Template talk:Infobox country

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries § Global Hunger Index

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries § Global Hunger Index. Remsense ‥ 论 16:31, 28 December 2024 (UTC). Remsense ‥ 论 16:31, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

I think we should remove religion

Hi, I propose the removal of "Religion" from this infobox for several reasons. Many countries do not collect religious statistics in their censuses at all. Various opinion polls and surveys often produce conflicting or uncertain results, leading to confusion rather than clarity. Additionally, religion is a deeply personal and sometimes contentious subject, making it more appropriate for discussion in a separate page rather than being summarized in this infobox. Removing it would improve accuracy and maintain neutrality.194.22.49.234 (talk) 13:16, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

This and ethnicity in my view should be dropped..... there's so many religions and ethnicities the infobox simply is a jarbled mess. Moxy🍁 19:39, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

You are right about ethnicity, very few countries actually collect data on "ethnicity", instead most countries are more likely to collect data on citizenship of foreigners which is totally different. 192.36.208.102 (talk) 20:17, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

The problem is we have talked about this before to noavail. - unlike driving side (as seen below) this is somthing covred in every article in the body...and .for many countries this is a dominated social issue. Moxy🍁 20:21, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

But we should still remove them. Wouldn't you agree? Plus most countries simply don't collect reliable data on religion, for example, with opinion polling firms trying to "fill the void", however with multiple different polling firms using different methodologies and different results it becomes nothing more than a confusing mess with no clear way of knowing which result is the closest to reality and which one to use in the infobox.192.36.208.102 (talk) 20:23, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

I don't have a strong opinion that it should be removed altogether, but it should certainly be moved from being near the top of the data items. I think area and population should be moved toward the top as the most important statistics. Reywas92^Talk 15:09, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

I think "religion" should be removed completely from this infobox, we simply do not know which opinion poll results are the most accurate in countries that do not collect religious affiliation in their censuses. 193.11.40.11 (talk) 10:45, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

So leave it blank for countries where there aren't good sources. Or leave out the percentages if there are conflicting sources, and include a reference to them, or put ranges if the figures differ. If the sources are so unreliable that we can't even list ethnicity and religion in the infobox, how can the article have a section on those? Every country article includes religion and ethnicity in the demographics section. It's hardly a mess to list the ones discussed there. PaulGS (talk) 03:09, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

I think "religion" and "ethnicity" should be removed from the country infobox because they’re often too complex, fluid, and sometimes sensitive to be accurately summed up in a simple box. Unlike things like population, GDP, or official languages, which are quantifiable and relatively stable, ethnicity and religion are subjective, self-reported, and there is often no reliable government statistics for them, making the data inconsistent, or potentially unreliable.

This infobox is meant to provide clear, uncontested key facts about a country, but reducing diverse and often disputed demographic realities to a few percentages risks oversimplification and misrepresentation. Many countries have conflicting definitions of ethnicity, and religious affiliation doesn’t always reflect actual belief or practice. If the sources are unreliable, disputed, or even politically influenced, including them in the infobox just spreads misinformation.

Besides, as these topics are already covered in the demographics or deticated sections, where there’s room for nuance and multiple sources. The infobox doesn’t allow for the necessary context, like historical, legal, or social factors that shape identity, just to name a few. If something is too complex to summarize accurately without oversimplifying or misleading, it’s better left to its own section, where it can be properly explained. 192.36.208.102 (talk) 09:05, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

I agree that we should remove "Religion" from the infobox, opinion polls in countries that don't collect religious affiliation statistics in their official censuses are a complete mess. Plus, I remember a time when in this infobox, "Religion" wasn't even used, I think we should go back to that. Belson 303 (talk) 18:04, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Driver side

Something so unimportant that no settlement article mentions this in the article body.....suggest we drop it. Moxy🍁 08:25, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:52, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

I swear we've had this discussion before. Removing it would at least stop the quite common talkpage posts saying the side of the road is wrong. CMD (talk) 03:11, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Infoboxes are made for information, so, driving_side parameter, needs to stay. I think it’s also better for the reader to know, for example, the driving side of Zambia, is left and, the reader, with this information, learns something. QwertyZ34 (talk) 11:29, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

