since it seems like many countries do not use a Coat of Arms as an emblem. (The US has, in its infobox, an image of the Great Seal, which has an image of the US Coat of Arms on it.) However, I don't really understand all of the template stuff, and it could be that this is a bad change to make overall. But really, countries not using actual coats of arms shouldn't have an emblem labled as such. I'm not sure how to set it up so that the template could be flexible enough to let some countries have coats of arms listed and some which have national emblems listed, with all the names and links changing appropriately.
Anyhow, I hope someone can clean up a bit after me. And I hope my point makes sense to folks.Vijay 08:02, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
In the future, please ask about this first and bring it up on the talk page of the countries Wikiproject. Just because you changed the link doesn't mean you moved all of the coat of arms pages. --Golbez 19:52, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
In the future, I suggest just marking these for speedy deletion per WP:SNOW. To my knowledge, every single-country infobox has been deleted once the article has been updated to use the main template. -- Netoholic@ 17:22, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, not quite. {{Infobox Australia}} proved to be resilient, because there are so many Australian editors who are in love with having their own little infobox. ;) But we'll get it some time later, let's do all the others first. —Nightstallion(?) 19:53, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
I am just following TfD protocal. I tend to agree with a speedy deletion but at the same time people should be given a say. Night is correct in the fact that the only reason {{Infobox Australia}} keeps surviving is because of national pride (or whatever) and in six months someone else will again nominate it for deletion again. By that time most articles will have been switched over to this template. I am in the Gs rightnow and the only infobox that I've had trouble with is the France infobox. MJCdetroit 20:25, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
What's the problem with France? Anyway, I suggest we continue with the way we're currently doing it: Nominating them one at a time. MJCdetroit is doing commendable work at this, and I think it should be done in about a month or so; we can have another look at the remaining problem cases then. —Nightstallion(?) 20:44, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
In my proposed infobox for France, Template:Country_infobox_data_France (from the table above), I am having a problem with the superscripts showing up in the long and lat coordinates. It could use some help. MJCdetroit 00:40, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
I think I fixed it. I replaced the France infobox but did not TfD yet. MJCdetroit 16:07, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Don't be so dismissive. It is nominators who have failed to heed the arguments that have stayed the {{Infobox Australia}}. It hasn't anything to do with nationalism or whatever other tripe has been expressed here.--cj | talk 04:19, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Latest comment: 18 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
You do realize that additions cannot be justified by WP:MOSNUM. --tasc 13:02, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Dude, I am asking you nicely to stop reverting my work. Please do not remove any conversions that may be in my edits. It is counter-productive. The rule is in the WP:MOSNUM because at somepoint conversions were added and should not be removed. This pratice goes both ways. I know that User:Bobblewik received flack for adding metric conversion to articles such as M1911, but in the end he was right and his work is still in the article. Thank you. MJCdetroit 16:16, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Hey, i'm not dude for you. Please, don't add anymore conversions where they don't fit. They don't fit to the country infobox. The practice doesn't go both ways. Manual reads clearly don't delete. Not do add. Got it? --tasc 16:37, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
There's no reason for areami2 to have the 2, and for it to be superscripted. I propose we change 'areami2' to 'areami', and MAYBE 'area' to 'areakm', though I can see why that could be overkill. and population_densitymi2 to population_densitymi.
I would also suggest we not slap that comment in there, it is patronizing and annoying. I don't like to be told what I can and cannot do on Wikipedia, I like it to simply be done with a clean template that doesn't require special characters. Thoughts? I don't see why there would be any complaint about this, so I might do it myself and update all the templates accordingly. But I always like to wait to hear comments. --Golbez 15:17, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
I believe that this would involved a lot more work than what it is worth. You would have to either manually change every article or create some type of a bot. I don't think 'areami' should be used, if anything 'areasqmi'. It doesn't seem worth it to me just to get rid of a superscripted 2. As for the comment, I have learned that it is absolutely necessary. People like to delete things without concern for others. I'll take that comment out when we remove the Hidden Structure tags. I'd leave it alone for now. Those are my thoughts.—MJCdetroit 16:45, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
More votes are needed on some of the last single use infoboxs. Starting with Montserrat infobox. Please visit the links above or WP:TfD and give your opinion to keep or delete. Thanks.—MJCdetroit 14:50, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Suggestion about country portals
Latest comment: 18 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
I'd like to suggest to unclude the wikipedia country portal into the country infobox. Please take a look at, e.g., Republic of Moldova. The top of the article looks kind of ugly now. `'mikka(t) 22:22, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
What do you mean by 'unclude'? Do you want it to be within the template?—MJCdetroit 01:36, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
The {{portalpar}} and {{portal}} link boxes to country portals should be situated at article ends, not at the beginning as in the abovelinked article. I'm open to the idea of using the infobox to link to a country's associated portal.--cj | talk 04:18, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I've decided to Be bold and have introduced a new variable: symbol_type to the table. The values that it can take are "Coat of arms" or "Emblem". A lot of countries do not have a COA and hence I felt the need to update such an inconsistency. I'll be updating as many infoboxes as I can. Regards, =Nichalp«Talk»= 07:47, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Please consider to stop the TfD drive to country infoboxes. Their edit history and (for some of them) talk pages contain precious information regarding how the infoboxes came into what they're presently like. They may be useless, yet their edit history must be preserved and open to public access. — Instantnood 17:42, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Coordinates appearing outside of the infobox
Latest comment: 17 years ago8 comments5 people in discussion
I think it is not a good idea to have the point coordinates of a single location within a country, i.e. the capital, appear at the TOP of an article, outside of the infobox. Look at India for an example, where the coordinates appear even before "India is a country ..." That's misleading, not to mention unappealing in appearance. Since I notice that this has been reverted at least once in the recent article history, I'm mentioning it here first. Thanks, Antandrus (talk) 16:48, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I don't see the point for having the coordinates for a single city in the country article. If you want to know where it is, you can go to the city article. --Golbez 20:35, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Antandrus also. It does appear to be misleading at times. Having the same information separated by only a short distance does seem to be redundant. Also, not all infoboxs have the coordinates filled in (see Guernsey). Therefore, it looks even worse with the coordinates outside of the article being blank.—MJCdetroit 12:44, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
We shouldn't have any coordinates, in or outside the box. We have a map for every country. I strongly suggest this be removed quickly, it will only confuse. --Golbez 13:46, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
I narrowed the coordinates down to only one set. I think that having the one set outside of the box may have been one reason why Hong Kong abandoned the Infobox Country template for a different one. It is still being debated in Hong Kong's talk page. MJCdetroit 16:56, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
User:SchmuckyTheCat unilaterally abandoned it because he claims the template, as well as the Country WikiProject, applies only to independent sovereign states. — Instantnood 20:26, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
I said no such thing! I abandoned it because this template has non-optional parameters that were inapplicable to Hong Kong, which caused severe edit wars. SchmuckyTheCat 22:29, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Hell, YES. It's certainly got my approval. Looks far better than the current one, and saves space, too. —Nightstallion(?) 16:14, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
I guess Night likes it! Looks good to me. I like how the box is a fixed size. However, I think someone is bound to complain about the text size. Even more so because some of the infoboxes have
<small> text </small>
to make them not ridiculously wide. They would probably need to be changed soon after any change in style. Those are my thoughts. —MJCdetroit 02:20, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
OK, I'll be bold and will change to the new style. Nobody has complained so far, so let's hope this is for the better! ☆ CieloEstrellado 04:38, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Nobody has complained so far, true, but has there really been that much discussion? I was shocked when I noticed this change, because typically changes that affect this many high-traffic articles get a lot of discussion first. – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 05:23, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
It's true there hasn't been a lot of discussion (and there was a prudent waiting period of three days for anybody to raise any complains). For situations such as this, a good way to get some feedback going is if we boldly apply the changes. Then people will flock to complain or be delighted (hopefully). ☆ CieloEstrellado 06:23, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
One thing I noticed is that some references in the infobox become unreadable, for instance in Bosnia and Herzegovina... Simply a matter of changing the textsize parameters? —Nightstallion(?) 07:54, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
The Bosnia and Heregovina infobox was messed up because of the < small > < /small>. So I fixed it. I think there will be many more like this.—MJCdetroit 12:10, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure it's appropriate to use a style inconsistent with the rest of Wikipedia. I refer in particular to the use of unique font-type and the abandonment of the standard infobox class. Indeed, perhaps this style should be attempted at the top level, rather then here alone.--cj | talk 09:21, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Even though I don't dislike the new infobox, and was in fact pleasantly struck by it immediately as I first saw it, I think, after seeing it on more pages and glancing at it for a while, that it is less readable and usable than the previous version. The text is smaller, and the lack of borders between the different cells of the table make it seem less structured, and hence information may be harder to find. Ronline✉ 11:13, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
The {native name} text comes out way too big for me probably and anyone else who uses a minimum font size of 14 or higher. This of course causes boxes to take up more than 50% of the article, and in some cases, may squeeze the actual article text to an unacceptable column width. Keep in mind that size choices are best deferred to the enduser as they are so relative. Is there a reason why the size needs to be so high? -Ste|vertigo 20:00, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Ron. It also seems to be too big for some pages. Some pages had images on the left of the page facing the template. The template now reduces the text to a narrow thread between them. I am all in favour of radical design. However I don't think this template works well. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 22:07, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Although there are elements of the new design that I enjoy, the reduction in the size of the text is not a good move in my view. As a result of the change, the text has become less readable and causes problems for pages where the <small> tag is used. TSO1D 02:46, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
I gather that one of the main criticisms is font size. I'm going to try to change everything from em to % to make the text's size relative to the user. I also noticed one user replaced the bullets with dashes. I believe the dashes look better with the new design. What does everyone think? Should we use bullets or dashes? ☆ CieloEstrellado 03:01, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
It was me who added the dashes. I think they look much better, the bullets are too obtrusive. Páll(Die pienk olifant) 20:38, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Regarding the complain about forcing a font type in the table, I'm of the opinion that table text needs to be different than article text, so that the user can better distinguish between the two. This means using a specific font size and type in the table. Now, it is an entirely different matter whether lucida grande is the best option, of course. I believe it is a very good one :) ☆ CieloEstrellado 03:25, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Could someone with a bit o' time go in and make some of the variables optional (using the pipe trick)? Articles like Sudan are getting broken (horizontal scrollbar) because this template seems to be specifying a maximum width. – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 04:50, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Sudan was broken because someone had vandalized the article and added text that broke a template parameter. (I've fixed it). The template's max. width actually prevented the table from taking over the whole page. But I agree that all parameters should be made optional. ☆ CieloEstrellado 07:24, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Let me just add that I think the advantages of the new template far outweigh its disadvantages, and that I'm certain we'll be able to work out all remaining problems. =] —Nightstallion(?) 10:54, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
The map look horrible at lower resolutions. See India. =Nichalp«Talk»= 14:59, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't understand what is horrible. The map of the world showing India in the infobox? It looks fine to me. ☆ CieloEstrellado 23:21, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
The map, the emblem, and the word "medium" sticks out. =Nichalp«Talk»= 11:44, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Bullets or dashes?
