Misplaced Pages

Template talk:Infobox country

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MJCdetroit (talk | contribs) at 13:50, 2 June 2007 (→Giant space: Other templates are more complex and work fine). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 13:50, 2 June 2007 by MJCdetroit (talk | contribs) (→Giant space: Other templates are more complex and work fine)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Archiving icon
Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15


Coat of Arms images next to the names of cities

The following discussion was copied/moved here from Talk:Canada20:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC):

Lexicon has added icons of the flags of the cities and provinces for Ottawa and Toronto. I believe that there is no useful information added with the in/clusion of these icons, and furthermore it adds to the clutter of the infoboxes. What do other people think? Regards, -- Jeff3000 13:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. See Misplaced Pages:Don't overuse flags.--cj | talk 13:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Talk to the editors of most countries, then, who put the coats of arms of the capital cities in infoboxes. See, for instance, Germany, Spain, Romania, Russia, Poland... Lexicon (talk) 13:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
That's not a compelling reason to use them. I think it's a bad idea to take an infobox which is intended to be consistent and apply to it something which is fundamentally inconsistent. These images (flags or coats of arms) cannot be applied for all countries; for example, Australia, for which city articles cover metropolitan areas that do not have equivalent images.--cj | talk 13:52, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Couldn't work for largest city, but I'd suspect it could work for capital, which is what they're generally used for, since, from my understanding, Canberra is one city. But even if there was a problem, that wouldn't be a reason to abandon the protocol. One or two countries don't really have a coat of arms, but that doesn't mean we don't include such in our infoboxes. Lexicon (talk) 14:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
The difference is that they are by and large useful and are included in the infobox proper. There really isn't a good reason to decorate the infobox with these images in this inconsistent manner. On the other hand, there are several valid reasons not to.--cj | talk 14:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Most of the arguments in that essay are completely irrelevant to the current use. Unless you are ready to remove the capitals' coats of arms from all the counties whose articles have them, then consistency with a growing trend is a reason to include the coat of arms here. Also, while I understand that overuse of decoration is unhelpful, "prettification" of articles is a good thing. Lexicon (talk) 14:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Sorry Lex, I tend to agree with the others. In country infoboxes, just list the name of the capital and/or the largest city and have them wikilinked to those cities. In the Canada infobox, I can not really tell what that blob is next to Ottawa anyway. If a reader wants to know more about Ottawa or Toronto or any other city on any other country infobox, they can click the wikilink to the city article. The infobox at the city articles have specific parameters to display the flag, logo, COA, and seal for the city. Also, I would say that displaying of country and province flags in the subdivision fields of the city infobox (like Toronto) is much more acceptable than displaying flags and coat of arms for cities in the country infobox. Although, in the city infoboxes, place the flags after the subdivision names. This keeps all the names vertically lined up. —MJCdetroit 16:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Basically every country in the Americas and Europe has the coat of arms, I don't see why Canada should be an exception. Lexicon (talk) 17:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Canada's coat of arms is displayed. It is to the right of the "flag" and in between "Canada" and "Motto". It is a very nice coat. —MJCdetroit 17:12, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Er, I obviously meant the coat of arms of the capital city. Lexicon (talk) 18:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
This discussion should probably take place over at Template talk:Infobox Country instead of Talk:Canada. MJCdetroit 20:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
(Now it is here.) I think it is in general a bad idea to add the city CoA to the templates on any of those countries; as it adds nothing (the interested reader can click the city name and see the CoA in the article). IMHO it only clutters the infobox making it less pretty and harder to read. Arnoutf 15:37, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree. Include the country's CoA, but not any city's. These images are too intricate to be recognizable at icon size, and including a larger version would be too intrusive. In addition, the CoA of the capital city has very little to do with the country. -- Rick Block (talk) 17:39, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, agreed. Jkelly 17:47, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Rick Block; the images are too intricate to be shrunken down to be really necessary. The country's CoA is fine, since its the most important. We don't need a bazillion flags everywhere for every country. Leaving it unchcked could possibily get that way. Disinclination 18:08, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
I started at discussion at wikiproject countries regarding this issue I have removed the city coat of arms from all of the EU countries their inclusion serves no purpose whatsover and can make the infobox look messy. --Barry O'Brien entretien 02:01, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

native_name for countries with multiple official languages

Can this template be improved somehow to better accommodate countries with multiple official languages? The Switzerland, India and South Africa pages all use somewhat inelegant solutions to the problem of displaying the native_name in multiple official languages. Switzerland displays all four using <br/> for line breaks, but having so much headline text is not good for the layout. India displays the two "main" official languages and links to a separate page for the other 21, which is a reasonable solution if some languages are more official than others. For South Africa, I've linked to a separate page for the 11 official names, but unfortunately the link appears before the heading of the infobox, which also isn't good for the layout. Zaian 20:13, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

...On second thoughts, maybe it is worthwhile. I'll make a note to take a look. Apologies for vacillation!  Regards, David (talk) 17:17, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. There are quite a few more with multiple official languages (Belgium, Belarus, Israel, Luxembourg - see list on the page official language), and many with the official name in a different script (Russia, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, China etc), although that is a different problem. Ideally the solution should also include the name of the language (e.g. Suid-Afrika (Afrikaans). Zaian 07:08, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, that does look better. Regards, Zaian 08:27, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Unrecognized countries?

