This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Q

Q q

Q

Q

There seems to be an overall preference for PPP figures in Wikipedia when comparing GDP for countries. Nominal currency adjusted GDP figures should be given at least equal -- and arguable higher -- status when looking at overall economies. PPP method should be limited to per capital figures.

I propose that nominal GDP figures be included in Infobox directly above the PPP GDP section.

The Human Development Index ( HDI) is a standard UN measure/ rank of how developed a country is or is not. It is a composite index based on GDP per capita (PPP), literacy, life expectancy, and school enrollment. However, as it is a composite index/rank, some may challenge its usefulness or applicability as information.

Thus, the following question is put to a vote:

Should any, some, or all of the following be included in the Wikipedia country infobox/template:

(1) Human Development Index (HDI) for applicable countries, with year;

(2) Rank of country’s HDI;

(3) Category of country’s HDI (high, medium, or low)?

YES / NO / UNDECIDED/ABSTAIN - vote here

Thanks!

E Pluribus Anthony 01:52, 20 September 2005 (UTC) reply

While I personally prefer Timor-Leste (and have explained my reasoning on other pages), it's objectively not good for this vote to only have four votes on it. That it's currently a tie just makes it worse. So, please read all the various comments on the issue, and then vote, please. Thanks! ナイトスタリオン ✉ 16:33, 5 October 2005 (UTC) reply

The UN official lists it as "Timor-Leste". I think that is enough. Rarelibra 17:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply

This issue has become live again at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template: Cuba infobox. I didn't know of this page when I began using the infobox, and nor did I choose the 20 top economies, mostly chose Latin America where Brazil and a couple of others were already using it, SqueakBox 21:07, 15 October 2005 (UTC) reply

There is an editor, SqueakBox who has chosen to templatize Country infoboxes on a one template for each country basis and he has been taking articles with existing {{ Infobox Country}} template use and creating templates that contain just the {{ Infobox Country}} stuff. I'm putting together a TfD for them all, which I hope to have up shortly. Caerwine 21:31, 15 October 2005 (UTC) reply

I trust you won't only be Tfding those I worked on as that would be a demonstration of bad faith, and that you are planning to resolve this issue by tfding the boxes of all countries that have them, and then putting a note on each countr's talk page that is currently using it so all those affected can vote. I am surprised you didn't choose to wait to see what happened at the Cuba vote that only you and I have voted for, SqueakBox 21:48, 15 October 2005 (UTC) reply

I noticed quite a few country articles are lacking pictures, even though there are plenty of pictures for many of them on Wiki Commons. I added a few to Ecuador, Peru, Italy and Saudi Arabia. It would be good to try and look through wiki commons for pictures that could be used in the country articles. Astrokey44 01:10, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply

I have completed the section for Hungarian culture... but any improvements are welcome! -- Charm Quark ^?? 12:32, 30 December 2005 (UTC) reply

I also checked, and it appears Hungary has no national motto: http://hungary.biography.ms/ -- Charm Quark ^?? 16:06, 30 December 2005 (UTC) reply

I was thinking about starting a Wikiproject focused on using the Library of Congress Country Studies. These are public domain texts with good information on many countries. I think there should be a project to track which articles have gleaned information or text from the LOCCS and work towards the goal of having all information in the LOCCS included in Wikipedia either by direct use of the texts or using them as a reference. Is anyone interested in working on the project or does anyone have thoughts about creating such a project?-- Bkwillwm 20:55, 5 January 2006 (UTC) reply

we have Wikipedia:Status of the porting of U.S. Dept of State info and Wikipedia:Status of the porting of U.S. Dept of State info. maybe something similar will suffice-- Jiang 22:04, 5 January 2006 (UTC) reply

I was thinking of something along the lines of that page. Thanks.-- Bkwillwm 22:26, 5 January 2006 (UTC) reply

There has been discussion and preparations for implementation to a change to Infobox_Country in Template talk:Infobox Country, unaware of the previous Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries/Infobox vote.

• The proposal is for a country page to include one line such as {{country|infobox|Australia}}. This would display the infobox information (in a format such as Infobox Country), including an "edit" link which takes one to the location of the template in case editing is needed. It has been prepared for some countries, although I do not think any country articles actually use it yet. See the Template Talk discussion for details. ( SEWilco 09:37, 10 January 2006 (UTC)) reply

• On further thought, I prefer transcluding Infobox without the "country|infobox" step because the location of the Infobox is easily found by looking in the Country article (or having an edit link in the infobox) and many infoboxes are only used from their one country page. Using Country_Infobox in a separate infobox page provides the formatting and fill-in-the-form advantages of the template. ( SEWilco 16:24, 10 January 2006 (UTC)) reply

country|infobox|Country poll

Should infoboxes be displayed by having a single line such as {{country|infobox|Australia}} in a country's article, with the infobox available through an edit link?

(The exact location is under the control of the template and this removes the "Infobox vote" issue of whether the Infobox should be on a subpage of the country page) ( SEWilco 09:37, 10 January 2006 (UTC)) reply

Yes

1. — Nightstallion (?) 10:04, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
2. {{country|infobox|Country}} < {{Wikipedia:Australia/Infobox}} E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 10:35, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
3. cj | talk 11:34, 10 January 2006 (UTC) so long as it is implemented consistently.-- cj | talk 11:34, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply

No

1. Naming advantages of "country|infobox" are not really needed here. ( SEWilco 16:24, 10 January 2006 (UTC)) reply
2. Expressly against Wikipedia:Avoid using meta-templates. -- Netoholic @ 22:37, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Neutral

Comments

• While I initially preferred having the template in the article itself, directly edittable, it seems this met with too much resistance in some articles, so this proposal seems to be a good compromise. — Nightstallion (?) 10:05, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• I concur; as well, the prior poll occurred one year ago, so (given the dynamism of Wikipedia) revisiting this topic isn't necessarily a bad idea. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 10:36, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Countrypage/Infobox poll

Should infoboxes be displayed by having a single line such as {{Wikipedia:Australia/Infobox}} in a country's article?

(Most infoboxes only will be referenced from the country's page so the convenience of the "country|infobox" is minor and the location of the Infobox is easily found by looking at the Article for a country. If template knows name of country's article the template can produce an "edit" link to the page.) ( SEWilco 16:16, 10 January 2006 (UTC)) reply

Yes

1. Tidies up the Country pages simply. ( SEWilco 16:16, 10 January 2006 (UTC)) reply
2. {{Wikipedia:Australia/Infobox}} > {{country|infobox|Country}} (see Comments) E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 11:32, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply

No

1. The idea and intent Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries/Infobox vote still holds true. Data should be contained solely in the article itself, so that it can be updated and matched with the inline text. This is a solution in search of a problem. -- 22:39, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
2. Before I explain my own personal reasons, I think it's clear that as Wikipedia:Avoid using meta-templates is official policy, this discussion is moot anyway. Personally, I like being able to just click edit and change the text. So what if you have to scroll past it? It's pretty nice and neat in its current form, it works, and it makes it easy for new users to see something that they can edit. It doesn't matter if someone can easily mess it up, it's pretty simple to vandalize articles with or without the template.-- naryathegreat | (talk) 21:41, 16 January 2006 (UTC) reply

   Comment The discussion isn't moot: "avoid" doesn't mean prohibit, particularly when this proposal has the potential to make editing for everyone easier. The proposed approach will streamline and preclude novice users from having to sift through a plethora of code and text to edit this and that. And take a glance at the current hodge-podge regarding infoboxes for countries, many of which have the code in the article while others do not. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 14:41, 18 January 2006 (UTC) reply

   I highly agree--all of the country articles should use the Infobox Country template. However, the code for that table is fairly simple and straightforward, and if they can't scroll past that, that person would probably be likely to mess something up anyway. And in answer to your "avoid" reference--you are absolutely correct--this is not a prohibition of the use. However, I have to question whether 250+ articles using metatemplates is in the spirit of "avoid unless absolutely necessary".-- naryathegreat | (talk) 23:58, 18 January 2006 (UTC) reply

   I'm glad we agree on some points, but the here-nor-there status quo approach is unworkable. Consistency amongst all the countries will be better served through the use of a single meta-template, and there's no need to muddy the articles with extraneous code. And given the current hodge-podge (see recent discussions/lists on the template talk page for a summary of the morass of matters) and attempts herein to rectify it, the proposal is arguably "absolutely necessary." E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 00:09, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply

   I quote: "Do not use templates within templates unless there is no other option, as they stress the servers and are a security risk." I hardly think a little neat template code (when completely converted to the Infobox) will be so dire as to produce no other option. After all, it's worked on countless articles until now. There are many articles which still hardcode all sorts of outrageous things--this isn't even like that. I'm talking about a complete conversion to Template:Infobox Country, which will leave a column of fields that are easily identifiable, and nothing more. There are many resources to help the confused. And, they can always click the section edit links, if as a new user they really are that befuddled. I simply want to stress that this will make country articles require more effort to edit, and produce a large and unnecessary load on the servers, with little tangible benefit.-- naryathegreat | (talk) 05:06, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply

   You will note that the proposal above arose part-and-parcel from that discussion regarding the conversion and streamlining of all country articles to a unified template. Given the current disarray of this and that, and some might and do argue this point, I disagree that we should promote the confused status quo when a better option exists to make things simpler for all in the long run. Moreover, I'm curious how such a template-within-a-template would be more insecure and stress servers beyond current usage and limitations imposed by the current system/template. In any event, we agree to disagree on this. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 08:50, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Neutral

Comments

• Hmmm. Why not Wikipedia:Infobox/Australia? Can an underscore be used instead – e.g., Wikipedia:Australia Infobox or Wikipedia:Infobox Australia? Or a colon – e.g., Wikipedia:Australia:Infobox? What other examples are there for comparison? Whatever prevails/works. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 16:50, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Please don't use the Wikipedia space to store transcluded text in this way. I know we do it for Portals and WP:AFD, but we're talking about data used in articles, not our internal nicities. -- Netoholic @ 22:41, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
    • My point is to use a system/convention that is consistent with others. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 00:13, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
    • I phrased the question "such as" so as to not require a specific format yet. The Infobox_Country template would know the location and can emit an "edit" link to itself. ( SEWilco 05:37, 11 January 2006 (UTC)) reply
    • I think creation of subpages in Main: space has been disabled for users. If admin/dev creates subpages, I think they can then be edited. So Main: is a possibility. But there are other possible locations. ( SEWilco 05:42, 11 January 2006 (UTC)) reply

I have a proposal to make for the introduction of a country article. As is common usage in encyclopedias, the article should be introduced with the name of the article first, and then with the official name. For example as is the case for Greece, Germany or even Afghanistan, Iran, South Korea the article starts with the name of the article. The format is "Name, officially Republic/Kingdom/Grand Duchy (whatever) of Name, is a country located in..... etc etc". Since the article talks about the whole country in general, not just the political system, I think it would make more sense to start the entry that way. This entry would also preempt any conflict with other articles, for example Ireland and Republic of Ireland. Also see China and People's Republic of China. I am not proposing to completely get rid off the official name in the article's heading of course (even though it already is reflected in the country template), but to place the internationaly most common name first, and then the official name. Considering countries can often change their political system and/or their official name, such as Venezuela, my proposal tries to balance both sides, by having the most known common name (since the article is named that way), along with the official name. I am open for suggestions and can be convinced otherwise of course, but I don't see any issue with introducing an article with the name of the article itself first. with kind regards. Gryffindor 17:23, 14 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Sounds good to me. — Nightstallion (?) 21:51, 15 January 2006 (UTC) reply

I concur; it's time we implemented more common sense changes like these. People who have their own POV, such as Greeks over the name Macedonia for the Republic of Macedonia, need to get used to what we call things in English if they wish to edit the English language encyclopedia. After all, you don't see us complaining because the Chinese call China the "Middle Kingdom" in their language, do you?-- naryathegreat | (talk) 21:45, 16 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Sounds good for simple situations. Where should mention of redirected names be placed? ( SEWilco 22:12, 16 January 2006 (UTC)) reply

To anyone reading this and in doubt, again I am not trying to get rid of the official names in the article, however the entry needs to be reformulated IMO. The articles talk more than just about the political system and/or the offical name, and there are multiple articles about "official" names. About the name of a country itself, I have seen articles where the name is explained again in a separate section, see for example Iran. Is that what your question is about SEWilco? Gryffindor 22:55, 17 January 2006 (UTC) reply

The above phrasing "X, officially Y, is a country located in..." works fine when there is one common name. I was wondering if there might be a suggested phrasing for countries which have several common names. Maybe "located in C. It also is known as Z and Q." ( SEWilco 00:52, 18 January 2006 (UTC)) reply

In essence, the proposal is fine with me. Proceed with caution, however, and treat exceptions appropriately. For example: take a glance at the history of the Canada article (which I would not recommend touching at all, which has a section regarding the name), a subarticle specifically about the country's name ( Canada's name, and talk page), and a corollary article ( dominion) and you'll realise that – even with citations any which way – there can still be divisive points-of-view regarding a country's name. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 14:16, 18 January 2006 (UTC) reply

I agree with Anthony that some exception can be made, for example with Canada. If difficulties with the official name exist, this should obviously be pointed out, either in a separate article ( Canada's name) with a clear link leading to it from the main article, or an explanation in the main article itself (such as Iran). But I think these exceptions are very rare. SEWilco, could you please point out which country for example comes to your mind? Since we are on the English-language Wikipedia, I am proposing the English common name first which is used internationally (media, intl. conferences, etc.), not names in other languages, followed by the official name in English. The opening name at the start of the article will reflect the name of the article itself. Gryffindor 19:00, 18 January 2006 (UTC) reply

You both raise very good points. We have to be diplomatic, but also forceful. I mean, you can't seriously call Canada anything else, no one would know what you're talking about. See for instance, Republic of Macedonia, where everytime the article mentions the country's name it's called RoM; it would be better to call it Macedonia, since that's far and away the most common name in usage in English. When I say diplomatic, I don't mean we should appease anyone. That's just ignoring the real issue, which is accepting that this is an English language encyclopedia, and we call the country Macedonia, or whatever the case may be (And I notice that in Canada's case, there doesn't seem to be much disput on the use of the name, just where it came from).-- naryathegreat | (talk) 00:05, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply

G.'s proposal dually allows (or should) for diplomacy and certitude, as long as anomalies are handled appropriately and judiciously. And it's not at all about 'appeasement': it's about presenting information in Wp with a neutral point of view. If interested parties have read the background matter for anomalous cases, they aren't always clear-cut. For instance:

• the issue with Canada is not where the term came from (or even its propriety), but what the legal and official forms of the name and related titles are (e.g., Canada/Dominion of Canada) based on verifiable citations – and in English – some of which may differ or be lacking. Some seriously call it the latter;
• in English, the UN refers to the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia precisely because of the diplomacy and sensitivities regarding the adjacent Greek territory of the same name.

Et cetera. There's nothing wrong with common sense, but nothing is absolute ... including that.

Moreover, part of the joy of wikifying is in the use of pipelinks: there's often no reason to reiterate full terms when simpler ones, effectively wikified, will do — as in Macedonia, Dominion of Canada, or the good ol' U. S. of A. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 00:36, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply

I'm not certain why we need to stress that the conventional longform is the official name for all countries. Stylistically, it seems unecessary to apply to each & every country. I realize this is the Britannica standardized lead, but we are not bound to follow their model. But if the consensus is to standardize the country leads thusly, I have no strong objections — I just want to avoid country leads being too monolithic. El_C 00:47, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Most articles already indicate variant names in the lead (and also do atop the infobox) – G's proposal (methinks) is merely an attempt to streamline how these are rendered. Many publications list both. If the article leads were absent of this information, arguably others would attempt to add it. Again, take a glance at the Canada article/history and ancillaries, where the name and topic are pretty simply stated and fully elaborated elsewhere ... partially because of periodic attempts way back when (and still, though far less now) to insinuate personal choices without verifying them. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 00:57, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply

I understand that, I'm just hesitant of every country lead starting with [conventional shortform], officially, [conventional longform], which is how G had it set for tens of countries (I reverted him and suggested he brings his proposal to discussion here, and I'm glad to see he did). Btw, there's no longer a Dominion of Canada, but I mistakingly added Canadian Federation as the longform to Canada and didn't hear the end of it (by which I mean, courteously explained it was constituional rather than diplomatic-speak). What wasn't I talking about? El_C 01:30, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply

I don't share that hesitancy, and it's good that the proposal has been brought here for vetting.

