Jump to content

Template talk:Infobox country

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

Request for comment on greenhouse emissions

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There is a consensus against such a parameter. Although there was quite a bit of interest, opponents raised several concerns for which supporters did not have great answers, most importantly what data would be used and whether the information is due. This was reflected in how opponents greatly outnumbered supporters (by almost three times, counting bold votes and including the leaners). A proposal that specified what data to use could have avoided some of this opposition; whether any proposal could have sufficiently overcome the due weight concerns to generate a consensus is unclear. (Personally, I'm doubtful, but I could be wrong.) (non-admin closure) —Compassionate727 (T·C) 13:26, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Should the infobox template for countries be expanded to include greenhouse gas emissions? 20WattSphere (talk) 11:56, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

previous talk Template_talk:Infobox_country/Archive_15#Greenhouse_gas_emissionsMoxy🍁 12:00, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Context: Editors have discussed the proposal but without forming a consensus (recent discussions are archived at the bottom of Template talk:Infobox country/Archive 15, with a discussion from 2023 at the top). There was also a question about which measure to consider (e.g. total, or per capita) - comments on this are welcome but this RfC focuses on the central question of whether to include at least one measure. 20WattSphere (talk) 12:03, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unless I missed it the climate change project was not notified about the previous discussions otherwise I would have commented there about which measure Chidgk1 (talk) 17:06, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm conflicted: as GDP and GNI are meant to be figures of general interest regarding the economic development of a polity, I also think it's worth potentially representing other material dimensions if adequately DUE per concerns in the previous RFC—I guess we can just label this one "environment" broadly construed. The stumbling block for me is, while emissions are a major figure point for this dimension of analysis—probably easily the most frequently cited—due to the scope of "the environment" as a subject, it almost seems insufficiently narrow? Myriad other figures regarding pollution, deforestation, reclamation, and so on seem potentially more informative in many cases, this is unlikely to be a one-size-fits-all situation. Perhaps we could allocate generic "environmentN" parameters we can specify based on what is notable for each polity? Remsense ‥ 论 12:06, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My main problem is the articles dont cover this topic in prose (infobox should duplicate data in article)...thus is just a number out of the blue with zero context for readers. Moxy🍁 12:37, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that for many countries this is not a significant topic and the parameter need not be filled in the infobox or discussed in the article. However for some countries it is significant. For example China says “With current policies, the GHG emissions of China will probably peak in 2025, and by 2030 they will return to 2022 levels. However, such pathway still leads to three-degree temperature rise.” and United States “The U.S. ranks as the second-highest emitter of greenhouse gases.” Chidgk1 (talk) 07:26, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But how would you design a parameter to meaningfully convey both of those approaches to data on this topic? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:42, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria Sorry I don’t quite understand your question Chidgk1 (talk) 15:18, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You have presented two emissions-related claims in country articles. What singular parameter would reflect both of those claims? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:38, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand this proposal is about the general principle rather than a specific parameter. However if this proposal is accepted then as I detailed below the CO2e annual totals estimated by the countries themselves (these are production-based and can omit the military) would be my preference. Whether the body of the article should also mention that number I don’t know - I suspect not - for example United States has the Gini coefficient in the infobox but in the body it says “Income inequality in the U.S. remains at record highs, with the top fifth of earners taking home more than half of all income and giving the U.S. one of the widest income distributions among OECD members.” rather than mentioning the number itself. I don’t know how this works procedurally in Wikipedia - perhaps we will have another discussion about the actual parameter if this proposal is accepted? Then if some people argue for a ranking parameter or a consumption based one I will consider what they say. Chidgk1 (talk) 15:28, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The USA article is an oddball.... for example human rights is in the lead... but every G20 country exceeds them including 20 more 3rd world countries. Moxy🍁 00:16, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This depends on the composition of a country's economy and, in my view, is not an essential part of a country. If used, both proudction and consumption based