A number of unrecognized/de-facto countries use this infobox, but the infobox itself does not clearly indicate this status at all, which places these countries on equal standing with recognized countries. This is an important piece of information, so what are your thoughts about introducing something to accommodate this? A simple way to do it would be if you make a new field such that if "|unrecognized=yes" then an extra row is displayed at the top of the infobox, stating clearly that it is unrecognized. For former countries, a status bar like this has proven useful - for example First Hellenic Republic (a more complex example is Irish Republic where the status bar text has been edited - this setup is still under development). What do you think? - 52 Pickup 09:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I think that the number of unrecognized/de-facto countries should not use this infobox. --Des Grant 07:57, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Sounds reasonable; I have no objections. —MJCdetroit 16:22, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Make it more flexible, there are all sorts of non-countries using this. SchmuckyTheCat 16:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree, although an entire separated row in large text seems a little much. I'd go for small text directly under the name (and just saying "unrecognized", not "unrecognized state"). This way, it states the actuality without pushing a POV that the state is "not real" that such a prominent "unrecognized state" would tend to be viewed as saying. Lexicon (talk) 16:52, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I realize I assume that the Government/Sovereignty section of the infobox handles this aspect and/or the article's opening paragraph... if so, perhaps adding a further statement might be unnecessary...?  Regards, David Kernow (talk) 17:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
    PS I had renamed this template {{Infobox Country or territory}} in an effort to indicate that its use wasn't/needn't be restricted to "countries", but this was reverted.
  • Ah yes, I thought there was an indication of sovereignty type somewhere. As for the "Country or territory", yes, it might be better off over there, although there are still some problems with it being used for non-countries, such as, for instance, "capital" linking to a list of national capitals, which is of little use when you're on some article like Vojvodina that uses the template but does not have its capital listed on the linked page. Lexicon (talk) 17:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Understood; since List of capitals redirects to List of national capitals, perhaps (1) a disambiguation page is needed; and/or (2) there needs to be another kind of list among those given at the start of List of national capitals...?  Regards, David (talk) 08:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

The presentation of this status bar is something that I am still not completely happy with. For some cases, it is not necessary to display the text, but it is still necessary for categorisation. The size and positioning of it is still something that I'm working on. At the moment I'm working on a rewrite of the former country infobox to look a bit more like the normal country infobox. For comparison, I've placed some samples here showing both the current and proposed model. Any feedback would be appreciated. - 52 Pickup 06:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I have recently gone ahead with the changes to the Former Country infobox. Giving these entries a similar appearance to modern countries is one of the main things that I wanted to do with WP:WPFC. The status bar now only shows for certain values - reinforcing the idea that the status field is primarily for classification - and it's a bit smaller. Perhaps having such a feature may help with making any necessary distinctions for modern states. A new status that I just added is for exiled governments, allowing for when the state existed only in exile (eg. Free French Forces) or for when the government was driven into exile (eg. Belarusian National Republic). For exiled, provisional or unrecognised governments, or any other special case there doesn't really appear to be clear guidelines on what can be done to correctly represent them. Since former states are a little less politically sensitive than modern ones to most readers, I invite anyone to experiment with these former states first to work out suitable solutions. For anyone interested, it is probably better to discuss this over at the Extraordinary Governments task force of WikiProject Former countries. - 52 Pickup 13:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Why Just "Official Language"?

How about "Other Major Languages?" Dave Runger 18:54, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

That would give a lot of problems with many of the European articls. E.g. Denmark: around 5,5 million speak Danish, but it is anybody's guess if Turkish, Arabic or whatever comes 2nd, 3rd and 4th place, since the national statistics might have a number for how many persons immigrated to Denmark, but they don't categorise children, grandchildren etc. by ethnicity. I'm afraid such a list would only result in revert wars between different groups. I have a bad feeling about this one. Valentinian 19:06, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I was thinking that such issues might come up, but I thought I would suggest the change because listing other major languages in addition to official languages might provide a slightly more complete picture of any given country. However, if you think the costs outweigh the benefits, I am not going to disagree. Dave Runger 09:29, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I would agree with changing it from 'Recognized regional languages' because of spelling. The 'z' looks terrible and out of place on Namibia's article, which is a Commonwealth Country. Bennelliott • Talk • Contributions 10:41, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
And in the UK, hundreds of languages are spoken and seven (other than English) are officially recognised (PDF). I think infoboxes are generally too big as it is, because people feel a need to shoehorn every conceivable piece of information into it. If language is a notable feature of a country, it needs a section where it is properly covered. This allows the fuller use of sources to present the different points of view and controversies. And controversies there will be, for some articles! On the spelling: Infobox color has a parameter for choosing the style of English. Notinasnaid 10:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Maybe it could be changed to 's' because Canada and the United States don't use the regional languages part of the infobox. Neither does the UK for that matter, but so far I've only come across one that does, and that's Namibia.
Bennelliott • Talk • Contributions 11:04, 7 May 2007 (UTC) Here's the list your looking for Notinasaid. Bennelliott • Talk • Contributions 11:06, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Actually, the US should use regional_languages. It has no officially mandated language at the federal level, and has no less than 6 at the level of its states and territories, including Hawaiian in Hawaii and Spanish in Puerto Rico. However, at present, the regional_langauges argument isn't rendering at all when we try to use it there, which concerns me far more than the spelling. See below. MrZaius 13:49, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

