Template talk:Infobox country/Archive 14

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Religion parameter

Hi, I just want more clarification about this parameter. Is it about the demographic data about the religion of the society of the state or about the religion of the state itself????

See the religion parameter value in Yemen article is Islam but in other articles such as Australia it gives the census data about the religion of the society and not the religion of the government.--SharabSalam (talk) 08:38, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi, SharabSalam, there is no clear answer to that right now. It seems to me that state religion is the older use for the field, and demographic data is a newer practice. The timeline I posted at the current Australia RFC lists prior discussions from which I have formed this opinion. (It's near where you pinged Colin M.)

Australia, like the majority of countries, doesn't have an official religion of government (I won't deny that the traditions and principles of the Church of England and the Catholic Church influence our laws along with other non-religious philosophies). So rather than writing something not very helpful like "Religion: none official", the religions of (the) society (of the state) are listed instead.

Some articles, like Bangladesh and Cambodia combine both approaches: listing demographic breakdown and marking one religion as "(official)".

Note that including demographic data (especially Religion, less so Ethnic Groups) in the infobox is supported by some and opposed by others. In addition to Talk:Australia, there is current discussion at Template talk:Infobox#Pre-RfC Question: Religion in infoboxes.

Please don't feel that you must alter Yemen just to be like Afghanistan, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Australia, Bangladesh, etc. Religious demographics is omitted at Albania, Andorra, Angola, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, etc. That's just the A's: usage seems closely split at first glance. For examples of countries with a single &/or official religion(s) in the infobox, see Algeria (Islam), Armenia (infobox says "Christianity", but state church is the Armenian Apostolic Church), Bahrain (Islam), Bhutan (Vajrayana Buddhism), Brunei (Sunni Islam), Comoros (Sunni Islam), Denmark (two: Church of Denmark, and Church of the Faroe Islands).

Given that the numbers of non-Muslims in Yemen is so small, I personally think the current layout (with link to Islam in Yemen) works well. I did have to click through to that article to see that "the Constitution declares that Islam is the state religion". Maybe "Islam (official)" would convey that, though somebody is bound to object. Religion of society and religion of government seem to coincide for Yemen, if you're content to lump all variations of Islam together. Breaking down infobox religions along the lines of Shia/Sunni or Catholic/Protestant/Orthodox is a whole other discussion.

— Cheers! Sorry for the reply being long, but hope the extra detail helps. Pelagic (talk) 23:33, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

[Edit: clarified Armenia, Bahrain. Fixed link for Bhutan. Pelagic (talk) 00:20, 13 July 2019 (UTC)]

Pelagic, Thanks for your detailed response here and in that RfC.--SharabSalam (talk) 05:53, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Leader

For former country, leader1 and title_leader does not work but leader_name1 and leader_title1 does work at formatting. Look at UNTAC.Manabimasu (talk) 04:43, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

They both work exactly as designed. |leader1= only shows if |year_leader1= is used, because the former leaders are listed by year instead of individually (so it's "leader title" followed by pairs of year/leader). |leader_name1= is a pairing with |leader_title1= so they are used together. Primefac (talk) 11:48, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Addition of mains electricity

Please add a field for the mains electricity of the country, as it is a stable hard fact of a country. Ythlev (talk) 13:16, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

 Not done @Ythlev: please make your changes in the Template:Infobox country/sandbox first and test them, once ready reactivate the edit request above. If you just want to discuss this, or wait for someone else to work on it that can continue below. Thank you, — xaosflux ^Talk 13:20, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Ythelv appears to have done this. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:12, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

 Done. @Ythlev: please remember to update the documentation as well. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 00:45, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Mr. Stradivarius, this change was not made correctly. While |electricity= is displayed in the infobox, it is also parsed as an error and articles using the para are in Category:Pages using infobox country with unknown parameters. MB 23:44, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

I forgot to add the parameter to Check for unknown parameters. I've done it in the sandbox. Ythlev (talk) 13:02, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

@MB and Ythlev: I've updated the template from Ythlev's updated code. Let me know if you see anything else awry. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 13:08, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

flag_size

The country version of this template supports |image_flag= and |image_flag2=. There is an undocumented |flag_size= but no corresponding |flag2_size=. This came up in Rhodesia where a second flag was recently added. I just removed usage of flag_size and now the two flags are identical in size. I'm not sure if there needs to be a way to specify the second flag size, or |flag_size= can be deprecated. MB 19:10, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Words sticking out of the box

Is it just me, or are some entries crossing certain boundaries that are not supposed to be a part of the format. For example, there's an entry that crossed into the outside of the infobox in the article for the United Kingdom - Bokmanrocks01 (talk) 04:59, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Typo: captial_exile

There appears to be a typo in the following line:

| data9 = {{#ifexist:{{{capital_exile|}}}|[[{{{capital_exile|}}}]]|{{{captial_exile|}}}}}

Jay D. Easy (t • c) 17:09, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

 Done – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:19, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 13 September 2019: Add judiciary subsection

In general, all countries constitutionally divide government powers into two or three branches - with the judiciary exclusively as one independent power and legislative and executive powers either separated (USA, Australia, Italy) or combined (Germany)... the current info box includes government but sort of mixes the executive in this, and then separates the legislature. Would suggest including a new subsection "Judiciary" that follows the legislature subsection with three parameters: highest court (supreme court) of appeal, title of head of the court, and name of the head of the court. Something like this, perhaps:
|judiciary = <!--Name of highest court (supreme court), if given (e.g. "Supreme Court")--> |judiciary_leader_title1= <!--Title of the head highest court (supreme court), (e.g. "Chief Justice")--> |judiciary_leader_name1=
Goldsztajn (talk) 12:58, 13 September 2019 (UTC) </nowiki>

Goldsztajn, two answers apply to your request -

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit template-protected}} template.

and

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate.

Modelling your request in the template's sandbox would be a good place to start, followed by a discussion of your proposal on this page and (neutrally) soliciting input on the talk pages of the relevant projects listed at the top of this page. Hope that helps, Cabayi (talk) 18:41, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

@Goldsztajn: I've begun modelling in my own sandbox, after not having much joy in the recommended template sandbox, but this could prove to be beyond my limited coding skills. Meticulo (talk) 02:34, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

@Meticulo: Hi, thanks for chiming in and your efforts! Given the comment above about achieving consensus, would be helpful to hear a comment on whether you think this is an appropriate proposal... although I assume that by trying to draft the request, you are supportive...  :).--Goldsztajn (talk) 16:23, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Support: @Goldsztajn: Yes, definitely would like to see a parameter available in Template:Infobox country for the final court of appeal, at the very least, something like:

judiciary = <--Name of the country/territory's final court of appeal, e.g. "Supreme Court", "High Court", etc-->

But it sounds like we might need to draft a mock-up of the entire template to show what we're proposing. Meticulo (talk) 00:20, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

@Cabayi: Genuine question: How does one achieve consensus when there is no difference of opinion? I take it what you are saying is you prefer others comment on the proposal? Given that this is about providing an option to add to the template, and some country infoboxes contain this information (eg USA, Australia, but could appear in a more clear manner given this proposal), this is commonsense. Can you please tell me why my request is not clear about adding an option so that the information of the judiciary can be included for each country? Are you asking me to provide the specific coding? --Goldsztajn (talk) 16:38, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

I've left messages on the talk pages of the Countries, Geography and Statisics projects notifying of the request I've made here. --Goldsztajn (talk) 16:46, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Goldsztajn, I think you've grasped my meaning. The {{edit template-protected}} requests assistance from template editors, not subject specialists, and specifically requests "This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, so that an editor unfamiliar with the subject matter could complete the requested edit immediately.". Your request, with phrases like "Would suggest including a new subsection..." and "Something like this, perhaps", is not fully formed. What you have is not so much a difference of opinion as a lack of opinion. Hopefully your notices on the project talk pages will attract the right kind of assistance.

My experience of these discussions tells me that they proceed more smoothly and quickly if there's an example (sandbox & testcases) to guide the discussion forward.

While I don't have the subject experience in this area I do know that it's only within the last 10 years that the UK has had such a separation of powers. Prior to that the Crown in Parliament was supreme in all branches (a side effect of Parliament winning the English Civil War). Will your changes handle that smoothly?

Hope that helps, Cabayi (talk) 19:22, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

@Cabayi: Whether or not there are cases of a higher power than the highest court (eg Saudi Arabia, DPRK, Swaziland, PRC), the obvious point of this request is to allow editors the option to add the highest court into the infobox in a delineated space (rather than what happens at present). One does not need to express opinion here on whether X country or Y country has an agreed highest court, the request is to amend the template to allow editors the option on a case by case basis. FWIW, there seems to be support for this as a resolution to a current debate on the infobox for Australia. --Goldsztajn (talk) 20:57, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

As the person who raised the debate in Australia, I figured I'd add my two cents here. I would first note that it is already possible to add the Chief Justice as an 'other leader', which is what happens on United States. It also seems to me that the (non-)inclusion of the Chief Justice is a context-specific and contested issue. For instance, it appears on United States, but not on Canada, New Zealand or United Kingdom, all nations which have (to some extent) a separation of powers. As for the inclusion on United States, I think that's the right move, because the Chief Justice in that nation a) has a Constitutionally established position as the highest-ranking federal judicial officer, b) is quite prominently mentioned in that role in independent, verifiable sources. I also consider the same applies with respect to Australia, although that debate is ongoing on the talk page. These are issues that are probably best addressed on an article-by-article basis - while I think this parameter is a good idea, it does seem there are deeper problems as to whether the inclusion of the Chief Justice is appropriate or not, and I'm not sure whether adding this parameter will just add another spanner in the works by suggesting that it is generally appropriate to list the judiciary. 130.95.175.240 (talk) 05:36, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Some questions and comments about the life_span parameter

1. What is the reason for having the parameter life_span in addition to the parameters year_start and year_end? In the template code for the subheading, life_span is given priority.

2. The life_span parameter is not documented on the template documentation page.

3. I came looking because the life_span parameter has been used in Italian Eritrea to include years before the formal establishment of the colony. Is this OK? To me it looks strange to state that the colony was formally created in 1890 but then show 1882–1947 in the infobox. —Coroboy (talk) 08:53, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 10 October 2019

Please change template call {{ifempty}} to {{if empty}} to avoid the redirect. The call to that template is transcluded in nearly 5,000 articles through being called in this template, so that unnecessary redirect has to be followed every time one of those articles is viewed. Colonies Chris (talk) 15:57, 10 October 2019 (UTC) Colonies Chris (talk) 15:57, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit template-protected}} template. For further discussion see User talk:Colonies Chris. --Trialpears (talk) 16:31, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

The "flag_type" parameter

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Heraldry and vexillology#Types of flags used on country articles where there are some questions about the intended usage of the flag parameters. Feedback is welcome... --IamNotU (talk) 16:10, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

For republics should the adjective "constitutional" be used in the government_type field?

Every republic I'm aware of has a constitution of sorts, so why does "constitutional" need to be mentioned in the infobox of republics? It seems rather redundant. I can understand why it should be used for monarchies, as the constitution serves to limit the powers of the monarch and not all monarchies have one. It is also a useful adjective to distinguish absolute monarchies from those with far weaker monarchs. But what purpose does it serve for republics, given they all seem to have a constitution of sorts? Especially since the infobox is meant to be as compact as it can, while still conveying the basic, important and distinguishing facts. Fuse809 (contribs · email · talk · uploads) 18:05, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

"Format" in TemplateData causing problems

There's a line in the TemplateData that reads:

"format": "{{_\n| _                = _\n}}\n"

Apparently it's causing problems, where edits made using the Visual Editor insert about a thousand spaces, for example in this edit: [1]. It makes it very difficult to understand what was actually changed in the edit, and can even look like vandalism - in this particular case it contributed (among other factors) to the user being temporarily blocked for disruptive editing.

