Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries/Infobox vote

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This debate is closed. Please place comments at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries

In order to solve the continuing edit war surrounding country pages infoboxes, I propose that we take a vote on the issue. For those that are unware, the two current sides of the issue would either have A) the entire infobox table HTML kept within the individual country page or B) to create a template with the table inside of it and put the template on the country page. Additionally, a C) third solution was created by Theresa which is somewhat a combination of both, wherein an all purposes template is created, but specific information pertaining to the specfici country put within the country's page. An example of this can be found on the Netherlands page.

In order to end the continuing revert war and to lend some finality to this argument instead of going through all different kinds of channels to find a solution, let's all please vote for which solution to use for the future.

Please add your name by signing ~~~~ to the solution that you believe best expresses your views.

For the previous discussion on this subject, please see the Administrators' noticeboard here as well as the village pump here. Thank you!

Solution A) Keep the entire infobox HTML within the individual country page[edit]

  1. While C is nice, it reduces flexibility, gaining only some simplicity in return. For example, I think that countries with no national motto should not have a "National moto: none" box. It looks silly. With the template, there's no way to avoid it. -- uriber 21:05, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • You could use {{subst:whatever|asdf|...}}, then get rid of the ones that you don't need. ugen64 04:13, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Solution B) Create a template with the table inside it and put the template on the country page[edit]

  1. Páll 19:11, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  2. specially now that we have the Templates used in this page feature :) Just my 2 cents -- Hemanshu 19:24, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    It's a #include; a simple mechanism to get a near-static chunk of code off a page (and I did it to Indonesia). C) would be best used inside each country specific infobox template — Davenbelle 00:44, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)
  3. denny vrandečić (hp) (talk) 15:22, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)
  4. All of the prime minister articles use essentially solution A, but that's mostly out of laziness. Consistency's a good thing, and wikitables nested inside templates are always ugly. Just my three and a half Canadian cents :-). ugen64 06:36, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

# (Cantus - The template with parameters solution isn't very flexible. A wide variety of countries need a wide variety of solutions, and I think B) is the best so far.)

Solution C) The combination of both — AKA: Invoke a common template w/params from country page[edit]

(aka by — Davenbelle 09:16, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC))

  1. Templates can be limiting, but are no doubt useful. A template can provide all necessary fields - HTML can add others which are appropriate to the state. --Oldak Quill 19:30, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  2. Lovely. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:37, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)
  3. It's not ideal, but it's the best we've got. --fvw* 19:43, 2005 Jan 11 (UTC)
  4. I assume this is Template:Infobox Country? It's not a 'combination', its just a template with parameters. also, I have reservations that this poll is premature, and that therefore the result, whatever it turns out to be, will not be accepted by all. dab () 19:46, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Is there still discussion going on somewhere? If that's so, I withdraw my vote of course: Voting is only a last-resort measure when consensus cannot be established. --fvw* 19:49, 2005 Jan 11 (UTC)
    • The discussion is at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries -- sannse (talk) 20:15, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Thank you! Páll 19:10, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • even Cantus said he would accept this poll, so let it proceed! dab () 09:11, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  5. The Template:Infobox Country approach is clearly the most sensible, jguk 20:37, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  6. Gzornenplatz 21:44, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)
    Jayjg | (Talk) 22:40, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC) Changed vote, option E is even better. Jayjg | (Talk) 14:28, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  7. 172 01:04, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  8. Netoholic @ 04:49, 2005 Jan 12 (UTC) -- this poll kinda confuses me, but the Template:Infobox Country is proving to be fairly flexible. It may not address every situation, but likely that extra information is superfluous for the infobox.
  9. I agree that the Template:Infobox Country is the best approach. - Ta bu shi da yu 09:29, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  10. Neutralitytalk 15:57, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)
  11. Asbestos | Talk 16:04, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC) Seems to make the most sense.
  12. Country infoboxes should be standard across the board. Whatever does not fit into an infobox should be transferred to the article itself.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus europeaus) 19:08, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)
  13. agree with User:Ezhiki. --Boothy443 20:04, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  14. My second choice (first = E). Good work on the template. Zocky 00:53, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  15. definitely we should go with the parameterised template:Infobox Country, it finally works nicely now! 04:37, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • This template simplifies the original infobox syntax (solution A), while keeping considerable flexibility (look at the template and see quite easily where to manipulate). Not least, changes of country information are immediately visible in the country article history. --Eddi 23:51, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC) Temporarily withdrawn vote --Eddi (Talk) 01:24, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  16. Jeltz talk 00:03, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  17. Danny 02:28, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  18. mav (I already did this at Uganda)
  19. Waerth 02:41, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC) almost like on nl:
  20. If this is meant as Template:Infobox Country. --Gene s 07:56, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  21. One template with parameters is the best, otherwise the normal user won't find where to change the data in the box andy 08:26, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  22. Exactly, we must keep it simple. Remember the axiom, "when it ain't broke don't fix it". We should continue to convert all of the articles to Template:Infobox Country.--naryathegreat | (talk) 03:44, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