overriding default link names

Hi. As best I can understand, it seems that in the infobox of country X, if the symbol_type field is set to Y, the link will automatically read "Y" and will automatically link to "Y of X." Is there a way to perfrom some sort of pipe-trick equivalent, so we can have the link read "Y" but direct us to "Z" instead? Doops | talk 19:06, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Could you leave a pointer/link to what you have in mind...?  Thanks, David Kernow (talk) 21:19, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Consider Scotland, where there has recently been some discussion over the coat of arms. The little caption below the image currently reads "Royal coat of arms" and it links to Royal coat of arms of Scotland -- the parser automatically does this. But what if we want to keep linking to the same page, but change the precise wording of the link to some alternative we'd worked out. That is, we want to set up the direction explicitly, rather than letting the parser do it for us. Doops | talk 21:27, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
  • If I've understood correctly, the relevant part of the code at present is
<small>]</small>
If symbol_type were set to the desired wording, could some combination of symbol_type_article and common_name create the article's name...?  (Yes, there's also linking_name and name, although these are meant to handle redirects from {{Infobox Geopolitical organization}}). Hope this helps, David (talk) 01:03, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Gosh, how Byzantine! Why isn't there just some way to override the automatic parsing and do it manually? (The issue seems to have gone away now, by the way, so I won't kill myself trying to figure it out; but thanks.) Doops | talk 14:49, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Growth rate?

What about to put information of economic growth rate in the template? This could be a interesting information for many. Tiwonk 17:18, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Request for comment (informal)

Opinions, please, on the following (copied from User:Guilherme Paula's talkpage):

...I've inserted at African Union and hope I haven't lost any of the information you included in the {{Infobox Country}} version... Yours, David (talk) 01:20, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

...in my opinion, the template is being with the same (or at least, near the same) appearance of Template:Infobox Country. Have you certain that needs create a new template for it ? ... Thanks - Guilherme 01:36, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
I think I may well agree; these thoughts have been in the back of my mind while using the African Union as a test article. Not all these organizations can or will have the country-like information carried by the "Statistics" parameters, so perhaps these can be handled by {{Infobox Country or territory}}, while the first set of parameters are used by a simpler {{Infobox Geopolitical organization}}... David (talk) 03:34, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
.........
...I think now we can use Template:Infobox Country to African Union, Andean Community of Nations, etc. What's your opinion ?  
I'm not sure... Although one usually involves the other, I'd say there's a considerable difference between countries/territories and geopolitical organizations; also, I don't think the articles on all these organizations include (or will include) information such as areas, populations, etc. So, looking ahead, I'm thinking it might be better to keep two separate templates, i.e. {{Infobox Country or territory}} as a supplement to {{Infobox Geopolitical organization}}, rather than try mixing them together ...
PS Have just thought that it might be possible to call {{Infobox Country or territory}} from within {{Infobox Geopolitical organization}} in order to add area, population, etc data as part of a single continuous template. How about that...?  
... Is a good idea call Template:Infobox Country from within Template:Infobox Geopolitical organization in order to add area, population, etc data as part of a single continuous template. But, despite that the appearance is not full consistent, I don't think that is more necessary since I modified Template:Infobox Country. If you really want that it is the correct, why not use too call the name, flag, map, anthem, motto and others semilars too, to avoid duplication ? ... Guilherme 15:47, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
"If you really want that it is the correct, why not use too call the name, flag, map, anthem, motto and others semilars too, to avoid duplication ?"
I guess I'm cautious because geopolitical organizations aren't countries, don't have national mottos or anthems, don't necessarily have capitals or governments, don't carry sovereignty,... Do you see what I mean...?  As you may already have seen on various talk pages, some people's circumstances make them particularly sensitive to these kinds of issues, so I think it might be wise not to try using one template ({{Infobox Country or territory}}) for both countries/territories and geopolitical organizations, even though this might easily be done. In other words, my concern is not so much about the template itself, but people's possible reactions to its use. Hope you understand what I mean, David (talk) 01:31, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Some organizations have also mottos, anthems or hymn (e.g.1, 2, 3, 4, etc). Really don't have capitals or governments, but carry headquarters, comission seats or other thing. Don't carry sovereingty, but establishment. All these are easily to change or adapt in Template:Infobox Country or territory). I can't understand why create another template only to say: "Editors, it's not a country or territory. It's an geopolical organization." because to the final reader if use one or other, is the same thing. I really don't know what more say to convince you. My last suggestions are, if the problem is the name of template, why not rename to a global name? And... What such to ask for opinions to one third person? Yours truly — Guilherme 16:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, let's get some more opinions. I agree that the two templates can be used in similar ways, so, if other people think there should be no problem in merging them, I'll happily come along. To make a start, I've posted this request on Template:Infobox Country's talkpage. Yours, David (talk) 21:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks in advance for your comments!  David Kernow (talk) 21:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you just have {{Infobox Geopolitical organization}} be an alais (and redirect) of {{Infobox Country or territory}}. This concept has worked very well for {{Infobox City}} which has several aliases like Infobox Settlement, Infobox Town, Infobox Village, et cetera. That way you keep the the code consolidated in one location and you will have a consistent look. The template can be #if to handle anything. —MJCdetroit 03:59, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your feedback, MJCdetroit. I agree that, as Guilherme suggests, combining the two infoboxes is a sensible solution, so {{Infobox Geopolitical organization}} now redirects to a revised {{Infobox Country}}. Best wishes, David (talk) 00:03, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Demonym