numbers should be accounted for. Senorangel (talk) 04:40, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But if I understand right the consumption-based accounting numbers we have don’t include land use, land-use change, and forestry. So they would be misleading I think. Chidgk1 (talk) 16:40, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They will be accounted for at the consumer end. Users of raw materials or agriculture and paper products, for example. Senorangel (talk) 05:36, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Senorangel I think I have a rough idea of the theory but as far as I know we don’t have a reliable source of such numbers. No doubt someone will estimate Drax https://www.edie.net/drax-labelled-uks-biggest-carbon-polluter-as-biomass-row-rages-on/ but that is just one biomass power plant. For example I doubt anyone has much clue how much lumber is being sent from Russia to China and how much is being burnt. Chidgk1 (talk) 09:32, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Important for some countries Chidgk1 (talk) 12:34, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I might be open to hearing the case from first principles on a personal basis, but there are a few issues with this. The infobox is supposed to reflect the article. Often infoboxes do not do this for various reasons, but it's worth keeping in mind. Few country articles discuss emissions (noted by Moxy). Those that do tend not to put a figure on it. The uncommon mention suggests it is not considered a key fact in country coverage. The lack of numbers speaks to a broader issue, it is difficult to measure GHG emissions. There are a few ways to do it, with different assumptions, and you can get some very defensible figures that converge on the right ballpark, but presumably the infobox figure is going to be a specific number and I'm not sure any one number is due that weight. CMD (talk) 13:10, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    For all the countries party to the Paris Agreement the number would be their own officially calculated CO2e total in their Biennial Transparency Reports. Only a handful of countries are not parties, and as far as I remember the only significant one is Iran for which we would have to use an estimate such as from Climate Trace. Chidgk1 (talk) 05:54, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's possible ETF submissions will become 'the number' for GHGs, but we can't judge that now. CMD (talk) 06:18, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It is true that at first there will be large error bars, perhaps from poor countries with big forests. But in principle they are the same numbers that were agreed in Paris in 2015 and have been reported by rich countries for many years. So there is no way the world would agree on a different GHG accounting method however much any of us might like it to. Chidgk1 (talk) 06:38, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. There are lots of major problems that countries face -- nuclear stockpile, number of incarcerated residents, number of impoverished residents. All these things should be discussed in the article, but we should keep infoboxes concise. Indeed, we should be considering what we can remove from infoboxes which are, by necessity, redundant, as they are restating facts that should already be stated and referenced in the article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:31, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that not everything in the infobox template needs to be filled in for every country. For example many countries don’t have “Coat of arms” or “national motto”, but they are available in the template in case they are important for certain countries and editors wish to fill them in. Chidgk1 (talk) 06:47, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support in principle, as it is valuable information for the reader. Per capita seems like the better option since population data is also in the Infobox. It should have a ranking as well like in the population parameters. Alternatively you could have the total figure, and something like (per capita: 6th)
Kowal2701 (talk) 14:16, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On the point that climate change isn’t generally mentioned in articles, I’m surprised at that. I’d expect at least a few sentences in the body Kowal2701 (talk) 17:31, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural question Should I be arguing about the specific parameter here or are we only discussing the principle of adding GHG? Chidgk1 (talk) 15:35, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I think I was wrong to open discussion to that. Kowal2701 (talk) 17:03, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No probs - I am happy discussing the measurements here if the proposer @20WattSphere wants to as I missed the previous discussions. Chidgk1 (talk) 17:10, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Previously, I was thinking it would be best to begin by deciding on the question of having any climate indicators in the infobox. Then after that decision, nail down which indicator would be best.
    However, much of the opposition has stemmed from confusion about the measurement. Because of this I think it makes sense to discuss which indicators to use, to inform the overall discussion.
    I would support total national emissions CO2e, and per capita emissions in CO2e. 20WattSphere (talk) 06:56, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If this proposal is accepted “year cited” is essential because countries suffering from war or extreme poverty will be allowed to report later than other countries Chidgk1 (talk) 17:00, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning no. While I'm open to including climate-related statistics, I'd like to see a more fleshed-out proposal with answers to questions like