And, arguably, the Dominion of Canada still exists: read both Canada's name (particularly the talk page, etc.) and dominion for more information. (This is a protracted topic and I won't continue it here; use my talk page.) Speaking of which: was there a cited basis for your addition of Canadian Federation? If memory serves, it's not in its constitution ... but "dominion" is. :) If it wasn't cited, assumptions of good faith aside, it highlights the importance of editing in accordance with the " five pillars" E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 02:27, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply

You were actually there! Source was parl.gc.ca, passage reading: "Following through on the commitments he made during the referendum campaign, Prime Minister Jean Chrétien announces 3 initiatives to improve the functioning of the Canadian federation". Memories. :) El_C 06:10, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply

So what was it that you were saying...? something about WP:5P (well, you did say if :p)... Anyway, regarding my hesitancy. Give me a few days, I want to bring some editors whom I've seen extensively involved in country articles (SimonP, Cantus, & others), so we could guage on their impression. Thanks for your patience, everyone! El_C 06:35, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply

I was there: that link/quote – from a parliamentary summary of actions regarding Canada's constitution – proves nothing in support of your initial edit or argument. It actually proves the opposite and perhaps the need to support and implement G.'s proposal. There's a distinct difference between your edit of "Canadian Federation" (which does not not appear in the constitution nor have official sanction, and also runs counter to Wp guidelines on capitalising nouns) and references to the "Canadian federation" (a general moniker that can be used to describe any sort of federal union). Compare with the Council of the Federation, which is a collection of premiers who work together to advocate for issues of mutual concern to the federal government. Note as well the use of Confederation, which is often used to describe the act of initial union. Can you provide one authoritative source/compendium that refers to Canada formally/politically as the "Canadian Federation" (initial caps), given overwhelming evidence to the contrary? Even if you can, they would likely be superceded by the constitution, which indicates otherwise.

The point? Your edit ('nationality/adjective noun') is analogous to referring to the "German Federation" or the "Dutch Kingdom" as formal political names for each (incorrect) vis-à-vis the Federal Republic of Germany or the Kingdom of the Netherlands which, when translated into English, are the political names of each country. (There are instances where this may differ, as with the French Republic.) See here for a complete list. But that edit regarding Canada then, as it would be now, is erroneous.

So, what was that about the five pillars? Yes: (among other things) unless one can cite sources for edits and we can consensually verify them, and the above El_C has not been, they can and will be nixed. I also do not intend on resurrecting old discussions here, as we are getting way off topic. I encourage more feedback, but that changes nothing about the basic validity of G.'s proposal or my general support of it. And I thank everyone for their patience, too. :) E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 08:18, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Sweet verbosity! We've already been through this, at length. Had I known you'd feel compelled to reiterate all that over again, I would have just linked the discussion on my talk page where the Canadian constitutional experts then roamed. Was there a cited basis? Yes. Was it good enough? No. End of story. Heh, past-tense is key. Onwards. :) El_C 21:00, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Yes ... and you brought up that citation; logical fallacies notwithstanding. If you wish to not resurrect such debates and have them rebuked, refrain from evincing them as reasons for opposing this proposal. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 21:27, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Your humorless disposition has been noted. That was a self-deprecating jibe at myself, not really an invitation to rehash that. El_C 21:44, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Understood! No offence intended nor received. And I'm not devoid of humour; besides, in cyberspace, noone can hear you scream. :) Let's move on ... E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 21:55, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply

There was supposed to be an exclamation mark after "noted", sorry! El_C 00:39, 20 January 2006 (UTC) reply

It is true what El C said, although even my minor changes on Georgia (country) were changed (which was not necessary). But I wasn't aware this forum existed, so credit goes to El C for pointing that out to me, cheers mate. Gryffindor

Cheers; but I didn't change it anymore differently than I did the other tens of countries I rolled back, nor was it denoted otherwise significantly by you. Back in 2004-5, when we had many missing country leads and I was in the midst of writing them, I remember asking about Country opening paragraph standardization, but there wasn't much interest. El_C 00:39, 20 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Contd.

Anyways..... again the proposal is only to have the entry reflect the name of the article. The articles talk about the country in general, not just the official name/system of government. The articles use the common name = common sense. And we can have the official name mentioned in the lead as well, as a compromise. I hope this is acceptable. This format is already used in Germany and Greece, which looks nice and sweet. And we can also codify exceptions, as exists already with Canada, Iran, and Republic of Ireland, which look totally fine IMO. I am not talking about the actual names of articles, just the entry to it. Gryffindor 20:56, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Germany's lead proceeds as [conventional longfrom], or, [conventional shortform], which is what I mostly changed G's changes back into; changes reflected in Greece: [conventional shortfrom], officially, [conventional longfrom]. So I'm confused as to which one is sweet(er). El_C 21:09, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply

The proposal indicates that simpler forms should precede longer ones (as per the article title, generally); thus, for Germany, the current article can be retrofitted to yield the following:

Germany, officially the Federal Republic of Germany ( German: Deutschland or Bundesrepublik Deutschland listen ^ⓘ), is one of the world's leading industrialised countries, located in Europe.

You will also note that this retrofit exhibits English- German/simple-long parallelism, whereas the current version does not. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 21:16, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Agreed; works for me! I'd suggest possibly replacing "officially" in the proposal (on a case-by-case basis) merely with "or" or something similar (particularly if there's ambiguity), but that's not a clincher for me. As for codifying exceptions, this is already done (to some extent) in the list of sovereign states (with notes). Thus, I'd recommend just providing a link to the notes section of that article and or appending such a summary to the relevant policy/guideline, and would advise against creating yet another list per se. Thoughts? Thanks again! E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 21:06, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Certainly, use of notation and/or Name article/sections when there's ambiguity are helpful. El_C 21:36, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Replacing a systemic officially greatly responds to my original concern (as per a monolithic feel). But I'd also like to learn why we should always prefer starting with either the conventional shortform or longform. El_C 21:13, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply

See above. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 21:19, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Well, Germany's lead currently reads: The Federal Republic of Germany ( German: Deutschland or Bundesrepublik Deutschland Audio file "De-Bundesrepublik_Deutschland-pronunciation.ogg" not found), or Germany, is one of the world's leading industrialised countries, located in Europe, hence, my confusion on the... lack of monolithicness. ;) But, yes, emphasis on the English name/s, native ones in parentheses (as has been the standard). El_C 21:27, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply

To add to that: I can see how it can be argued that placing the Eng. names alongside each other may be it simpler, but I always felt this was generally remedied through the use of bold text... El_C 21:30, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply

The above example/retrofit that I've placed for Germany harks of the proposal and deals with this. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 21:34, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Yes, it makes sense, logically, to have shortform/longform Eng./native parallelism — easy enough when only two languages are involved. El_C 21:40, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Great; remember, any such information in an article lead should reiterate what should already appear atop the infobox. And for unwieldy entries (and to not necessarily rehash information repeatedly): glance at Switzerland ... which, mildly tweaked, can serve as an example of how to deal with leads for articles with more than one major language. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 22:12, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Well, if both of you insist on always starting with the csfm, which means changing most country articles' lead sentences, as they are currently written otherwise (starting with clfm), and there's no additional opinions, I'm overruled. Which is fine with me. Naturally, I want Eng./native parallelism for either option. As for a discussion of the name, regardless of the number of languages, once it's a pareagraph in size, I think it it should have it's own Name of section. To recall an example, notice how I found Sri Lanka last week: sentence-long lead/name section from the depths of the abyss, which I changed thusly (moving name section into Names of Sri Lanka). I remember doing the same thing with Myanmar shortly after writing its lead aparagraph, though, the name of that section —and country for that matter, I now notice— has since been changed into a more lengthy Explanation of the names of Burma/Myanmar (I forget what I originally titled it as), and Myanmar (Burma) respectively. But I digress. Eventually, though, one could expect to see more of these sections. I'm usually not comfortable having a discussion of the country's name in the lead unless it's a really brief mention (for eg., the lead I wrote for Guinea is pushing it). El_C 00:39, 20 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Uhm El C, why did you change the entry of Germany [1] when I was trying to make my point that we should use the common names first? I did not place it that way, and I am wondering why you changed it now? Well in any case, I have reverted the entry back to the initial form. I think we should wait until we find an agreement before we start changing entries. Gryffindor 21:47, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply

I didn't change it now, I changed it before participating in this discssion, or knowing it existed. El_C 21:50, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply

I even forgot I changed it, at least recently (see above). I go through a lot of country articles daily. El_C 21:53, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply

That's funny, though. Then I quote it above for the win! El_C 00:39, 20 January 2006 (UTC) reply

If this is done, I suggest parallelism with the native names. Example: "Germany (German: Deutschland), officially the Federal Republic of Germany (Bundesrepublic Deutschland), is ...." However, I'm not sure if it should be done in all cases. Would we end up with "The United States, officially the United States of America..."? I think this is best done only when the long name isn't a straight derivative of the short name. "FR Germany" still has Germany; Most Serene Republic of San Marino still has San Marino; but obviously Greece, South Korea, Mexico, etc. aren't easily done like this, being Hellenic Republic, Republic of Korea, and United Mexican States, respectively. So I think this should only be done in those cases, to minimize repetition in the intro. We don't need to tell someone what the short form is when it's obvious. -- Golbez 11:13, 20 January 2006 (UTC) reply

