Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries/Archive 6

For current issues regarding the WikiProject Countries, please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries.

Naming conventions

"History of X" vs "Xish History"

This project has a consistent standard for country-specific article names (History of_, Culture of_, etc.). Should it be expanded into a Wikipedia-wide guideline? See the discussion and proposal at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (country-specific topics). - Pioneer-12

Country Footers

I have copied this discussion (without amendment) from my talk page. I'll add a few comments at the end.

You might find the following earlier discussion I had with SimonP interesting:

User_talk:SimonP#Commonwealth

Though, let's not call what he's doing vandalism. It is ill-advised and most probably against WikiRules, but it would be easier to handle him, if we kept it low-key. It's good to have someone helping in the discussion, though. Thanks.

Also, you uploaded the photo of Shagari? Please accept WikiThanks for that, too. I recently started Wikipedia:Africa-related regional notice board for reasons similar to what you say about smaller countries on your user page. It would be great to work with you on these issues.—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 02:38, Dec 16, 2004 (UTC)

I'm just following the consensus that has existed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries since May of this year. If you disagree with this conclusion you should bring the issue up there, not go around reverting people. - SimonP 04:31, Dec 16, 2004 (UTC)

I am sorry, SimonP, I don't see a decision on that page—just a lot of different views. Yes, there are most probably more people saying "remove them" or "reduce them" than not. But the consensus I seem to see there is to not have too many of them on the same page. And for most of the Commonwealth countries you edited, it was one of two such boxes. Is that too many?—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 04:58, Dec 16, 2004 (UTC)

PS: You kept referring to the Talk page and I kept trying to tease out a consensus there. But I finally I just (re-)read the actual recommendations page for "WikiProject Countries": Wikipedia:WikiProject_Countries#Footers again. Though that page is not put forward as binding in any case, even that says:

Footers

Country pages generally have footers that link to pages for countries in their region. Footers for international organizations that are central to that countries character, such as the EU, may also be placed on country pages. It is generally discouraged to place templates for other international organizations in country articles. These can, however, go on country subpages such as "foreign relations of..." or "economy of..." A list of the footers that have been defined can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries/Templates/Navboxes.

And you are definitely the wrong person to make the call about whether the Commonwealth is "central to that countries character" for a lot of the countries you removed it from. And please don't take that as a person comment, much less attack. I am just expressing an opinion on your familiarity of the topic. You have yourself said that you "think Commonwealth membership is a pretty trivial factoid" and that "For me being a Commonwealth country is not a defining characteristic of Canada, Sri Lanka, or Niger." Both of which a lot of citizens of such countries—including this one—disagree with.—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 05:09, Dec 16, 2004 (UTC)

PPS And notice that the Policy/recommendation above repeatedly says "footers"; "Country pages generally have footers", meaning that more than one can be expected. You removed all but one in most cases.—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 05:13, Dec 16, 2004 (UTC)

The prevailing view at wikiproject countries is that the commonwealth footer is not among those deemed notable enough for inclusion. There was debate over what specifically is notable (e.g. whether nato should be included), but people are not bringing up the case that the commonwealth is notable. We can have more than one footer, but this usually means geographical and EU (or like organizations), not Non-aligned Movement, OECD, APEC, etc. The user who added all these commonwealth footers was a clueless newbie whom I've never dealt with who took absolutely no part on the wikiproject countries discussion. In the abcense of consensus to make a change, it should not be made. This means the commonwealth footer should not be added. In my opinion it is a marginal organization existing for purely symbolic reasons and is not up to the level of the EU for us to consider the relationship among member countries to be close to warrant cross-linking. If you have a different opinion, then please express it at the wikiproject countries talk page. --Jiang

You make some good points. I think we should discuss this in one place, preferably Wikipedia talk:WikiProject_Countries so the discussion can be more easily followed. In deciding whether to insert a footer (as opposed to a text mention) we need to gauge how closely the individual elements of the footer are related (whether it's very integrated such as the EU or not really so such the NAM or APEC). Please continue this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject_Countries...--Jiang 11:20, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think that the Commonwealth designation is a pretty big deal, at least where I came from Trinidad and Tobago. In my experience it is important - some countries more than others, of course, but it certainly affects perceptions. It's more than an 'ex-colonial' thing - it's an important South-South forum (with a few first worlders, like the Canadians and the British). There's a lot of shared culture - cricket might not be as important in Kenya, but Kenyans still understand how we perceive it. Try explaining that to the Americans or Japanese. It's not a defining character, but it's an important one nonetheless. Guettarda 18:29, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for your apology. This issue seems to be a matter of perspective. In Canada the Commonwealth is regarded as far less important than NAFTA, NATO, and the G7 and equal with organizations such as La Francophonie and APEC. If the Commonwealth template is placed at the bottom of the Canada article these other organizations would also have to be so placed, and I don't think anyone thinks that much clutter is beneficial. My personal feeling is that because of problems like this we should just eliminate international organization footers entirely, despite the great importance of them to some nations. - SimonP 18:53, Dec 16, 2004 (UTC)

That's the point. Who decides what is "less important". For people in a lot of Africa—or, for that matter, Pakistan or India, which three cover about a third of humanity—NATO and NAFTA have no significance whatsoever;the G7 you might make a case for, but indirectly. The point here is that one of the principles of the Wikipedia is fight hard not to have the kind of systemic bias that other old-media encyclopedias had. I know that's what keeps me involved. Otherwise, I could just buy a copy of Britannica or one of the American ones. (And I think you are an advocate of it, too. You're listed at Wikipedia:Wikiproject Countering Systemic Bias Participants.

And frankly, I think the Francophonie argument you put forward is a strawman. The Commonwealth has both re-cast itself in a post-colonial world to the point it is much more a forum of equals, with Britain being just one voice in it and kept itself relevant by actually taking issues to the point where if you put both in Google news—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 20:59, Dec 16, 2004 (UTC)

A few additional comments:

1. I wasn't aware that some Commonwealth countries (e.g. Canada) place far less value on the Commonwealth than others. Why that is so, User:SimonP would be better-qualified to explain that I. I do know that New Zealand isn't alone, however, in taking it's Commonwealth membership very seriously. It was Fiji's suspension from the Commonwealth that shamed them into reinstating the 1997 Constitution: their lost membership of the Commonwealth meant so much to them that they were prepared to make unpalatable political decisions to regain it. Even so large a nation as Nigeria was sensitive to Commonwealth pressure: after Sani Abacha's death, the military rulers hastened their exit in large measure (though not entirely) due to Commonwealth pressure. The organization has been less successful with respect to Zimbabwe, but has worked together nonetheless.
2. As I pointed out, republicans (at least in New Zealand and Australia) are very careful to distinguish the commonwealth from the Monarchy. The monarchy may go, but not the Commonwealth. The majority of Commonwealth countries are now republics (following the lead of India, a republic since 1950); their decision to retain their commonwealth membership after severing their links to the monarchy indicates the importance they attach to the institution. At the very least, it gives nations with a (mostly) shared history and (mostly) similar political and judicial institutions a forum for discussion and cooperation.
3. The exchange of High Commissioners rather than Ambassadors is mostly a matter of semantics. Mostly, but not entirely. Ambassadors technically represent Heads of State. High Commissioners represent governments (a significant distinction in countries where the Head of State and Head of Government are separate positions). This is because some commonwealth countries share the same Head of State (Queen Elizabeth II), but even those that are republics (e.g., India, Fiji, Nigeria, etc.) have followed the practice. This affects protocol in the reception of High Commissioners at diplomatic functions.
4. New Zealand's most coveted diplomatic post is that of High Commissioner to London. This is despite the fact that our trading relationship with Asian countries is now much more significant than with the U.K. or in fact with any commonwealth country except Australia. That may be so, but many New Zealanders have a feeling of "belonging" in the Commonwealth, hence the prestige of the London H.C.'s office. David Cannon 22:45, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Importance of the organization needs to be taken into account, but that's not the only consideration. We need to look at how invdividual members of an organization relate to each other. After all, we're trying to justify cross linking here, as opposed to linking to another page (Commonwealth of Nations or category:commonwealth coutries). If it's just an important organization without cohesiveness, a mention somethere in the article and a categories tag will be all that is needed. I don't think the bonds among members is strong enough to justify this cross-linking.--Jiang 00:21, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'd say the importance of the organisation is in the cross linking specifically - it's precisely linkages, and not global importance that makes the Commonwealth valuable. It's shared history and community that make it something the people of the countries care about. After all, I'm writing this because I feel that the Commonwealth matters to me as a person, in a way that the OAS, the ACS and, to be honest, Caricom, do not. Even though I feel a strong linkage to other Caricom countries, I don't feel any bond to the organisation. It's the other way around with the Commonwealth. Guettarda 00:41, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I have looked to Google to try to get some rough idea of how important the Commonwealth is to various countries. I searched for several countries and looked at what percentage of the hits also mention the Commonwealth. This includes both Commonwealth and non-Commonwealth countries so that the noise can be filtered out. The exact numbers were generated from 100*(results for: COUNTRY commonwealth -"commonwealth of independent states" -Virginia -Massachusetts)/(results for:COUNTRY). These admittedly very rough numbers show that the importance of the Commonwealth is highly variable, and that it is not surprising that this debate has a person from Nigeria and one from New Zealand on one side and a person from Canada on the other.

