Template talk:Infobox country

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Second COA[edit]

Would it perhaps be a good idea to have a field for a second coat of arms/emblem for situations where the second flag parameter is also being used?

To give an example of the articles of former colonies: Often the flag and symbols of the colonising nation are official alongside the colony-specific ones. It stands to reason then, in my view; that having the flag and coa of both the imperial nation, as well as the colony in the infobox, would be valuable addition which is not currently possible. LegerityFortis (talk) 21:56, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We have other_symbol parameter. Moxy- 23:10, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Legislature" and "Highest organ of state power"[edit]

Hi

Communist states do not have legislatures, but highest organs of state power. While Western sources often superficially call them legislatures, the constitutions of these states do not. For instance, the Chinese, Soviet and Yugoslav constitutions do not use the term "legislature" at all. The Chinese refer to the National People's Congress as the "highest state organ of power", the Soviet the Supreme Soviet of the Soviet Union as the "highest body of state authority", and the Yugoslavs the Assembly as the "supreme organ of power". Per the principle of unified power, all other state organs are organs of the highest organ of state power. That is, the executive branch is an organ of the highest organ of state power, the judiciary is an organ of the highest organ of state power el cetra el cetra. These are not legislatures at least in the liberal sense. More importantly, these states consider them to be something other than legislatures.

What do I want? You have a field called "Legislature". Keep that and add another field called "highest organ of state power", which can be used for the communist state articles. I want these changes to be added to the former country infobox and the ordinary country infobox. --TheUzbek (talk) 11:31, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My parents are still my parents even if they've always called themselves my progenitors.
A legislature is a body (or organ) where laws are made. It's irrelevant what term a particular jurisdiction uses for it. Largoplazo (talk) 11:38, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, that is what a liberal legislature is limited to. However, the powers of the National People's Congress, according to Chinese legal scholar Zhou Fang, "are boundless, its authority extends to the entire territory of the country, and, if necessary, it can intervene in any matter which it finds it requisite to do so."
Do you get the difference now? TheUzbek (talk) 11:42, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would also add this: Chinese legal scholars Xu Chongde and Niu Wenzhan, "[t]he other central State organs are created by the NPC and execute the laws and resolutions made by the NPC."
In a liberal democracy, the legislature is the legislature, and the government is the government. In China, the government and the legislature are the same; the National People's Congress is both (they are both organs of it)! TheUzbek (talk) 11:44, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adding Democracy index in infobox[edit]

I see that is important to add The Economist Democracy Index to be added. Like how GDP, Gini and HDI shown, Democracy index may be also added to indicate democracy in infobox. May shown as “Democracy Index” in first row, the score (including rank and democratic condition [“Full Democracy”, “Flawed Democracy”, “Hybrid regime” and “Authoritarian” depending on score[1]], year and red/green arrow triangles if democracy changed from previous year. When on previous year remained unchanged it may show blue “hyphen” (similar to HDI, Gini and GDP). If triangle shows to top and is green, it shows more democratic from previous year, and if triangle is red and to bottom, it is goes to autoritarian. Democracy index row may be added to all language editions of Wikipedia.