We don't need to tell someone what the short form is when it's obvious. Exactly my point. Or, Swiss Confed. versus Switzerland, while Republic of Zambia not Zambian Republic, etc. Many other examples abound (incl. in the aforementioned changes to tens of leads). El_C 14:45, 20 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Well to answer Golbez's concerns, we can always codify the exceptions, however I am sure they will be very few. Not too sure about United States, I find it odd that it's not listed under United States of America, I would even suggest moving the article, but that is not the main topic of the discussion here right now. Again, I think this is only common sense that the article's entry follows the name of the article, as in Iran, Germany, South Korea, Republic of Ireland, Canada, Greece, Romania, Mongolia, New Zealand, Venezuela etc... we can either have the offial name/system of government mentioned in the same opening sentence, or it can be explained later on. I am not convinced however of the format that articles open up only with the official name/system of government. The articles talk about the country in general with all their aspects, not just the form of government. Gryffindor 20:06, 20 January 2006 (UTC) ps: Common english name and official name in english should be used obviously, with the native ones in brackets as is standard. reply

There are legitimate exceptions: the USA might be unique given the plethora of abbreviations/terms it is referred to. However, I don't think it odd that the article is under United States, as that conforms with the common naming convention; see that talk page for more). E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 21:03, 20 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Also notice that we're in the English Wikipedia, so there often is a "common name" and "official name" which is different from the name which the country uses in its official documents in its native language. ( SEWilco 20:27, 20 January 2006 (UTC)) reply

Yes: I think the retrofitted example for Germany above deals with this. I also think the parallel example suggested by Golbez appears awkward, but may do if a consensus supports it. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 21:03, 20 January 2006 (UTC) reply

However, Gr.'s initial proposal deals with the topic equitably. As well, arguably, it also brings country articles more in-line with the Manual of Style, which recommends:

• The first time the title is mentioned in the article, put it in bold using three apostrophes.... For example: "This Manual of Style is a style guide."

Since articles generally have titles (i.e., nouns) harking of their simpler forms, with longer-form/compound or multilingual names (same or not) atop the infobox, the simpler forms should precede any others. Pull out The World Almanac and Book of Facts (2005) and you'll see the simpler name for countries (by which they're organised) followed in smaller print by the longer name. Dictionary entries are self-evident: Webster's lists alternate forms at the end of an entry, and Oxford doesn't even list longer-form names (but multilingual variants).

And, arguably, since the longer forms are atop the infobox and thereby "obvious", why reiterate it in the lead? The current hodge-podge, which requires a visitor to perhaps make unnecessary assumptions about a term or political system (e.g., note there's also a disambig for the adjective Swiss, ditto for Confederation), seems to me an insufficient reason to continue that practice. Simple: eliminate any inconsistency/ambiguity and list both as proposed. I think that's it for me. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 21:03, 20 January 2006 (UTC) reply

I actually see no particular harm in reiterating the conventional longform in the lead even if it's mentioned in the infobox (in fact, I proposed adding the common English name into the infobox even though it's mentioned in the lead, and most agreed, though have yet to implement it en mass). As for having the csfm precede the lfm, perhaps generally the MoS agrees, but country articles are not ordinary artilces, and having the components in the lfm accentuates that this place is a country. The Republic of, the Commonwealth of, the Federation of, etc. El_C 00:47, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply

One reason to reiterate the longform is for disambiguation, both for those few countries with similar names and for Wikipedia disambiguation where a redirect of the longform exists. Moreover, there are troubling browser-sensitive changes being made to many templates which might mess up infoboxes if such changes are made to the infoboxes. ( SEWilco 07:31, 22 January 2006 (UTC)) reply

I think we can slowly close this discussion, it has been posted since January. I am getting the impression most users seem to be fine with introducing with the name of the article, followed by the official longform (either put in brackets, or followed by a comma in the lead sentence). There seems to be some disagreement pertaining the United States and the United Kingdom. Those can be codified into the new rule. Gryffindor 17:36, 3 March 2006 (UTC) reply

I agree – there shouldn't be a problem in proceeding as proposed. Perhaps instead of drafting a 'rule' just yet (though we should in some form), just go ahead – being mindful of anomalies and exceptions above – and methodically retrofit the leads for country articles. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 09:33, 8 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Proposal

I think this discussion has stayed for quite a while and a consensus seems to have crystalised itself:

The country introduction reads:

Xxxxx, officially the Yyyyyy of Xxxx (Republic of Xxxxx, or Kingdom of Xxxxxx, etc.), is a country located on the Xxxxx of Xxxx. It shares borders with Xxxx ...

For example, the introduction to France should read:

France (pronounced /fʀɑ̃s/ in French), officially the French Republic (French: République française, pronounced /ʀepyblik fʀɑ̃sɛz/), is a country in western Europe....

Exceptions: If the official name and the most common name are synonymous, the entry is left with only one name, as is the case in the articles United States, United Kingdom, Romania, Mongolia, etc. For example:

The United States of America is a federal republic situated primarily in North America.

or

Romania ( Romanian: România /ro.mɨ'ni.a/) is a country in central Europe.

In cases where there is a thorough explanation of the official name, the official name in the lead sentence may be dropped, as long as it is explained later. This exception is illustrated in the article Canada.

That's it, that's my proposal. Any polishing is welcome as long as it does not change the content. Gryffindor 20:35, 6 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Sounds fine to me. — Nightst a llion (?) ^{Seen this already?} 19:01, 25 April 2006 (UTC) reply

The phrasing seems OK, but the first mention of each country name should be Wiki-emphasized; this helps people arriving through various redirected country names to find that name and understand why they're in this article. ( SEWilco 02:51, 26 April 2006 (UTC)) reply

Emphasis now looks good. ( SEWilco 02:53, 28 April 2006 (UTC)) reply

This generally seems fine to me; I've tweaked the above ... more for clarity and formatting. Take another glance at Germany, et al. if any refinements are needed. Otherwise, onward ho! E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 20:21, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply

I have now added our agreement to the main page of the project, WikiProject_Countries#Country_introduction. (I think it's in the right section, correct me if I am wrong). Thanks everyone for your contributions and participation, this debate is now closed. Gryffindor 10:30, 12 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Having had the misfortune of having the Xxxxx, officially the Yyyyyy of Xxxx style imposed upon a number of country articles I edit, I would like to say that I am very strongly opposed to this style because it's clunky and almost unreadable. Isn't this project supposed to work in the interest of the reader? Also, it might be nice to have the countesy to inform the editors active on country articles before you make changes. Guettarda 12:48, 29 May 2006 (UTC) reply

It seems a little dispute has arisen on the Third World page which I believe could benefit from the perspective of the WikiProject. A vote is now occurring at Talk:Third World/countries vote, which is trying to determine which countries should appear how on the map of the third world. I personally believe that it would be more appropriate to have Third World redirect to developing world (as opposed to the way it is now, the other way around), as the latter term is much more widespread in today's usage and seems more neutral. Please leave comments and vote.-- naryathegreat | (talk) 03:38, 17 January 2006 (UTC) reply

For some crazy reason, no one seems to have pointed out the vote on this subpage, which involves basically the real function of the project. A vote is occurring at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Countries/Infobox_vote which has gained enough votes so far to have legitimacy in my opinion, but more votes is always good.-- naryathegreat | (talk) 03:52, 24 January 2006 (UTC) reply

I went ahead and started WikiProject Library of Congress Country Studies. So far I'm the only member, which defeats the purpose, so take a look. Also, I've run into a few areas that might be best addressed in this project. For instance, there doesn't seem to be a consensus on having articles that are Health in X or Healthcare in X. Likewise, environment is usually titled Environment of X or Environment in X. Personally, I think it should be Environmental issues in X. Take a look at the project and let me know if I'm missing a naming policy.-- Bkwillwm 07:32, 26 January 2006 (UTC) reply

I'm inaugurating my own personal push to convert country articles to the use of Template:Infobox Country. And believe me, there are far too many which don't, and in countries which you don't expect. I'd like everyone who's interested in all the hard work and consensus building that's been put into this template to help. To start off, I've created a map of the countries which use the template and can be updated when necessary.

Thanks for your work. Please note that I placed a similar message at Template talk:Infobox Country-- naryathegreat | (talk) 06:00, 4 February 2006 (UTC) reply

A poll is currently underway to determine the rendition of the island, nation-state, and disambiguation articles/titles for Ireland in Wp. Please weigh in! E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 08:32, 11 February 2006 (UTC) reply

As well, another poll is underway to determine if the article at United States should be renamed and moved to the lengthier rendition United States of America.

Additional details for the US and Ireland polls appear on their respective talk pages. The results of these polls might have implications on conventions for other country articles in Wp. Please weigh in, and thanks for your input! E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 18:21, 11 February 2006 (UTC) reply

I'm looking forward to found the Wikipedia:WikiProject Venezuela. I had the idea of creating it when I first made the portal. The project will have the main objective of centrating efforts into a more complete information and a higher quality of the articles in Wikipedia, other media in the sister projects, and the portal itself.