I'd like to add a Demonym field, any thoughts on where it should go? Vagary 07:41, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Somewhere near the bottom, I think. Perhaps near the time zone of internet code. - 52 Pickup 10:21, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. Done. Vagary 00:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Additional statistics

Why not add the Reporters Without Borders (press freedom) and Transparency International (corruption) ranks? Alepik 13:22, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

A good idea, but where do we stop wirh rankings? The navbar {{Lists of countries}} lists a stack of rankings. - 52 Pickup 10:24, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
I think there are already way too many stats in the box. Have a look at e.g. Belgium; the box is about 1.5 screen tall. IMHO no single infobox for any article should be more than full screen on a decent size screen. This box seems to have grown out of control. Do we, for example really need this many economic parameters. Arnoutf 17:45, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
I tend to somewhat agree with Aroutf. I think that we should be careful about what is added to the box. —MJCdetroit 18:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Uh, yeah. Gini coefficient?! I don't think we need that in an infobox. Lexicon (talk) 18:25, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Throw a WP:NAVFRAME around sections that are getting out of hand. Using infoboxes enforces a common style which makes reading and editing pages faster. In theory it also brings us closer to a Semantic wiki. I'd take a long infobox over a really long article any day! Vagary 00:02, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Israel

Why does it still exist? --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 08:28, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Hopefully not for long. We worked too hard to get rid of these types of templates. All country and territory articles should use the same template. Its TfD is here: Misplaced Pages:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_May_10#May_10. —MJCdetroit 16:12, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
You can add Infobox Cape Verde to that list. —MJCdetroit 16:27, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Highest/lowest points?

This has probably been discussed before, but how about an elevation section, giving the highest and lowest points? - 52 Pickup 12:42, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Adding preceding entities

To be consistent with {{Infobox Former Country}}, I would recommend adding a row to the infobox below the title, indicating the year of the country's formation and its preceding entities. Clicking through former countries to see what they formed from and what they turned into is a nice feature, but I find it frustrating that current countries do not have where they formed from. For example, Germany would be proceeded by East Germany and West Germany, Japan would be proceeded by Occupied Japan and United States Civil Administration of the Ryukyu Islands, and United States would be proceeded by Kingdom of Great Britain, Louisiana (New France), Republic of Texas, and others. --Scott Alter 21:40, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Nice idea, but I have to disagree. The guidelines that we have in place for what entries to link to are already hard to maintain for former countries, and I can see that it would be even harder to do for currently-existing states. Taking your USA example: since there are so many former territories that are now part of the USA (eg. would you include the CSA? Some would, some would not), following the former country guidelines (and i may be a bit biased since i wrote them), it would instead be prefered to link only to the single entity that originally became the USA, and that would be the Thirteen Colonies. However, others may disagree and try to put in every single one - leading to edit wars and a very big infobox. And, as you can see by other recent posts on this talk page, the infobox is getting too big already.
For other parts of the world, stating particular predecessor states could be considered POV. Handling entries for some former countries has to done very delicately, and I can see that tempers would be a lot higher with regards to current states. One obvious case here is PR China and Taiwan.
Also, the date and flags row in the Former Country infobox is set up to deliberately make that infobox look different to the Country infobox so you can notice straight away that the entry is dealing with a state that no longer exists (or a now-defunct version of a state that currently exists).
Sorry. It's a nice idea, but unfortunately not practical at this point. - 52 Pickup 09:44, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Please no more rows

Several suggestions for additional rows were put up recently. I think the template as it is now is already far too long. IMHO an infobox should give at a first glance an overview of the key specifics. When an infobox is taller than one full screen height by definition it is no longer to get in all the specifics in one glance (as scrolling is needed). I would rather suggest dividing the infobox into two parts; one part with the bare essentials (to be placed on top) and a larger full width template with all the details, to be added at the back (wikilinked by the top one through for example a "see detailed information" link in that box). That box may as grow as big as anyone want as it would not hamper quick reading into the bodytext. Arnoutf 22:28, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I think a better response to this problem is to split the country infobox into infoboxes for specific aspects. For example, the Government section of the infobox should appear on the Government of article (or at least subsection). Establishment should be on History of, Area should be on Geography of, Population should be on Demographics of, all the economic data should be on Economy of (mostly done), Official Languages in Culture of, etc. Then we can set a clear policy: no additions to Infobox Country unless they are general enough to not belong in any more specific infobox. If necessary, Infobox Country could provide some navigation to those articles. Vagary 23:18, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Sounds like a fair idea as well. Arnoutf 12:07, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
While I firmly believe that the infobox does not need anymore rows, I don't think we should split the infobox up. That seems like a major step backwards. —MJCdetroit 12:38, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Take a look at Template:Infobox Economy. Every country subpage/subsection should have an infobox like that. To speed navigation, Infobox Country could either include links to the standard subpages, or transclude them in navframes (see a kind of gimpy example for Economy). Every piece of well-formed data deserves an infobox, and the only way to keep bloat out of Infobox Country without discussing each extension is to find somewhere else for things to go. Vagary 20:25, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
That is a good idea, I really don't think the general country infobox needs more than a single economy indicator; or the official (ie legislation) languages, the rest can go to the XXXX language, or languages in XXXX pages. Arnoutf 08:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