  • Are we including absolute or per capita values?
  • What sources should be used? Biennial transparency reports have been mentioned, I also found EDGAR database and globalCarbon Atlas. Do they differ and which one should we prefer?
  • Production or consumption emissions?
I realise that some of these issues have been discussed and possibly resolved in this thread and I suggest opening another RfC taking into account the feedback. Alaexis¿question? 21:39, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Re sources I am against using the Emissions Database for Global Atmospheric Research as it does not include Land Use, land Use Change and Forestry. Methodology of the second source you mention, global carbon atlas, is described in https://essd.copernicus.org/articles/15/5301/2023/. Although that and Climate Trace are more up to date I would prefer to use official figures to avoid argument. After all if a country calculated the figures themselves they cannot later argue that Wikipedia is wrong. Having said that I don’t object to using unofficial figures for those countries which have not yet published official figures. Chidgk1 (talk) 14:54, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Alaexis As of 2021 consumption for land don’t seem to be available https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/docserver/b2b24307-en.pdf
therefore unless anyone can find consumption figures including land I am against including consumption Chidgk1 (talk) 08:44, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Chidgk1, do these sources differ a lot? If they do we can expect arguments over which data to use and it may be better to discuss these figures in the article text where they can be put in context.
Also, you haven't responded to my 1st and 3rd questions. Alaexis¿question? 19:56, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@AlaexisI think we should have absolute production values but I don’t have an opinion on whether we should have per capita production values as well. Re your question whether those 2 sources differ a lot I don’t care as I think we should use neither. And we should not have consumption values as I think they are misleading because we have not found any which includes land. Hope that answered everything - if not please ask me or indeed on talk page of climate change project as other’s views may differ. Chidgk1 (talk) 17:12, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose agree with CMD. JSwift49 14:03, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    CMD stated that “The infobox is supposed to reflect the article.” and if I understand right seems to be saying that the info should be duplicated in infobox and article. And they say that as few articles have a GHG number now that it is not important.
    However I think the infobox should have the data and in the body it may not need to be repeated but should be put into context. For example China infobox says admitted to UN on 24 October 1945 but we don’t need that exact date in the body Chidgk1 (talk) 15:05, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose if it's relevant and notable it should be discussed in the body of the article where context can be provided. These type of infoboxes are bloated and cluttered as is, no need to add to that bloat and clutter. Isaidnoway (talk) 05:50, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Seems trivial. The infobox should only contain the most vital statistics that people go looking for when they want information about a country. NickCT (talk) 18:47, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This was my first RfC. I had no idea how this was going to go, so I'm really pleased so many editors took the time to comment, and provide such useful feedback. As the RfC initiator, I can't draft a closing discussion. But here's my summary of the arguments, as I understand them.
  • Support/oppose: this information is valuable/not valuable for the reader.
  • Oppose: infoboxes should reflect the article, which do not often refer to emissions. Support: some country articles do mention emissions, in inconsistent ways. Infobox fields are not always filled (e.g. coat of arms) and articles do not always repeat this information (e.g. UN admission date)
  • Oppose/undecided: it was unclear how the emissions would be measured. Support: governments decided on a method at Paris 2015, it would make sense to use this.
  • Support/oppose: emissions are an aggregate (or macro) measure of an economy.
  • Oppose: the infobox is already cluttered with various information.
Some editors requested another discussion around on a more fleshed-out, specific proposal, noting that some editors had concerns that were answered in this thread. I'm obviously not a neutral party, but I'd also support the last point, to have another discussion in the new year based on a specific proposal. If the closing editor agrees with that, I'd nominate User:Chidgk1 to make the proposal, because no good deed goes unpunished... and because you're obviously the most knowledgeable on the subject.
If you have a minute: could somebody please neutrally request RfC closure here: Wikipedia:Closure requests
20WattSphere (talk) 09:17, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that as the nom you can still make a closure request, but dw it's done Kowal2701 (talk) 09:49, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Template-protected edit request on 27 September 2024