83.139.28.234 (talk) 17:54, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not seeing a rationale why this index in particular is important to add - there are many that exist. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:01, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Like how GDP, and HDI is imporatant row in Wikipedia country infoboxes, Democracy index is also important, and should be added to infoboxes. 217.76.14.162 (talk) 17:15, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, there are many indices out there - why do you feel this one in particular is of equal importance to GDP? Nikkimaria (talk) 06:11, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The “equal” hyphen-line in GDP and HDI means unchanged from last year. 83.139.28.225 (talk) 10:50, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just want to throw in my two cents, but I've also thought about the benefits of adding in some sort of index to the country infobox based on either the V-Dem or EIU indexes.
Currently, on pages for countries such as Russia, Venezuela, Kazakhstan, Belarus, North Korea, Syria, Togo and ecetera, we see the government type listed as a "semi-presidential (or whatever the official government type is)" followed by "under an authoritarian dictatorship" or just "dictatorship" or "authoritarian state" or something like this thereafter. However, other authoritarian countries such as Haiti, Azerbaijan, Palestine, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Guinea-Bissau, Yemen, Libya, Iraq, the UAE, and Zimbabwe don't have this identifier. Other socialist authoritarian countries such as China, Cuba, Laos and Vietnam simply state they are a "Unitary Marxist–Leninist one-party socialist republic, but lack the whole "under an authoritarian dictatorship/state" identifier that most other non-Communist authoritarian countries get labeled with.
As far as I can tell there is no reason a country does/does not have the whole "authoritarian" label thrown on at the end. This also brings up an obvious point of concern when authoritarian countries such as Iraq are mentioned as merely a "Federal parliamentary republic," which is also exactly the same as Germany and Austria! Or how Algeria is mentioned as merely a "unitary semi-presidential republic," which is also what France is listed as despite being much more democratic than Algeria.
Rather than having to put "under an authoritarian dictatorship" or such statement in the infobox, it would probably be beneficial to the reader to include one or more democracy indexes to better state the differences between de jure and de facto forms of government. This also might help talk pages with the unending claims of "X country is/isn't a democracy!"
Of course, I also understand the counter-point that the indexes themselves can't be trusted or are biased. However, reliable sources, which Wikipedia itself is based on, generally are in agreement with whether or not a government is authoritarian whether they come from an index or not, so the inclusion of an index would most likely restate what would have already been added in with users putting "under an authoritarian dictatorship" in the first place. BootsED (talk) 06:35, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Full democracies will show dark green in its text; flawed democracies as green; hybrid regimes as orange and authoritarian regimes as red

Template-protected edit request on 11 February 2024[edit]

For the part "ISO 3166 code", I would like to see both the 2-letter and 3-letter codes to be included. Using Pakistan as the example, currently it says: "ISO 3166 code PK", but I would like if it said "ISO 3166 code PK, PAK, 586" since all are valid in ISO 3166.

Currently the 2-letter links to ISO 3166-2:XX for that country. I don't know if the other two could link to something. Since the template automatically supplies with the 2-letter code, it can also supply the other two codes automatically as well. When {{{iso3166code}}} is manually supplied, the other codes could be supplied through {{{iso3166code3}}} and {{{iso3166numeric}}}.

[REDACTED BROKEN CODE]

Here is a code I've tested and it should work. The checks for code-3 and numeric includes checks if numeric isn't 000, because the module considers the ISO 3166-2:GB codes for some regions of UK to have alpha-3 codes, when no sources say otherwise. If the module could blank out those entries (as I've requested), then this code could be written more elegantly. But the current method should still work for now. Pon Pon the bon bon (talk) 10:10, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please make your changes to Template:Infobox country/sandbox and add a test to Template:Infobox country/testcases — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:33, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for notifying me about those pages. I updated the /sandbox and did notice some errors, so very good that I did that. Particularly regions without a numeric code still gave a comma, and an error in artgument {{{iso3166numeric}}}. Now ISO 3166 doesn't show up for these non-existing countries: Template:Infobox_country/testcases. Then there's a second page Template:Infobox_country/testcases2 testing ISO for "Bosnia" and it shows up in the intended format. I also tested on Template:Infobox_country/testcases3 to ensure it works as intended for actual articles, and it does.
I hope it's okay I removed the previous code. Here's the new and fixed code:
| label127= [[ISO 3166|ISO 3166 code]]
| data127= {{#switch:{{{iso3166code|}}}
     |omit = <!--(do nothing)-->
     | = <!--if iso3166code is not supplied:
          -->{{#if:{{{common_name|}}}
              | {{#if:{{ISO 3166 code|{{{common_name}}}|nocat=true}}
                 | [[ISO 3166-2:{{ISO 3166 code|{{{common_name}}}}}|{{ISO 3166 code|{{{common_name}}}}}]]
                }}<!--
                -->{{#ifeq:{{ISO 3166 numeric|{{{common_name}}}|nocat=true}}|000||{{#if:{{ISO 3166 code-3|{{{common_name}}}|nocat=true}}
                 | , {{ISO 3166 code-3|{{{common_name}}}}}
                }}}}<!--
                -->{{#ifeq:{{ISO 3166 numeric|{{{common_name}}}|nocat=true}}|000||{{#if:{{ISO 3166 numeric|{{{common_name}}}|nocat=true}}
                 | , {{ISO 3166 numeric|{{{common_name}}}}}
                }}}}
             }}
     |#default = [[ISO 3166-2:{{uc:{{{iso3166code}}}}}|{{uc:{{{iso3166code}}}}}]]<!--
          -->{{#if:{{{iso3166code3|}}}|, {{uc:{{{iso3166code3}}}}}}}<!--
          -->{{#if:{{{iso3166numeric|}}}|, {{{iso3166numeric}}}}}
    }}
Pon Pon the bon bon (talk) 10:22, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
addendum: with the modified Module:ISO 3166/data/National, the code can be simplified as the following. Previous code left in, just in case.
| label127= [[ISO 3166|ISO 3166 code]]
| data127= {{#switch:{{{iso3166code|}}}
     |omit = <!--(do nothing)-->
     | = <!--if iso3166code is not supplied:
          -->{{#if:{{{common_name|}}}
              | {{#if:{{ISO 3166 code|{{{common_name}}}|nocat=true}}
                 | [[ISO 3166-2:{{ISO 3166 code|{{{common_name}}}}}|{{ISO 3166 code|{{{common_name}}}}}]]
                }}<!--
                -->{{#if:{{ISO 3166 code-3|{{{common_name}}}|nocat=true}}
                 | , {{ISO 3166 code-3|{{{common_name}}}
                }}}}<!--
                -->{{#if:{{ISO 3166 numeric|{{{common_name}}}|nocat=true}}
                 | , {{ISO 3166 numeric|{{{common_name}}}
                }}}}
             }}
     |#default = [[ISO 3166-2:{{uc:{{{iso3166code}}}}}|{{uc:{{{iso3166code}}}}}]]<!--
          -->{{#if:{{{iso3166code3|}}}|, {{uc:{{{iso3166code3}}}}}}}<!--
          -->{{#if:{{{iso3166numeric|}}}|, {{{iso3166numeric}}}}}
    }}
Pon Pon the bon bon (talk) 23:35, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template-protected edit request on 2 March 2024[edit]