Country	Nigeria	New Zealand	Ethiopia	Kenya	Mali	Fiji	Angola	Pakistan	Indonesia	Ireland	India	Brazil	Thailand	Canada	Japan
%	4.67	3.99	3.11	2.53	2.21	1.85	1.54	1.46	1.25	1.13	1.11	0.96	0.86	0.78	0.67

-SimonP 22:34, Dec 17, 2004 (UTC)

Tables for Military CIA data

I have made Template:Military and implemented it in all countries with a military beginning letters A,F,Z (i.e. Military of Armenia). For anyone interested, please help out. Try to find national colors for the table. I plan to do this for all other data from the factbook. This should eventually be somehow automated since the data is updated each year and adding them in is tedious. --Jiang 12:36, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I wonder if it'd be possible to convince RamMan to use RamBot for this purpose. It doesn't look as if it'd be impossible for it to keep these updated. Ambi 13:44, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I have modified the template so that it is not linked to US dollar. Rama 08:24, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Why the fascination with ages? I would like to also see HQ and Defence Minister fields. =Nichalp «Talk»= 14:07, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

Country-specific Infobox templates redux

from Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)

I noticed a recent trend to take the infoboxes out of country articles and place them in the Template namespace (see e.g. Japan, Germany, Italy). I condsider this a Bad Thing because:

• It makes editing of the infoboxes more difficult.
• It makes watching a country article less effective (I have to watch the infobox template as well)
• It is an abuse of the Template system, which was designed for cases when the same text should appear in multiple articles (not the case here).
• It serves no usefull purpose, as far as I can tell.

Can anyone clue me in as to why this is being done? Was this ever discussed anywhere? -- uriber 19:53, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

(and sorry for posting in the misc. section. I wasn't sure if this is a policy, a technical issue, a suggestion (to undo these changes), or something else). -- uriber 19:53, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Not sure why it's being done, but I second your annoyance. --fvw* 22:42, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)

Yes, this is very annoying for the reasons you give. The data should also be easy to edit from within the article itself. Having it on a separate page does not help that. --mav 00:07, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This was done without complaint on United States some time ago; however, I reckon that's because it was a common target for vandalism, and even without the infobox, United States is 39k. However, User:Jerryseinfeld has begun doing this on more pages (I think he said he'd do it on the top 20 economies?), and I have seen no explicit votes for consent yet, but a lot of questions and dissents. You might want to take it up with him. --Golbez 02:09, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)

Do you see that "[edit]" at the top right of this section? Do you understand what that is good for? Secondly, most of the country pages I saw have used this system for a good long while as far as I could see.--Jerryseinfeld 03:37, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I made one for New Zealand to cut back the size of the article, remove a huge chunk of confuses table syntax and because it was often been edited by anon editors to remove God Save The Queen as a national anthem. Evil Monkey → Talk 10:24, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)

I second the concerns about this split - IMHO the better way would be to use one template for the infobox, and have the variables set in the article itself. The problem with the countries is that there are many fields not applicable, thus the current template system is not flexible enough - e.g. some countries have a king, others a president, others have the head of state and head of government identical. We'd need something like optional parameters in templates (see Bug 364 or Extended template syntax), then all countries could use one template. andy 13:25, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

There was an effort to do that, for example template:Infobox_Countries_test, but it didn't work well. For the reasons you mention, and for the reason that when a change is made in the template, all articles that use it will get that red template link because a variable is not present.--Jerryseinfeld 21:22, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

So it seems like most people are against this. I did not see the "[edit]" link until JS pointed it out, and it seems like it's only there on some of the templates, and not always at the same place - so it's easily missed. User:Evil Monkey's comment confirms that the templates make editing more difficult. Doing so on purpose violates the spirit of Wikipedia (even if it happens to be a convinent way to baffle anonymous editors). I'll start re-merging the infoboxes into the articles on countries I come across. You're welcome to join. -- uriber 19:54, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Cue the edit war. I reckon this needs a lot more discussion before any decision is made either way. violet/riga (t) 21:05, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Good job uriber, godspeed.--Jerryseinfeld 21:23, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

My first reaction on the infobox at Finland was one of dislike. My second was one of relief. Not being much of a computer-nerd, I find the syntax of the box to be alienating and not at all inviting when located at the top of the article. If that is good or bad might be a matter of taste. :-) But it would be good if the issue was discussed at some appropriate place for some time before it was considered decided. /Tuomas 21:15, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I just want to add my opinion here. I agree with having the country tables in a separate page. This makes editing the country articles (as another user here pointed out) less alienating for newbies, and removes the clutter that these tables add to a separate page. Plus these tables can be easily edited by clicking the edit link at the bottom. —Cantus…☎ 01:41, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)

I moved the infobox in the Croatia article out back in June 2004, because I am pretty sure it scares a lot of users to see the table syntax. I haven't heard any good reasons against doing it. Let's look at Uribers argumentation.

• It makes editing of the infoboxes more difficult.

Editing infoboxes is difficult because of the syntax. If the Infobox is embedded inside a whole article or on a seperate page doesn't make that much of a difference. You have to work into the Table syntax to change infoboxes, no matter where they are. And the direkt edit link makes it as easy changeable as a section. Or did I miss your point - why do you consider it easier to edit infoboxes embedded in an article than ones on seperate pages?

• It makes watching a country article less effective (I have to watch the infobox template as well)

So what? Just do it then and watch the template as well. Or do you want to claim that breaking up long articles into shorter ones is a bad idea because of the same reason? Do you want one long article [History of the United States] instead of an article series?

• It is an abuse of the Template system, which was designed for cases when the same text should appear in multiple articles (not the case here).

The whole Wikipedia is an abuse of a technical facility that was developed in order to connect research institutes and have a decentralized information network that won't get destroyed if a small number of servers get attacked. Using systems in ways not meant to use when developed is usually a sign of advancement and creativity. Using "Related changes" with user subpages that list a number of pages in order to create more than one watchlist is also an abuse of the Related changes system, so what? I think it's a pretty nice idea.

• It serves no usefull purpose, as far as I can tell.

It is supposed to make editing easier, to scare less newcomers, especially on such well visitied articles as Country articles. It is supposed to lower the entrance barrier for new editors, especially from non technical fields, whom we should embrace strongly.

Instead of changing back and forth we should discuss this issue and come to a conclusion. Maybe I will convince some of the points for making templates out of frightening big tables, maybe you will convince me, why this is a bad thing, so let's see your counterarguments. (Shall we move this discussion somewhere? The Village Pump is a rather lively place for such a discussion) --denny vrandečić (hp) (talk) 13:42, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)

There is another possibility: The layout should be in the template. The data should be in the article, along the lines of Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#person_template. And it will be machine readable (easily parseable)!

That would be great, but can't see that working yet due to the template system being not flexible enough for country infoboxes. Otherwise this surely would be the way to go, as far as I can tell now. --denny vrandečić (hp) (talk) 00:47, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)

I'm seeing various almost-revert-wars going on with various countries (Sweden and Netherlands come to mind). To my mind, using a 'template' which will only be used the once is not the purpose of a template which should, surely, be something created for *multiple* use. Leave the data where it is appropriate and editable - on the country page. However ... one option could be to make a /infobox' subpage to the country article and place the infobox in there so that it can still be linked-in as a template but not kept away in the template space. Might solve the arguments? --Vamp:Willow 01:11, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think that using a template works well and removes most of the formatting from the article, making it harder for new or less experienced users to screw up the table. But at the same time these templates should be using parameters editable from the article to make updating data fast and simple. People shouldn't ever have to edit the templates themselves unless a new type of data or formatting changes are needed. All data which may change from year to year should be parameterized. —Mike 02:05, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)

• The "/infobox" idea is the best solution to this that I've seen. It seems that it should satisfy both sides in this argument. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 02:16, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

When the infobox at Iceland was first moved to the template I was not really sure what to think about that, it seemed to make editing and watching harder. Then I added the template to my watchlist as well as the article and it was not painful at all! This huge issue that had been causing me sleep deprivation for several days vanished. Now I like the template solution and in my mind it makes the ARTICLE easier to edit and that is the real issue here. The infobox contains only standard information that either does not change at all or requires only annual updates, it is far more important to make the article itself easier to edit and removing all this scary table code from the top is a way to do that. It is both less intimidating for newbies and it trims down the size of the article thus making it faster to load, save & preview. I don't know why the original purpose of the templates should matter now, they can also be used for this purpose and why shouldn't they? This needs to be resolved soon to put an end to this very childish edit war. --Biekko 13:21, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

If these are to be kept, we should keep them as Templates. Subpages in the article namespace are not activated, and don't work the same as subpages elsewhere, and are generally bad form. -- Netoholic @ 14:33, 2005 Jan 10 (UTC)

This is a complete misuse of the template system (which is for transcluding content across more than one article or page). The argument against using template variables is invalid since you also can have variables for table headings (such as headofstate=). This system is flexible enough so that all the scary wikitable syntax could be on a template page while all the data could be in the article itself (where it should be). Template:Infobox Countries test already has this. This should be applied to a dozen or so articles in order to work out any still-present bugs, and then applied to all other articles in this WikiProject. --mav 16:23, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I can live with that solution if it actually works (I am yet to see that) and does not introduce similarly complex code in the articles (in which case it would be better to just leave the table syntax there). I was however not aware of the supreme authority that decides what is and what isn't the proper use of Wikipedia's features such as templates, I can't say that I'm surprised though to find out that this is the case in the jungle of regulation and procedure that the English Wikipedia is becoming (a phenomenon much scarier for newcomers than the heaviest table syntax). --Biekko 17:45, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I don't like the sentence "This is a complete misuse of the template system", out of the reasons Biekko already listed. If there are reasons like "using the templates this way makes the Wikipedia much slower" - well, OK. But using technical features in a way not intended when developed is - I repeat myself - positive, not negative. By the way, the argument was brought already just a few lines earlier, repeating it shouldn't help advance it. If the system is flexible enough to create an easy syntax not scaring of newbies who want to edit country articles, I'm fine with that - but please, then, just do it. Afterwards, we still can discuss it with the new argument. I yet didn't see enough actual arguments. Everybody is invited to bring those forward. --denny vrandečić (hp) (talk) 22:49, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)