That's inaccurate. Articles are meant for information, infoboxes (a tiny percentage of an article) are intended for "key facts". CMD (talk) 13:34, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Does the driving side at least appear in the article ? QwertyZ34 (talk) 14:57, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Almost never, which is part of the issue. On that metric, it does not seem to be a key fact. CMD (talk) 15:01, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Why does it need to be mentioned in the article if it's already in the infobox? How many articles discuss the country's calling code and Internet code? How much is there really to say about a country's time zone, especially when it only has one and shares it with its region? All of those things are useful facts about the country that are best suited for the infobox. Removing the information makes the articles less useful. PaulGS (talk) 03:04, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

"common_name" is not the common name

The common_name field is the "name to be used in constructing links and category names; not for display". The problem is that the phrase "common name" doesn't match that use. I've edited hundreds of pages where the common name was not the correct sorting/linking name and didn't match the title of the article. Examples are "Italy" for "Kingdom of the Lombards", Österreichischer Reichskreis" for "Austrian Circle" and "Danish Estonia" for "Duchy of Estonia (1219–1346)"

Is there any chance of changing the name of this field to sorting_name or something a little more intuitive? —  AjaxSmack  03:05, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

I suppose that technically it's a disambiguated_name isn't it. Such a change makes sense, and perhaps a name that sounds technical might help imply it's for technical purposes such as automatic link generation. CMD (talk) 04:18, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure why it's disambiguated; it's more for alphabetizing the page in categories and (maybe?) for determining flag icons. (I'm not sure what "name to be used in constructing links" refers to.) I strongly agree that a name (any name) that sounds technical would help. —  AjaxSmack  14:23, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

It's specifically for specifying correct links. If you put "Afghanistan", the template generates a link to Flag of Afghanistan, but if you disambiguate to "the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan", the template links you to Flag of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. CMD (talk) 15:19, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Ah, that makes sense. But it also is [was ?] used for sorting in some categories (like Category:States and territories established in the 13th century [??]). For either, the current name is far from ideal as it encourages random editors to add whatever the common name of the polity might be. —  AjaxSmack  01:32, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

How does it work for sorting, automatic category generation? CMD (talk) 07:19, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

IDK. And it's been a couple of years since I've noticed it affecting sorting, so maybe it's a thing of the past. But at this old template I found this:

Then I found:

—  AjaxSmack  08:03, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Sounds like we need someone with lua skills to separate those functions. The sorting of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan (under "A" for Afghanistan) and the generation of links (needs to not go to "Afghanistan") have clashing needs. CMD (talk) 15:33, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Edit request 3 March 2025

Description of suggested change: Please move area and population sections toward the top of the infobox. These are the most vital statistics for a country that are consistently used for every country and should be highlighted higher up and easy to find immediately. At Switzerland, these are below infobox sections for capital/largest city, languages, religion, Demonym(s), government, legislature, and history. There are even more not always used (ethnic groups, organization memberships), and these sections have variable lengths across countries and I believe are generally less important for readers to have to always be in the same location at the top.

Diff: Each rowclass##, label##, and data## 60–100 should become 12–52 and 12–59 should start with 53 (noting that not all numbers are used as other parameters have been removed). Reywas92^Talk 20:51, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit template-protected}} template. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 10:35, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

`date_format` encourages distinguishing CE and AD?

I don't understand this:

date_format = ... all-numeric date format and era, such as [[Common Era|CE]], [[Anno Domini|AD]], [[Hijri year|AH]], etc. ...

If I had to guess, it's an accidental implication and we're mostly trying to indicate AH while being otherwise inclusive—but is there actually impetus to specify either CE or AD here? Remsense ‥ 论 14:49, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Are you suggesting we take AD/CE as the default? If so, we could use BE as another example if needed. CMD (talk) 14:35, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

We quite explicitly take that as the default epoch and those as the two default set of labels. Remsense ‥ 论 23:11, 16 March 2025 (UTC)