However, the rules say that I should have at least five to ten members willing to integrate and contribute to the wikiproject. So if some of you guys want to join in, then leave me a message, or in this page. I will be back in a few days to see how things are going on.

Go to Wikipedia:Wikiproject/List_of_proposed_projects#Venezuela and list yourselves if you are willing to join. -- Alex Coiro 04:12, 14 February 2006 (UTC) reply

It seems there is a gap between which figures are used in which articles. Accordingly, I support Nmpenguin's push to standardize the figures with the CIA World Factbook, which is for the most part: more up to date, more accurate, and more comprehensive (it lists 232 entities; the IMF lists 192 and the World Bank only 163). Does anyone else have an opinion/objection/etc.?-- naryathegreat | (talk) 16:01, 26 February 2006 (UTC) reply

That sounds reasonable, but the list would need some work first as entries like "World" and "EU" as well as other duplications will need to be removed from numerical ranking first. Agathoclea 16:10, 26 February 2006 (UTC) reply

I agree however I did not want to compromise the integrity of list or cause question by altering it in any form, however if it is the consensus of users, I will make the necessary edits. Nmpenguin 16:45, 26 February 2006 (UTC) reply

I took a closer look at the figures and it seems that where the IMF includes Puero Rico, Hong Kong and Macau as dependants of the US/China, the CIA factbook seems to exclude them from the main countries figures. If that assesment is correct I think the list can stay as it is now with just 'World' and 'EU' unnumbered. Could someone confirm my assesment? Agathoclea 16:51, 26 February 2006 (UTC) reply

You are correct, I concur. Nmpenguin 17:04, 26 February 2006 (UTC) reply

I agree too. I was the one who unnumbered World and European Union. However, I definitely think Hong Kong and Macau should be included separately; Puerto Rico can go whichever way it wants. I included PNA as an unranked entity for comparison, as well.

I agree with using one standard – I'm unsure it should be the CIA World Factbook, however. I really have nothing against the factbook: it contains the most entries and there's no reason to dispute its accuracy in this regard, but I wonder it it's a standard that most other publications (would) use. Many citations of figures that I've seen are from international organisations (World Bank and IMF), e.g., most of the GDP data in the Britannica Book of the Year are from the World Bank, and I can see there being some resistance to using numbers produced by one government in particular (though not from me).

Should we put the available options to a vote, and then retrofit all articles with the choice that garners a plurality? E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 21:08, 26 February 2006 (UTC) reply

We as users do not dispute the use of the factbook in any other instance, and it. For the purposes of argument however I would support a proper vote for standardization. I take this opportunity to make it clear that I vote to use factbook. Nmpenguin 21:21, 26 February 2006 (UTC) reply

We are not everyone ... and others may need to have a say to garner appropriate consensus, which doesn't sufficiently exist on this yet. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 21:26, 26 February 2006 (UTC) reply

In addition, perhaps appropriately, I think we really have to discern bona fide sovereign states/countries from others and make edits to appropriate lists, infobox, et al. All too often are regions of varied sovereignty being subjugated to subjective edit wars – no matter how well intentioned – regarding their status. (But I realise this goes beyond the scope of this query.) E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 21:26, 26 February 2006 (UTC) reply

I used "we" to intimate the general wikipedia user, not the three people who had previously stated thier view on a matter. To that end, we have come to a consensus to use factbook for geographical information, in the case of many articles factbook seems to provide the only graphical representation. If we can trust the factbook to discern boundaries and such, can we not in good faith assume that economic information is acurate. The United States is the major shareholder in the World Bank and so those figures would be in question just the same. Nmpenguin 21:48, 26 February 2006 (UTC) reply

Noted ... and I'm unsure whether the general user has a similar zeal to use just the numbers in the Factbook as you indicate. I realise and appreciate attempts to standardise information (as per the CIA Factbook) but it – in fact, any source – isn't the final word. At least three common sources (whose lists we are familiar with) vary, and sometimes significantly; also note that (for higher values) the Factbook rounds figures off. As well, some may perceive a distinct difference between numbers from an IGO (many of whom, like the UN, which have plurality US participation) and those from a solitary US government agency (where the US is the only 'shareholder'). And what of related figures: not PPP but nominal and per capita?

And I reiterate: I'm not challenging the use of the Factbook per se, but I've experienced enough rigour in Wp to know that use of the Factbook mightn't be a panacea. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 22:50, 26 February 2006 (UTC) reply

I intended to address those issues as well. However at present I find myself constrained by peripheral responsibilities such as time and school. I understand your concerns about full compatibility, but assure you that such notions of those inaccuracies are unwarranted. Nmpenguin 23:52, 26 February 2006 (UTC) reply

I hear you ... no rush! And I'm unconcerned about 'inaccuracies' in the lists as they are (they are not, they're just different methodologies when tabulating figures): I only cite those as points that may be of concern to some when selecting and moving forward. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 00:04, 27 February 2006 (UTC) reply

This user believes in the application of the factbook to standardize Wikipedia

and here is the coding info

<div style="float: right; border:solid blue 1px; margin: 1px;"> {| cellspacing="0" style="width: 238px; background: gold;" | style="width: 45px; height: 45px; background: blue; text-align: center; font-size: {{{5|{{{id-s|14}}}}}}pt; color: {{{id-fc|gold}}};" | '''{{{|[[Image:CIA World Factbook Cover.jpg|36px]]}}}''' | style="font-size: {{{info-s|8}}}pt; padding: 4pt; line-height: 1.25em; color: {{{info-fc|black}}};" | This user believes in the application of the '''[[The World Factbook|factbook]] to standardize Wikipedia''' |}</div>

I WOULD BE INTERESTED TO KNOW WHO USES THIS..please note usage here... User:Nmpenguin/projects

Nmpenguin 20:55, 26 February 2006 (UTC) reply

As we all know our beloved country pages can be at times a quagmire, though this is to be expected when attempting to derive information from multiple sources. This vote is an attempt to bring some form of consensus and consistency as to where information regarding gross domestic product (GDP) comes from. After all, it is not at all conducive to have three different countries listed as 123rd in the world for GDP PPP, to have varied ranks listed in a country's infobox, and so on. Relevant GDP lists are:

• List of countries by GDP (PPP) per capita
• List of countries by GDP (PPP)
• List of countries by GDP (nominal)
• List of countries by GDP (nominal) per capita

As you might have noticed, all of the preceeding lists included figures from the World Bank and International Monetary Fund, and only GDP (PPP) has the data from the CIA World Factbook; however, the Factbook does list information respective of the other categories.

This election entails selection of a single source for economic data used to compile and rank entries on country pages. Please note the differences in the lists above and below. The following are the options for general election...as in many cases, write-ins are acceptable here.

VOTE!

Which source do you prefer to use when ranking countries in the country infobox?

• Please indicate single, affirmative votes below. This vote will transpire until 30 April 2006 23:59 UTC but may be extended if a single option doesn't garner a clear plurality of support.

Option #1: CIA World Factbook

• source: [2]

1. Because it's updated the most often and has the most amount of research, time, and money put into it. That also means that it's probably more accurate. And it's also public domain, which means it's completely compatible with Wikipedia.-- naryathegreat | (talk) 02:00, 2 March 2006 (UTC) reply
2. I second that for the same reasons. MJCdetroit 18:24, 2 March 2006 (UTC) reply
3. If it is good enough for the rest of the (basic) information that is used, why not trust it again. Nmpenguin 21:42, 4 March 2006 (UTC) reply

   I suppose it's neutral enough in this case, aye. I wouldn't object to using any other source, though. — Nightst a llion (?) 06:41, 6 March 2006 (UTC) Changed vote to UN. — Nightst a llion (?) 12:08, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply

4. dont see evidence of bias; more comprehensive figures are available through the CIA-- Jiang 01:47, 20 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Option #2: International Monetary Fund

• source: [3]

Option #3: United Nations

• used in 2005 HDI report; source: [4] – GDP per capita (PPP US$) & GDP per capita (US$)

1. Support UN is the most neutral and thorough, CIA World Factbook could be seen by some users as biased. Gryffindor 14:46, 5 March 2006 (UTC) reply

   Does the UN as an organization even produce these figures? I was under the impression they would have to come from the World Bank.-- naryathegreat | (talk) 02:40, 6 March 2006 (UTC) reply