It also makes diffs between older and newer revisions similarly hard to read, and the layout it's left in, with the large blank space between the parameter name and the "= value" doesn't seem very helpful either. Can it be removed?

I don't understand it very well but I read a little about it here: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T179259. The line was added by Daviddwd earlier this year in this edit: [2]. Could anyone (maybe you David?) comment? Thanks... --IamNotU (talk) 00:16, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

ISO 3166, making it more flexible

The field iso3166code takes the full input and assumes it being the code. This causes issues when you need to add notes, add multiple codes or the like. Most notably on Kosovo where the ISO code is temporary and XK can never be an official code. I would suggest having a secondary field that inserts the same value as for iso3166code, but does not apply any formatting. For Kosovo, the text would be inputted as XK<sup>f</sup>, where "XK" won't be a link, and the note marker f is added. For a region like Puerto Rico, the code would be {{hlist|[[ISO 3166-2:PR|PR]]|[[ISO 3166-2:US|US-PR]]}}, if it were using the infobox country.

I made an edit to Template:Infobox_country/sandbox and added a variable for iso3166, that you replace iso3166code with. For this variable, you insert the whole code yourself, instead of just the letters alone. This will make it optionally more flexible. Testing it on Kosovo by using /sandbox, and replacing iso3166code with iso3166, and replacing the value with XK<sup>f</sup>. It does work. – The final value should probably be: [[ISO 3166-1 alpha-2#User-assigned code elements|XK]]<sup>f</sup> instead.

Liggliluff (talk) 16:50, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

MOS:FONTSIZE issue with "Flag" and "Coat of arms" captions

Hi,

{{Infobox country/imagetable}} is set to produce its captions at 90%, but since this is a subpart of an infobox where text size is already reduced (in the case of {{Infobox country}}, to 88%), this means the text for the "Flag" and "Coat of arms" captions renders <85%, violating MOS:FONTSIZE. Could someone remove the divs from around the <div style="font-size:90%;">{{{caption1|}}}</div> (and related) code? —Joeyconnick (talk) 23:04, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Official language

There should be a way to set "official language" rather than "official languages" for countries with only 1 official language. Otherwise, it is confusing. See Belize for example. Kaldari (talk) 20:57, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

ISO country codes for former countries that ceased to exist prior to codes.

The appearance of these codes is an anachronism. It arises from using the common name field. The country code is removed from the infobox by deleting the common name field. Is there any detrimental consequence of doing this for a former country? Should the documentation be updated to depricate the field for former countries that ceased to exist prior to 1974 (first edition of the codes)? Regards Cinderella157 (talk) 06:32, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Pinging Primefac, who did a ton of work to make this merge happen. I just found an ISO 3166 country code listed at Kingdom of Norway (872–1397) and had to add |iso3166code=omit to make the inappropriate country code go away. We may need a bot/script run to add that parameter and value to existing instances of {{infobox former country}}, perhaps with a hidden comment that the parameter was added by a bot and should be removed if a country code is valid (for something like Polish People's Republic, which existed until 1989). The bot/script might also be able to key off the value of |year_end= to decide whether to add the parameter or not. – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:32, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

I think just making it dependent on the |year_end= date, so that it only shows if year>1974, would suffice. Primefac (talk) 11:13, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

 Done. Primefac (talk) 15:16, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

I was just thinking an hour ago about having a stab at this, so thanks for working on it. It needs a bit more refinement, however. See this old version of Kingdom of Bosnia, where there is more than just a year in the |year_end= parameter. I think we need a {{Str number/trim}}, or maybe a {{trim}} and a {{Str left}}. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:20, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, Primefac, something is definitely wrong. Since your change to this template, a number of articles that use {{Infobox former country}} have popped up in Category:ParserFunction errors. (Curiously, Kingdom of Bosnia is not currently listed in that category, although the article is showing a ParserFunction error message in the infobox.) I don't know enough about templates to identify the exact problem, but something needs fixing. Deor (talk) 17:00, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

I have reverted the change for now and copied some values of |year_end= into my sandbox. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:14, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

I thought that was too easy. Year should be pretty easy to parse out. Primefac (talk) 18:07, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

I have made an attempt at it with some pretty hacky string processing in the sandbox. I have test cases at Template:Infobox country/testcases2. So far, my if/then logic is not quite right. The logic we need, as far as I can tell is:

• If |common_name= is not present, do not show the ISO code.
• If |common_name= is present and |year_end= is post-1973 or not present, show the ISO code.
• If |common_name= is present and |year_end= is pre-1974, do not show the ISO code.

I have been unable to make my clanky nested if statements match that logic. I have inserted the test words "first" and "second" to track which instance of the code is being displayed.

I was unable to find a template that would pluck the first three- or four-digit number out of a string, so the string processing looks like this: Find the start position of %d%d%d%d? in the string, then show me the string starting from that position to the end of the string, then trim everything after the first number that you find. Then compare that result to "1974" with an #ifexpr statement. There must be an easier way. Also, the string processing and math comparison yields a false positive for "3150 BC". – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:19, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Continent field?

Should we add a Continent field? I'd say it would prove especially useful in border situations like the countries in the Caribbean, western Europe or the middle east. --uKER (talk) 00:18, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Oh no, please no. Endless edit wars will ensue. Have you looked at the animated map in the lead of continent, or at the table at Continent#Number? – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:09, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Let's just add an entry to the MOS saying that the 7-continent syntax is to be used. That very diagram seems pretty confident in saying which country belongs in each continent. --uKER (talk) 14:28, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Population density km2/sq_mi

The documentation includes:

|population_density_km2 = 39.7
|population_density_sq_mi = 102,8 <!--Do not remove per [[WP:MOSNUM]]-->

Some articles I have seen include both a km2 and a sq_mi value, for example, India has:

| population_density_km2 = {{Pop density|{{Indian population clock}}|3287263|km2|disp=num|prec=1}}
| population_density_sq_mi = {{Pop density|{{Indian population clock}}|1269219|sqmi|disp=num|prec=1}}

Presumably the advice to have both was useful at some time in the past. However, a missing value is now entered automatically. For example, previewing the following in a sandbox gives three identical infoboxes.

{{Infobox country
| common_name = India
| population_estimate = {{increase}}{{UN Population|India}}{{UN Population|ref}}
| population_census = 1,210,854,977
| population_density_km2 = {{Pop density|{{Indian population clock}}|3287263|km2|disp=num|prec=1}}
| population_density_sq_mi = {{Pop density|{{Indian population clock}}|1269219|sqmi|disp=num|prec=1}}
}}
{{Infobox country
| common_name = India
| population_estimate = {{increase}}{{UN Population|India}}{{UN Population|ref}}
| population_census = 1,210,854,977
| population_density_km2 = {{Pop density|{{Indian population clock}}|3287263|km2|disp=num|prec=1}}
}}
{{Infobox country
| common_name = India
| population_estimate = {{increase}}{{UN Population|India}}{{UN Population|ref}}
| population_census = 1,210,854,977
| population_density_sq_mi = {{Pop density|{{Indian population clock}}|1269219|sqmi|disp=num|prec=1}}
}}

Is there a reason to have both population_density_km2 and population_density_sq_mi? Johnuniq (talk) 06:55, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

If the IB can handle one, both, or neither, then I do not think we need to mandate that both be included. Primefac (talk) 15:16, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Maps by United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs

I noticed that some countries have a corresponding map in the commons category commons:Category:Maps by United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs in the infobox (China for example). I was wondering if we should remove all the maps from the infoboxes or add them to the infoboxes of all countries? Interstellarity (talk) 16:13, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

iso3166code parameter

Hi, could somebody please help with getting the iso3166code parameter to work correctly in Slovenia? The 2 references are important because Slovenia is one of the few countries with conflicting iso3166 / vehicle / IOC codes. Thanks! Dr. Vogel (talk) 18:00, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

 Fixed. The ISO 3166 parameter is for the ISO 3166 code. I do not see a parameter for these other codes in the infobox. If they are important, discuss them in the article and provide references there. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:03, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi there, thanks for your reply. I don't think it's fixed, it shouldn't crash like that when you provide references. Dr. Vogel (talk) 19:06, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Fetching Wikidata information

Hello everyone, Here we have Template:Infobox person/Wikidata (i.e Mary Wesley) that fetches Wikidata information and it's useful to saving time on Wikipedia. Now, I want to ask you to create a template like above for Template:Infobox country (It should be Template:Infobox country/Wikidata). Can someone create it? Thanks! ⇒ AramTalk 20:42, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Infobox map image of countries

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Several articles are using map images that include areas that are claimed by a country but are not under that country's sovereignty. This can be misleading and agenda pushing by those promoting irredentist claims. It also contravenes the purpose of the infobox in summarising the article's key points. Such maps might be suitable for articles specifically about territorial claims, but not about a country in general. Examples of this are in countries with territorial claims on the Antarctic continent. All claims there are not recognised by the vast majority of other states and very little, if any, exercise of sovereignty takes place there. The claims therefore remain as claims. Examples where claimed areas might be relevant are, for example, India with Kashmir, where Kashmir is split between two countries, both of whom claim and exercise sovereignty over each half. This is quite different from, say, Argentina's claim to South Georgia. Should we clarify the infobox guidelines to exclude all land not recognised as being under direct sovereign control of the country in question. Exceptions will be limited and dealt with on a case by case basis. Maps of claimed ares would of course be suitable in relevant sub-sections dealing with that claim of dispute, but not in the infobox. We should also not confuse a recognition of a dispute with non-recognition or sovereignty. This is an angle sometimes taken by those promoting a claim. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 21:02, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

This sounds like an issue that is best resolved on a few individual articles' talk pages. The current documentation gives an example of a file name: "e.g. LocationCountry.svg". That should suffice for technical documentation for this template. Template documentation tends to apply, rather than dictate, WP guidelines. If you find that a suitable map is not available for a particular article after a talk page consensus is reached, such a map can probably be created. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:15, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

I concur; this is a template-use issue, not a template issue. Primefac (talk) 01:51, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback. A problem arises when the boundaries of a country are disputed, which is why I though a more precise definition might be useful. I do see though that this might be better discussed on each relevant article's talk page. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 21:02, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

The boundaries of a claim are disputed by the very nature of there being a claim. Kashmir isn't inherently more relevant than any other dispute. India claims the Pakistani-controlled areas, and Argentina claims some British-controlled areas. Antarctica is by nature not really under the inherent control of any country outside of their bases, so light green makes sense for those territories. The extent of a country, as defined by that country, seems a reasonably key point to include in an infobox, as does whether that extent exists in reality or on paper. CMD (talk) 01:18, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

A claim and a dispute are not synonymous. Linking the two is part of the problem. A claim can be undisputed but still have no validity in law. There are different types of claim with differing effects. Lumping them all together just as "claims", which is what seems to be happening with infobox maps, can therefore be misleading. Kashmir (not each half of Kashmir) is disputed but India and Pakistan (excluding China to keep this simple) each exercise effective control over a half each, putting it into a different category from the Falklands, or Belize, or Ceuta, where effective control is not shared. Just because a country says an area is part of its country does not make it so. Look here [3] for example - a completely misleading map. To claim that Chile extends to the south pole is theoretical at best. Just because it is in the Chilean constitution does not make it any less theoretical. The world is full of irredentist and expansionist claims: if we catered for all of the infobox maps would quickly become unworkable. This is why IMO we should stick to effective control and recognition by the majority of countries. All the variations and claims can be dealt with further down in an article. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 10:23, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