I don't like these either. In the best case, it should be a different page in the article namespace, and that should be included or even better linked. This is an abuse of templates which are meant to be reused in other pages. Dori | Talk 23:07, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Country

Template:Infobox Country seems to work just fine. --mav 06:17, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

yay, that's exactly what I meant! cheers, and let's use this one! dab (ᛏ) 10:28, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Not so fast. This is hardly an improvement. You still see a bunch of code. The format isn't exactly logic to edit. Tell a newbie to figure out how to edit the leaders entries, or the sovereignty entry.

you don't see a 'bunch of code' (who are you, and why would you say that, Cantus?). You see a bunch of parameters! All of them relevant to the article! while the layout 'code' is in the Template. Exactly what we want, people watching the article will see changes in information, people watching the template will see changes in layout. dab (ᛏ) 14:54, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

A bunch of parameters may seem as a bunch of code to someone not used to either. To many Wikipedians, it surely looks like a computer program, not as text. This can be a good thing, if we actually intend to scare people away from editing certain articles, but I seriously doubt it will scare more vandals away than good contributors. The "parameters" at the top are maybe even one step worse than the table itself, as it suggests that wikipedians should learn yet another format. /Tuomas 03:24, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Actually I also see it is as an improvement, and I just used it on Croatia, and it looks nice. It's still a lot of strange looking code, but much better than before. The point I miss is still: why not exporting complex syntaxes out of articles in order to hide them from beginning users? Advanced users will easily be able to edit them anyway, so it's not like hiding it intentionally in order to keep sections unchangeable. It's just for the convenience of users. And the other point: if we had overview articles of the states of a contintent (for example), that would reuse the tables - everything would be fine? --denny vrandečić (hp) (talk) 13:44, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)

If you are a newbie user, you'll just not touch the stuff you don't understand. Or experiment. But how is a list of PARAMETER=VALUE a complex syntax? dab (ᛏ) 14:54, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Oh, the PARAMETER=VALUE isn't the problem, it's the {{ | }} <br>, not getting footnotes, the strange notation for head of states and such, the strange notation for area and such, that represent the problem. I still think that could scare, but as said, it's much better then before. --denny vrandečić (hp) (talk) 15:26, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)

I've been working on this with the goal of preserving the format of the existing infobox tables. Unfortunately, the parameter syntax gets more and more complex as we add more flexibility into it. This template may not ever cleanly handle every single situation, so I encourage editors to be very open to the fact that some information may not make it into the template. I will be happy to help if anyone runs into trouble with placing this into their articles. -- Netoholic @ 15:27, 2005 Jan 11 (UTC)

these infoboxes are good for nothing if they are not standardized. No need to cram the whole article into it, they need to give information directly comparable with articles sharing the same sort of infobox. parameters that are not includable into the template should not be in the infobox in the first place! dab (ᛏ) 16:03, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Standardized is great, if the information is directly equivalent for all aspects. I'm thinking of other similar situations (dog breeds is my area) where not all possible entries in the infobox are relevant for each article. That leads to all sorts of difficulties. I much prefer the idea of a single template for each, both for flexibility and a reduction of code in the article. Vamp:Willow's suggestion of using /infobox as a template seems an excellent one -- sannse (talk) 20:22, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Agree with Sannse! --Tuomas 03:24, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Looks good, and standardization should be a big help. Jayjg | (Talk);;</sup> 22:40, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

On the Wikipedia:Country infobox vote page I suggested that the Template:Infobox Country could be a good way of implementing country specific template pages, and I've just tried it on Indonesia (I immediately reverted it; see: [1]). I had trouble with multiple times zones and no Daylight saving time; also, Indonesia has a National Ideology: Pancasila Indonesia... which didn't fit in. I also got a footnote tag when I had no footnotes... I like the idea of off loading the infoboxes from the main articles and if the country infobox can be made a little more flexible, I could support its use instead of hard coded tables. Whatever/however, it seems best to move the infoboxes off-page. —Davenbelle 02:57, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)

• Perhaps it would be a good idea for someone to go through and see how many different variations there would be. Nothing says there can't be more than one template. If there were just a few template variations to account for the wide variety of countries, that would be an acceptable solution. —Mike 03:36, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Davenbelle - take a look at it now, I think I've resolved the problems. If it looks right, you can copy the Infobox_Country code into the article, and avoid using Template:Indonesia infobox. -- Netoholic @ 03:51, 2005 Jan 12 (UTC)

Thanks, better, but I prefer this all off the country page; Vote D !!!! — Davenbelle 09:30, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)
 Vote E !!!! Davenbelle 22:49, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)

Created New Zealand version using the template, which can be seen at Template:New Zealand infobox. Works well though a couple of niggles:

• NZ has two national anthems, but the label for the field is only singular
• With three 'different' leaders the field gets a bit cramped
• When adding a footnote about the timezones it either ends up beside NZST which pushed the (UTC +12) across or you have the superscript inside the brackets.

Other than that I'm surprisingly pleased with how it appears. Evil Monkey → Talk 05:45, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)

wait a minute -- are we putting templates within templates now? that's of course not the idea (unless this is just an experiment). dab (ᛏ) 09:07, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yeah it was just test to see how it would look. Evil Monkey → Talk 09:46, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)

I just proposed that as Solution D) over on the vote page; a common template (or a few; see Mike, above) would bring a common look to the boxes and allow planet-wide changes by editing the common template, and nesting the templates gets all but a single line off the actual country pages. — Davenbelle 09:30, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC))

• We may need a developer to comment, but I would think this is a bad idea because using a template within a template probably must double the number of server queries and affect performance. -- Netoholic @ 18:35, 2005 Jan 12 (UTC)

I am a SW developer (a non-Wiki one), and you may well have a point. Is there another mechanism that will allow a similar off-loading of the block of whatever from the country pages? (AKA #include) You mentioned Wikipedia:Subpages; I need to go read... There are two issues here that are bothering people: 1; lots of hard coded tables right up front in the page source (and Template:Infobox Country invoked at the top of the country pages is just as in your face), and 2; hard coded tables are less flexible than a template w/params. (and a lot of these tables are in HTML) Seek solutions that address both issues. — Davenbelle 20:07, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)

I created a North Korea infobox (at User:Evil Monkey/North Korea infobox). I picked this because I knew it would test the template. I ran into some issues with the leaders. North Korea has a complicated leadership structure with four different leaders that just don't fit nicely into one field. You have:

• Kim Il-sung as Eternal President
• Kim Jong-il as Chairman of the National Defense Commission, a position accorded the nation's "highest administrative authority"
• Kim Yong-nam as President of the Supreme People's Assembly Presidium and given the responsibility of representing the state and receiving diplomatic credentials
• Pak Pong-ju as the Premier and head of government

Secondly if there is no GDP data that part just falls apart with all the template syntax there for everyone to see. I'm not sure if its possible but it would be nice if the template recognised when certain fields aren't being used and didn't render them. Evil Monkey → Talk 21:26, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)

• I did some work on the template, but there will always be limitations. Namely, the length of the leadertitle and leadername fields must be limited to one line when you put them in. There must be some short form of "Chairman of the National Defense Commission". "Chairman, NDC" ? Also, if an empty field, like your GDP example, doesn't render, used something like "no data reported" or somesuch. There is no way to make the empty fields not render. In order to do so, I'd have to move more of the template code into the articles, making it a freehand section. The only field that renders well when empty is footnotes. It can be used to incorporate extra information that the standard template doesn't cover. -- Netoholic @ 01:03, 2005 Jan 13 (UTC)
• Yeah, you would have to do soemthing like the taxobox for one to be able to chose which fields to render. You have to use several different templates to build up the country table. Jeltz talk 18:03, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • No problem then. And I don't think we want the taxobox solution which just ends up with 8+ templates on a page. The country infobox template is now being used on the New Zealand article. Evil Monkey → Talk 18:24, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)

• I really like Zocky's solution [2] and I have examples: Nepal's infobox is implemented at Nepal/infobox using Template:Infobox_Country; Tuvalu's is implemented at Tuvalu/infobox as a wiki table. The parameterised template should work for most countries; difficult pages can be implemented with the same look using a table (or different template). The idea of building up a box from sub-templates looks interesting, but, in this case, standard contents is good. I feel that this all should be deployed slowly (and without rancor) so that the template can be adjusted as new circumstance arise without having to revisit lots if pages to adjust the passed parameters. — Davenbelle 22:49, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)

big-big

Someone has changed fontsize=+1 to big+big for countryname in the box, and started implementing this change.