spoken_languages & regional_languages missing

The United States has no official language, so I attempted to replace the clunky "English, de facto" entry for official_language with a spoken_languages entry, but it didn't ever show up on the page. What did I do wrong here? Could the template here be at fault? - Thanks, MrZaius 04:56, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Ditto regional_languages - - MrZaius 05:07, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm relucant to make the change, given that I'm not sure how to best handle the fonts and seperators and what not, but the problem with the regional_languages seems to be that its #if is only hit if official_languages is present. MrZaius 05:27, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
The spoken_languages option mentioned in the /doc is entirely missing from the template. MrZaius 05:30, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Resolved - Thanks! MrZaius 07:17, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

EU flag for member states

The flag documents an official symbol used by all EU member states . It has almost a status comparable to the national flag. It is a vital part of the infobox and signalizes the degree of integration. Lear 21 16:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The flag does nothing that the words around it don't do ten times better "Accession to the European Union" makes it pretty damn clear that the country is in the European Union. In addition, when we use flags in the way you are attempting to use the EU flag, they generally go in front of the name of the entity. You have it in front of the date, which makes no sense. There really is no reason for the flag at all here. If you can read, you know exactly what "Accession to the European Union" and then the date that that happened means. Lexicon (talk) 16:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Lear 21, This is NOT the Berlin page! You can not just make changes because YOU want them and if they are rejected revert until YOU get your way. This is an infobox that is transcluded on hundreds of articles. This infobox is held together through something called consensus. If we can't agree on something, we discuss it, and if we still can't agree then it is status quo. Reverting here, the way you did/do on the Berlin article will not be tolerated. Nor will creating new special infoboxes only for the EU to your specifications. Your hap-hazard way of reverting happened to revert a very good edit by User:Guilherme Paula. In which G.P. attempted to fix the broken links issue. This was my original reason for undoing your first revert and had nothing to do with the EU flag thing. Now reading Lexicon's reply, I tend to agree with him. —MJCdetroit 17:47, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
I think addition of the EU flag is not necessary, per Lexicon. But even worse, if it increases the size of these already ridicolously large infoboxes the addition of a flag is (IMHO) outright harmful, hence I am strongly against addition of this flag. Arnoutf 18:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree the EU flag and for that matter the EU parliament seats are totally unecessary --Barryob Vigeur de dessus 20:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
I think that it may be time to fully protect this template to force non-admins (which would include me) to discuss their changes first. —MJCdetroit 20:31, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Flags are standard content of all country infoboxes. Even small flags (like the discussed one) are established in a number of minor political entities or city articles to signallize identification. Nobody would question the existence of the US flag in the USA article. This is exactly the same case. I repeat: The flag documents an official symbol used by all EU member states on a number of occasions. It has almost a status comparable to the national flag. This must be expressed in the infobox. AND: it was a user other than myself who introduced the flag. Lear 21 21:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The EU flag is comparable to the national flag but it is not one, it is the flag of the EU not the given country the US comparision is flawed the US article has the US flag but all the US states do not have a mini US flag in their infoboxes neither should the EU coutries. --Barryob Vigeur de dessus 22:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Either both flags should be given or neither. - Francis Tyers · 23:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The EU flag AND the national flag are representing the current status of interdependence. Nobody demands removing the French, British or German flag from the infobox. The EU/Nation relation must be expressed. The repair work to be done on the template should result to the inclusion of the flag. Lear 21 08:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
The EU flag is not an official symbol at all. It was to be such a symbol in the EU constitution; but as that will not become operational for a while (if ever). Furthermore the EU flaglet (which I understand is with the accession to EU date) clutters the template much like the CoA of the capitals did (which where removed) Arnoutf 11:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

The EU and its flag represents all member countries in trade talks. That is operational! , , The EU flag appears on my driving license that is operational! My voting papers for EU parliament election include the EU flag, that is operational! The flag must be included. Nobody asks removing the national flags from the infobox. The EU is the defacto second nation to its members. Lear 21 16:29, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

As much as a sympathise, I would agree that it is not necessary. Although EU membership is extremely important to the member-states there is no need to stick the flag all over the place, to me it seems like over-compensatory patriotism, nothing to do with improving the encyclopaedia. All it would create is a nationalist backlash from some editors. There is no precedent on Misplaced Pages for adding it, if US states or Chinese provinces had them then I may consider supporting it but not like this. It's not a question of what the EU is, it's a question of what is appropriate to include in an encyclopaedia. Infobox, not flag box. - J Logan /c: 18:01, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
(For example, where in the entire New York State article, is a US flag? Anywhere? Even in the navbox? The EU may have problems getting people to know it exists, but this is no way and no place to run a PR campaign) - J Logan /c: 18:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
I think that J Logan gives a very good reason not to include the flag. If the EU flag is included than the US flag should be included on the state articles of the US, if alone for consistency of Wiki.
My second reason is that the template is already overfilled with irrelevant stuff, and the flag is irrelevant (as the ascension date text to EU already confirms membership)
The argument by Lear21 is not a very good argument. Unless the EU flag is an official (and I mean by treaty not de-facto) symbol of the EU, I think we have to be very careful to slap it on any template outside EU articles. If the EU logo is on, why not the logo's of NATO, UN, WHO, WTO, etc etc etc. The choice seems unreferenced POV.
A fourth argument not to place the flag is of course that of consensus which is clearly not achieved. Arnoutf 18:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