All claims are disputed by nature, as otherwise they would be in effect. It is also unclear what law you are referring to, or what the different categories you seek to establish are. There is no shared control over the various territories in the former Kashmir, all areas are singularly controlled by one entity (and various subnational units). Roughly, India claims but doesn't control what is now Gilgit-Baltistan and Azad Kashmir, while Pakistan claims but doesn't control Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh. As mentioned before, the different colours are there precisely to establish whether a claim is theoretical or not. As for catering to claims, my experience is that the vast majority - if not all - well-established and defined claims are already catered for in various infoboxes, for example the Chile infobox currently does this with Antarctica. CMD (talk) 04:42, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

While the editors talking in this section about maps and claims may have valid points that could reasonably be discussed on the talk pages of specific countries' articles, how is any of the above relevant to the coding and documentation of this infobox? What specific changes to the coding or documentation of this infobox would you recommend? – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:15, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Our documentation uses an example location map from the Commons:Grey–green orthographic projections maps series (and most country articles use the maps from this series), which includes claims in its documentation. My preference would be to continue using that series as our standard example, but Roger 8 Roger has raised concerns relevant to it. CMD (talk) 06:16, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Test cases in international law exist, pre and post the founding of the ICJ. See Island of Palmas Case, which found against the US claim by stressing the importance of the Netherlands' "peaceful and continuous" display of authority over the island (what I called 'effective possession'), which contrasted with the US position based more on inheriting the earlier Spanish claim of first discovery and geographical proximity to the Philippines. Primefac, I don't follow what you are trying to say. The infobox guidelines state a map should be that country/location. What if what that is is disputed, as with Chile's idea of what and where it is is not the same as what everyone else thinks Chile is and where it is. Whatever, 'LocationCountry' does not allow for claimed 'LocationCountry' areas, so we should not use claimed areas. In fact 'country/location is quite specific, so I am not sure why we are even having this discussion. All we need it guidelines clarification that 'country/location' means ..."xyz" Also, the infobox is meant to be a summary of the very basic facts, not abstract concepts like the south pole being part of Chile. That can easily be dealt with lower down. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 09:26, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

The infobox has no discursive context and so must be a snapshot of reality. As to disputed areas, there is a big difference between areas which have been occupied and controlled and those which are mere aspirations, however deeply held. India did control and have unimpeachable title to all of Kashmir, but Pakistan has actually controlled the northern part for almost as long as those states have existed, so showing the area as disputed is unavoidable. The Crimea is another case, where the world community says it is Ukrainian but in current reality it is Russian. In contrast, China has never (except a brief war) controlled Arunachal Pradesh: its claim is mere aspiration. Likewise the Chilean and Argentinian claims on Antarctica and the latter's claim on the Falkland Islands have no physical reality. An article or section on those claims should include a map showing the claim, but in an infobox we reflect the real extent of a country. Hogweard (talk) 20:29, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Linking_name

Is there a good reason why this parameter isn't documented? --ColinFine (talk) 11:06, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

It's not? In the parameter list it says |linking_name = <!-- For wikilinks, if diff from name -->, which seems pretty self-explanatory to me. Primefac (talk) 13:20, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

HDI and IHDI

Would it make more sense to add the inequality-adjusted HDI above the HDI given that the non-adjusted HDI shows where countries could be if there was no inequality? KREOH (talk) 01:32, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Is this something reliable sources usually do when reporting on HDI? CMD (talk) 02:02, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

No, from what I'm seeing IHDI comes after.KREOH (talk) 17:56, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Proposal

Hello! I propose that we add the option in the template to add info about the ease of doing buisness index ranking about the respective country. Arcatom (talk) 19:56, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

That seems an obscure ranking to push across every country page. CMD (talk) 03:18, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Maybe you are right, but many still use it. More notably, buisnessmen. Arcatom (talk) 22:21, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Representative image of the country

It seems strange not to be able to add a representative image of the country in this template, and having just a map is often quite bland. Could someone add this option in the script? For example Template:Infobox_settlement has "image_skyline". We could all the same have "image_skyline" or "image_sample" in this infobox. पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 04:44, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

I think it would be hard to find an image representative of an entire country. It's best to leave that sort of thing to the article content. CMD (talk) 05:16, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

@Chipmunkdavis: At least a representative image could be useful in many cases. Look how it would help here for example. It would just be an option, the actual usage of which would be left to the judgement of the editors of the article in question.पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 06:55, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

@Chipmunkdavis: Alternatively, couldn't we just relabel the item "|image_map=" as "|image=", so that editors can freely determine the type of image which is most relevant in each case? पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 07:08, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

A location map has immediate utility for readers, as it provides a great deal of very key information that would be much harder to convey in text. Images are not meant to be decorative, and I don't see how your suggestion makes articles more informative for the reader. The Ninth Dynasty of Egypt article could include images anywhere, it doesn't have to go in the infobox. CMD (talk) 07:24, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Render national_anthem as "National Anthem"

Was wondering if someone would be able to change how the national_anthem parameter is rendered as currently it renders as "anthem" which causes a bit of a logic issue especially where countries have multiple anthems. For example, royal_anthem renders as "Royal Anthem", but national_anthem just as "anthem" so both together lead to a bit of an inconsistency. I think it would be more consistent to have them render as "National Anthem" and "Royal Anthem" respectively. trackratte (talk) 10:55, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Second flag

Autonomous Province of Western Bosnia has two flags. The first is specified with |image_flag= and the second with |image_flag2=. The documentation says each can have a caption, specified with |flag_type= and |flag2_type=. But flag2_type causes an "unrecognized parameter" error. The caption given with flag_type (or undocumented flag_caption) is centered under both images.

I tried moving the second flag to the |image_coat= & |symbol_type= as a work-around and that does display both images and captions, but the two flags are different size. Can flag2_type be made to work as documented? MB 03:03, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Primefac appears to have added |flag2_type= to the documentation in August 2018 while performing a tricky merge of {{Infobox former country}} into this template. I see no evidence (when searching with WikiBlame) that |flag2_type= was ever supported by {{Infobox country}} (disclaimer: I only searched back to 2005). The subtemplate that displays two flags appears to accept only one caption underneath either one or two flags, but I could definitely be wrong; the syntax is a bit tricky.

There is probably a way that |flag2_type= could be made to work. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:35, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Infobox former country also seems to only allow one caption. See Republic of China (1912–1949). CMD (talk) 06:26, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

I experimented with Republic of China (1912–1949) by taking out the coat of arms. This caused the two flags to display side-by-side instead of stacked, so the caption was then wrong (because is says top/bottom instead of left/right). This really isn't ideal to have this kind of dependency. MB 03:23, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Been a while since I've thought about this part of the merger. I vaguely recall that there were quite a few alternate and/or unused parameters (in both templates) and I thought I had gotten rid of all of them. Not sure if I missed it or was planning on figuring out how to implement it. Primefac (talk) 15:42, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Map

Any chance of including a pushpin map to the template, for those articles where we have no map image, but we do have coordinates? Liverpoolpics (talk) 09:49, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

What country articles have no map image? CMD (talk) 10:27, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Country articles do not use pushpin maps, since a country typically occupies more land area than a pushpin represents. If you see countries using this infobox that need maps, post them here, and a map can probably be added or made. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:15, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Shuliavka Republic ? Liverpoolpics (talk) 15:45, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

That should really not be using this infobox. CMD (talk) 16:36, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Right, it's not a country. Maybe {{Infobox civil conflict}} or {{Infobox event}} or {{Infobox political division}} would work. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:41, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

There should not be a division line if only one sovereignty event is provided

Currently, if only one sovereignty event is provided (via established_event1 along with a sovereignty_type), there is a division line between the first event and the sovereignty type line (see example). This seems to be happening because the class check (in rowclass46) checks for the existence of established_event2 instead of established_event1. Getsnoopy (talk) 04:14, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

ISO 3166

ISO 3166 was introduced in 1974, but it's showing on countries that never had an ISO 3166 code such as Fourth French Republic and Dominion of Pakistan. Is there a way of removing it? DrKay (talk) 10:47, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes - adding |iso3166code=omit to the infobox will omit the code. I've done that for you at Special:Diff/978357399, as an example. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:25, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I've added to the documentation for former country syntax and updated the example. Is this sufficient? Regards Cinderella157 (talk) 04:48, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Missing map caption

The template seems to support |image_map3= but there is no corresponding |image_map3_caption=. Colonial Brazil using workaround. MB 17:17, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

World Happiness indexes

I am trying to understand how to include the World Happiness indexes parameter in this Infobox. The result should be something like this (Romania):

World Happiness Indexes 48 - 6.070 (rank - score)

Thanks for any help. (Carlotm (talk) 01:41, 17 October 2020 (UTC))

As far as I am aware this template doesn't track that, and I feel like the inclusion of such a parameter would require a consensus to add. Primefac (talk) 13:09, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

References

ISO 3166 country code

This template is somehow setting an ISO 3166 country code on the page Kingdom of Cyprus. That cannot be correct – the ISO 3166 code CY refers to the modern Republic of Cyprus, not the mediaeval kingdom, which claimed different territory. (Indeed, at certain times the mediaeval Kingdom of Cyprus possessed territory on the Anatolian mainland, modern-day Turkey; the modern Republic of Cyprus has never claimed or possessed any such territory.) I think the CY code would be removed but I can't work out how to do it, I don't understand how the logic of the template is applying it. Mr248 (talk) 04:25, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

The relevant wikicode:

| label127= [[ISO 3166|ISO 3166 code]]
| data127= {{#switch:{{{iso3166code|}}}
     |omit = <!--(do nothing)-->
     | = <!--if iso3166code is not supplied:
          -->{{#if:{{{common_name|}}}
              | {{#if:{{ISO 3166 code|{{{common_name}}}|nocat=true}}
                 | [[ISO 3166-2:{{ISO 3166 code|{{{common_name}}}}}|{{ISO 3166 code|{{{common_name}}}}}]]
                }}
             }}
     |#default = [[ISO 3166-2:{{uc:{{{iso3166code}}}}}|{{uc:{{{iso3166code}}}}}]]
    }}

Someone has set the common name to Cyprus and has both not elected to omit the addition of the 3166 code and not provided its own 3166 code. Because of that, it will display as CY according to {{ISO 3166 code}}.

To remedy, remove the common name, add its 3166 code, or set |omit=anything_you_want (usually "y" or similar). --Izno (talk) 04:57, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

@Izno: Well, the reason why nobody has provided an ISO 3166 code, is only modern countries (since the 1970s) have one. Historical countries that no longer exist do not (except for historical countries which recently ceased to exist, e.g. SU for Soviet Union). I am confused where to pass the |omit=y, when this template is invoked on the page, or are you talking about modifying this template? Mr248 (talk) 20:19, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

@Mr248: set |omit=y in the article in question. --Izno (talk) 18:35, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

@Izno: I tried editing Kingdom of Cyprus to add |omit=y to {{Infobox country}}. It didn't do anything, the ISO-3166 country code was still displayed in the infobox, it also displayed the warning: Warning: Page using Template:Infobox country with unknown parameter "omit" (this message is shown only in preview). Mr248 (talk) 20:30, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

@Mr248: Oh, I'm sorry. |iso3166code=omit. --Izno (talk) 20:38, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

@Both: See 3 sections up btw ;p -- apparently this is a frequent issue. Won't this issue apply to all former {{Infobox former country}} cases? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:00, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Ah, been discussed here it seems. Interest on making it work seemed to dim out after a while. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:02, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

@ProcrastinatingReader: it will occur to almost all {{Infobox former country}} cases, but not quite all. Former countries that have ceased to exist since the 1970s do (or at least did) have ISO-3166 codes, for example SU for the Soviet Union, DD for East Germany. A couple of things that make it even more complex (1) when a country ceases to exist, its country code becomes free for reuse by any new country which comes into existence in the future (after a 5 year grace period); whether that actually happens depends on, among other factors, how much use the old code still has. For example, SU is unlikely to be reused any time soon, despite the fact that the Soviet Union hasn't existed for almost 30 years, because its Internet domain .su is still in heavy active use; by contrast, codes for other former countries have been reused – for example, CS was used for Czechoslovakia, then reused for Serbia-Montenegro. So I think we have to be very careful when giving codes for former countries, since we need to make clear that the code might have a different meaning now or in the future. The most official answer is actually ISO_3166-3 – when a country having an ISO-3166-1 code ceases to exist, an ISO-3166-3 code is allocated instead. (2) not every former country article use {{Infobox former country}}, some use {{Infobox country}} instead, including the Kingdom of Cyprus article which I brought up here. I guess in principle they all should use the "former" template, but there is nothing really to enforce that. Mr248 (talk) 07:46, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

@Izno: thanks that worked. Mr248 (talk) 06:50, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Problem with automatic link from government_type

The tag government_type automatically links to the article "Politics of [name of country]". On Korea under Japanese rule, however, this creates a link to Politics of Korea, which is a disambiguation page. Is there a way to disable this automatic linking in individual cases? Lennart97 (talk) 12:37, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Nevermind, it's fixed now. Lennart97 (talk) 22:59, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

A title for Sovereignty

As I was looking at the infobox for the United States, I saw a section above its history and below its government that said "Independence from Great Britain". I was confused, was this in error? Does it belong to the history section? As I opened the source, I saw that both Independence and Great Britain are part of the infobox's "Sovereignty" section. I propose that we label it, to make it less confusing, and more specific. RobotGoggles (talk) 02:34, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

That section is not a history section, it is a status section. It is intended to show when a polity achieved a certain status, which for countries tends to be Independence (sovereignty). CMD (talk) 02:58, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

I understand that, but that's not clear to the reader. It just says "Independence from Great Britain"

If it said Sovereignty ---- Independence from Great Britain, it would be much more clear. RobotGoggles (talk) 17:47, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't understand what you think is unclear about "Independence from Great Britain" by itself. It seems perfectly understandable to me. BilCat (talk) 18:35, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

On its own, it means nothing. Independence from Great Britain? That could refer to many things in regard to the United States, including the source of sovereignty but also in regard to the signing of the Declaration of Independence, or the international recognition by France of the United States' legitimacy.

It needs a label. RobotGoggles (talk) 05:25, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

If a person can't figure that out from the dates listed in the section, I doubt a label will help. BilCat (talk) 07:34, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

As CMD said, it's a status section, not a history section. The dates are irrelevant. RobotGoggles (talk) 17:29, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Automatic link to Religion

Hi. Can Religion automatically link to Religion in ...? For example, on Taiwan, the label could link to Religion in Taiwan. intforce (talk) 15:34, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Recommending too, it will be quite useful thing instead of putting a link separately in list of religious groups. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 05:01, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Improvisation of parameter "Religion"

The parameter |religion = displayed as Religion as it is, is somewhat reflected as the matter of nationstate's characteristics which isn't true for secular states. It is better to change the parameter's display Religion → Religious groups and introduce another parameter State religion to mention it in case of countries which have it constitutionally. Existing parameters sounds quite problematic to me and would strongly recommend amendments, may be a better suggestion can be offered by someone else? Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 05:00, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

That seems a reasonable suggestion. An alternative could be making the wording able to be overwritten, if that's possible. CMD (talk) 05:08, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Division line even if only one sovereignty event is provided

Resurfacing this issue: currently, if only one sovereignty event is provided (via established_event1 along with a sovereignty_type), there is a division line between the first event and the sovereignty type line (see example). This seems to be happening because the class check (in rowclass46) checks for the existence of established_event2 instead of established_event1. Getsnoopy (talk) 20:08, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

 Fixed, and thanks for the diagnosis. I made this change in the sandbox and then checked it against all of the testcases, including a new one for Kiribati; it looks fine. As with any complex infobox, there may be unintended consequences, especially in cases where unusual content has been put into one or more template parameter values. In the future, Getsnoopy, you are always welcome to make reasonable edits to the template's sandbox and testcases pages (linked at the bottom of most templates' documentation). – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:48, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Image order for the purpose of navigation previews

Someone pointed out at Wikipedia:Teahouse § Nepali Flag not being shown when hovering over a Nepal link that the emblem is used in preference to the flag in navigation popups. Is it possible to change the template syntax so the flag is chosen instead? AnonQuixote (talk) 04:38, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

I already see flags on popups when I hover over country links. CMD (talk) 04:49, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Hmm, even Nepal? I see the emblem like the Teahouse user reported. Maybe the software chooses an image non-deterministically when there are multiple? I also raised this question here. AnonQuixote (talk) 04:55, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, even Nepal. Spot-checked over 10 others and all were flags too. Can't explain why, but since they're defined first in the infobox I'm surprised they're not first for you. CMD (talk) 05:06, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

@Chipmunkdavis: Perhaps your Navigation popups are on in your Preferences-Gadgets? When it's off it doesn't show the flag, when it's on it shows the flag for some reason. PyroFloe (talk) 06:02, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Very odd that it's different. Checking while logged out, I do indeed get flags for every country except Nepal. This suggests the issue is not with this template, so it may be better for conversation to continue at Wikipedia talk:Tools/Navigation popups. CMD (talk) 06:08, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

It's now explained at Wikipedia:Teahouse § Nepali Flag not being shown when hovering over a Nepal link. One of the preview features rejects the flag because it's displayed with width below 120. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:37, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Official website

Noticed today that a government website was added to a country article. I am sure most are aware that we normally don't link government sites saving those links for "Government of" articles. I actually thought it was removed as a parameter long ago. I suggest we remove it as it not used by convention. Surprised it hasn't been a larger problem.--Moxy 🍁 06:24, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

I've seen it added/removed to a few articles recently. The parameter exists because of the use of this template for Infobox geopolitical organization, where such website links are equivalent to use in Government of articles. CMD (talk) 07:44, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Yet another example of merger by the template merger crowd that cause content editors problems....they have killed Wikiprojects aswlell. --Moxy 🍁 08:12, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Yup, I was thinking the same thing. BilCat (talk) 10:15, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

life_span

I noticed there is |life_span= which is not documented and seems to be redundant with other parameters. Is this something else left from pre-merger that should be removed? MB 15:19, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

It's from {{Infobox former country}}. The /doc page has been deleted, so I can't see it, but this revision of the old template contains the parameter in context. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:14, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

The current template uses |year_start= and |year_end= for the life span in the header. Can you find how may articles are using it? MB 17:22, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

The monthly report from the Template Data section is useful for questions like that. It says that as of the last check, 613 articles are using |life_span=. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:01, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

modifying fieldnames or labels in TemplateData editor

I wish to change the fieldnames or labels in this infobox. For example, I would like to change "Anthem" to "Hymne". So in the article's infobox it would be :

Hymne O Canada

and not

Anthem Ô Canada

Is this possible? Would the TemplateData editor be useful? I am new at this. I've played around with it in my own mediawiki without success. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snoreau88 (talk • contribs)

I assume this is either for another wiki or for French wiki (though I'd assume they'd already have a template). The relevant piece of code is:

Extended content

{{code|| data2 = {{#if:{{{national_anthem|}}}{{{anthem|}}}         |<div style="line-height:1.2em;">'''Anthem: '''{{if empty|{{{national_anthem|}}}|{{{anthem|}}}}}</div>         }}{{#if:{{{anthems|}}}         | <div style="line-height:1.2em;">'''Anthems: '''{{{anthems}}}</div>         }}{{#if:{{{royal_anthem|}}}         | <hr/> <div style="line-height:1.2em;">'''[[Royal anthem]]: '''{{{royal_anthem}}}</div>         }}{{#if:{{{flag_anthem|}}}         | <hr/> <div style="line-height:1.2em;">'''[[Flag anthem]]: '''{{{flag_anthem}}}</div>         }}{{#if:{{{national_march|}}}         | <hr/> <div style="line-height:1.2em;">'''National march: '''{{{national_march}}}</div>         }}{{#if:{{{territorial_anthem|}}}         | <hr/> <div style="line-height:1.2em;">'''Territorial anthem: '''{{{territorial_anthem}}}</div>         }}{{#if:{{{regional_anthem|}}}         | <hr/> <div style="line-height:1.2em;">'''Regional anthem: '''{{{regional_anthem}}}</div>         }}{{#if:{{{state_anthem|}}}         | <hr/> <div style="line-height:1.2em;">'''State anthem: '''{{{state_anthem}}}</div>         }}{{#if:{{{march|}}}         | <hr/> <div style="line-height:1.2em;">'''March: '''{{{march}}}</div>         }} <!--end of excerpted code-->}}

You probably need to replace the segments between the bold marks (''') with relevant translations; and also change the parameter names if you want them in French. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:01, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Filenames with dashes in image_flag=

The infobox on French Algeria has this text

| image_flag             = Flag of France (1794–1815, 1830–1958).svg

I can see File:Flag of France (1794–1815, 1830–1958).svg if I click on it but the infobox shows a missing file icon.

Infobox is working for me. CMD (talk) 04:35, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

This might be some sort of Safari bug then. I can see it on Chrome but on Safari 14.0.3 (Big Sur) the Network devtools tab says either "Resource has no content" or "An error occured trying to load the resource." for https://up.wiki.x.io/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3a/Flag_of_France_%281794%E2%80%931815%2C_1830%E2%80%931958%29.svg/250px-Flag_of_France_%281794%E2%80%931815%2C_1830%E2%80%931958%29.svg.png when loading that article but opening the file directly works. Akeosnhaoe (talk) 06:41, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Subbox access issue

Apparently there is a problem with using subboxes to collapse official names as is done in this Zimbabwe revision, as it blows up flags images in the mobile version and makes the CoA miniscule. Not sure if it's an issue worth fixing, as the collapsible list template in Switzerland works in the current template. CMD (talk) 01:29, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

You're going to have to be more specific about your configuration. http://en.m.wiki.x.io/wiki/Zimbabwe looks fine in Firefox on my computer, even if I shrink my window or switch to the Timeless skin. Does it happen if you log out? The problem you are seeing may be related to this VPT thread. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:55, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

This was actually pointed out to me by another user here, who provided these examples: glitched, unglitched. CMD (talk) 15:22, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Getting rid of the today= parameter

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should the |today= parameter, which is described as "Present-day countries that overlap with the territorial extent of the former country. Do not use this parameter if there are more than four such countries.", be removed and deprecated? 21:22, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Survey

• Yes Highlighting which parts of modern countries are occupied by former countries can be too messy for inclusion in an infobox (for example, in Europe, where boundaries changed and new states emerged in recent history as a result of both world wars), since infoboxes are only for key information - and while the cutoff is currently at 4; that's an arbitrary number. Or it can be so straightforwardly obvious that this same function is already accomplished by the parameters for successor states (for ex. Old Swiss Confederacy). It sometimes involves only minor areas. Even for cases outside of this, there's very little reason why this information should be given in the infobox - it's interesting, and necessary to comprehend the history of modern states, but a mention in the lead or in the body of the text of the article for more complex cases seems a more than sufficient and appropriate method to convey this, where all nuances can be given if required. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:22, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

• No Just because it creates confusion in some cases doesn't meant it's not very useful in others. Yes, I understand that its use on European polities is sometimes complicated, but that just means its use should be determined on a case-by-case basis, rather than take away a useful tool of conveying information. PraiseVivec (talk) 14:36, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
• Yes - In general, an infobox is intended to provide a brief overview of simple information. Complex information is better covered in the body. Plus it's a flag farm. BilCat (talk) 19:32, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
• Yes Per RandomCanadianSea Ane (talk) 14:07, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
• No – Per PraiseVivec, while it may not be suitable for certain articles, there are many more for which it is suitable and highly useful. As a reader, it's a feature I find myself using on a regular basis. 24.77.42.223 (talk) 20:13, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
• Absolutely not. And why isn't the nomination signed? Usually the nominator presents their argument in the nomination and then says something like "Support per nom"... Anyway, there is no argument. You argue that it's not infobox worthy, but doesn't the fact that it's used in 1/3rd of infoboxes pretty much by definition go against this? People see it as useful and unintrusive, me included. I think it's an incredibly helpful piece of information on historical places, provided that it is uncontroversial or properly sourced. Long lists of countries can just be collapsed if it takes up too much space, not an issue. Prinsgezinde (talk) 14:36, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

  @Prinsgezinde: RFC statements need to be short and neutral (as per the guidelines at WP:RFC, which also indicate that only the time and date are absolutely required - username optional - and I prefer that option since it makes it de facto more neutral); hence why the argument comes as the first !vote. As to the rest of your comment that's been addressed in the discussion below. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:24, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

  @RandomCanadian: Oops you're completely right, my bad, I'm used to other forms of consensus discussions where this isn't the norm. I'll strike that part. Prinsgezinde (talk) 15:53, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Discussion

Comment/request, @RandomCanadian: This is too abstract to just RfC in a vacuum. Can you provide several examples where you find use of this parameter unhelpful or misleading, and explain why? I'm not a big fan of removing template params that are sometimes useful. But I'm also not a fan of retaining typically unhelpful i-box params, especially if people try desperately to fill them out just because they are there, with confusing or redundant results. So, I'm neutral on this for now.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:07, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

There are plenty of examples of people filing it in because it's there. Ex. here (I hadn't even noticed it was added in the immediately preceding edit); or the initial one which started all of this at Austria-Hungary. As I said, this parameter is not the kind if key information that would go in an infobox - in most articles where this is present; it's barely mentioned which countries it is "today part of". For example, Weimar Republic does not even mention modern descendants - these are probably off-topic (since the territorial changes happened afterwards) and this hardly supports the position that it would be relevant key information, as suitable for an infobox... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:02, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: The |today= parameter is used in approximately 1,800 articles out of a total of 5,400 transclusions. The onus is on the RFC proposer to show why a parameter used in one-third of this template's transclusions should be deprecated. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:51, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

  I've said why: because it's not infobox-worthy material, and in the articles where it is not misused (and it's not like misuse is that uncommon either, often because it's entirely unecessary - the state is today pretty much part of only one country - or because there are too many countries) it's very likely lacking in nuance and unhelpfully making a statement in the infobox which is neither much discussed in the article (if at all) nor usually sourced (this is particularly true for some "this country now has a few square kilometers that were part of this other state" examples). Again, WP:INFOBOX has that "An infobox is a panel that summarizes key features of the page's subject." If most articles that include this parameter only have it in the infobox and do not have concurrent main body text to describe it (to take the example of the Weimar Republic again); then it is very likely this is not really a "key feature of the page's subject". RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:20, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

  It may also be helpful to know that |today= was added to this template when {{Infobox former country}} was merged into this one. Maybe all that is needed is better documentation. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:05, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

  Am aware of the merge. Don't think the full documentation changes anything to my arguments; but anyway I've asked for that so hopefully we'll see if there's anything that can be added into what is here at the moment. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:24, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

• Comment Neutral at the moment, as I have mixed thoughts on the parameter, but like SMcCandlish I'd appreciate more examples of issues. Most concerning is that both examples given are from the last few centuries of European history. The argument is couched in that language as well, for example there is not a successor state field, with that concept being a recent emergence from European history. For each example that may seem obvious, there may be many that are not as obvious to many readers. While I find the parameter sometimes redundant, it does seem somewhat helpful for readers to be able to quickly visualise where say the Hittites were, or the Ghana Empire (which doesn't at all overlap with Ghana). CMD (talk) 01:59, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

  The examples from European history might be more naturally problematic because we have more sources and more evidence on the matter, and previous borders are also better known - if not always to exact modern standards, still rather closer - because of said historical evidence. Equally helpful to our readers would be "The Empire of X was a [whatever] during [period]. It's territories encompassed parts of modern-day [...]." [as already given at Ghana Empire, for ex.]. This information is surely occasionally useful (though this geographic guide function is often times also accomplished by copious amounts of maps), but it's prone to misuse on the template, and it is much better if there's an effort to provide it in the main body too (this second part is way too often absent - if there's no logical place where to put it in the body - either because in some cases the territorial changes happened in another period, or simply because it's too much, it's hard to explain why it is in the infobox in the first place). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:03, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

  Also note the inconsistency between "Present-day countries that overlap with the territorial extent of the former country. Do not use this parameter if there are more than four such countries." and then the example (Template:Infobox_former_country/doc#Example_syntax) which has 7. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:28, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

• Comment I've already given my opinion above but I just saw something I found quite interesting. I never knew of the "Do not use this parameter if there are more than four such countries." clause, and I don't think many other people do either. Plenty of articles, like Soviet Union or Yugoslavia, use more than 4. If the issue is indeed clutter, though, what should be done about the equally roomy "Preceded by" and "Succeeded by" parameters? Ottoman Empire and Seljuk Empire are a mess when it comes to that, but the parameters are still incredibly useful when quickly navigating through history. I'm convinced that these problems can more or less be solved with a simple collapse element. Prinsgezinde (talk) 16:20, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

  @Prinsgezinde: The solution for "preceded by" and "succeeded by" would be to formalise the consensus reached recently at some pages, such as the recent RfC Talk:Nazi Germany (where only reliably sourced legal successors are now included). As to the "too many countries" clause, issues of clutter are supplemented by the "infoboxes should only include important information" principle of WP:INFOBOX and to the general tendency not to list every fact about something in an infobox - take for example the occupation field of biographies, which if used properly shouldn't list one-off occurrences with the same prominence as other more important reasons of a subject's notability. Issues with "today part of" are often similar: a few square miles here and there is not really an important thing, right?; and, most often, the main territorial successor(s) can be mentioned textually, and with more nuances than afforded by an infobox if need be. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:08, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Dynasty parameter or similar

Please consider adding 'dynasty' or similar parameter, mirroring the 'parent_family' value used in Template:Infobox family to give proper visibility of houses ruling a given territory, if any. In some articles using the template infobox country, contributors insert the dynasty in the Government_type, wrongly mixing the concepts and leading to confusion. This is the case for [4] version until recent. Current version duly separates both concepts and data, but the dynasties are indicated under 'membership' value in the absence of a better template parameter. Inclusion of the requested parameter or similar is therefore needed and totally justified. Many thanks--PLUS ULTRA CARLOS (talk) 11:01, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

"Area" and "Population"

I propose that the "Area" and "Population" fields be moved higher up in the infobox, possibly right beneath the map. As the most defining characteristics of a country, they deserve positions more prominent than somewhere amidst all the other fields. It is particularly odd that "Ethnic groups" and "Religion" should precede "Population" – and by a good half a dozen fields. --Theurgist (talk) 16:48, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Whether or not they should be right under the map, I certainly agree ethnic groups, religion, and official language seem less pertinent. CMD (talk) 17:26, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

"Ethnic groups" and "Religion"

I'm okay with "Area" and "Population" where they are for now, but I definitely agree about "Ethnic groups" and "Religion". I think they should directly follow "Population" since they are germane as percentages of the population. "Official languages" is quite useful where it is for me. Cheers, Facts707 (talk) 04:00, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

New field "Age" (full years since country formed)

Would be useful to show the age of a country, e.g. US 245, Canada 153, etc. Would require settting a parameter for the infobox to calculate the age (with "birth date and age|1776|07|04" template or something similar). Cheers, Facts707 (talk) 04:24, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

This would only really work for countries with clear ages, so I suspect it would just add to the arguments the infobox currently causes. CMD (talk) 04:35, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

website ("official website") usage vague

Documentation says: "For geopolitical entities: do not use government website (e.g. usa.gov) for countries (e.g. United States)."

Wikt:geopolitical entity: "A geographical area which is associated with some sort of political structure."

And the colon is confusing, is it for geopolitical entities generally except countries or is it saying it is only for geopolitical entities, countries need not apply?

Finally, if the website of the (preferably democratically-elected) government of a country is not the "official website" then what is? Why does the reader have to go hunt for the government page first? Cheers Facts707 (talk) 12:38, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Countries are the primary form of geopolitical entities which use this template, but the advice applies more generally. The website field should not be used for any country or other similar entity, it exists in this template for international organizations. CMD (talk) 12:56, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Proposal for two new parameters

I introduced two distinctive parameters |ducal_anthem= and |imperial_anthem= for articles that not suitable to use |royal_anthem=. The new source code is available at the sandbox page, you can add directly into main template if you have no disagreement for this. -- Great Brightstar (talk) 14:25, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

• Support in principle, but would be easier to add by adding something like "|anthem2=" and then "|anthem_type=", like how "Signature" and "Signature_name=Seal" shows "Seal" when applied. --Donald Trung (talk) 17:36, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose What is the point? Royal anthem covers them both. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 02:16, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit template-protected}} template. BilCat (talk) 05:02, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Capital and largest city

When separated, "Capital" and "Largest city" is both bolded, so I think it's reasonable if it changed so that "Capital and largest city" is all bolded and without line break. Hddty (talk) 06:41, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

The template may not necessary to set 58% width in image table

After my investigation, it's not necessary to set the left side as 58% wide in {{Infobox country/imagetable}}. When I replace the width:58% property in its sandbox page, I saw the browser could automatically set width for flag and coat of arms fields at the test cases and give more flexible layout in there. If there's no problem affect the visual appearance, you can apply the new code into main template. -- Great Brightstar (talk) 03:14, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

 Done Given lack of objection and seemingly not having a negative impact in testing I've done this. firefly ( t · c ) 17:26, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Adding Preceded by and Succeeded By

I want to add Preceded by and Succeeded by to current countries as is the case for former countries. For example with Russia

Preceded by Russian SSR and Soviet Union and Chechen Republic of Ichkeria

Ukraine

Preceded by Soviet Union and Ukranian SSR Succeeded by Republic of Crimea and Sevastopol and Russia

This will help people look into history of contemporary countries and territorial change — Preceding unsigned comment added by SiliconProphet (talk • contribs) 09:24, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

These fields have caused quite a bit of trouble in some historical articles, I think applying them to current countries as well would a lot of trouble for little benefit. The History sections in Country articles should explain the situation far better than an oversimplified history field would. CMD (talk) 09:38, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Borderline contest

The newest infobox version is uncomfortable because it seems like handwritten schedule and proximate each other. Please can you restore the previous one. Regards! The Supermind (talk) 21:11, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Respecting article's choice of mdy dates in date_end

The template says to use the format "1 January", with no year (because it's supplied by year_end), for the date_end parameter. However, this is not appropriate if the article uses mdy dates; the article should show, for example, "May 9, 1865". Confederate States of America does this by specifying date_end as "May 9,", including a trailing comma. Is this the intended usage? The template doesn't appear to respect {{Use mdy dates}} like CS1 templates do, and there is no functional date-format parameter. Hairy Dude (talk) 03:32, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

That appears to be the only way, with the current coding, to get the formatting that is needed. The start date and year are rendered as {{{date_start|}}} {{{year_start|}}}, with a space in between them and no processing at all. Why there are two separate parameters is beyond me, given that nothing useful is done with them. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:55, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

I found a few clues about why those parameters are separated, in the talk page archives for Infobox former country. The |year_end= parameter was used for auto-categorization of articles, which is now very much frowned upon. Somehow, in the merge from {{Infobox former country}} to this template, those parameters were not merged. We may be able to hack it by adding a parameter to control date format, and then sending date and year through {{Date}} or something similar, with tests to make sure that we don't try to format something like "8th century" into a DMY format. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:05, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Discussion related to this template's "preceded by" aspect

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:United States § Acknowledging indigenous Americans in the infobox. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 02:32, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Location of recognized_regional_languages

I'm looking at this version of Luhansk People's Republic. (I'm supplying the version because the detail I'm about to discuss is coming and going at the moment.) In the infobox, I see that the recognized_regional_languages parameter, labeled "Recognized regional languages" in the infobox, is grouped into a cell with the "Capital", while the language that's actually the "Official language" follows that, in its own cell. Wouldn't it be more appropriate for official languages to come before other languages, and for all languages to be in the same cell as each other? Largoplazo (talk) 02:15, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Suggestions from Sdkb

Looking at this template, I notice a bunch of things that may be worth changing:

• There's no easy way to collapse information that might be official but isn't really WP:DUE for the lead, such as a National March or a seal that's essentially the same as the coat of arms.
• There are too many horizontal rules (lines). Information that's quite similar (e.g. official languages and national language, or PPP GDP and nominal GDP) doesn't need to be separated by anything more than a line break.
• Ethnic groups and religion are listed way too high up. We should move them to below population.
• The water area parameter displays very awkwardly, with the symbol "%" in the label rather than the data, where it should be.
• There is an MOS:EGG link over the currency code, since most readers would expect it to point to the currency itself, not ISO 4217. This could be solved by switching from e.g. (USD) to (Code: USD).
• Several countries have dedicated articles for summer time offsets, e.g. Summer time in Europe, but there's no parameter for changing the Daylight saving time link, as should be done per MOS:SPECIFICLINK.
• |drives_on= forces lowercase, which goes against modern usage on Wikipedia to provide infobox data in sentence case.
• The way dates are handled for parameters that need it is inconsistent—sometimes it's in the label on the left, sometimes in the value on the right.
• The linking of labels is inconsistent. Some, like Area, link to the relevant article for the country ("Geography of X") whereas others like Religion don't, even though they seem like they'd be just as justified to. Still others link to generic terms (e.g. National language), although that may be unavoidable to some extent.

Thoughts? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 03:48, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Sync up the sandbox and have at it, if you are willing. On collapsing: if something is worth hiding from the infobox, i.e. it is not a key fact about the article's subject, it should just be removed from the infobox. It can appear elsewhere in the article if it is noteworthy. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:44, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

I'll work on the sandbox if others express support. Regarding removing undue material from the infobox, I just tried that, but I have a bad feeling I may have a revert notification in my future. Collapsing can sometimes be an olive branch for editors who really want all the details. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 04:54, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Broadly agree with Jonesey that most cases of collapsing are better done by removal. The only common collapse use case is situations where you need to list a lot of items with no clear cutoff, such as countries with a large number of official languages. No objecton to removing lines among languages or among GDPs. No objection to shuffling population before population breakouts. The smaller cosmetic and linking changes seem reasonable. I think some label linking is inherently inconsistent as noted, but things like Religion are broadly covered by individual articles at this point. CMD (talk) 05:17, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Flag captions

As previously mentioned at Template talk:Infobox country/Archive 14#Second flag, documented |flag2_type= doesn't actually exist, so there is no way to caption a second flag. This came up again at Saint Christopher-Nevis-Anguilla where I used a work-around by combining the captions. But separate captions would be better. Primefac, you commented before that this was unfinished merger business. MB 14:06, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

I have a lot on my plate right now, so anyone else is free to look into the matter. That being said, it will go on my to-do list. Primefac (talk) 17:16, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 1 January 2022

File:State Ceremonial Music - God Save the Queen.ogg has been deleted from Commons. Can someone take it out of that ref? Sumanuil 05:37, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

 Done. P.I. Ellsworth - ed. ^put'r there 13:49, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

@Paine Ellsworth: If you made the edit, it didn't get saved. Largoplazo (talk) 13:55, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

To editor Largoplazo: check this diff – did you purge your cache? P.I. Ellsworth - ed. ^put'r there 14:09, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

To editor Paine Ellsworth: Oh, I see my problem. The edit was to the /doc page. I'm sorry, never mind. Largoplazo (talk) 17:59, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Representatives

|leader= supports 21 different ones, but |representative= allows only 5. Insular Government of the Philippine Islands is using 7 leaders and 6 representatives. Can we add a few more representatives? Jonesey95? MB 15:48, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

 Done, added representative6/7/8. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:05, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Add "Demonym" section

we should add a section called "Demonym" where it shows the demonym of the country like "Finnish", "Egyptian", "Chinese", "Argentine"

Poopykibble (talk) 02:07, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Conveniently enough, there already is one! Largoplazo (talk) 02:18, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

"dominant party"

Should this be used as a governmental system? Beshogur (talk) 14:49, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't understand the question. Regulov (talk) 16:12, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

I think that the nominator is referring to the Government part in the infobox. Countries that have parliaments that are dominated by a single-party occasionally have this written in the infobox (eg. Angola -- Unitary dominant-party presidential republic). Russia, Serbia, and others used to have this as well. Vacant0 (talk) 18:18, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Instinctively not a fan, but not sure it's something that should be decided at a general RfC if there are reliable sources for it in specific cases. CMD (talk) 18:25, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

@Chipmunkdavis: had a discussion with an user. And I see that "dominant party" is added/removed every time on country infoboxes. I don't think this is a governmental system. Beshogur (talk) 18:36, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Infoboxes do tend to attract such disputes unfortunately. I would agree it isn't usually a governmental system, it is usually the result of the interaction of a system with various external factors, but I wouldn't want to make a blanket RfC decision on the matter without a firmer and sourced basis. CMD (talk) 18:44, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Remove electricity parameter

 Done....

Resolved

Can we drop this spam paramater? Simply not mentioned in any articles prose. Was added in 2019 with no real talk.....unnoticed till spam all over today.Moxy- 22:55, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes. CMD (talk) 23:16, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:06, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Drop, not mentioned in articles, we're not a tourist guide. Canterbury Tail talk 00:50, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Remove, this is such an overall encyclopedically unimportant detail it might at best be mentioned in articles which deal with this specific topic (for ex., North American power transmission grid), but there's no point for this kind of stuff being in the infobox. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:27, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Preceding entities

Are the preceding entities the entities that came before the current entity or all the entities that were conquered by an entity (say a kingdom).

For example, we have a country A that started in, say, year a and a country B which started in b, where b is after a. But country A invaded country B. Would B a preceding entity for A? Even though B was not even there when A came into being?

Chaipau (talk) 00:40, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

The usual practice is to handle this a geographical basis rather than a political one, so as B would precede the entity in certain areas, it would be included. However, this is not a documented consensus, and a recent RfC on Nazi Germany went the other direction. CMD (talk) 03:34, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Incorrect formatting if year_end is absent

Seventh Dynasty of Egypt uses |year_start= but not |year_end=. As long as |year_end= is present but empty, it is omitted. If it's absent, it is not omitted, so you get the spurious string {{{year_end}}} instead. The cause is a missing pipe character: {{#if:{{{year_end}}}|...}} should be {{#if:{{{year_end|}}}|...}}. Hairy Dude (talk) 18:15, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Unless there's more than one, that should be it sorted. Primefac (talk) 18:18, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Wasn't expecting such a quick response! Thank you. Hairy Dude (talk) 18:25, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Template edit protected request - June 10, 2022

Please remove United Kingdom and change to 27 states on the European Union Infobox template because the United Kingdom is no longer part of the European Union. FireDragonValo (talk) 17:39, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Please link to an article or other page where this problem is currently visible. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:59, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Indeed, this sounds more like an article content issue than an issue with this template specifically. Primefac (talk) 16:04, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

ISO 3166-1 alpha-3

Currently, only two-letter code of ISO 3166-1 are provided in this infobox. I suggest adding three-letter code, ISO 3166-1 alpha-3, to this template. It will provide helpful information to readers.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Regpath (talk • contribs) 01:27, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 15 June 2022

Can we add an option to override the default link on "Government" that goes to "Politics of [country name]"? I understand many countries don't have one, but there are some countries with a government-specific article, and it is sometimes (though not always) a more appropriate target. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 07:44, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm removing this edit request template for now as I don't think a template editor can act on it without code at hand. However, this seems a reasonable idea if simple enough to implement. CMD (talk) 05:26, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Missing section

This template misses one important section: rulling royal house.

We need to put rulling royal house (or dynasty) to this template because it's part of the country's main identity, like Saudi Arabia (the country's name is based on the house). -GogoLion (talk) 04:43, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Such a field would apply to very few countries, and is likely redundant to the monarch, who will already be mentioned. CMD (talk) 05:26, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Chipmunkdavis "redundant" i have so many questions about your statement.

1. Why you called it redundant? The template will not show it if the section has empty value.

2. Very few countries? Guess how many monarchies in this world?

3. "Will already be mentioned" isn't the whole template is about summary of the article? GogoLion (talk) 16:57, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

1) Redundant to other fields like the Monarch 2) 43 plus subnationals, although the more specific question of those whose ruling royal house is part of a "country's main identity" may reach a different answer, 3) No, this template is only for key points as part of the wider lead, it would be very hard to summarise an article within the infobox itself. CMD (talk) 17:02, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Chipmunkdavis so you think rulling house is not a key point? GogoLion (talk) 04:56, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

"The monarch" what monarch? The government section only put "monarch" article, not the specific house. GogoLion (talk) 05:02, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

It's not really that key no, especially given the partial redundancy to the monarch. CMD (talk) 06:42, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

I concur with CMD. In the Government section of the infobox, the monarch is named, so any one interested in following up on the dynastic house can read that person's article. In the case of Saudi Arabia, it's part of the country's name, so it's not as if it's being hidden. As CMD stated, it should already be mentioned in the Lead, which is where such information should be. BilCat (talk) 07:01, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Stat_area & stat_pop

The variables "stat_pop" and "stat_area" in this template are both governed by "stat_year". The template page explains that this has the value of allowing pop density calculations to be done automatically. However, I have encountered three issues:

• (1) The template does not actually seem to perform these population density calculations
• (2) The template does not recognise any value above "stat_year5." Obviously, giving six different population & area figures would be excessive for an infobox, but it is totally plausible that one might have three figures for population and three figures for area, belonging to different years.
• (3) While the population data displays with a nice, space efficient system of bullet points (the same one used for multiple items of data in the rest of the infobox), the area data presents the years in bold and without bullets, which is aesthetically much less pleasing.