This is a pity. It doesn't look good. On my screen the lower third of "European Union" is hidden behind the drawn box at the Template:European Union table. This may of course be blamed on errors in the browser, but as I use WindowsXP ("professional"), I'm convinced that a lot of readers use older and much older soft ware. Furthermore, the size of the heading for the box is bigger than the size for the title of the page. That's not really good. /Tuomas 03:32, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Country names in titles

There's a discussion on standardization of country names in titles (at least for categories) on Wikipedia:Categories for deletion which may be of interest. -- Beland 02:27, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"Politics" heading is missleading

The remark on Template talk:Infobox Country about why kings are included under "Politics" helped me put the finger on what I always felt was wrong with our country articles. What one expects under politics is discussion of current political issues in the country, not its form of government. And indeed, all Encarta, Britannica and the CIA factbook keep this information under "Government", not "Politics". Current political issues are usually at the end of "History" sections, since they mostly deal with politics in the past anyway.

We should either rename the section "Government" and move the info on current issues into "History", or preferably have separate "History", "Government" and "Politics" sections. Zocky 18:21, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Agree entirely. Ambi 23:16, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I don't quite agree. I expect to see a description of the political system of a country under "Politics". A discussion of current political issues doesn't really belong to a main country article, but to a subpage; the main article can point at it with a short paragraph at the end of this section. The history section shouldn't include anything current that's not of grave country-wide concern. --Joy [shallot] 23:26, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I chiefly agree with Zocky. The term Politics often tend to be interpreted differently than intended, and imho Political system, Governmental structure, or maybe even better Government, would be an improvement. This is not to say that day-to-day (or term-to-term) politics is without interest, and in my opinion, Government can very well be supplemented by a section Politics that mentions the main issues of contemporary politics, as some wikipedians obviously interpret such a heading.
--Ruhrjung 13:10, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)

"Government of CountryName" sounds much better than "Politics ..." for a description of the political system and leadership. Some countries can still have a separate "Politics" article, where appropriate. -- Netoholic @ 19:38, 2005 Jan 25 (UTC)

Netoholic, two hours is not sufficient time to wait before establishing a consensus and changing the recommended template. The "be bold" policy doesn't apply to things like this. --Joy [shallot]

I agree with Zoinky, Ambi, Ruhrjung, and Netoholic. Government is the more accurate term. Government is the system. Politics is about the actions and affairs of the system. 68.46.123.33 00:14, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I see it has already been done in the model, but I do not agree, since in many country government is only about the government and it doesn't include the legislature. Politics is a much more neutral wordm which I would prefer. Gangulf 22:18, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I believe you misunderstand the meaning of "government" in English. Unlike in some other languages, government is not just the executive, it also includes other breanches of government. Zocky 02:09, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

See also how Politics of Ukraine and Government of Ukraine turned out... I don't like it. --Joy [shallot]

I'm quite happy with the new divide. Government of Ukraine is a nice start, and if fleshed out more, could be a really good article. Politics of Ukraine is harder, as it is a more vague topic, but I think with a bit of a rewrite, this could become a useful article. It'd probably be better to start with a description of the political forces inside the country - major parties, major leaders, who controls what and where, etc., rather than a vague discussion of general issues, though. Ambi 01:41, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think such a solution would be good and usable for the countries I know the best (Germany, Denmark, Sweden, Finland, and France). --Ruhrjung 16:41, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

So far, more or less everybody agrees on this. Should we take action? Zocky 01:21, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

COTW

Is anyone interested in a collaboration of the week for different countries, that is, a different country each week? Maurreen 08:56, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Order of fields in the infobox

Netoholic, I'm waiting a sound argument on why you reverted the order change I made to the Country table. What's wrong with it, etc. Provide sound arguments, please, or you will be reverted again. —Cantus…☎ 03:26, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)

There are two entries for cities - the capitol and the largest one. It is best ordered with them together. It has been that way for quite some time. Don't revert war for sport, you are the one proposing a new change. -- Netoholic @ 04:03, 2005 Feb 7 (UTC)

It makes no sense to put the country's Independence and National anthem between the Time zone and Internet TLD. Are we going to require a poll to make this change? This is ridiculous. Nothing can be changed anymore without an idiotic poll. This is common sense! I'm not even talking about the "capitol" and Largest city here. —Cantus…☎ 04:13, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)

I hereby ban you from making another of your "polls" on this subject. :) Just simply list your preferred order here, and get some feedback. My preference is given in the following table. -- Netoholic @ 04:17, 2005 Feb 7 (UTC)

Current template Native name(s) Flag, Coat of Arms National motto Location map Official language Capital Largest city Government Area Population GDP (PPP) Currency Time zone Sovereignty National anthem Internet TLD Calling code

Netoholic's Native name(s) Flag, Coat of Arms National motto Location map Official language National anthem Government Sovereignty Capital Largest city Area Population GDP (PPP) Currency Time zone Calling code Internet TLD

Cantus's (rev. 3) Native name(s) Flag, Coat of Arms National motto National anthem Location map Capital Largest city Official language Government Sovereignty Area Population GDP (PPP) Currency Time zone Internet TLD Calling code

Eddi's (rev.) Native name(s) Flag, Coat of Arms National motto Location map Capital Largest city Government Sovereignty Official language National anthem Area Population GDP (PPP) Currency Time zone Internet TLD Calling code

Davenbelle's Native name(s) Location map Flag National anthem Language(s) Capital Government Sovereignty Area Population GDP (PPP) Currency Time zone Calling code Internet TLD

Compromise Native name(s) Flag, Coat of Arms National motto Location map Official language National anthem Capital Largest city Government Sovereignty Area Population GDP (PPP) Currency Time zone Calling code Internet TLD

My proposed order: (moved into the table)

Please look at the current ordering and tell me if it makes sense to list the Sovereignty events and the National anthem at the end of the table between the Time Zone and the Internet TLD?

Now a question to you, Neto: Why do you oppose this particular ordering? —Cantus…☎ 04:26, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)

There is a balance between the importance of information and the need to group similar information. I think the capital, government, and population are among the most important pieces of information, not necessarily the most important. Language, independence, national anthem etc. are less important but fit thematically so well with the capital and government that I would like to put them before population. How about my proposal in the table? (I haven't quite decided on the position of the language.) --Eddi (Talk) 18:31, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Seems like we all agree that Area and downwards are correct. I think that language and anthem should be first, near the national motto and native name, since these are generally "language/spoken" qualities. It feels right to me. Following those two is the government information (anthem near government). Next is the capitol (seat of government) and the largest city, then the Area and Population (which feel right to link closely with the largest city). Basically, this makes every field link somewhat closely to its predecessor. -- Netoholic @ 20:15, 2005 Feb 7 (UTC)

Ah, well, maybe the capital is so closely connected with population that importance gives way. Regarding the anthem I think this is more related to independence than to language. All or most national anthems hail the country's sovereignty and freedom, the citizens' and their ancestors' bravery, the head of state's magnificent glory, etc. That's why I place the anthem next to independence. Now, let's see how it looks if I re-order the cities... (BTW, inserted Cantus's proposal, too.) This is getting freaking close – to both! --Eddi (Talk) 21:29, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I am fine with either your current version or mine. So long as those two city fields are right next to each other. Cantus? Anyone else? -- Netoholic @ 22:12, 2005 Feb 7 (UTC)

Mine and Eddi's version are the same, except I put the Capital and Largest city on top, while he puts them in the middle. I believe a country's capital is more important than the official language. Many countries don't even have an official language! —Cantus…☎ 05:09, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)

Not that the question where to put Language in the box is that very important, but as I see it, languages are connected to nations, which in a way is biasing and taking a nation-centered view for granted, but given that this is fairly common among the expected readership, maybe it's best to give the customer what the customer is the most interested in and put the languages on top (i.e. follow Netoholic's proposal).
--Ruhrjung 16:24, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)

National anthem is a national symbol, like the flag, the coat of arms and the motto, so it should probably be somehow grouped with them, maybe above the motto. Otherwise, any proposal that keeps the cities together is OK, but it may be a Good Thing to harmonize the ordering of the infobox and the ordering of sections in the template. Another thing: we should add the international licence plate codes. Zocky 22:50, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I added the current template to the table for comparison, and included the native name, flag, coat of arms, and location map for completeness. (Cantus and Netoholic, please see if your proposals are represented correctly.) I further differentiated the colour codes – language, anthem, capital, cities, government, sovereignty, and religion. Finally I changed back to my original proposal, placing the capital and largest city next to the location map. Now your two proposals actually differ less than mine, except regarding the juxtaposition of the capital and cities. --Eddi (Talk) 16:10, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yes, the ideas are well-documented, but we're not moving toward consensus. Let's strike out some options. First of all, all except one person agrees that the capitol/largest city should be sequential, and in that order. Cantus, accepting that this is consensus, would you please adjust your proposed order to reflect that direction? Let's also not complicate things by trying to fit in any sort of religion or city->cities change. -- Netoholic @ 17:01, 2005 Feb 9 (UTC)

The reason I list the largest cities separated from the capital is because I'm putting together everything that's official to the state at the top, then everything that is not, in order of importance. Seems logical to me. —Cantus…☎ 04:09, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

Then why isn't my version ideal? The "separation" you're going for is there, while satifying the desire to keep the cities together. -- Netoholic @ 04:22, 2005 Feb 10 (UTC)

Simple. I believe the capital is the single most important fact and should be at the top. —Cantus…☎ 04:24, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

Back to my original point then - noone else is going with your "split" cities scheme. Pick another option which does not separate the two city fields. -- Netoholic @ 04:28, 2005 Feb 10 (UTC)

No. I believe it is ridiculous to put the capital in the middle when it should be at the top. —Cantus…☎ 04:43, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

As long as you understand that you can't have it both ways. If you won't try to compromise, the others on this page will make a decision. -- Netoholic @ 17:01, 2005 Feb 10 (UTC)