NATO, UN, WHO, WTO does not appear on my passport! NATO, UN, WHO, WTO does not appear on my number plate ! But the EU flag does . The references are given. The degree of EU influence and integration created an unprecedented case not comparable to US identity. The national and EU symbol are equal (EU flag remains small in size compared to national flag at the head of the infobox). It is true that the US flag should be added to the US state infoboxes like the French flag to Paris. But this can´t be a precondition to this case. It´s a matter of decision. The number of comparable examples are endless: Italian flag/Milan, German and EU flag/Brandenburg. PLUS: the EU flag is official , Lear 21 19:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

EU flag does not appear on my passport. The references are irrelevant as the do not say the flag is the official symbol. I am sure I can find a reference stating instructions for placing the McDonalds M.
None of that does adresses my second point; the box is too cluttered as it is; and the flag is only adding redundant information. In this light I would say that neither the US states, nor the EU countries should have their flag in the box.
Also your example of Paris and Milan are irrelevant, as they both use a national city template, while this template aims to be for all countries in the world. So where the use of seperate city templates allows lack of consistency (although it should be harmonised IMHO), this is clearly not acceptable within a general use template. Arnoutf 19:12, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

{{User:Ssolbergj/sandbox2}} Nowiki'd - it was slagging the rest of the page. Hesperian 23:55, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

You simply can't compare a NATO or UN membership to a nation's membership in this Union. I live in Norway, but I know that more or less all public bouldings etc. in the EU member states have the EU flag. The EU flag is anything but de facto.
When I started as an editor on[REDACTED] I could place a 300px image in an infobox and think it looked fine. Now i feel the opposite; "clean" text and compressed infoboxes are much better. There should be no small EU flag alongside the Accession to the European Union text. However, due to the fact that the EU flag virtually can be juxtaposed with a national flag,(I get your point with the USA states etc., but the relationship between the US states is completely different to that of EU states to the EU.) I think we could introduce somethink similar to what's done with the french flag in the Template:French commune template to the right. For example african union member states can have the AU flag. Just for close unions etc.; not for NATO membership. I think it looks good plus it doesn't take much space. It doesnt feel like something a nationalistic editor might have forced into the box. └  / talk  19:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree the flag is used, and even proscribed for all kind of official situation. However, there is no EU treaty naming the flag as an official symbol (this was part of the constitution that is not ratified). As de facto means in practice (so in the case of the EU, it is in practice the symbol of the union) but not in law; this is exactly what the status of the EU flag is at this moment.
Although I like your idea in principle, my overriding problem is that the template is overcrowed and way to long as it is. Even the addition of a single text line would (IMHO) be too much at this moment. If you can achieve consensus at limiting the total size of the box to that of the example you provided here, I would support addition, untill that time shorter is better. Arnoutf 19:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
The EU is not a country. It is a regional bloc in which members are free to leave. Stating that a member of the EU is equal to a U.S. state or a province in China is just not correct. The last time a U.S. state seceded, we had something called the civil war. Furthermore, Germany did not ask the EU for permission to send troops to Afganistan and the state of New York (or any other state) has never declared war on say Canada. The EU is more comparable to CARICOM, NAFTA, and the AU.
Arnoutf makes a good point, should all NATO, CAPICOM, AU, OAS, NAFTA countries have their own symbols on the infobox too? No. A similar problem with city COAs was cluttering the infobox and it was agreed that they also had to go. This EU flag thing has been overwhelming rejected and it seems that an EU-centric nationalism/patriotism POV has replaced consensus and logic. Let a dead horse lay. —MJCdetroit 19:56, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
PLEASE just get the point!: Nobody has said that a US state is equal to a EU member state! I said the opposite. And please just realise that an EU membership in fact is "more dominant" than a seat in the UN. The laws of the EU have been weaved into the law of EU members. It's not just a regional bloc. The EU is virtually a semi-country. Sui generis.└  / talk  20:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
I understand the issue with space, but a line in this infobox saying how many seats in the European Parliament is important. It would in a simple way state how much influence this member has politcally. We could change Accession to the European Union into Accession to the EU, and by doing so sparing a line which we can use for the national number of MEPs. -└  / talk  20:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree, you can't compare the EU to any other kind of organisation, nor can you really compare it to a US state. But is it still necessary. Yes it say something about the country but does it need to be said like this in the infobox? I would support adding the flag at the bottom, being far more clear than inline, but the boxes are huge, why yet another line? And on the point of the EU flag not being in a treaty, well neither is the UK flag, that flag is defacto just like the EU flag, in fact, the EU decided to adopt it, the UK didn't, so in fact it has more validity. - J Logan /c: 20:24, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
And on MEPs, I'm not convinced, can you provide a precedent for that? If not, perhaps some kind of EU info box to be used in addition to the national infobox? - J Logan /c: 20:26, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