   It isn't so much that the UN per se produces the figures, but they do issue reports – like for the HDI – which include GDP figures for all members that are, in turn, used to calculate the HDI. Most of the data in the HDI report is from the World Bank, but some of it (particularly for 'grey' areas) is not. Using this information would allow for consistent comparisons for UN members (which, properly, doesn't include all countries or states) and would save us from having to choose and incessantly update. On the other end of it, this information is not as up-to-date ... however, this will likely be a problem no matter what source is chosen. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 08:46, 8 March 2006 (UTC) reply

   Most of the articles in the Factbook were last updated on January 10, 2006. While up to date is a point of view, I believe the Factbook is updated much more quickly and consistently than any other source.-- naryathegreat | (talk) 02:39, 9 March 2006 (UTC) reply

2. Support Wherever the UN figures and rankings are originally calculated, I feel that the UN has a large degree of credibility and represents a global world view, more so than the Factbook. // Big Adamsky 09:03, 8 March 2006 (UTC) reply
3. Support As stated above – I've no general objection with using the Factbook (and reflect Nightstallion's sentiments), but I also have no objection using values from this or (relatedly) other sources. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 12:00, 8 March 2006 (UTC) reply
4. Support as possibly (atleast perceived) more neutral, per Gryffindor. Scoo 15:44, 8 March 2006 (UTC) reply

   I hardly think the United Nations can be argued to be any more neutral than the Factbook. After all, I believe the UN Commission on Human Rights has had Vietnam, Pakistan, Libya, China, and recently Sudan on its board. The figures reported by the UN are no more neutral than the ones by the CIA, and are probably not as accurate. And I really dislike the idea of "perception" dictating policy on Wikipedia.-- naryathegreat | (talk) 02:37, 9 March 2006 (UTC) reply

   But naryathegreat, you will agree though that at least the UN and sources from it would be seen as more neutral than the CIA, right? Whatever personal reservations we have about the workings of the UN (and I can share some of those concerns) Wikipedia is committed to neutrality ( Wikipedia:Neutral point of view), using the UN as a source would be something most can agree upon. And I have less qualms about the UN than the CIA. Gryffindor 12:51, 9 March 2006 (UTC) reply

   I really don't see how "would be seen as more neutral" actually makes anything "more neutral". What I want is a concrete reason why the UN would be more neutral than the CIA Factbook (or in the alternative, an occasion when the CIA has actually lied in the Factbook with the intent to deceive). The Factbook pulls from many sources, including the UN ones at times. With these, it creates a more accurate view of the situation. As the UN is incapable of taking action against blatant genocide, I have doubts about its ability to compile facts on the same countries in any more effective manner. You have to admit that perception doesn't matter; what you (not you personally) think will always be irrelevent if you're wrong.-- naryathegreat | (talk) 03:33, 11 March 2006 (UTC) reply

5. Support The CIA Handbook may be neutral in large respects, but it is at least less neutral than the UN when it comes to statistics about the US. There is a discrepancy in the geographical area of the US between that listed in the CIA Handbook and the UN sources. The UN figure is the one which is accepted by most other nations of the worlds, including the UK, a US ally. - Also see discussions on Talk:List of countries and outlying territories by area.

   On naryathegreat's contention that the UN having had certain states on its human rights committee being evidence of its lack of neutrality, I want to say the following:

   • 1. The human rights committee doesn't write the statistics. In fact, even the permanent members of the Security Council don't get their way with the statistics: the territorial figures for both the US and China, as recognised by the UN, are less than that claimed by their governments. This, I think, is evidence of the UN's even-handed approach.
   • 2. I don't know if this runs counter to your ideological beliefs, naryathegreat, but the very fact that the UN *has* had states such as China, Vietnam, and Pakistan, *as well as* American allies on its committees, shows that it is well-equipped to produce fair and neutral statistics, not having any one side dominate another. -- Sumple ( Talk) 21:51, 13 March 2006 (UTC) reply

   Perhaps someone could send me a link to the proper figures from the UN website, I have searched on several occasions and nihl has come of it. The easy access nature of the Factbook seems conducive to the broad purpose of Wikipedia, that all have the right to contribute in order to form a more perfect project. Editors in general seem to trust the Factbook for other information, aerable land, number of airports, number of internet subscribers, and so on, are theese not as easily "manipulated" as other facts? Besides I do not recall any recent economic programs in the CIA consumed by corruption. I may be wrong, but I doubt it. Nmpenguin 03:54, 14 March 2006 (UTC) reply

   From the HDI report, in descending order (also noted above): GDP per capita (PPP US$) & GDP per capita (US$). Click on a country and you can consult a host of other data sets too; you can also reorder any of the lists. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 04:06, 14 March 2006 (UTC) reply

   Comment: Nmpenguin is probably right in the last sentence, yet he/she would probably not want to recall clandestine funding of the Contras or support for Augusto Pinochet. Judging a large organization by a couple of low-points and letting them represent the organization as a whole is IMHO quite silly. The UN has some major flaws, not that I'd want to imply that some officeworkers who compiled some statistical data would be related to or corrupted by the oil for food scandal.. Yet, both (probably all) the candidates in this poll are good ones. Scoo 08:03, 14 March 2006 (UTC) reply

   The UN figures have't been updated since 2003. Certainly Wikipedia hopes to provide the most recent, and acurate, information avaliable. Nmpenguin 15:22, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply

   Most country statistics in the infobox are based on contemporaneous sources, i.e., similarly dated. The information in the infobox should be reliable enough so that any agreeable rank will suffice, but be stable enough to allow for easy maintenance and comparisons. And the various lists/articles linked have varied currency and accuracy – e.g., the CIA figures are cited as estimates (and rounded up) for anywhere between 2001 and (mostly) 2005. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 19:24, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply

6. — Nightst a llion (?) 12:08, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply

   I still think the UN is more neutral than the CIA. I would not like to see Wikipedia relying on sources that have been provided by the CIA of all organisations, or been seen or perceived as being linked to it in any way. Gryffindor 18:50, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply

   But the UN doesn't provide many statistics (such as number of airports or miles of railways) which the CIA does and which editors regularly turn to without a second thought to fill in. Almost every "Transportation in country" article is taken verbatim from the Factbook. It simply seems to me that this shows widespread agreement that the CIA is reliable and neutral as a source.-- naryathegreat | (talk)

   That's a big jump in your logic there. Stats not available from UN --> People use CIA --> They must think CIA is reliable and neutral??? All it means it that some CIA stats are more readily available than UN ones. -- Sumple ( Talk) 02:03, 20 March 2006 (UTC) reply

   Well, they at least approve of their use; if you think the CIA is just making things up, I have to ask, where's your proof?-- naryathegreat | (talk) 01:14, 25 March 2006 (UTC) reply

7. Support I can only just the relative merits of the CIA book and UN source based on practical evidence about Ireland. In that case, the CIA book's howlers in the past were famous. It got dates wrong, terminology wrong, context wrong, etc. It was so bad it was funny. If it gets Ireland so badly wrong, how reliable is it about everywhere else? FearÉIREANN \ ^(caint) 01:40, 24 March 2006 (UTC) reply
8. Support While the factbook may be totally neutral, using the UN numbers gives the semblance of being more neutral especially for countries which may have some disagreements with the United States. -- Jeff3000 04:54, 30 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Option #4: World Bank

• source: [5]

1. (Tentative support) Certain privately maintained data compilations rely on World Bank data, which might be worth using as inspiration, if nothing more. :v) // Big Adamsky 09:03, 8 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Option #5: Range from lowest to highest

• Examples of how it would appear: Liberia: 160-173rd, Sweden: 31-34th, Jordan: 92-100th

Thanks for your co-operation! Nmpenguin in assosciation with, and with much thanks to E Pluribus Anthony

Discussion

Wait wait wait. I don't think this is being done in the spirit of Wikipedia:Straw polls. We shouldn't resort to a vote unless there are many objections which remain unresolved. For now, I think we can simply ask for comment. So: does anyone object to standardizing the GDP pages (not necessarily removing the other lists) and use of their info with CIA World Factbook data?