Eddi - Ruhrjung and Zocky seem to both be leaning towards my suggested order (at least in keeping languages and anthem near the top). Do you have any major objection? -- Netoholic @ 17:01, 2005 Feb 10 (UTC)

Wrong. Now that I changed my version, Zocky is definitely leaning towards my suggested order. —Cantus…☎ 17:25, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

Well, considering you just changed it, you really can't call me "wrong". Anyway, your revision includes "State religion", which was shot down before and noone else wants. -- Netoholic @ 17:39, 2005 Feb 10 (UTC)

When including the top items – name, flag/arms, motto, map – I realised that I think the capital/cities should be near the top. The sequence of government/sovereignty and language/anthem are debatable, but in my (current) opinion they should at least come after the capital/cities. --Eddi (Talk) 00:56, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

My two cents; I think that Cantus' version is better than the others in terms of order of fields. I would like to see the 'official' part of language pushed to the right column for countries where there is an official language and the word omitted from countries that have no official policy on language; same with 'state' religion (which I would prefer be omitted entirely). I also feel that national mottos and coats of arms should be omitted; what's next? National Flowers? Largest city should also be omitted, maybe with a right-column note for some countries. Oh, TLD should be last, too. — Davenbelle 18:35, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

I fully agree that religion should be left out of the infobox. Religion is so hard to categorise briefly and NPOV at the same time, and should therefore be kept in the demographics section and/or separate article(s). Regarding motto I agree that it may be unnecessary in the infobox. However, I think many people would like to have it on the country page, and where should it be if not in the infobox? Coat of arms, largest city, well, hmm... I dunno. --Eddi (Talk) 00:56, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Think that removal or additions to the fields is out-of-scope for this discussion. Those ideas are much better handled separately. Davenbelle - can you please provide an opinion as to the order of items, without the extra complication? We're spending far too long deciding this very minor point. -- Netoholic @ 01:08, 2005 Feb 11 (UTC)

Getting the fields that are passed from the country pages as parameters is something that had better be sorted out before too many more instances of the template are invoked. As more articles are converted to use the parameterized template, the harder it gets to change them; ask Cantus. Deferring discussion will only serve to cement the current implementation in place. — Davenbelle 04:51, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)

I would like to comment that adding things to this template is doable without breaking articles. You first add the parameter in the article. This parameter will be invisible in the page until the template is updated. This way we can silently and quietly update all articles first and then update the template. —Cantus…☎ 11:04, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)

It's been quiet here for a couple of days (or is it just the weekend?), so I thought I'd suggest a compromise. It seems like the majority wants the following:

• on top: name, flag, arms, motto, map
• very early: language, anthem
• before government/sovereignty: capital, cities
• before area etc.: government, sovereignty
• area, population, GDP, currency, time
• TLD, calling code

Does this look like a solution? It is quite similar to all of the suggestions, but not identical to any of them, so everyone would give and take. --Eddi (Talk) 02:12, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Your compromise strikes me as worryingly similar to Netoholic's version. I won't accept any compromise that does not put the capital on top (like in my version). —Cantus…☎ 04:06, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)

I also think that the capital should come first (i.e. just after the map). However, this is a proposed compromise. Please compare it to all of the suggestions. I believe it is very similar to yours, too, and to mine, and to Davenbelle's. To be more accurate, the "difference counts" are Current:2, Netoholic:2, Cantus:2, Eddi:2, and Davenbelle:3 (not counting the deleted fields).
If there is another compromise that is equally similar to all suggestions, please edit the compromise in the table, and kindly name it "Compromise", not "Eddi's compromise", which I think is misleading as long as it differs from my suggestion. --Eddi (Talk) 09:20, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I am fine with your compromise, Eddi, no matter how "worringly similar" it is to others. I also don't see any harm in honoring Davenbelle's idea to swap TLD and Calling code. -- Netoholic @ 18:12, 2005 Feb 14 (UTC)

Switching the TLD and calling code in the compromise, the "difference count" becomes Current:3, Netoholic:2, Cantus:3, Eddi:3, and Davenbelle:2. If nothing better is proposed at this time, I suggest we implement the order of the compromise. --Eddi (Talk) 20:07, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

---

Can you please explain why you have implemented your own suggestion and paid no respect to the other suggestions? Thank you. --Eddi (Talk) 20:46, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Germany growing

I think I've made a few attempts during the years to shorten down the history section of that article and move the more detailed content to History of Germany and other articles. My main reason to do so was (and is) that I hold the guideline on this point to be reasonable. However, this task is not very fun - it's much more fun to do the opposite - which has turned out to be one of the basic flaws of Wikipedia. ;-(
--Ruhrjung 16:18, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)

I've tried to clean some things up to allow the article to better conform with this template and the Manual of Style. I added a cleanup tag. However, my edits are being reverted by User:Heimdal without proper explanation. Some assistance will be appreciated. --Jiang 11:52, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Nice to see!
--Ruhrjung

Is there a page anywhere which explains why this particular formating is recommended? I've been adding "main article" links at the top of sections of Germany to conform with the guidelines, and they are also being removed, now with the reasoning that they make the article longer :-) as well as being unnecessary as there are links within the text of the sections. It would be nice if there was an explanation somewhere of why main article links at the top of each section are desirable. Or am I just being picky, as Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries#Structure also says "This structure is advisory only, and should not be enforced against the wishes of those actually working on the article in question"? Saintswithin 17:30, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Germany has only most recently started to grow like this, and I doubt "those working on the article" ought to be understood as narrowly as meaning the most recently arrived contributor.
--Ruhrjung 19:52, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)

ISBN identifier

I propose that the ISBN book identifier is added to each country as part of Infobox Country, as a part of it is specific for a country where the monograph was issued. See also: Wikipedia:Book sources and Numerical List of Group Identifiers by Country. --Eleassar777 09:58, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Holidays

How do the holidays fit in? In Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries/Status, India is listed as not having a holiday table. But there is a holiday page in the ==See also== section. There are only three national holidays in India. The rest are determined by each state.  =Nichalp (talk · contribs)= 18:23, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)

Template:MicrostatesE for deletion

The template Template:MicrostatesE ("European Microstates") isn't used and thus its usefulness is doubtful. After reading some earlier discussion I guess some people here would like to delete it. It might be an interesting addition to the articles, but there is a similar category already. I'm not aware of any large-scale co-operation between the microstates. If others don't want to apply this template, I'll list it on Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion after a while (that is, if somebody doesn't list it before me). Wipe 16:25, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Update: it's now there for voting. Wipe 03:28, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
Update 2: it was deleted with about 4 votes to delete, 1 to keep. Wipe 23:50, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Infobox / Demographics

Shouldn't the facts tables include info on religions and ethnic groups? These are included in other reference sites, such as Infoplease (which does a spectacular job), and I think they are vitally important pieces of information.

I know the facts table is pretty large how it is. Perhaps a small infobox could be put in the demographics section? Some country articles do this already, but the formatting is inconsistent. See Romania, Estonia, Hungary, etc. - Pioneer-12 01:23, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

North American national football teams

Surely there should be a WikiProject Geography, for issues that transcend countries, cities, etc.?

What made me discover its absence is wanting to find a place to ask the following question:

"Surely the Category:North American national football teams belongs under Category:Personal life (under Entertainment-->Sports), not Category:North America, which is where it is now?"

-- Mwanner 18:03, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

Multiple boxes

SimonP has gone over the entire Commonwealth of Nations country articles deleting the box for the Commonwealth and others, leaving only the 'Countries in Continent' box. This has been met with significant resistance, not least in several entries on his talk page. Is it the policy of this WikiProject to delete multiple boxes - even if they make articles more useful? TreveX^talk 02:48, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

See here, here and here for complaints on his talk page. Is this Wikipedia semi-policy? TreveX^talk 02:53, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

See the discussion above at #Country footers for the last time SimonP did this. Susvolans (pigs can fly) 11:59, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

I deleted all the boxes back in December, this round was just removing a dozen or so that had reappeared. The removal of templates has been policy since at least May 2004 when every extra template was removed. (See [3],[4], [5],[6], [7],[8]). Over time these templates have occassionally reappeared and every few months I have gone through removing them. The consensus that I am enforcing can certainly be changed and even the guidelines at Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes can be ignored if there is a good enough reason. To do this someone would need to present some evidence that these templates actually do make articles more useful. - SimonP 15:56, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

Cuisine

Could we add "Cuisine of X" to the miscellaneous section? And also can we formulate a convention as to whether it is "X-ish cuisine" or "Cuisine of X" (as those on British cuisine seem to think their way is the only right name)? --Dmcdevit 03:08, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Footer templates (again)

from Talk:Canada:

I don't think that adding "Commonwealth of Nations" and "Commonwealth Realm" tempaltes is a good idea. this article is already too long. If we add templates for every major international organization to which Canada belongs, we would really be in trouble: UN, G7/G8, NORAD, Organization of American States, La Francophonie, OECD, NATO, APEC, and the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, we would quikly be swamped. Comments? Kevintoronto 21:15, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think these ones are different.

Firstly "Commonwealth Realm" is not an international organisation. This template exists to show the reader what other countries share Canada's Head of State, which is unique for most countries.

For "Commonwealth of Nations", this is again different from other organisations in that it is an historic organisation and the successor to the British Empire. Again, almost all the members have this template on their respective country page with the exception of Canada.

You are right in that we can't list at all the organisations that Canada is a member of (although I think G8 is a good one come to think of it), however exceptions can be made where there is a good reason. Astrotrain 21:46, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

I disagree that these are different.

• First of all, the "Commonwealth of Nations" and "Commonwealth Realm" articles are both linked from the article, like the other international orgs.
• Secondly, the point about Canada's Head of State is made clearly in the article, including in the very first paragraph. And the Head of State is not really that important in the functioning of the country, except for in an almost exclusive symbolic way.
• I don't see why historic organizations like the Commonwealth is more imporant than the UN, G-8, OECD, NATO and APEC, which have a bigger impact on Canada's politics and economy, or like important defence organizations like NORAD and NATO. Surely the symbolism of our previous colonial ties is not more important than the realities of trade and defence.
• Many of the Commonwealth Realm sand members are small countries that are involved in relatively few international organizations, unlike Canada.
• Finally, the success of a few editors in getting these templates stuck on articles of other countries should not determine whether Canada's main article should carry them.

It may be that the solution is to create a link from the main page to a page entitled "Canada's membership in international organizations", which would be a repository for the numerous templates that could apply, as well as room for text about Canada's role in the various orgs. Kevintoronto 21:57, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The templates are good for guidance to see who else is a Commonwealth realm, who else is in the Commonwealth of Nations. As these groupings have more historical roots than the UN or NATO for insatnce, they are more likely to be used. Astrotrain 22:02, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

But my point is that they're not really relevant. I'm sorry to be harsh about it, but the Commonwealth is nice talk shop that has little real impact on anything. Once in a while it does some good work by putting pressure on a rogue government, but the UN does that every day. And often, TPLACs like Zimbabwe just ignore the Commonwealth. Oh, the Games are nice, too, but notice how its usually the B-list cities that bid for them, not the ones that can compete for the Olympics?

And the tie to the monarchy is real, but not very relevant in Canada's political structure. When was the last time that Her Majesty had any role in a political issue in Canada? Oh, right, it was never. To the extent that the Crown exerts any influence, it is done by the Governor-General, who is usually someone of whom Her Majesty has never heard until the Canadian Prime Minister informs her whom she is to appoint as G-G.

Finally, the article is not about other countries who might be a C.R. or a member of the C of N. It is about Canada. Your argument about the templates being helpful to people who want to know who are the other CRs or C of N members applies equally to the alphabet soup of other international organizations to which Canada belongs. Therefore, it is an argument for loading this article up with a dozen different templates. If people want to find out who else is a C.R. or a member of the C of N, they can follow the links that are helpfully provided to those articles. Kevintoronto 22:11, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

And I checked: the reason that most other C.R.s and C of N countries have these templates is because you added them today'. Please don't make it sound like they've been there for a while and you are just bringing Canada's article in line. Kevintoronto 22:37, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Only the Commonwealth Realms template was created yesterday, the Commonwealth of Nations template existed on the other pages for much longer. It was when adding this new template to this page, I noticed that it lacked the CofN template, so I added it also. I think your argument about the Q's role in Canada is irrelevant for this point, because Canada is a Commonwealth Realm, and uniquely shares its head of state with 16 other nations. It is helpful to list them as a template to show the reader the other territories with which Canada shares its head of state, regardless of whether he or she actually excerices politcal power. Astrotrain 10:10, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

Yuo haven't added any new arguments. These templates duplicate links that already exist in the article to the Queen and the Commonwealth. There is not room for links to all of teh international organizations to which Canada belongs. The Commonwealth is not more important than most of them, and is arguably less important. I think that the proposal made at Template talk:Commonwealth of Nations is a sound one: put the templates for all international orgs on a page entitled "Foreign relations of Canada". Most importantly, you have reached you limit for the Wikipedia:Three revert rule (3RR). This is clearly a contentious change, and I am not the only one who thinks so, so this issue should be decided here before the change is made again. Please do not revert again or action will have to be taken. Kevintoronto 12:42, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• The template Commonwealth realms is not a "foreign relation" of Canada, and not an "international organisation". It is a category of countries to which Canada belongs. It is right for it to be on this page. Astrotrain 12:57, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

• • All of the countries listed on the template are considered to be foreign countries to canada, even though they share the same head of state. A list of these is provided on pages linked from the article in several places. Ground Zero 13:48, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC) (formerly Kevintoronto)

from User talk:SimonP and User talk:Astrotrain

[Astrotrain] Please stop adding the commonwealth realms template. No one else considers it useful. - SimonP 22:00, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

[SimonP] I wish you would stop vandalsing these pages by removing these templates, as you can see from above, they are supported. Astrotrain 22:23, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

I have yet to see anyone else who thinks the commonwealth realms template deserves to be on the country pages. Please stop adding it until some consensus exists that it should be on these pages. - SimonP 22:26, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

Please stop deleting them then! Just because you don't like templates, doesn't mean all should be deleted. You have already been reverted by others for unilateraly deciding to delete various templates.Astrotrain 22:28, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

We have policies for a reason. Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries states that it is generally discouraged to place templates for other international organizations in country articles. These can, however, go on country subpages such as "foreign relations of..." or "economy of...". I am fine with these templates going on the politics... of pages or the Queen of Canada type pages, but consensus seems to exist that they do not belong on the country articles themselves. I have seen at least half a dozen Wikipedians object to having these on the template pages and none agreeing that they are useful. Also be warned that you are nearing breaking the three revert rule and may be banned if you continue. - SimonP 22:35, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

Astrotrain: I see on SimonP's talk page that you are accusing him of being to be only one reverting these templates. If you check the history of the Canada page, you will see that I (when I was User:Kevintoronto have also done so. This should not surprise you because I spent a great deal of time trying to explain to you why the templates were not appropriate. And you responded to me, although not very satisfactorily. Why are you now trying to portray SimonP as a lone wolf on this issue when you know that it is not true? Also, people on the Australia page have objected to the templates as well.

More importantly, you have not responded to my last post on Talk:Canada. Instead, you went ahead to try to impose your changes on the Canada page without regard to the objections of regular editors of that page (SimonP and me). I prefer to discuss than to revert, but until you convince the active editors of the page to accept your changes, you must expect that they will be reverted. Ground Zero 13:10, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

from User talk:Jtdirl and User talk:SimonP

Stop deleting the templates. They are all agreed to, factually correct and necessary. If you keep deleting them when there is a clear concensus for them the page will have to be protected and you make be reported as a vandal or blocked. FearÉIREANN 23:36, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Where is there consensus that these templates belong? From my understanding WikiProject Countries strongly opposes international organization templates. - SimonP 23:53, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

There is no consensus of the sort you claim. You appear to be the main person pushing the issue. There is however consensus for including those templates on that page. FearÉIREANN 00:05, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Here is a brief history. In May and June 2004 basic template rules were established after a long discssion. It was decided that geographical templates and very important international organizations are fine. An international organization was deemed very important if it were mentioned in the opening section. After these rules were established all the excess templates were removed. I was involved in none of this. In recent months I have made it one of my tasks to occasionally strip away the excessive templates (my favourite was Template:South Pacific Applied Geoscience Commission (SOPAC)). In general the creators of these templates object, but every time the wider consensus established back in 2004 has held. - SimonP 00:14, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

I see no evidence of that supposed consensus reading the debates. It is standard to put the EU template on all EU states. And it makes perfect sense to but the commonwealth realms template on a page about a country that is one of the commonwealth realms. I cannot see how putting relevant templates on the correct page is a problem. And I cannot see any evidence in the debates that there is a consensus to leave out relevant templates from pages. If it was some nutty and irrelevant templates about islands off continents with more than 50 million people, or countries with a queen and an heir called Charles, then you could justify their removal. But what is the point in removing 100% relevant templates that link the UK with 2 key aspects of itself - being in the EU and being in a commonwealth realm. Countries in Europe is I think much more dodgy. Many people would regard the UK as an island off Europe, not part of Europe, certainly not part of continental Europe. But EU and Commonwealth Realms are 100% relevant. (In fact, Commonwealth realms is perfect for me. I'm currently researching them so having a template linking them together is ideal. It is the sort of information wikipedia should be giving.) FearÉIREANN 00:36, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Most countries are members of dozens, if not hundreds, of international organizations. Should we have templates for them all? I'm fine with moving some of them to the Foreign relations of ... pages. Unfortunately the discussion that led to this consensus was spread over many user talk pages and elsewhere. The clearest evidence is that at this time the excess templates were stripped from all the country pages without objection (see [9],[10], [11],[12], [13],[14] ). If you want to reopen this issue the best option is to attempt to reach a new consensus at WikiProject Countries. Until a new consensus is established I will continue to enforce the old one. -SimonP 00:50, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

I agree with FearÉIREANN, you are the only one deleting these templates, and it is you who have reached the 3R rule, as I have only been inserting the templates once, then reverting your deletes. Your actions are very aggressive, and have annoyed many editors including me, and the others from posts above. Astrotrain 11:57, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

Jt, on SimonP's page you stated that he was "the main person pushing these changes", i.e., to delte these templates. Please be advised that I have done so as well, and I engaged Astrotrain in a long discussion (under my previous name, User:Kevintoronto) over the issue because I prefer to discuss than to revert, but Astrotrain stopped repsonding to my arguments at Talk:Canada, and continued applying these templates. I wasn't around at the weekend, so I have been out of the discussion, but I urge the two of you to stop trying to force these templates on the Canada page for the reasons I identified on the Talk page. Until you can convince other active editors of that page of your position, you are inciting a revert war, which is not polite at all.. Ground Zero 13:16, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

from User talk:SimonP and User talk:Astrotrain

[Astrotrain] please stop adding the extra templates to the country articles. Many of them had four or even five footers. If links to all these countries were actually useful it would take far less room to simply have a link to every single country on one template.

Also note that recently the Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes guidelines were rewritten (not be me) to specifically discourage these sorts of templates after this mailing list discussion. Note speciafically the warning that "multiple boxes are generally considered a blight." - SimonP 16:35, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

[SimonP] your aggresive editing is really pissing me off. These templates are on the other Commonwealth pages, and should be on the other articles too. These have been supported by others, as you well know. Astrotrain 16:50, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

If we allowed every template that one or two people supported we would have dozens on each country page. Fortunetaly we have a series of policies preventing this. Could you please point to what other Commonwealth pages have these templates so that I can remove them? - SimonP 16:54, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

Look yourself for them. I support these templates, along with many others. If you keep deleting them, others will keep adding them (including me). So unless you want to be in a constant delete mode I would suggest you leave them well alone. Astrotrain 16:58, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

Alright, how about a deal. You stop adding these templates to country articles and I will stop removing them. If many people support these templates it should be easy to find someone else who will add them to the articles for you. If you do convince someone else to add them I will not remove them (but I might ask someone else to).- SimonP 17:03, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

Could you please respond to my comments and my offer rather than simply launching another round of reversions. I am on the verge of filing an RFC about this. - SimonP 18:11, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

I wouldn't class your suggestion as an offer. It is asking for me to agree to your deletions, which I and many others have not. Your removal in the UK page was reverted by others, and some other pages too. Stop trying to push through your edits by constantly removing other people's valid work. Astrotrain 18:18, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

I find your editing very offensive. Why do you keep reverting my edits, but when someelse reverts it, you don't? It is clear that in articles most edited, your deletions of templates is reverted quickly by others, but in less looked at articles, you can get away with it. Your actions are disgraceful. Astrotrain 18:11, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

I am reverting you as so far you have refused to engage in any discussion about why we should make an exception to our policies and allow your templates. I fairly routinely get into these debates about templates. Most users are reasonable and for the most part after a discussion in which I have pointed to relevant policies the other user agrees that their new template probably isn't such a great idea. You have yet to attempt any sort of discussion. Other than personal attacks and assertions that you are right you have yet to give a single reason why these templates are useful. - SimonP 18:18, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

Yet another round of reversions without discussion? This is not helping anyone. Please discuss this issue rather than continuing this pointless cycle. - SimonP 22:07, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

OK, I see you won't be reasonable. I can't waste my time reverting your vandalism every time you decide what is right. I have already stated my case for the templates before. Others have backed me on this, including above in your talk page, on the UK page and NZ pages. You are the worst sort of Wikipedian I have ever come across. Astrotrain 18:26, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

from User talk:SimonP and User talk:TreveX

In regard to you changes to Uganda, multiple boxes may generally be considered a blight but I think they are important for country pages dealing with that kind of information. The benefits for this kind of situation may outweigh the disadvantages. Is this official Wikipedia policy? TreveX^talk 23:31, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes is official policy. Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries is not official but is one of the most rigourously enforced Wikiproject guidelines. - SimonP 02:59, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

I have undone your change to the Uganda article. There really doesn't seem to be much concensus about the removal of boxes for countries (see various complaints above) TreveX^talk 02:43, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that it's agaisnt wikipedia policy to just remove the tempaltes like Simon has done. We have Wikipedia:Templates for deletion for getting rid of unecessary tempaltes. Jeltz talk 10:06, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Hey Simon, since you're so keen on enforcing what you consider to be 'official wikipedia policy', you might want to have a look at this: "If you have a disagreement over an article, try to reach a truce and stop editing until you can resolve the issue. Please do not engage in edit wars with other users; this is not a helpful way of resolving disputes and does nothing to improve Wikipedia."[15] TreveX^talk 11:40, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Lucky for you I found some more official Wikipedia policy. Perhaps if you were even a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries you would have noticed that it says (in bold): This structure is advisory only, and should not be enforced against the wishes of those actually working on the article in question. [16] Perhaps you will now explain your claims on my talk page that the countries project "is one of the most rigourously enforced Wikiproject guidelines" and what gives you the right to maintain edit wars (Uganda, United Kingdom, New Zealand) with the Wikipedians who have been editing a particular country page for months?

It's not the change per se that I disagree with - it's your attitude to other users. Perhaps we can work together constructively to find a better way to represent membership of international organisations on country pages? If one can't be found, then perhaps we should find some consensus on the issue before unilateral deleting a popular template box? TreveX^talk 12:17, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

There is a strong consensus on the basic template policy as recently rewritten at Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes. If one also had to obtain consensus before removing every template the process would take months, that is why we have higher level policies so that we don't need to have the same debate over and over. Also I dislike your assertion that I am some interloper while you are the one working on Uganda pages. If you look at who created pages like Bunyoro, Ankole, and Mwanga II of Buganda, you will see that I have been working in this area for months. - SimonP 15:39, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

I agree that multiple boxes aren't great, but the way in which you went about deleting all the templates and your refusal to engage with other users on the matter was a disgrace. I'm not going to go round and round in circles with you on this, but previous complaints about your behaviour by other users should give you food for thought. On a more constructive note, perhaps a category is the best solution for the Commonwealth of Nations. One already exists (category:Members of the Commonwealth of Nations). Would you please give me a hand in filling it up? TreveX^talk 18:55, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

The country pages need to be in category:Members of the Commonwealth of Nations to allow the category to be listed at the bottom of each country page. If this isn't done, then the functionality of the removed Commonwealth template won't be replaced by the category. When the lists, categories and templates page has a discussion about the relative advantages of boxes and categories, it is talking about boxes and pages belonging to categories rather than subcategories. I would prefer for only the pages to be in category:Members of the Commonwealth of Nations. I will ask here TreveX^talk 19:38, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

What lost functionality? If the Commonwealth is actually an important institution to these countries the article on the country should mention it and thus link to Commonwealth of Nations, which already has a perfectly good list. No one goes to the page of one of these countries specifically looking for a list of Commonwealth members. They go to the Commonwealth page for that. The time they become interested in what other countries might be members of the Commonwealth is after they read the bit about the country in question being a Commonwealth member. Thus this is the best location for a link, and due to Wikipedia linking policy there will always be one. - SimonP 19:44, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

The page you refer to already seems to have answered this question. "A clean example of this principle is the fact that there are no articles in Category:Countries. All the country articles are members of subcategories of it." - SimonP 19:49, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

OK, the question which was asked on that page was whether inclusion of article x in set X should mean that x also appears in set Y, which is the parent set of set X. This is a different issue relating from how you get from a country page to a list of other countries for a group to which the first country belongs. What I am wanting at the end of the day is a standardised way for membership of international organisations to be listed in the same place on country pages, whether that is through a template box or a category membership at the bottom. We can't simply rely on people to mention membership of the EU, or G8 or commonwealth somewhere in the article. I think we should just copy the EU category and have both country categories and articles. Agreed? TreveX^talk 20:07, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

The difficulty is that there are hundreds of organizations and in the long run having categories for each of them won't work. For now, however, your system is a fair compromise. - SimonP 20:14, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

Great. Really pleased we've managed to reach agreement on this! In regard to future developments, I know that there are too many international organisations to list them all on country pages, but the main ones: WTO, G8, EU etc should be managed somehow. TreveX^talk 20:29, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

from User talk:SimonP and User talk:Astrotrain

Yet another round of reversions without discussion? This is not helping anyone. Please discuss this issue rather than continuing this pointless cycle. - SimonP 22:07, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

In your absence me and User:TreveX continued the discussion on these templates. You may be boycotting all discussions, but fortunately he was not. After a lengthy discussion we reached a compromise stating that the templates should go but be replaced by a category. - SimonP 22:13, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

I was not invited to this discussion, and couldnot have possibly known about it. The fact is there is support for the Commonwealth template, and I will be adding it back. Your deletion of the template on many pages was reverted, just because these ones are not actively edited doesn't mean you can impose your will. I'm not as sad as you to spend all my time reverting back, but I will be adding them back. Astrotrain 22:18, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

I, SimonP, am cordially inviting you to participate in a discussion about the usefulness of the Commonwealth of Nations templates. Now that I have invited you would it be possible to have a discussion rather than another round of reversions? I was reverted by others, and I then discussed with them and eventually, and with compromise, they stopped reverting. Hopefully the same can happen here. What is required for this process is to actually discuss the issue. If I knew why you believe these templates are useful perhaps I could understand what compromise might satisfy us both. If your arguments are really convincing I could even change my position and agree that the template should stay, this has happened before. - SimonP 22:29, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

I am 100% opposed to the use of the category system. It sounded a good idea at first, but I don't think I have come across a worse, more haphazard, less co-ordinated, more full of inaccuracies, system anywhere. I think we should bin the ludicrous category system altogether and go for the far more straightforward and more easily to organise template system. I also think the decision to remove the commonwealth template balmy and little short of vandalism. I will be re-adding it in, as I will be with other templates that SimonP on his one-man crusade has been deleting. Everywhere he had done it there has been edit wars and outcries, and furious users complaining that he is trampling all over their work. He has produced no credible evidence that there ever was a policy, and from the reaction everywhere he had intervene, SimonP certainly hasn't got a majority behind him, much less a consensus. FearÉIREANN^(talk) 14:23, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

footers - Mediterranean

I figure people here might be interested in looking at {{Mediterranean}} that was added to a bunch of country pages. Also Template talk:Mediterranean. --Joy [shallot] 17:18, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

ISO and IOC country codes

Any interest in including ISO (three letter codes) and IOC (Olympic Games) country codes? I have them handy as a side effect of Wikipedia:WikiProject_Flag_Template. (SEWilco 04:00, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC))

footers - NATO

User:Jensboot re-added {{NATO}} to a bunch of country articles. --Joy [shallot] 11:43, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

They should be removed and added to the military articles, as has been done for a number of countries. --Jiang 15:13, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, I have left him a note explaining the situation. - SimonP 23:05, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

Compressing footers

Even though we have eliminated the international organization footers, the geographic footers are is some cases still a blight. For countries that are in multiple continents and regions I suggest replacing the general templates with a specific ones listing all the countries that share a continent or region. This gives the exact same ease of linking, but is vastly smaller. For instance see Turkey where I replaced {{Europe}}, {{Asia}}, {{Southwest Asia}}, {{Middle East}}, and {{Mediterranean}} with {{Turkey footer}} - SimonP 19:41, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

having these countries listed uncategorized is unhelpful. for example, people will not immediately understand why we have classified the UK with China and therefore be unable to understand their relation with turkey. we should omit certain templates. for example, if we have Asia, then we dont need Southwest asia. we should also limit the no of templates to 4. --Jiang 07:36, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Footer templates again & POV

Hi. I've never been involved in any of the debating or edit warring about footer templates; but I notice something disturbing about the policy suggestions given here. In the United Kingdom, a certain segment of the populace feels strong emotional ties to the Commonwealth of Nations; while another segment of the country thinks the first segment is a bunch of reactionary stick-in-the-muds who need to wake up and smell the European Union. In short, there are "Euroskeptics" and "Europhiles"; and the former tend to think of Britain's association with Europe as an "accident of geography" while the latter tend to think of its relationship with the Commonwealth as an "accident of history."

Of course I'm oversimplifying; and being American I'm obviously not associated myself with either of these groups — I'm just trying to point out that they exist. Now it appears that, whatever the wishes of the frequent editors of the UK article may be, the standard suggestions given here on this project page would lead to a UK article including template boxes for BOTH Europe AND the European Union BUT NEITHER the Commonwealth of Nations NOR the Commonwealth Realms where Elizabeth is queen. This seems dangerous to me, as it would seem to give the page a Europhile POV. Now of course if people take the trouble to read the text of the article they'll find links to every relevant page, including all four of these; but the infoboxes are much more eye-catching and visual prominence can be a part of POV. I quite realize that too many footer templates can clutter up a page, so there's certainly no easy solution. And I realize that this subject has been debated ad infinitum; but it seems to me that this very important issue has been overlooked so far. Doops | talk 21:56, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

I have also responded to the realted comments on talk:United Kingdom. The difficulty is that these specific examples rapidly multiply. For instance adding the Commonwealth of Nations to the UK implies that all the countries linked there should have it. This means that for Canada it would be POV if we didn't also have a template for the Francophonie. I think it is better to realize that there is a fairly clear distinction between an international organization, like the Commonwealth, and a supranational union, like the EU, and explain to people who are offended that we add the templates for supranational but not for international organizations. - SimonP 22:20, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

Two thoughts:

• it appears that you think a footer box should either be "active", i.e. appearing on every page to which it links; or "dormant", i.e. appearing on no pages at all. I have to say that I would tend to agree on a theoretical basis — presenting a common footer to its pages is arguably the whole point of footer boxes. And you're certainly right that while there's an unimpeachable (in my view) argument for including a commonwealth box on the UK page, it is arguably less important on certain other commonwealth countries' pages. This does seems to set up a paradox. Hmmm..
• on the other hand, I think you're wrong to blithely dismiss the POV issue as one which can be explained — we can only explain things to the active editors who read the talk pages. Ordinary wikipedia users won't come across the explanations: articles themselves should insofar as possible present a prima facie appearance of NPOV.

Hmmm. Lemme think about this some more. Doops | talk 00:11, 17 July 2005 (UTC) PS: although you may be right that there's a big difference between international organizations and supranational unions, I don't think it's a particularly obvious distinction which would automatically occur to readers. Moreover the internal UK debate turns partly on just how much of a "union" the EU is and/or should be. Doops | talk 00:37, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

OK, I thought about it while going for a bike ride this afternoon; and I came to several conclusions:

• for the sake of clarity and sanity, the fewer boxes the better — if it were possible to boil things down to a single box, that would be ideal
• template boxes have both a purpose and an effect; and the two might not be the same thing
• one effect is to cause arguments among editors!!
• arguably there's no necessary purpose for the boxes at all, since readers can reach anything reachable by the boxes by following links from within the page itself
• however, it would be quixotic of us to suppose that every reader reads the page in its entirety
• so the purpose is to facilitate the lazy reader's navigation to related articles
• but this is poorly defined: if we give only a few links then we aren't being very helpful to him/her; if we give a lot of links, then we're overwhelming him/her and it will be the same as having none at all
• there's some ideal medial length; but of course which links it includes are different for each reader
• thus the key having a lot of links; but having them organized well
• having a lot of standard templates doesn't aid this end very much, since it's visually distracting

So I have concluded that the idea of the template:Turkey footer proposer above is the best: each country needs its own specific template. However, unlike his/her suggestion, which offered no organization at all and was quite overwhelming, we should simplify. The best way to do this is not with hundreds of links to countries but rather with a few links which will help readers to find the links they're looking for. Users may have to click twice; but that's still much easier than hunting around or coming up with things from scratch. Confusion is minimized.

For an example of how this might work, please see my Template: UK ties2. (At Template: UK ties is another version with links not to templates but simply to articles on the various organizations. As such it's not so much an aid in reaching related countries as an organizational tool to make the page's links coherent; which is a not unworthy goal.) Doops | talk 04:41, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

I feel this is a great compromise, it avoids the bulk while preserving functionality. - SimonP 13:29, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

Reinvigorating this project

Well. This project does appear to have stalled. We added infoboxes to all countries and converted all soverign countries to use the template, but a lot of colonies' articles are still dreadful - look at British Virgin Islands for example. Lots of sub-articles about Politics of X are still basically copy-and-pastes from the CIA world factbook, which is also appalling, and generally don't get updated.

I've started tagging articles that still have to be reformatted away from CIA style {{CIA}} - which adds them to Category:CIA World Factbook cleanup - as you can see there are a great deal. Suggest we concentrate on main pages for countries and Politics of X first. Morwen - Talk 11:25, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Ok - I'll muck in. Secretlondon 17:58, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

I've made a start on Geography of the Falkland Islands and will work on some more in future. Warofdreams 17:00, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

classification of countries by GDP per capita

An edit war has broken out on Malaysia between a couple of users (see Talk:Malaysia). The bottom line is that one user wants to call Malaysia a "middle-income country" while another wants to call Malaysia a "upper-middle-income country". The difference is that the person who is promoting the upper-middle-income country term is following the World Bank definition (which divides into 4 categories - low-income, low-middle-income, upper-middle-income and high-income) while the other is saying that Malaysia belongs in the middle-income category because it falls roughly halfway in the list of nations by GDP per capita. It's a matter of classification - if four categories are used like the World Bank site, Malaysia definitely belongs in the upper-middle-income category while if countries are classified into three categories of low-income, middle-income and high-income, Malaysia fits in the middle-income group. Can we get some consensus on this and apply it to all countries thereafter? Alex.tan 01:25, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

I have provided a lengthy outside opinion on Talk:Malaysia. Please do study it, comment on it and fix my mistakes; I know very little of Malaysia. The key of my suggestion is to remove any need for interpretation which is what the dispute centres on. I would suggest that even the classification above interprets the data rather than merely presenting it — which is all an encyclopedia should do. -Splash 02:46, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Improvement Drive

The article on Brunei is nominated to be improved on WP:IDRIVE. You can vote for it there, if you would like to see it improved. The nominations History of the Balkans and Culture of Italy may also be of interest to you. --Fenice 08:25, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Government types

Would anyone mind coming up with a list of government types with me that we can use as the definitive list in articles, barring extraordinary situations? I can suggest the following (at least):

• Federal republic
• Communist state or Communist single-party state
• Single-party state (many African nations fit this category)
• Either Parliamentary system or Representative democracy
• Constitutional monarchy, which by definition usually means representative democracy
• Transitional government

I'm sure others are possible, but I think the list should be kept nice and short so that a familiar format is in all country articles. As always, please continue to implement the Infobox Country template on those articles which have not yet converted over--it is by far superior.--naryathegreat | (talk) 00:26, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

See this: List of countries by system of government. I'm not sure if all the entries there are correct. I don't believe that Bhutan is an absolute monarchy as they have a PM. =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:37, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

Links to tour companies

Over at Uganda we're getting occasional additions to a section entitled 'Tourism'. This section includes a Uganda link to wikitravel along with several companies offering tours etc. These links may contain useful information but they are nevertheless commercial. Are there any hard and fast rules regarding links to comanies from country pages? Perhaps they should be deleted - we already have a link to the Uganda tourist board website? Would appreciate some advice. TreveX^talk 17:10, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Absolutely. Commercialism is already against Wikipedia policy. I believe that any member of the WikiProject would oppose adding links to tourist corporations without proof that their presence is needed. Wikitravel is less of a problem, and I would say allow it if it can be fit into the article.--naryathegreat | (talk) 02:10, August 19, 2005 (UTC)