Other rank fields are automatically shown in brackets except for HDI rank. Might this be changed for consistency please? Dgp4004 (talk) 15:27, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. SilverLocust 💬 07:03, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Consistency of years and references[edit]

I've noticed that the layout of year and reference fields is quite inconsistent. I wonder if it's worth giving some thought to how they might be displayed in a more consistent way which would make it easier to read.

For some fields, both year and reference are on the left (ethnic groups, religion).

For some fields, year is on the left and the reference is on the right (HDI, Gini).

For some fields, both year and reference are on the right (GDP).

For some fields, the year is on the left and there isn't a reference field—it's up to editors whether they put it on the left or the right (population).

My own thoughts are that ethnic groups and religion have it right—the year and reference look most elegant and readable on the left. I think that the settlement infobox handles refs and headings quite well as here: Tameside. Dgp4004 (talk) 23:59, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

adding Indicators[edit]

Hello, I was thinking of adding additional indicators to the infobox (from UN bodies) such as the happiness report and etc. Do you agree? 2A01:73C0:86A:DEBA:C5A9:DBCF:3562:4611 (talk) 06:21, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that only GDP and HDI data doesn’t cover everything, I was thinking of adding maybe another indicators from the UN reports 2A01:73C0:86A:DEBA:C5A9:DBCF:3562:4611 (talk) 06:26, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria do you agree? 2A01:73C0:86A:DEBA:C5A9:DBCF:3562:4611 (talk) 14:12, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which specific additional indicators do you want to add and why do you believe these to be significant? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:06, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria
I base my opinion on several articles published on the subject that claim that the HDI and GDP data are not enough to see the full picture of a certain country. I thought to add the happiness report which includes data on per capita income , education and life expectancy. In addition, it measures also other things that aren’t measured in HDI and GDP such as the difference between generations.
Harvard business school :[1]
IMF:IMF
other sources:
Articel
articel 2A06:C701:42A5:A00:B45F:F2DC:BCAD:3D16 (talk) 02:07, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I fully agree that HDI and GDP don't give a full picture of a country. But no indicator will, and particularly not a composite indicator. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:11, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria
First of all, you are right.
But in my opinion we can add the index (which is established by the UN and is considered the most accurate).
And beyond that, many researchers believe that the index is better than HDI or GDP. It also includes GDP data, life expectancy eduction and more...
In the French Wikipedia, for example, there are other indicators besides HDI and GDP. And I think nothing bad could come from adding another indicator that adds more information and light on the country. 2A06:C701:42A5:A00:B45F:F2DC:BCAD:3D16 (talk) 02:28, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is certainly potential harm from overloading the template with information that is not meaningful to most readers - it's meant to be limited to key facts at a glance. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:18, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria
True, but even so there is not much data,
in the French Wikipedia there are several more indicators regarding a certain country which gives more information .
I think that, after all in light of the above, it might be profitable to add, and after all we want to give the reader some comprehensive information about a particular country. (What the HDI and GDP do not fully show).
maybe we can get another opinion from other editors. Also, the UN doesn't publish many indexes about a particular country's economic/development.