Why wait? If anything, four users (even agreeable ones) haggling isn't a consensus. If changes are being considered to update data for a number of lists to a specific standard, this will yield added discussion, ID issues, and validate a course of action ... not obviate one. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 02:06, 27 February 2006 (UTC) reply

I'll go for the United Nations as a source. Gryffindor 17:33, 3 March 2006 (UTC) reply

What about give a range, say for instance, Nigeria could be listed as 46-55th because of the three different numbers given (46,50,55) -- Astrokey44| talk 04:31, 7 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Interesting; I'm unsure a range would be helpful, though. If anything, perhaps include all of the values (46th, 50th, 55th)? However, with either option, I suspect that this would overload the infobox and make it look like a rather clumsy conciliation. One should suffice, methinks. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 08:46, 8 March 2006 (UTC) reply

I think the range idea would be render the rank positions too vague and fluctuant for effective comparisons. If only the method used is explicitly stated (and alternative methods are linked to) then I see ne problem with electing one default source as the adhered-to standard. // Big Adamsky 09:03, 8 March 2006 (UTC) reply

The nature of the data is vague because you cant really ever determine exactly what the GDP is. If it were anywhere else other than wikipedia a range would probably not work, but we're expected to be NPOV and draw from several sources. Sure it looks neater to only use one source but its still POV -- Astrokey44| talk 12:53, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply

I think the point is this: in the infobox, a rank range is cumbersome and – applied against lists that vary in quantity of entries – arguably uninformative. A link (from the ordinal/rank of choice) to the appropriate article where numerous lists (World Bank, IMF, CIA) appear should allay any concerns about data neutrality and integrity. That's also why using any one of the sources is acceptable ... we just need to agree on one and not (say) all three. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 13:03, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply

By the way, a similar discussion seems to be unfolding regarding territorial areas (where UN figures seem to be the choice value), so perhaps this is a larger issue than the current topic? E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 00:20, 13 March 2006 (UTC) reply

The UN only offers statistics for 177 entities. What about the entities that are missing from the UN table but available from other sources?-- Jiang 08:54, 17 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Well, using UN stats provides a simplicity of considering only sovereign states which, with few exceptions, are all UN members ... without having to worry about the political status of territories that are not members or whose status is somehow ambiguous (e.g., Greenland, Taiwan, Niue, Western Sahara). A few options, I think:

• (1) use UN figures when able – i.e., rank only sovereign/member states. Include data from other sources for non-sovereign states/non-UN members but don't rank them.
• (2) use UN figures and include non-member/'unavailable' data and ranks from another source.

E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 17:47, 19 March 2006 (UTC) reply

well...there are only 177 entities, short of the 192 entities recognized as sovereign states by the UN, so I think not ranking anything that is not on the list would be misleading and provide a higher on average rank for countries listed than if we used nother source.-- Jiang 01:46, 20 March 2006 (UTC) reply

As above: for the 15 entities unlisted (192-177), include figures from another source. If these entities are to be ranked, find contemporaneous figures – e.g., if most UN figures are for 2003, use CIA Factbook (or other agreeable) figures for 2003. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 03:49, 20 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Proposal: Following Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy, which to me is an unshakable foundation of Wikipedia, I am wondering what other users think about countries that have multiple official languages. I have noticed over time, that listing the name of the country/territory/province/whatever in the lead sentence and on templates in multiple languages sometimes leads to edit wars because one language group wants to be put first in front of the other. My point is not who is right and wrong, but in order to avoid such edit conflicts over language, I propose that in such cases where there are multiple official languages, they will be listed alphabetically in order to be most neutral (this obviously excludes English, which will always be listed first). This would make sense for countries and other places that are suffering from ethnic strife and tension, and would save Wikipedia a lot of trouble when it comes to edit wars about which language is supposed to be mentioned first. Gryffindor 17:46, 3 March 2006 (UTC) reply

If you look at Talk:Palestine, you will see considerable disagreement with this idea. Palmiro | Talk 01:00, 6 March 2006 (UTC) reply

I think alphabetically is a good policy. But just because we decide it here doesn't mean we can force anybody to do it. Of course the phrase "consensus produced a result in favor months ago" usually helps out in adding legitimacy.-- naryathegreat | (talk) 02:43, 6 March 2006 (UTC) reply

So Palmiro you are saying because of the Palestine issue, everything else should not work? That Palestine case would actually underscore my point, with the alphabetic order, which btw is also used at the United Nations, this issue could be solved. As naryathegreat pointed out, we can't force anyone, however this would be an the most neutral guideline. And I believe in neutrality. Gryffindor 10:55, 6 March 2006 (UTC) reply

It would be equally neutral to use number of users to order the languages. Agathoclea 11:44, 6 March 2006 (UTC) reply

I'm not actually taking up any position, just pointing out as a caution an example of where the position proposed here was angrily rejected by a number of users (because it put Arabic before Hebrew). Though I should add that, Palestine not being a state, official languages are not an issue in this case. Palmiro | Talk 19:58, 6 March 2006 (UTC) reply

If youre going to do it alphabetically, you shouldnt make english an exception -- Astrokey44| talk 12:48, 6 March 2006 (UTC) reply

I don't think numerically is such a good idea. It works in the UK, Germany, etc. but not so much in Africa. I believe English as an exception on the English Wikipedia is a good step in principle.-- naryathegreat | (talk) 01:14, 7 March 2006 (UTC) reply

I agree with naryathegreat that numerical is a very very bad idea, because minorities get simply outvoted in that case. If the language is official, it does not matter. I am talking of the United Nations principle again where every nation gets one vote, no matter how large or small they are. And English is obviously always used first to introduce the article, that is completely outside the discussion, since we are on the English Wikipedia. Take a look for example at Belgium, which does a good job at listing it alphabetically, as well as Official names of South Africa. Gryffindor 15:10, 8 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Template:Infobox Australia has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you.

A few other editors and I are trying to improve the article on Japan, ideally to featured status. We ask for your assistance in the article and your suggestions at Talk:Japan. Best regards, Fg2 06:04, 19 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Being new here, not knowing about this project page, and thinking that the section outlines in some country articles were poorly organized and sometimes a mess, I made some changes to the section outline format of a handful of country articles, around 8 or 10 articles or so. Alas, I've run out of time to work on editing and discussing here -- until this summer perhaps. Please feel free to change those outline edits back, which you can see in my edits page. I appologize if the following is covering old ground.

Some considerations: All of the section categories are aspects of society. Hence, organizing sections along lines of most general level of content is a way to go -- this could be from most objective to most cultural content, as listed below.

I believe that to put politics at the top, under history, is actually to privilege a POV about countries as being primarily political organizations rather than economic or cultural entities. A solution to this POV structure issue is to use a most general outline structure. It is fine to put History at top (counter to most encyclopedia practice), because all POVs can be woven in to history. It is nice to get the outline of a complex history at top. However, after that -- starting with the most objective categories of geography and demographics makes a lot of sense. Keeping demographics close to culture, as is the current case, is a nod to Sociology -- conceiving those subtopics as needing to be proximate for disciplinary unity. This is poor organization. All the sections are about aspects of society. Also, people often want to know the demographics of a country first. So, the more general scheme below makes sense for several reasons. (Perhaps putting politics after economics is better, but that is a smaller issue).

Also, some of the larger country articles have too far many sections for easy use by newcomers to articles. I recommend subtopics be subsections in the outline, such as language and religion as subtopics under culture and region and city lists under geography (as part of human geography).

I propose the following general outline as being preferable and better organized to the current one. I recommend that this group have another discussion of this or, if not now, that if ever this group has another decision process about country article outline structure that you include as an option the following structure and the essence of the above argument. Thanks and best to you all, Vir 16:01, 19 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Suggested general article outline structure

• History
• Geography
• Demographics
• Politics
• Economy
• Culture
• See also

Comments

I disagree. The article outline structure is completely voluntary, and has nonetheless been adopted in general by most country articles. I find it hard to argue that newcomers have a problem editing an article based on the number of sections; if that's true then we're all doomed. Anyway, language and religion are demographic topics. I think the current structure work fine. And you'll never be able to impose any decision here in any systematic way.-- naryathegreat | (talk) 17:33, 19 March 2006 (UTC) reply

I think you misunderstand my points. I am saying that the general reader can find it hard to find content in an outline of say 18 or 20 categories as has been case in some country articles. In terms of imposing an article structure, that seems to be the practice of some few in editing the country articles and in terms of policy here. If I misunderstood that, my mistake. In the articles I edited, there were no objections to the changes. So, I assume they will stand. Is it the case that if someone went around revising outlines per arguments above that those edits would stand? If so, great. If not, it seems there needs to be a policy dialog.