added: — Davenbelle 09:16, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)

Solution D) Invoke common template w/params from a country template page — AKA: B) with C)[edit]

ie: a one line invoke from the country page ("#include") and an invocation of a common template (Template:Infobox Country) from there; Off-loads infobox from country page and standardizes infoboxes. Infobox country may need refinement before wide deployment; TBD.

  • Davenbelle 09:16, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Novalis 18:39 Jan 12, 2005 (UTC) (falling back to C)

Solution E) Put the infoboxes on subpages and transclude them into articles[edit]

ie: make the infoboxes at Netherlands/infobox etc. and transclude them into main articles: {{:Netherlands/infobox}}. Produce these with a standardized template or in HTML, as appropriate for each country. Enables both standardization and flexibility, prevents template namespace pollution and decreases source bloating.

  1. Zocky 01:03, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  2. Davenbelle 22:20, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC) (changing vote, again)
    I have an example of each: Nepal's infobox is implemented at Nepal/infobox using Template:Infobox_Country; Tuvalu's is implemented at Tuvalu/infobox as a wiki table.
  3. Michael Z. 04:26, 2005 Jan 14 (UTC) Sounds good, like a pseudo-namespace for infoboxes. You'll be able to separately see edits to the article, talk, and infobox in your watchlist. It would be a bonus if under "Templates used on this page:" we would also see "Subpages". Or perhaps the toolbox in the left margin could have a link to "Subpages of this page". Nah, keep it simple.
  4. Jayjg | (Talk) 14:25, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC) This option is even better. Jayjg | (Talk) 14:25, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  5. Ruhrjung 15:32, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)
  6. Vamp:Willow 01:33, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC) (indeed, I think I suggested it first!)
  7. I like this best. Keeps the Template namespace uncluttered and allows for variation in what appears in the infobox (which I do not believe is possible now with aa parameterized template (Option C)). olderwiser 02:24, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)
  8. Mikkalai 18:20, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  9. Novalis 17:34 Jan 18, 2005 (UTC) (falling back to D, then C)

  • not sure I fully understand this option. Will changes to the parameters show up on watchlists? will there be a standard layout editable centrally? dab () 09:43, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    Changes will show if you have the infobox subpages on your watchlist, otherwise not. The layout will be editable centrally for infobox subpages that use common templates, and not for others. If it's really impossible to completely standardize the country infoboxes (and I'm not sure it is), this may be the middle way to go, otherwise the only real advantage is reduced source bloating (for those that contend that this makes the parameters hard to edit, check the links under "Templates used on this page"). Works only for the template namespace. Zocky 11:13, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • I, too, would like to hear more about this option... — Davenbelle 10:44, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)
    • Basically, instead of having the template off in its own space you create the 'almost-fixed-but-not-quite' data in a subpage to the main country page, then just include that as though it was a template (I do this myself on my user page; it is quite standard and easy). Main advantages are (1) data is still part of the country and main wiki, (2) you can 'watch' both the main country and the 'template' bit, and (3) we aren't trying to force-feed every country into the same template which, let's face it, is never going to work as every country has too many differences to every other to be able to template or parameterise something that would work everywhere acceptably. --Vamp:Willow 01:33, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This is not a good idea at all since it has the same drawbacks as putting the tables on template pages but compounds that by creating what the software will recognize and count as a new article. Subpages also do not work in the article namespace. --mav 21:49, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)