147.235.216.48 (talk) 03:30, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@BootsED, Phoenix7777 what do you think? Do you agree with my statement? 2A01:73C0:86E:6120:6CC9:C45B:1530:8814 (talk) 04:48, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest I had not considered the happiness index to be added to the infobox before you mentioned this. I think it is certainly worth looking into. However, I would state I believe a democracy index would be more important to add to the infobox before consideration of a happiness index owing to the many reasons I have previously given in an earlier post I made on this page. BootsED (talk) 21:58, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@BootsED
Hello, as I said many researchers claim that HDI and GDP do not give a complete picture.Harvard[2] In addition, many researchers believe that the happiness index is a better index ,because it includes additional data as well as life expectancy, GDP per capita education and corruption.Columbia university
IMF
As I have already said, in my opinion, adding another index can only broaden the reader's point of view ( the French Wikipedia, for example, added more indicators besides GDP and HDI).
Regarding the democracy index, I have an opinion on the subject, but I know it is not published by the UN, unlike the happiness index, which is published by the UN like the HDI.
Can you please read the articles that I added and express your opinion.World economic forum
thank you. 2A06:C701:42A5:A00:655A:291F:C391:6239 (talk) 23:16, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would support removing these parameters. Moxy🍁 23:36, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@BootsED what is your opinion? 2A06:C701:42A5:A00:C8D9:98C3:D3E8:CE70 (talk) 02:32, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is worth looking into. Again, I think an democracy index would be more prudent to add before a happiness index, but I would wait for more consensus before making any changes. BootsED (talk) 02:44, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alright , @ TylerBurden @ Juustila @Dönde94 what is your opinion? 37.142.165.10 (talk) 05:30, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever. Juustila (talk) 06:55, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@BootsED I don’t think there is an objection of adding it, at the end it’s UN’s index that covers more than just HDI and GDP. 2A06:C701:42A5:A00:1B8:4B89:89C3:8025 (talk) 01:57, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Greenhouse gas emissions[edit]

I am proposing to add greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to the country infobox.

GHGs include any gases which contribute to climate change. Different gases affect our climate in different ways, the most impactful GHGs being carbon dioxide and methane. Although different gases contribute differently, conversion factors known as global warming potential can be used to sum their contributions, and express the total in carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e). This allows for an objective measure of countries' contributions to climate change.

Our World in Data provides a complete list of national emissions in CO2e here

I believe readers would value this information in the infobox, given the increasing impact of climate, international agreements (most importantly the Paris Agreement), and the geopolitical significance of GHG emissions.