As far as language and religion, these can be approached as social, cultural, demographic, historical and whatever topics. Demographics gives general objective descriptions of populations. Cultural approaches get into qualitative distinctions. History talks about history of those and so forth. Religion and language are, in their basic aspects symbolic social interactions, and hence are perhaps most deeply and clearly discussed as *cultural* phenomena and included together as such as subtopics of the culture category. All of these aspects of social phenomena are woven together: demographic, cultural and historical aspects. The point of going into this is how to find knowledge easily in an outline. The outline I present is the simplest and most easily navigable outline I think. That is why most encyclopedias gravitate to something like the general outline above. The current one is a hodge-podge. Your response does not address the issue of the political POV of the current outline and the ability of the general outline to move beyond that. That is an important issue that needs discussion at some point. Vir 18:31, 19 March 2006 (UTC) reply

I came here to find out what the policy for a separate language section was, so will add my 2p worth. I'm accessing these articles specifically for the language info, since it's relevant to my job. Since language and religion could be classified under a number of sections, as discussed above, I suggest that it is therefore better to have them separately. Then I and others like me will know exactly where to go for the info rather than having to look in each of the possible sections. (BTW, I usually look first in demographics since that's what most of the language info is.) Gailtb 08:37, 19 May 2006 (UTC) reply

I changed some text in the country info box before I understood about wikiprojects and the whole structure here. Although I was informed that I should've asked first, it seems that my change has stood. However, I'm still not exactly happy with what I've done. I changed the text labeling image_coat from “Coat of Arms” to “National Emblem.” That change makes sense because many countries' articles do not display a coat of arms for their image_coat ( India, Japan, Mexico, etc.). Many countries, of course, do use a coat of arms, and it is now (incorrectly?) displayed with the caption “National Emblem” ( United Kingdom, Australia, South Africa, etc.). And, most confusingly, the United States page displays the obverse side of the Seal of the United States, upon which is emblazoned the US coat of arms, but which should still most properly be captioned, “Seal of the United States,” or similarly.

Is there a way that each country can specify what emblem would be best to display next to their flag, and also to caption it accordingly? That is, could that be done while still using a template? Vijay 22:02, 19 March 2006 (UTC) reply

It's really not about the correct title. The Great Seal of the United States is our coat of arms. We call it something different, but that's what it is locally. As such, I'm changing this back.-- naryathegreat | (talk) 02:40, 21 March 2006 (UTC) reply

There are specific rules in heraldry about what is and isn't a coat of arms. the national emblems of many countries are not coats of arms. (Crest, shield, supporters, etc.) I'm not sure, but I think the US Seal would not be a coat of arms either.

On checking the Coat of arms entry, it appears that the US seal is said to be the coat of arms of the USA, but would not be a coat of arms in the strict sense of the word.

In any case, perhaps it would be best if that entry could be varied between countries, or perhaps separate entries for CoA and National Emblem?? -- Sumple ( Talk) 02:47, 21 March 2006 (UTC) reply

The only qualification that needs to be met to be considered a coat of arms is that people would identify the symbol as such if asked to select their nation's coat of arms. Thus, the Great Seal of the United States would be identified as our coat of arms and the same with many other national symbols. Coat of arms can be a strict reference, but in practice most people refer to the national emblem/symbol etc. as the coat of arms.-- naryathegreat | (talk) 01:05, 24 March 2006 (UTC) reply

When I first saw the change to National Emblem, I thought someone was trying to be politically correct with Coat of Arms. I like it a little better as CoA, but either way wouldn't bug me that much. However, if forced to chose, I always settle on the one that sounds more politically incorrect---coat of arms. Roxi2 03:23, 25 March 2006 (UTC) reply

I would say that CoA is really a meaningless term to most people. Coat of Arms is much better because people actually will understand what it means. However, it is not just "politically incorrect" to label the images on many countries' templates coats of arms, it is simply "incorrect." Further, why always choose the more politically incorrect term? The point, when presenting information, is to be correct—all politics aside. South Korea, North Korea, Japan, Mongolia, India, Sri Lanka, Brazil, Saudi Arabia, Argentina, Turkey, Tailand, etc. These countries' emblems are not coats of arms. My (OS X) dictionary defines coat of arms as: The distinctive heraldic bearings or shield of a person, family, corporation, or country. The wiktionary has a more restrictive definition.

I just found the useful commons:National Insignia, which does, indeed list all emblems as coats of arms. It is easy to see there that many if not most nations do have coats of arms. It just doesn't make sense to me to make a logical jump and say that if most countries have arms, then all countries' emblems are known as coats of arms. Especially since, in those countries, the people would often not refer to those emblems as coats of arms! Did the U.N. say anything about this? Is there any real reason to adopt this policy (other than "it'd be a real pain if we had to fix the problem.")? Am I missing something? Vijay 21:36, 25 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Yes I know most ppl would say the Great Seal is the US's Coat of Arms, mainly because the US is anglophone and most other anglophone countries have coat of arms (in the strict sense of the word). In addition, the Great Seal contains a coat of arms within its design.

Still, a lot of other countries have national emblems which is neither (strictly) coat or arms, nor identified as such by the populace. -- Sumple ( Talk) 05:52, 25 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Just thought I'd cross-post a query I stuck on Talk:List of countries—in a nutshell, do Taliban declarations of statehood and de facto military control of Waziristan get it into the Abkhazia club statuswise? Replies would be appreciated over there. Thanks, The Tom 23:04, 26 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Is there a standardization for the title of articles discussing a countries media? Both "Media of" and "Media in" are being used. This page has the break down of usage. If there is no set practice yet, what should title format should be used?-- Bkwillwm 05:05, 28 March 2006 (UTC) reply

I think the Libya article should be put on the list for countries which are close to having featured status? Does everybody agree because I'd like to add it. Jaw101ie 12:48, 1 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Given ongoing discussions and recent edit warring, a poll is currently underway to decide the rendition of the lead for the Republic of Macedonia article. Please weigh in! E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 01:04, 6 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Hello. I'm a member of the Version 1.0 Editorial Team, which is looking to identify quality articles in Wikipedia for future publication on CD or paper. We recently began assessing articles using these criteria, and we are are asking for your help. As you are most aware of the issues surrounding your focus area, we are wondering if you could provide us with a list of the articles that fall within the scope of your WikiProject, and that are either featured, A-class, B-class, or Good articles, with no POV or copyright problems. Do you have any recommendations? If you do, please post your suggestions at the listing of all active Places WikiProjects, and if you have any questions, ask me in the Work Via WikiProjects talk page or directly in my talk page. Thanks a lot! Tito xd^{( ?!? - help us)} 05:20, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply

One thing I have been interested in are the citizens of a country. For example, Iran has been in the news. There has been a lot said about how radical the country is. But, what I want to know is what the average Joe/Jane thinks, and what they want in life. My opinion is that their opinions do not reflect that of the leadership, and I think it is important. 69.6.162.160 20:29, 19 April 2006 (UTC)Brian Pearson reply

I recommend we take out the Holiday section from the template. During the FAC process for Canada, many editors commented that the holiday section should be removed. -- Jeff3000 20:40, 25 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Currently, the 2005/2006 population figures are from a mix of sources, mainly the CIA World factbook and the UN Population Division, along with some national census estimates. Would everyone be OK with standardizing the population estimates with UN figures instead of Factbook figures? It has been indicated in Talk:List of countries by population/Archive 1 that the Factbook figures overestimate populations of less developed countries. I am proposing we use the UN World Population Prospects estimates for 2005 for standardization across all country articles. Of course, if a more recent national government estimate is available, that has higher priority. What do people think about this? Polaron | Talk 00:34, 29 May 2006 (UTC) reply

See Template:Danube Countries. It was done poorly, I fixed it up a bit now, but it's still theoretically fodder. -- Joy [shallot] 03:09, 10 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Also Template:Black Sea. -- Joy [shallot]

Also Template:Southwest Asia. The list keeps growing... :/ -- Joy [shallot]

I hope to include all countries in a release version of Wikipedia. Articles can be nominated at Wikipedia:Version 0.5 Nominations. Maurreen 12:31, 21 June 2006 (UTC) reply

I posted this at the flag templates project as well, and was looking for some input on it. Basically, a lot of pages (notably all sorts of sports tables, but also others like battles) try to use the appropriate historical flag for a nation. One thing we could do is extend the current {{country flag alias}} template to use the #if syntax to parse the year; basically the idea is that if someone was doing statistics for 1960, they wouldnt need to look up every country's flag's history - they'd just put |1960 on every single one and wikipedia would figure out which is accurate. It wouldn't break the current flag templates either, which don't specify a year, but I didn't want to go changing all those since many many pages use them.

Here's a sample I've set up on my userpage for DR Congo:

Code	Result
[[{{User:Moszczynski/country flag alias DRC}}|32px]]
[[{{User:Moszczynski/country flag alias DRC|2006}}|32px]]
[[{{User:Moszczynski/country flag alias DRC|2002}}|32px]]
[[{{User:Moszczynski/country flag alias DRC|1985}}|32px]]
[[{{User:Moszczynski/country flag alias DRC|1968}}|32px]]
[[{{User:Moszczynski/country flag alias DRC|1960}}|32px]]
[[{{User:Moszczynski/country flag alias DRC|1900}}|32px]]

Economy of the Republic of Ireland is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality. Sandy 21:49, 16 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Sealand is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality. Sandy 22:09, 16 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Economy of Africa is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality. Sandy 14:11, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Economy of India is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality. Sandy 14:11, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Cambodia is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality. Sandy 16:11, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply