Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries

Project Countries main pageTalkParticipantsTemplatesArticlesPicturesTo doArticle assessmentCountries portal

Category:Flag template shorthands has an RFC

Category:Flag template shorthands has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you.

Australia

Just looking for some generic input at Talk:Australia#Reverting without explanation. Is a hard article to update. Moxy🍁 00:49, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Armenia, Georgia, Azerbaijan and continents

A perennial topic at Talk:Armenia and Talk:Georgia (country) (though apparently not so much at Talk:Azerbaijan, though Azerbaijan gets mentions in discussions at the first two) is the matter of how the leads of the respective articles should identify their locations—Eastern Europe, West Asia, both, or leave it at "the Caucasus". It is always pointed out that different sources put the boundary between Europe and Asia in different places. There are those who describe them as "culturally European", with the consequence that "in Europe" is correct, while others want what we say in the lead to be a purely geographical designation. And there are those who will point to inconsistencies between the way this is handled for Armenia and the way this is handled for Georgia (and, to a lesser extent, Azerbaijan), which could confuse readers.

This applies to the short descriptions as well.

Is there any interest in establishing uniform guidance regarding their respective assignment by Wikipedia to one continent or the other or both, synthesizing the relevant sources together as necessary, for all three countries in the interest of clarity and consistency? Largoplazo (talk) 12:00, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia used to "assign" them to Asia along the UN geoscheme lines, but by used to I mean decades ago. Since then the more flexible current consensus developed. There is no guidance that can be developed to stop this issue, as it is an issue stemming from real life, and is mostly lead-fixation. We generally should replace "culturally European" (vague) with something more to do with self-identity, as that better reflects why the issue exists, and partially why it is less prevalent for the Azerbaijan article. CMD (talk) 13:01, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes, we should get rid of "culturally European", a subjective buzzphrase with at least a whiff of cultural superiority behind it that has no place in Wikipedia voice. It's rather meaningless. I know (before anyone yells at me) that Armenian culture isn't Turkish culture, but is it closer to Norwegian or even Bulgarian culture than it is to Turkish culture? How close are Romanian and Norwegian culture to each other, that one can define a "European culture" that Armenian culture belongs to? Also, if it's culturally European, then isn't Australia too?

Anyway, I'm specifically talking about the lead. Regardless of the terminology chosen to convey it, the lead isn't the place for "And, in case you were thinking Armenians are like Asians, they would very much like you to know they'd prefer to be considered European." At least with regard to any mention of either Europe or Asia in the lead, let's stick to geography as we do with pretty much every country outside the Caucasus. Largoplazo (talk) 16:21, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Addendum I meant to add that I wonder whether this is worth holding an RFC over so that future debate on the respective talk pages can be forestalled by pointing to its outcome. Largoplazo (talk) 16:34, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Including Warming Stripes bar graphs in country articles in sections which relate to temperature and/or climate

Hi all

I wanted to see if we could come to some kind of consensus about adding Warming Stripes bar graphs to country articles in sections which talk about temperature and/or climate change (not the pure stripes, the bar graphs as shown below). There was previously a discussion here but there didn't seem to be a consensus, only different opinions. I've Pinged the users who took part in the previous conversation in the table below. I want to restart this disucssion because I recently added to a few articles which Moxy reverted pointing to the previous conversation, but there doesn't appear to be a consensus.

About the graphics

The graphics are called Warming Stripes, there are two main versions, shown below, I want to suggest we use the version on the left, a bar chart and axes and labels. They are created by Professor Ed Hawkins at Reading University. More of an explatation is available here and on the Show Your Stripes website, there's a lot of other press about them as well by the BBC and others. The graphs are visual representations of the change in temperature as measured in each country, region or city over the past 100+ years. The data sources are Berkeley Earth & ERA5-Land, NOAA, UK Met Office, MeteoSwiss, DWD, SMHI, UoR & ZAMG. They have their own Wikipedia article here Warming stripes.

• 
  Temperature change in Afghanistan, each bar represents the average temperature over that year
  This is the format I suggest is most suitable for Wikipedia country articles
• 
  Temperature change in Afghanistan, each bar represents the average temperature over that year

I've recently uploaded all versions of the graph for all countries and regions on Commons here.

Summary of previous discussion

Previous discussion

Note: I've tried to organise this summary into a structure that shows who supports which points, since some points were repeated by different people at different times in the discussion. Please excuse me if I have missunderstood or missed details in the summary. I've included a column for how this relates to existing rules, please feel free to add links there. There was also some technical discussion about the best way to display changes in temperature which I won't try to summarise because I don't understand it properly.