I am interested to know what you think. 20WattSphere (talk) 01:12, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's an important statistic, but with regard to inclusion in the infobox, is it more significant than any of zillions of other statistics, such as live births per thousand, life expectancy at birth, literacy rates, homicide rates, density of airborne particulates, percentage completing various levels of education, cars per million people, poverty rates, percentage of population incarcerated, opiate death rates, arable land, access to fresh water, etc.? I suppose all of these can be included, but infoboxes probably shouldn't extend indefinitely. Largoplazo (talk) 08:53, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Statistics can be interpreted in many ways and in my opinion the more complex they are the more ways there are to create confusion. How many people actually understand what greenhouse emissions are, how the statistics are created and what they mean? Using them would, I think, result in their misuse to make political points. That is less of a problem with vert simple statistics such as population per sq km. Also, agree with Largoplazo, what makes greenhouse emissions so special? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 09:09, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Largoplazo and Roger 8 Roger - thanks for your replies! I'll respond to all the above points here:
  • On importance: I agree that not everything can be included in an infobox. To be overly inclusive here would defeat the purpose. To provide a quick, simple summary of facts, there needs to be some threshold of importance to be considered for inclusion. My view (which is shared by many around the world) is that climate change is one of the most important problems the planet is facing. There are countless examples of how climate change is impacting people's lives now, and how it will impact them into the future. To provide one example, to illustrate the scale of this issue - Indonesia's capital city Jakarta needs to be moved because of climate change. So I don't believe climate change can be left off the list of important statistics. I would even suggest some facts in the current infobox are perhaps not as important as this one... but I won't give an example since I don't want to pick on any of them!
  • On complexity: I believe the metric is quite easy to understand. It's a simple measure - it's merely the total amount of emissions produced within a particular country each year. It's a much simpler concept than GDP, for example, which is included in the infobox (let alone Gini coefficient, which even economists struggle to understand). So I don't believe this is too complex a statistic to be useful to readers, and should not be ruled out of the infobox.
  • On politicization: my feeling is that anything and everything can be used to feed into political arguments. Climate change is no different. However, the purpose of Wikipedia is to inform and educate people, and this process is a necessary and beneficial part of the political process. I feel we should not be afraid of our work being used in political debate - rather, I would be afraid of our work not being used in political debate.
Let me know what you think.
20WattSphere (talk) 11:24, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Though I mentioned poverty indexes and suggested that they'd be extraneous, I do see that the GINI and HDI parameters are present. Even so, I can make the case that like every other parameter in the infobox, they tell us something basic about the condition and nature of the country: What are its capital, currency, form of government? Is it large or small? Who populates it? What religions do they practice? Are they (this is where GDP, GINI, and HDI come in) economically developed, and are the people rich or poor? None of these gives me a sense that they were included for the purpose of raising anybody's consciousness about some issue. None of them amounts to "Look at what this country is doing to the planet". In contrast, greenhouse gas emission isn't really a basic national characteristic, and your stated reason for your proposal was consciousness-raising regarding an agenda (albeit one on which I'm in agreement). Largoplazo (talk) 14:19, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is something that generally not covered in these topics. Moxy🍁 15:21, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think GHG emissions is quite a basic question about countries (similar to HDI and Gini). To be clear - I am not proposing this out of advocacy. I am proposing this because I think it's an important fact about countries (and companies actually, but that's another story).
Every time I read about a country, I wish their annual emissions were in the infobox. Some examples of the value it would provide include:
  • GHG emissions relates to the question of "are they rich or poor", since many highly-developed countries consume a lot of fossil fuels. Does the country import or produce fuels, or do they struggle to obtain energy?
  • It also provides a measure of what countries' economies are like. Are they a manufacturing country, do they make steel or other commodities, or does their economy mainly provide services? Do they drive cars, or ride bikes and trains.
  • It indicates whether they are likely to struggle to meet the Paris Agreement or other international obligations.
20WattSphere (talk) 20:08, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at List of countries by greenhouse gas emissions, I don't think these points make a lot of sense. The raw numbers correlate primarily with population, and the per-capita numbers are a mixed bag - they don't correlate well to either level of development or level of manufacturing. As for the third point, understanding that requires a level of context that would not be available simply by presenting a number. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:44, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good point about population size - I think per-capita emissions would be a much better choice. That's also quite readily available.
Per capita emissions seems to vaguely correlate with HDI - but there's a lot of variation, which is a large part of why I'm interested in including it. If it was perfectly correlated with HDI, for example, then it wouldn't be worth including, since HDI would be readily convertible to emissions intensity. So I think it's a different enough metric, and an important enough metric, to include. 20WattSphere (talk) 07:58, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which list to use for population_census_rank[edit]

population_census_rank currently uses List of countries and dependencies by population for the ranking, but the problem with this list is that it's very inconsistent in the sourcing and years of population values. Some entries use census data, others use estimates or projections, and they often come from different years, which might make the rankings inaccurate. Furthermore, a case could be made that this is a instance of WP:OR, since it's similar to the situation at Wikipedia talk:No original research/Archive 64#RfC on clarification of WP:CALC for costliest tornadoes.

I propose that we switch over to using List of countries by population (United Nations) instead, since the data and rankings comes from a centralised source and it compares countries based on estimates from the same years. Of course, this isn't going to be a "census_rank" anymore, but since many entires in the currently used List of countries and dependencies by population aren't based on census data anyway, there's no loss in that regard. Liu1126 (talk) 21:05, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]