Furius (talk) 18:24, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Please link to an example page where these issues are occurring. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:59, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Grand Duchy of Hesse for (1) and (3) [these can also be seen with the model example of the German Empire on this page]. I came across (2) on the Grand Duchy page as well, but it is no longer present because it threw an ugly red text error on page preview, so I removed "stat_year6". You can replicate it by adding a "stat_year6" with dummy values. Furius (talk) 22:24, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. I looked through the template's code, and it appears that the population density is not (or is no longer) automatically calculated. The code I found looks like this:

| rowclass99 = mergedbottomrow
| label99= <div class="ib-country-fake-li">• Density{{{FR_foot5|}}}</div>
| data99= {{#if:{{{population_density_km2|}}}{{{population_density_sq_mi|}}}
     | {{convinfobox|{{{population_density_km2|}}}|/km2|{{{population_density_sq_mi|}}}|/sqmi|1|abbr=on}}{{{pop_den_footnote|}}}<!--
            -->{{#if:{{{population_density_rank|}}} | ([[List of countries and dependencies by population density|{{{population_density_rank}}}]])}}
     }}

I have modified the documentation to remove references to automatic density calculation. As for (2), we can add a sixth year if there is a need for it in an article. And as for (3), I see what you are describing, and that should be fixed; it will take some work in the template's sandbox. I looked to see if I could fix it quickly, but I didn't see an easy way to do it right now. – Jonesey95 (talk) 12:17, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

That's brilliant! Thanks for taking the time to look into this. Furius (talk) 13:09, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Add Climate Change Performance Index when available

Upon seeing an infographic of the different countries ranked according to this (hitherto relatively unknown) index, it occurred to me that it could be added underneath the Gini and HDI sections, considering that (i) it is a really important metric in the context of the current global climate emergency and (ii) it could help raise awareness on what countries aren't doing their part in trying to curb it. According to Wikipedia, the CCPI is updated every year, it's presented at the annual UN climate conference and it index evaluates and compares the climate protection performance of countries which are together responsible for more than 90% of global greenhouse gas emissions. 181.43.194.175 (talk) 02:42, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

RFC: Adding preceding entity/entities for modern countries/territories

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

For the Infobox country template on articles for historical versions of geographic entities (dead countries, colonies, etc.), we include the preceding and succeeding entities, but we do not do this for modern countries/territories. I propose that this be implemented for modern countries/territories, as this would facilitate the link for readers between a country/territory's past iterations and its current state. Yes, I know we have "History of ___" articles for practically all countries/territories, but I think adding the entity/entities which directly precede(s) modern countries/territories into their infoboxes would significantly improve the ease with which people can navigate articles to learn about history. For example, for Ghana: adding p1 = Dominion of Ghana and flag_p1 = Flag of Ghana.svg. Should this be implemented? Rowing007 (talk) 16:00, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose: For three reasons. One: the article on, say, France isn't really on just the Fifth Republic, as part of a series "preceded by" the Fourth Republic, but an article about the overarching concept of France, including its whole history (& in that case French Fifth Republic is even a separate article). Secondly, in many cases, the infobox would be filled with a very large number of entries, often to very minor entities. For example, the USA has hundreds/thousands of Native American predecessor states. Third, it will generate long, interminable debates about the 'true predecessor(s)' in many cases (should France's predecessor be the Fourth Republic, the Vichy Regime, the Ancient Regime, or the Roman Empire? (an example of how point 1 exacerbates this issue). Is Morocco preceded by Western Sahara and/or Spanish Morocco? Does the existence of Gibraltar mean that the UK is preceded by History of Spain (1700–1808)?). The infobox is for presenting straightforward facts and the predecessors of a modern state are often a complicated topic requiring nuanced discussion in running text, rather than a simple flag in an infobox. Furius (talk) 17:00, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

• For articles like the U.S., where, as you state, there are potentially hundreds of preceding entities, how about linking the p1 parameter to a separate article on "Preceding entities of the United States"? One could argue this is redundant, given the existence of "History of ___" articles, but I would argue it's not, much in the same way there exists French Republics and History of France. I agree that preceding entities of modern countries can often be a complicated subject, so creating a separate article dedicated to such a subject might (in my opinion) assist in the task of mapping it out. As for the question about "Xth" previous versions of the same modern state, for "simpler" cases, my inclination would be to link to the previous state. For example, with my Ghana suggestion from above, it would make sense to link to Dominion of Ghana, not Third Republic of Ghana. In other words, the logic would be that if the historical entity's article links to the modern state as its successor, then that historical state should be included as a predecessor. Rowing007 (talk) 18:47, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

• I also oppose, those fields are tricky to use and cause consternation on historical articles, that should not be brought to the current countries. CMD (talk) 17:27, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose because (a) we have enough problems already with editors invested in the "integrity" of how their countries are "represented" here, (b) there is but one or at most two clicks separating a previous entity to the current one, so the argument about "ease" does not carry much water, and (c) such an addition would assign too much emphasis on what the entity once was. I usually favor infoboxes but one can only go so far. -The Gnome (talk) 18:11, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

• For point (a), I would say that for more contentious countries, a "Preceeding entities of ___" or "Predecessors of ___" article could likely handle such discourse. For point (b), sure, for most countries, but for others it's truly not so obvious, even for those who may be familiar with the topic and familiar with the way in which Wikipedia currently organizes articles surrounding the subject (due to, in large part, the inconsistency with which this subject is handled for each modern country). My logic is that if a modern country is listed as the successor to a historical entity on that entity's article (in the infobox), then the entity should be listed as a predecessor in the modern country's infobox. I would argue that this distinction is fairly straightforward for many (most?) modern countries, and could easily be expanded by implementing my above suggestion in response to point (a). As for point (c), this is already an existing parameter in the template; I'm merely suggesting activating it for modern countries. It barely acts as a footnote in the infobox, which I would hardly describe as disproportionate emphasis. Overall, the point I'm trying to make is that while I recognize that this is often a contentious topic and that it can be difficult to disentangle, I believe activating the parameter (and potentially creating separate articles dedicated to the topic, distinct in their scope from the "History of ___" articles) could be a useful first step towards "untangling the mess", so to speak. Further, I suggested this because it feels like the historical entities' articles funnel readers towards the modern country, but the modern countries' articles aren't doing a great job of helping readers go back down the line of historical entities. Rowing007 (talk) 18:53, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

• On the "funnelling" point, which I think is the best argument in favour of this proposal, note that not all articles do lead to the main country page. The Italy series, eventually delivers the reader to History of the Italian Republic (ie since 1946). I actually think this is better than delivering the reader to the main country article in almost all cases. Furius (talk) 19:31, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

• I view this as a reiteration of the "it's complicated" point. I would say there is never going to be a perfect system and there will always be exceptions, but I believe that the parameter would have a fairly clear input for most countries. For countries with more complicated histories than, say, Ghana, I would still propose activating the parameter, but linking it to a dedicated article/subsection handling the subject. Again, the idea is just to create a direct (to the most feasible extent, on a case-by-case basis) link to the most recent previous entity/entities preceding the modern country, not to list the complete history of the country. Rowing007 (talk) 19:39, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

• No, I'm not just saying isn't that it is complicated. I'm saying that the Italian example provides a better alternative in all cases (I'm sure there's an exception, but...): the infobox links in every series of historical states should eventually lead to a "History of ..." article covering the history of the current incarnation of the state. So, in your Ghana example, the "successor" of Third Republic of Ghana should be History of Ghana#Fourth Republic (1993–present), not Ghana. Furius (talk) 11:45, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

• You're trying to argue against this by going backwards. I am arguing for a simple inclusion of a parameter stating the entity which directly precedes the current state. In my Ghana example, it would be the Dominion of Ghana, not the Third Republic of Ghana, because Ghana is still currently a Republic. This is the same reason the infobox on Dominon of Ghana links to Ghana, and not History of Ghana#Ghana's independence achieved in 1957. The point is just to activate the parameter to connect the link that already exists from the previous entity's infobox. That's all. Argue and bicker all you want, it can be solved for the more contentious countries by linking to the "History of ___" page. Rowing007 (talk) 14:37, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

• But why should you "activate" the link from Dominion of Ghana->Ghana (which currently exists) rather than the link Dominion of Ghana<-First Republic of Ghana (which also currently exists)? And I don't appreciate being accused of "arguing and bickering". Furius (talk) 16:30, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

• For the same reason that Dominon of Ghana's infobox links to Ghana, not First Republic of Ghana. Regardless, debating the exact entity for specific examples does nothing to disprove the core point that it would be useful to activate the parameter. Rowing007 (talk) 16:36, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

• (invited by the bot) Since infoboxes don't have room for attributing or clarifying what's in there, IMO contents should only be clear cut items. I.E. "when in doubt, leave it out". A predecessor for anything other than a simply renamed country would be problematic to put in there. North8000 (talk) 19:20, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

• Hence my above suggestion of having the parameter link to a "Predecessors of ___" article, or even the "History of ___" article. Rowing007 (talk) 19:23, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose There often isn't a preceding country. An invitation to edit war. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 20:18, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

• Most countries do have some kind of entity (e.g., colony, empire, kingdom, dynasty, etc.) that directly precedes them, and in the cases where it's not so obvious, my above suggestion of having the parameter link to a "Predecessors of ___" article or the "History of ___" article would address the issue. Rowing007 (talk) 20:22, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose For currently extant countries this is certain to cause a flood of edit warring. For the United States, is the successor the 13 colonies? But what about the Louisiana purchase? In which case it would be France. But what about the American west, which was mostly Mexican? Would all those countries need to be mentioned? Not to mention that all those areas were previously indigenous nations. I don't really see the benefit here, and I see a very high cost. The reality is that the complete territorial history of most countries is very complicated, and can't be boiled down into the infobox. If readers want to know where nations came from, they'll need to read the history section/article, which our readers are no strangers to. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 21:18, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

• As I mentioned above, this is an exception. For the majority of countries there is no such ambiguity. For the exceptions, there is the simple solution of linking to a "Predecessors of ___" article or "History of ___" article. Also not sure what you're implying by italicizing "read"ers. Just because someone may look to an infobox for a useful link does not mean they do not consume content. This is just the purpose of an infobox. Also, just to again reiterate this point when mentioning, for example, Indigenous peoples, the idea is just to create a direct (to the most feasible extent, on a case-by-case basis) link to the most recent previous entity/entities preceding the modern country (i.e., only the previous link in the chain of entities), not to list the complete history of the country. Rowing007 (talk) 21:36, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

• "[A]n exception"? That's just not true. You even concede as much, though unwittingly. Right after that claim, you go on to state that "[f]or the majority of countries there is no such ambiguity." So, there is such ambiguity for the minority. But a minority is not "an exception." The point made by CaptainEek and others, about unnecessarily inviting edit wars, is valid and strong. -The Gnome (talk) 10:31, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

• Petty semantics aside, for countries where determining the entity/entities is more contentious, I don't see how linking to the "History of ___" page would invite edit warring. Regardless, there should not be a conceptual issue with activating and filling the parameter for the majority of the cases (which are simple), and activating and linking to the "History of ___" page for the rest, if it's so contentious for a given country/territory. As I said before, there is no hard-and-fast rule that will magically be applicable for all relevant pages, but the parameter itself is flexible in what it can display, and a minority of cases should not get in the way of what would be a simple (simple in most cases) improvement. Rowing007 (talk) 14:37, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

• Νothing "petty" and nothing "pedantic" about pointing out that you agree the problem oncerns many countries and not one, "an exception". I will not respond any further. You are already bludgeoning the discussion. There is no suggestion to which you have not commented, at least once. -The Gnome (talk) 17:24, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

• I never used the word "pedantic". I did refer to petty semantics because the example in question was an exception among a number of other exceptions, and this doesn't negate my original point about the implementation of the parameter being overwhelmingly useful. If edit warring is such a concern, an invisible comment can be added to the source code to dissuade others from modifying the parameter and to direct conversation elsewhere. I don't think your reply has addressed anything of substance regarding the intitial topic, and I believe accusing me of bludgeoning the discussion is rather uncivil and counter-productive. As well, your last sentence is outright incorrect, as I have not replied to CMD's comment. Rowing007 (talk) 19:06, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

• I correct the lapsus to "semantics"; the rest remains as it is. How did you ever miss CMD's comment? I was counting on you being a completist. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 14:31, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

• I didn't "miss" it; I intentionally did not address it because I saw no need to do so. The sarcastic and snide tone you've now adopted is WP:UNCIVIL and inappropriate. You've also contradicted yourself by replying again, because you said earlier "I will not respond any further". This is now completely beside the point of my RFC. Rowing007 (talk) 16:10, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