Reservations and requirements

No	Discussion point	Supporters	How this relates to Manual of Style etc
1	They need a scale Note: This is something which have both been addressed in these newest versions of the graph.	Moxy, Canterbury Tail, LaundryPizza03, EMsmile
2	There needed to be better descriptions of what the graphs represent. Note: This is something which has been addressed in these newest versions of the graph, could it be improved further?	Chipmunkdavis
3	They should be included when warming is talked about in the text Note: This	Canterbury Tail, Renerpho
4	They didn't represent the climate over a long enough time period.	JeffUK
5	No graphic to show an increase in temperature is 'required'	JeffUK

Quality of the graphics

No	Discussion point	Supporters	How this relates to Manual of Style etc
1	They were good overview over the temperature and a good complement to be used in the "geography/climate" sections of our country articles.	DiagramLover, EMsmile, RCraig09
2	They should be included in both country article and climate change by country articles	DiagramLover, EMsmile, RCraig09

Current discussion

One question, should we have a discussion below and update the tables above to try to maintain an easy to understand summary for people who want to take part?

Thanks for your time :)

John Cummings (talk) 16:50, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

For me this is simply a no go as per WP:COUNTRYCHARTS. For one its a scale of a change of 2 degrees (not mentioned in most articles) and for large countries its simply disiving ...for example Canadas Arctic region has been warming at three times the global average, thus these charts dont covay accurate info for a huge country with many regions. This type of info needs a good explanation in its parent article on climate to explain why and how 2 degres is relevent to make the chart informative. Also most articles currently have the "Köppen climate classification" (also added on mass longago) that would need to be removed to make room for climate chart because articles generaly only have 2-4 paragraphs (the normal size for a summary section) lacking room for more images. In my view the Köppen climate classification is clearly more educational. So basicly this is a talk about replacing the "Köppen climate maps". Side note not sure what the second chart is showing. Moxy🍁 17:07, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi Moxy, I'll let others discuss the utility of each chart type in different contexts and if one is more suitable than the other or if they are both useful for different things, perhaps DiagramLover has thoughts? For ease of this discussion, Köppen climate classification describes the kind of graphic you are talking about.

A few questions:

1. I'm struggling to find any Wikipedia policy that relates to rules around graphs and charts in articles, are you aware of any? I'm struggling to understand what prohibits having both if they both show different things.
2. Do you know how WP:COUNTRYCHARTS was written? Is there a community consensus to create it or was it written by someone, as you say, 'long ago'. My understanding is that guides on Wikiprojects are not policy, but maybe its just a policy contextualised for the context of country articles?

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 19:17, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Complicated statistical charts of this nature that need explanation fall under our policy of WP:NOTSTATS. These type of charts need a paragraph or two to explain their relevance and how these minimal numbers mean anything.... that in my view is best handled on the main topic of climate for each country or perhaps geography articles. You are correct that Wikiprojects are not policy.... however they are generally written based on existing policies/guidelines and general recognized style over a certain topic of articles. In this case our protocols are linked throughout our guideline to show where our thoughts on style and presentation come from. Moxy🍁 19:30, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi Moxy thank you for the explanation, I guess I'm confused why you think that these graphs specifically need a paragraph or two to explain enough. The team who put them together at Reading University use this description which seems addiquate to me.

"These ‘warming stripe’ graphics are visual representations of the change in temperature as measured in each country, region or city over the past 100+ years. Each stripe or bar represents the temperature in that country, region or city averaged over a year. For virtually every country, region or city, the stripes turn from mainly blue to mainly red in more recent years, illustrating the rise in average temperatures in that location."

https://showyourstripes.info/faq

Which could be adapted to a graph to be much shorter when we define the place:

"The change in temperature Afghanistan over the past 100 years, each bar represents the temperature over a year and shows the rising average temperature over time."

What do you think is missing from it?

Thanks again

John Cummings (talk) 12:35, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi Moxy I've realised I've been unclear in my description of what I was suggesting, I am suggesting we add the barchart graphics to articles, not the stripes, which is confusing because they're both refered to as 'stripes' by the author. I hope that clears up any confusion :) Thanks, John Cummings (talk) 12:09, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

I think detailed charts of this type are better suited to subarticles, per WP:DETAIL. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:44, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi Nikkimaria, just to clarify, are you refering to the warming stripes or the Köppen climate maps? John Cummings (talk) 11:47, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Both. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:57, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

@John Cummings: you can see the addition of the section WP:COUNTYCHARTS here. About the inclusion of the charts, I am concerned about interpretation. Certainly the barcode with no axes/scale is not useful. The bar chart with a scale still needs extensive explanation. From a glance, it looks like most locations went from desirable to inhospitable (blue to deep red). I suppose they show the trend of global warming using local data, but I need to really dig to understand it - especially the colour implications. The critical response section in the charts' article mentions they present an "outstanding science communication opportunity" - meaning they are confusing, which is not what we are aiming for. Commander Keane (talk) 14:01, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi Commander Keane, thank you for your thoughts and showing the addition Moxy made to add the guidance on charts, although none of the examples there seem to apply. I totally agree the charts without labels are less useful for Wikipedia and not suitable for country articles. A couple of questions:

1. When you say "the bar chart with a scale still needs extensive explanation", above in this discussion I have created an example descritpion based on the information Professor Hawkins provides on the website. "The change in temperature Afghanistan over the past 100 years, each bar represents the temperature over a year and shows the rising average temperature over time." Do you think this is sufficient to give people an understanding of what the graph shows? If not, what else do you think is needed?
2. I'm a bit confused by the second part, I looked at the source of the quote you've used and the professor who is writing it (weirdly the website seems to crash on Firefox, but Chrome works). The full sentence is "I think geographic variations in the graphics offer an outstanding science communication opportunity", which I am pretty sure is supportive of the graphics. The article describes two criticisms of the graphics which the author doesn't agree with:
   1. That there are no axis (something that is resolved in the versions with axis above) "They contain very little context, legends, or axes"
   2. They clearly show local variations which could be used by climate deniers to dismiss climate change by cherry picking examples of areas where the temperature may have experienced less warming "it may unintentionally support the narrative of climate contrarians". But then goes on to say "I see it completely differently. I think geographic variations in the graphics offer an outstanding science communication opportunity". I don't think whis would be difficult or lengthy to make clear in the graph description if that was something people thought was needed.

Also just to point out for others in this conversation the Critical respose section in Warming stripes isn't the same as the common 'criticism' section in many articles, its more like a 'reviews' section in a article about a artwork or movie for example.

Thanks again

John Cummings (talk) 15:06, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

John Cummings: thanks for clarifying. My concern about extensive explanation surrounds understanding why the charts are relative to a recent average, why the vertical scales differ by location and how the charts can be used to compare countries. If the caption is identical for every country, what knowledge are we imparting? I get the feeling they are intended to reinforce the concept of global warming and perhaps because I am not a climate contrarian I don't need them, my personal point of view obviously. I did misinterpret the science communication quote, reading that article it is about convincing climate deniers. Is that a task for Wikipedia country articles? Maybe. I am not totally opposed, just airing some concerns. Commander Keane (talk) 16:18, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi Commander Keane, again thanks for your thoughtful reply, I think that Wikipedia article could be made a lot clearer :) I have the email for Prof Hawkins and can ask your questions to him directly. Do you know which policies govern how much background information is required in image descriptions? I guess what I'm finding difficult to understand is what information is required to be in the image description and what information can be provided by linking to the main topics. Why I think they're important is not because they are showing that climate change is happening, but it shows the rate and scale of climate change that country is experiencing. To expand on what you've said:

1. why the charts are relative to a recent average: How would you describe this? I think a sentence explaining that the last 100 years is when the majority of carbon emissions have been produced would make sense, but I think this is important to get right, I'll think about it more and also ask the creators.
2. why the vertical scales differ by location: I'm not sure this is relevant for country articles because it would be only one graph per article, but I think it would be useful to explain in other articles which would use multiple graphs and also it could be added to the image descriptions on Commons. I don't see a ready explanation on the website, so I can ask this question to the creators directly.
3. how the charts can be used to compare countries: Again, I don't know if this would fit in country articles, but I'm sure would be useful in other places. Again I can ask this directly.

Thanks again

John Cummings (talk) 10:45, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

I think your mention of colour implications raises another issue - these rely on colour alone to convey information. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:27, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps worth noting the warming stripes are not meant to be a detailed and informative illustrations. They're based on data, but they're pieces of art, with the goal of conveying an overall qualitative message. CMD (talk) 05:11, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi Chipmunkdavis thanks for your reply, I'm sorry, I don't understand, what source says they are "not meant to be a detailed and informative illustrations" and have the "goal of conveying an overall qualitative message"? John Cummings (talk) 09:52, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Both seem basic attributes of the warming stripe images, but if you want a source, Hawkins stated they were "removing all the distractions of standard climate graphics so that the long-term trends and variations in temperature are crystal clear"[1], which the article's authors also translate as "Hawkins’ goal: to strip out all outside information and distractions and use color alone to immediately convey meaning". CMD (talk) 10:01, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi Chipmunkdavis thank you for the reply again, I understand what you mean now. So in this source he is referring to the original version of the stripes which did completely rely on colour information. To be clear I'm not suggesting we should add those graphics, I'm suggesting we should add the bar chart graphics with the axes, I'm sorry for not being clearer before. I'll ammend the info above to make this clearer.

• 
  What he was refering to in the source
• 
  what I'm suggesting could be added to country articles

Thanks again

John Cummings (talk) 10:08, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I wouldn't refer to that second type of image as a "Warming Stripes graphic" as in the header here, as I think that term is closely associated with the barcode-style images (at least in the minds of environmental scientists). CMD (talk) 10:20, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes, thanks, I've tried to clarify this in the text now, if you think its not clear please let me know and I'll do some more work on it. John Cummings (talk) 12:02, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi Nikkimaria I'm sorry, I don't understand, what information is being conveyed through colour alone? The bar heights show the change in temperature. John Cummings (talk) 09:55, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Referring to the barcode and map images. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:41, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

The Core Contest

In two days, WP:The Core Contest is starting, which might be of interest here :). Plenty of C-class country articles that would benefit from TLC. Sign-ups are open, and remain open during the 6-week contest. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 14:29, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Gabon

Reporting an update 93.67.125.128 (talk) 12:30, 16 April 2025 (UTC)