A semi-country, correct! @Arnoutf: The many occasions, where the EU-flag is used, did create a defacto reality. I haven´t mentioned the Euro banknotes including the EU flag. Think about London which has no written constitutional capital status. Or UK ! Having no constitution at all. Nobody would deny saying London is THE capital. Same with EU flag status. @User:MJCdetroit: Read the EU article or the mentioned arguments first before you answer. Lear 21 20:28, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Just on MJCdetroit's point about the US civil war. That was under historical conditions. Are you suggesting that if a US state declared independence today, troops would roll across the broder? And just on the MEP point, MEPs are allocated by population, so I'm not sure how much extra information about political influence that would give. - J Logan /c: 20:39, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
"Accession to the EU" sounds good ! "MEP to EU Parliament" sounds reasonable! The flag could be integrated under the Map saying "European Union (camel)" Lear 21 20:44, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Why? Why do we need the flag under the map? Sorry but it sounds as though you're trying to include it for the sake of it. Can't we keep the flags in the flag area? It really wouldn't look very good sticking it in the legend like that. I think if we have it on (and from other responses that's a big if) it needs to be with a clear purpose and place. - J Logan /c: 20:51, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
And your examples of Milan and B.burg earlier. Milan was good as it was clear, at the top; Country = Italy, with flag. B.burg though was the Nuts region and you added that flag 7 days ago so I'm not sure how good of an example that is. - J Logan /c: 20:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

You are right, the best place for the flag is under the national flags. Lear 21 20:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I am afraid that would make the template again bigger. The flag at the bottom is least distracting. IMHO all relevant information should fit without scrolling within a single full screen browser (i.e. the box should in no circumstance being taller than about 700 pixels (leaving some room for task bars). The current template is about twice that size. In my opinion, it is not as much that freeing up room gives us room to add more stuff; freeing up room is essential to bring back the template to a manageable size. Only if you manage to cut by about 50% there is room for new stuff.
Not only with regard to the lenght, but also with regard to imagery I think we should strive for a layout that is as simple as possible. Ie. we should only add images if this does add content. The EU flag is redundant information as the ascension to EU line already links to EU (the flag is pictured there); so I see no need to add it, so (IMHO) every square millimetre used for that makes the template worse rather than better.Arnoutf 21:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


Thing is the box is about the country, not the EU. I don't think it would even look good doubling the size of the flag area. But how about this; either a separate EU Member State box (in addition to the country box), with details on the country's membership including MEPs etc. Or have an expandable box in the accession area (or elsewhere in the box), so below the accession date you can get basic information, headed by a flag, on the membership. That way it doesn't add the flag to the main text and doesn't expand the size while including all the information in the same box. What do people think about one of those as a compromise? - J Logan /c: 21:13, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Expandalbe box sounds good; that would solve my main objection (size); and also separate essential information (EU member) from detailed background (no of parlaiment seats, date of membership, flag, etc,). Can we also work such a expandable section in for the economic parameters (there are up to six, that only economists can tell apart, per country).Arnoutf 21:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Reply to JLogan: The point I was trying to make above by giving the example for the U.S. Civil War was that members countries of the EU are in the union voluntarily and may leave the union at their choosing . They are sovereign countries and they may do that. A sovereign country attempting to leave a voluntary union is not the same as a region of a sovereign country attempting to become independent of the country. I was trying use that example to show that the EU is not country; that it is a union of countries. Much like other countries that have formed unions (AU, CARICOM, etc.) for the mutual enhancements of one another, but the EU is unarguably more advanced. I was trying to reiterate Arnoutf point that if we allow a flag for the EU, why shouldn't AU, CAPICOM, etc, countries display the flag of their regional bloc? And why not place the coat of arms next to every capital and largest city? Why, because it clutters the infobox. As you put it the infobox is about the country and not the EU and the flag just becomes redundant to the accession date. Also, the maps of EU countries already have the EU outlined in Europe with a special click-able legend.
Many editors here have worked hard to present a decent uncluttered infobox. We have done this though consensus and discussion and not through the Lear21 method of constant reverting and trying to force unwanted changes into the template until other editors cave. From what I've read above there is still no consensus to include the EU flag in the template. Yet Lear21, despite objections and warnings has continued to try to force changes without consensus. Therefore, once again an editor (myself) will have to revert his changes until we have a consensus on what to do with the EU flag cluttering the infobox. There should be no changes to the template in respect to this issue.
I would accept a separate EU state member box outside of the infobox; perhaps in the government section. I do like the expandable box idea for the economic parameters. That would help unclutter the box. —MJCdetroit 04:17, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
There has been no real justification for putting the flag in the box look at Scotland or England do they have a mini Union flag or New York or Texas do they have the US flag no, and they have a far greater relationship with the the UK and the US than the EU member states does with the EU. --Barryob Vigeur de dessus 07:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Reply to MJCdetroit; US states joined voluntarily, and practically speaking they could leave peacefuly - as was the point I made before. As regards EU states, legally they are bound to the treaty indefinitely and could only leave after either negotiations and agreement or unilateral declaration (and although the constitution provides for the first time a stated treaty method of exit, it works on the same principle) so the system is essentially the same.
Fundamentally, I don't think the question is the status of the European Union, we could argue all day about what it is like and what it isn't. The question is what should be in the infobox and is there space? As the infobox stands, it is about, say, France or Germany. Not the EU. Just as New York is not about the US and Nigeria is not about the AU or anything else. If the EU is mentioned, it should be in reference to that country, such as the accession line, and ramming the flag next to it does not appear to serve an immediate function in helping the user understand anything. If you argument is that it is a symbol, it should be with symbols - but we are talking about the symbols of the member. Yes the EU flag applies to France, but it is not the symbol of France just as the UK flag is absent from the Scotland box. I understand the reasoning for wanting to include it, but if it were to be included, it requires a major rethink of how the box works and what it is for. - J Logan /c: 08:25, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Anthems