• Here's another last post. Far be it from me to deny you small pleasures. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 11:00, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

• "[A]nother last post" is an oxymoron. You are continuing your antagonistic (thus WP:UNCIVIL) behaviour. How your behaviour is going unchecked is beyond me. Rowing007 (talk) 15:08, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose: It would be much better to remove the predecessor/successor fields from the infoboxes of historical entities. In many cases, they are an invitation to edit warring about which entities to include/exclude. --T*U (talk) 14:29, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

• This argument about it being an invitation to edit war does not hold water in my estimation; it is speculative and insubstantiated. Like I said before, if it's such a concern, an invisible comment can be included in the source code. Rowing007 (talk) 16:10, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

• In my experience, invisible comments are not much help in edit wars. As for speculative and insubstantiated, I am only speaking from own experience in numerous articles about historical entities. Besides, the inconsistencies in the linking between such articles speaks for itself. --T*U (talk) 17:21, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

• Alright then, it sounds like it would be much more favourable to remove the parameter altogether than to activate it for modern countries, per your suggestion and Moxy's. Rowing007 (talk) 18:14, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

• Indeed! In that case, I suggest that you withdraw your suggestion and close this RfC per WP:SNOW, since all !votes so far are 'Oppose'. If you then want to start a new RfC about removing the prdecessor/succesor fields from the the template of former countries, you will at least have my 'Support'. --T*U (talk) 07:02, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

• I'll close it, but someone else can submit an RFC about removing the parameters. WP:SNOW is not a policy or guideline. A handful of people commenting does not constitute a consensus, and I think my point is still valid; either the parameter should be activated for modern countries, or it should be removed from the infobox altogether. The idea from the beginning has been about uniformity. Rowing007 (talk) 15:08, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose: should be removed all over.Moxy- 16:21, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Clarification for people looking through the archives: The unsigned and unusual closure at the top of this section was added by the RFC proposer. The clear consensus of this discussion is that preceding and succeeding entities should not be included in the infobox for modern countries/territories. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:53, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Further clarification: this RFC was opened to receive comments on an idea, not to set anything in motion or set some kind of reference-able precedent. No "consensus" was achieved, as there was nothing to be decided upon. I was merely interested in gauging opinions. Clearly I shouldn't even have started an RFC, as this likely would have been much simpler as a talk page discussion. Had I been aware of the full procedures (e.g., voting, closing, etc.) associated with an RFC (and the harassment I've received as a result of my deviation from these procedhres), I would not have posted this question as an RFC. Again, as the discussion was stable and further comments were not likely to add anything new, it has been closed, but the handful of editors who chose to comment on the discussion by no means represent the broader opinion of the community, nor should their comments necessarily be viewed as valid. Rowing007 (talk) 13:59, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Your "clarification" is nothing but a rejection of the clear consensus achieved. You stubbornly persist in ignoring WP:CONSENSUS. And now, with a broad stroke of arbitrariness, you dismiss the suggestions of those who participated in the RfC ("their comments [should not] necessarily be viewed as valid"!) Give it a rest already. -The Gnome (talk) 15:40, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

You're certainly one to talk about giving it a rest. I did put it to rest by closing the discussion. You have continued to drag it on by disputing my closure. My clarification is entirely valid for what it is - a reiteration of my rationale for seeking comments in the first place, and an admittance that the format I chose (an RFC) was perhaps ill-suited for my goals. Your incessant crusading is seriously disturbing. Rowing007 (talk) 15:52, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Rowing007: Saying that other editors' comments should not necessarily be viewed as valid is a failure to WP:AGF. Please refrain from doing that. You may also benefit from reading Wikipedia:Consensus, which you appear to misunderstand. It is OK to misunderstand guidelines and policies as long as you are willing to learn. We were all new editors once; the way to become a more experienced, knowledgeable editor is to continue to read and learn. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:46, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Oh, on the contrary, I fully assume there was good faith; I merely dispute the validity of their statements and posit that it's subjective, just like my opinion. I also don't misunderstand the concept of consensus; I am saying that it does not apply to the original goal I had set out to achieve (which was merely to gauge opinions on an idea). Rowing007 (talk) 15:52, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Closing of RfC by RfC initiator

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Rowing007 initiated the above RfC on 6 January 2023 and, on the 11th, closed it down after all the responses opposed their proposal, putting up as sole comment "No action - Comments received. Opinions gauged." Rowing007 closed the RfC despite being an involved editor. The decision that there should be "no action" taken is not up to Rowing007. The clearly overwhelming outcome is the rejection of their proposal. Rowing007 is kindly requested ti re-open the RfC and let it take its course per WP:RFC. -The Gnome (talk) 19:46, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

• For someone who has repeatedly stated that you would not respond any further, you have repeatedly displayed persistently antagonistic and unproductive behaviour. Stop this harassment campaign against me. Per WP:WHENCLOSE, the discussion was stable, and further contributions were unlikely to be helpful. Leaving it open is entirely unnecessary. I created the RFC to receive comments. I received comments. It's done. Therefore, no action is taken, as I do not wish to withdraw my proposal. Now, leave me alone. Rowing007 (talk) 21:09, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Nonsense. -The Gnome (talk) 00:35, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Meaningless reply which in no way refutes mine. Rowing007 (talk) 04:04, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

• The Gnome, I think the consensus is very obvious (as you say, it's a snow oppose). But nothing much would be gained by reopening the discussion (Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment#Closing_the_discussion), so let's let it lie. Furius (talk) 22:38, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

The whole comportement by the initiator shows an indirect but clear unwillingness to accept that their proposal was being roundly rejected. Look, for example, how they bludgeoned the dialogue. By closing the RfC as they did with "no action", something close to "no consensus", robs the RfC of its legacy. -The Gnome (talk) 00:35, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Well, then, you can challenge the closure. I don't think it is worth it, since it won't change anything about the template, since, as far as I understand it, you don't want anything about the template to change, and since there's so much else that needs to be done. Whether the RfC has a legacy and how users comport themselves are ultimately not so important. But the process is outlined at Wikipedia:Closing_discussions#Challenging_other_closures, if that's what you want to do. Furius (talk) 01:22, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree, Furius. It's not worth it, especially after Jonesey95's post-RfC post. But you can understand my worry seeing as the initiator flat out refuses to accept that their proposal has been roundly rejected. To quote Rowing007: "A handful of people commenting does not constitute a consensus", an argument entirely baseless and absent from WP:CONSENSUS (or WP:RFC). The initiator's actually ignoring policy. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 13:31, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Nope, as stated in my reply to the above section, your "worry" is baseless, as this is not an object to be voted upon, thus no consensus can ever be achieved in either direction. Get off this crusade. Rowing007 (talk) 14:02, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Baseless assumption by Gnome about my supposed motives. The discussion is over and nothing beneficial will come of reopening it. Go away like you said you would. Rowing007 (talk) 04:04, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Try easing up for a change. I said I'm withdrawing from the RfC. This challenge of the absurd closure is not part of the RfC discussion itself. The matter has been settled; kindly, walk away. -The Gnome (talk) 13:31, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

The closure itself was not "absurd" whatsoever. You have demonstrated nothing but incivility and a complete lack of good faith in throwing this little tantrum over my closure of the discussion. Rationalize it to yourself however you want, it's not a good look. Rowing007 (talk) 13:47, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

• Reopening the RFC seems pointless to me. As an uninvolved editor, I have added a clarification at the bottom of the section so that people perusing the archives in search of previous discussions about this topic will have the opportunity to gain a clearer sense of the outcome. The OP of this section might also consider changing it to be a "===" (third-level) subsection so that it is archived at the same time as the RFC section above it. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:57, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, Jonesey95. That should cover it. I wanted an uninvolved editor to do the deed. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 13:31, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

"[D]o the deed", as if there was anything wrong with my closure to begin with. This uninvolved editor even concurs with the rest of us that it is truly pointless to reopen the discussion (thus that my closure was appropriate). Rowing007 (talk) 13:47, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Please refrain from putting words in my mouth; the original closure was flawed, as I stated (I said "unsigned and unusual", which was a nice way of saying it). At this point it would be wisest to drop the stick. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:46, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

• No point in reopening the RfC, but thanks a lot to Jonesey95 for the clarification note after the unsatisfactory closure. I also hope that The Gnome, as the OP of this section, would consider changing it to a "===" (third-level) subsection in order to link this discussion to the RfC during future archiving. As for the claim of Rowing007 that No "consensus" was achieved, it is just too ridiculous. When the RfC proposal opens with I propose that this be implemented and then is answered with eight 'Oppose' against zero 'Support', there is obviously a consensus, and a clear one at that, which obviously should have been mirrored in the closure. --T*U (talk) 14:45, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

I'll refer to my clarification to reiterate that I was seeking opinions on my idea, and that (in hindsight) perhaps initiating an RFC was not the best avenue to achieve that goal. That's all. Not seeking to form consensus one way or another, just trying to gauge opinions. Rowing007 (talk) 15:04, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Well, you fooled me, at least. I propose... and arguing at length against most of the 'Oppose' comments seems a very strange way to just 'gauge opinions'. But whatever... --T*U (talk) 15:28, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Indeed. -The Gnome (talk) 15:32, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

TU-nor and The Gnome, those are your opinions; I suppose we're all different in the way we perceive and express things. Rowing007 (talk) 15:35, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Place aggregate population data before breakdowns

The religion and ethnic group sections typically show breakdowns of a country's population by percentages—43.7%, 9.2%, etc. In one case just now I was thinking "43.7%, 9.2% of what", but I didn't know yet because the total population of the country comes later in the infobox. I even looked further up to find the information, and didn't find it there, before finding it below. I think it would be useful and sensible for aggregate data to be placed above drill-downs into the same data rather than below them. Can the order be changed? Largoplazo (talk) 11:35, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

You're right. The current order is map -> capital -> official language -> nationality -> religion -> demonym -> government & legislature -> establishment -> area -> population. As you say, population should go before "nationality", but I think "Demonym" is already too long delayed. It should come after "official language" at the latest. Otherwise it gets lost among longer sections. I'm not sure whether it is better for "population" to move so that it comes before "nationality" or for "nationality --> religion" to move so that they come after "population." Furius (talk) 12:10, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

It does seem strange. I'm not sure why official language would come so high either, it should surely go after government, as that is what sets the language. I'd move religion and ethnic groups to be after population. CMD (talk) 13:58, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Map size commands

The following two commands actually work:

| image_map_size =
| image_map2_size =

Could someone with access privileges add these to the description of the Syntax? Thank you पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 11:47, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

The /doc is not protected, so you should be able to edit yourself. Primefac (talk) 13:51, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

@Primefac:  Done Thank you! पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 15:29, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Spacing of dates where era specified

See for example Ancient Carthage. Per MOS:DATE, the date range "c. 814 BC–146 BC" should instead read "c. 814 BC – 146 BC" , with a spaced dash, because each of the items either side of the dash has a space in it. If you try to work around this by adding   in the appropriate places, this causes the date given for |event_end= to be misaligned. Hairy Dude (talk) 00:35, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

{{sp}} seems to do the trick. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:38, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Provide ISO 3166 code-3 data (three-letter code)

Current template provides only two-letter abbreviation, but three-letter abbreviation is very frequently used. Can we provide this information in the infobox? If I try to modify the infobox such as adding a line "|iso3166code = MA, MAR", this shows the information as 'MA, MAR' correctly but the link is not correct. (I did not modify the Morocco infobox actually. I only previewed it.)

Could the maintainers modify the code so that the three-letter abbreviation is added without breaking already existing two-letter abbreviation link? Regpath (talk) 06:59, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree with making the Three Letter Code automatically. ----MountVic127 (talk) 06:54, 18 March 2023 (UTC)