Latest comment: 17 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion
PZFUN has reverted the template for the second time arguing the bullets make the template look "ugly." I believe this may be related to the user's experience with his/her browser or operating system. In my case (Safari/OS X) the bullets look much better than the dashes. And, let's not forget, there are a lot of articles already using bullets, which leaves a lot of the article boxes looking inconsistent.
Why don't we settle this for good? Are you in favor of using bullets or dashes? I vote "bullets." ☆ CieloEstrellado 03:04, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, I actually made the first country infobox to be used on Wikipedia :) They have always had dashes, and if bullets were added, they were taken out later. I use the same browser as you, and the bullets are large and obtrusive. The goal of the infobox is to present information gracefully without overpowering the main article. I find having large black dots to do just that. Dashes. Páll(Die pienk olifant) 04:29, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Heh. This is not really a poll. I'm just trying to get opinions from different users. ☆ CieloEstrellado 05:48, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
The dashes look good, and they're subtle. Bullets are a little big and bulky. Plus, dashes have been working good, if its not broke, why fix it? Steve-o 04:33, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Latest comment: 17 years ago9 comments2 people in discussion
Not all countries use daylight savings time. What's the best way to indicate this when using this template? I tried deleting the two DST-related lines in the markup on the relevant page (Kyrgyzstan), but that produces junk output due to the way the template gets called. I also tried putting "No daylight savings time" in the "time_zone_DST" tag and "n/a" in the "utc_offset_DST," however the latter also produces a strange output. Finally I tried simply not entering in any data for those two tags, but that renders the output ambiguous. Any suggestions? -- Hux 20:19, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree. There's no reason that can't be an optional field—MJCdetroit 18:16, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
I fixed it so that if there is a value entered into the {{{utc_offset_DST}}} field than the DST info will show up. If there is no value entered than "- summer DST and (UTC__)" will remain hidden. It seems to work on the few articles I tried it on.—MJCdetroit 18:53, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Looks good. I have an idea for an improvement though: I think it would be better if the "time_zone_DST" field was always visible, while only the "utc_offset_DST" was optional. My reasoning is that it is useful to be able to specifically note that a particular country has no daylight savings time. With the current change this can't be done so it's a little ambiguous. What do you think? -- Hux 07:31, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
I added it back in but I am unsure on if I like how it looks or not (see Kyrgyzstan). If others do not like it they can revert it.—MJCdetroit 12:11, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
I tried to edit the Kyrgyzstan page but nothing I type in for "time_zone_DST" shows up on the page. Am I doing something wrong? -- Hux 06:16, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
"time_zone_DST" will only show up if there is a value entered into "utc_offset_DST".—MJCdetroit 11:47, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
I tweaked the time zone part of the infobox to include a note field. I tested it in a sandbox and it seemed to work well. The field is "DST_note =". It is an optional field but should only be used when there is not a value in the "utc_offset_DST" field. If something doesn't seem right, then feel free to revert. —MJCdetroit 16:54, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Looks perfect now, imo. (Thanks for the reminder, btw - I'd forgotten to put this on my watchlist!) -- Hux 19:27, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Overriding font-family
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Please note that I have proposed a policy that the font family should only be overridden in stylesheets at the MOS. If such a policy were adopted, it would affect the current version of this template. --Yath 18:18, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
More unused infoboxes to delete
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Can you please take the time to vote to delete or keep the most recent single country templates. There were standardized months ago to Infobox Country and were never deleted. Also vote to delete Template:Trinidad and Tobago infobox while your there. Thanks.—MJCdetroit 04:30, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Ronline ✉ 11:13, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
\(caint) 22:07, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