There's a discussion under way at Talk:Australia over whether or not God Save The Queen should be listed in the infobox. I don't want to bring that discussion here, but the discussion does highlight the following problem with the infobox:

The heading text "Anthem" is ambiguous in some contexts - in this case, Australia has both a national anthem and a royal anthem. However, the heading links to national anthem. So whatever we do is wrong - if we include God Save The Queen, then we are listing a royal anthem under a section whose heading links to national anthem; if we exclude it, then we are excluding a legitimate official anthem from a section whose heading text is "Anthem".

I can see two obvious ways to fix this: (1) link the heading text "Anthem" to Anthem or delink it altogether; or (2) change the heading text to "National anthem", as it was until May 5.

I won't express my opinion here, as it will undoubtedly be interpreted in the context of the other debate. Can you guys come to a consensus on this and fix it please?

Hesperian 02:10, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

My neighbors to the south*—Canada had the same problem and their fix seems to be keeping everyone happy. Check out their page.
*And yes, where I live in the U.S., Canada is actually south of me. :) —MJCdetroit 02:24, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Well it's not keeping anyone happy on Talk:Australia. But that's beside the point. Just because Canada has worked around the bug doesn't change the fact that there is a bug here than needs to be fixed. Hesperian 02:32, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Hesperian has highlighted a valid problem with the template. He has also found that New Zealand has two national anthems, ranking equally in importance. One is God Defend New Zealand, the other is God Save the Queen, which in several other Commonwealth nations is treated as the royal anthem, to be played when the Queen is present, and is obviously not a national anthem for these nations.
However, I feel that template parameter names need not be overly restrictive, and in fact are often "overloaded" with extra information. Australia is a good example, where the template parameter named "capital" contains not only the name of the capital, but also its geographical coordinates.
The problem highlighted is, in my opinion, minor. Maybe a solution can be found, but maybe it's also not worth the trouble of fixing every instance of this template. The solution found in Canada, Bermuda etc, seems quite sensible and easily understood. --Pete 00:58, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Giant space

Please fix the giant space I'm noticing at Karakalpakstan and elsewhere. Do not revert to newer versions without addressing this issue, or I will be forced to protect the page in the interim. Thanks in advance. El_C 13:13, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

This 6-month revert is a rather radical change. During this period, I'm sure a lot of new parameters are added (I did not follow every single one of them). With El C's revert, they are all gone for the interim..... --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 13:19, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
For example, now European Union shows {{{official_languages}}} in the box. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 13:20, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, I reverted and made some modifications. The white space has been reduced, but not completely. I believe the radical-revert approach is flawed. We must think: giant white space (e.g. Karakalpakstan) v.s. loss of data (e.g European Union), which one is worse? --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 13:28, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I tried, but I can't figure out the rest.... Someone else please help. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 13:57, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Here's a screenshot showing the issue in question. El_C 14:16, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Does this happen anywhere else? or only at Karakalpakstan? Something similar had happen over at Infobox City and blanks lines were the culprit. —MJCdetroit 14:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure I've seen it happen elsewhere, but I don't remember. Isn't there a way to automatically list all the affected pages? El_C 14:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Found some of them, but I don't have time to edit the template. Some blank lines are exposed. I inserted some letters in blank lines in this sandbox and "g" and "i" showed up in a Preview of a modified Karakalpakstan. (SEWilco 15:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC))

This can be caused by imperfect template code on pages, and doesn't necessarily mean the template code itself (here) is the immediate problem. ¦ Reisio 23:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Circumvented by modifying Karakalpakstan page code. ¦ Reisio 00:39, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure why but it seems to happen when the government_type field is filled in and the leader_title1 and leader_name1 are NOT filled in. Maybe the template should have all those editors' notes (<!-- -->) removed. At least with that removed, it will be easier to troubleshoot. An explanation table on the /doc page would work better than all of those Ed notes. —MJCdetroit 02:50, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Basically, this template has become overly complex. ¦ Reisio 06:49, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I think that the act of trying to make it more simple by explaining all aspects of the code in the editor's notes may have created this. I don't think complexity of the operations performed is to blame. There are other templates out there that 10 times more complex and work fine. One that comes to mind and is/was based on this template is Template:Infobox Former Country. I do admit that I am only guessing. —MJCdetroit 13:50, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Template talk:Infobox country Add topic