[edit]

Replace: 

<nowiki>| header25 = {{#if:{{{government_type|}}} || {{#if:{{{leader_title1|}}}{{{leader_name1|}}}
        | {{#if:{{{name|}}}{{{membership|}}}
           | <!--template being used for geopolitical org:-->Leaders          
           | <!--template being used for country/territory: -->Government 
          }} 
        }} }}</nowiki>

with: 

<nowiki>| header25 = {{#if:{{{government_type|}}} || {{#if:{{{leader_title1|}}}{{{leader_name1|}}}
        | {{#if:{{{name|}}}{{{membership|}}}
           | <!--template being used for geopolitical org:-->{{#if: {{{leaders_header_name|}}} |{{{leaders_header_name}}} |Leaders}}          
           | <!--template being used for country/territory: -->{{#if: {{{government_header_name|}}} | {{{government_header_name}}} |Government}}
          }} 
        }} }}</nowiki>

In order to allow the alteration of headers in cases such as proposed countries (eg. "Proposed government" instead of "Government") — IмSтevan talk 12:44, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done This template shouldn't be used for proposals. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:32, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: This template is already used for a proposed country, Sovereign State of the Bektashi Order — IмSтevan talk 10:42, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed that. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:48, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And your edit was reverted not an hour later — IмSтevan talk 21:49, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why that was, but removal/replacement would be the appropriate outcome - this template is for countries, not ideas. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:27, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
{{Infobox micronation}} might be appropriate for that article. In fact, there is an RFC covering this exact issue. The example given in the template's documentation is of a non-country. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:19, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sealand is a non-country, but it is a micronation, not a proposed country — IмSтevan talk 19:51, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Di (they-them): feel like pinging you here is relevant — IмSтevan talk 19:52, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted the edit because the edit summary cited this discussion as rationale, but the discussion was specifically pertaining to micronations such as Liberland or Sealand. It was my understanding that proposed countries such as East African Federation and Sovereign State of the Bektashi Order can use this template. However, I think that these two examples are probably special cases, since the EAF and the Bektashi State are both actively being worked on by heads of state. I think that caveat probably makes a difference, because the EAF and Bektashi State are much more legitimate proposals than, say, Romanistan or Siberian Republic, because the latter two are just ideas posited by activists and not states actively being created through legislation. Di (they-them) (talk) 21:31, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Any article could use any template, but this template is designed for a specific purpose, it is not (and should not be) designed to work for everything. CMD (talk) 00:10, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can tell from our article micronation, the micronation infobox appears to be designed for proposed states: A micronation is a political entity whose representatives claim that they belong to an independent nation or sovereign state, but which lacks legal recognition by any sovereign state. ... Micronations are aspirant states that claim independence but lack legal recognition by world governments or major international organisations. We also have an article List of states with limited recognition, which is linked from Disputed states, a redirect. We have a disambiguation page at Proposed country, and a list of links at Lists of active separatist movements. It's kind of a mess out there, but AFAICT, Infobox country is for articles about entities described in Sovereign state. I could be very wrong with this last statement, since this template has more than 6,000 transclusions. We may want to change the current documentation for this template, which uses some vague terms: This infobox template is used to generate an infobox for the right-hand side of two specific types of article: on a country or territory, or on a geopolitical organisation. Continue discussing. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:40, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No daylight saving time

[edit]

It would be good to be able to explicitly indicate that a country does not use daylight saving time. |DST=No does not work. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:02, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried using |DST_note=, per the documentation? See this test case, or Pakistan. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:14, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Display error

[edit]

There is an error that is causing an extra blank line to appear in after the government_type and sovereignty_type parameters. Additionally, there are lines seperating the government type and leader fields and one's seperating the various history events that didn't exist earlier. The display error occurs in the mobile version of the site only and not on the desktop version. I can enclose a screenshot if needed. PadFoot (talk) 13:50, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please link to an affected page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:40, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jonesey95, see United Kingdom for instance. PadFoot (talk) 07:49, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am able to replicate this problem. When I expand the code, I see this under the "Formation" table row: 
<tr class="mergedrow"><td colspan="2" class="infobox-full-data"><templatestyles src="Module:Infobox/styles.css"></templatestyles></td></tr>
This code appears in both desktop and mobile, but in the desktop version, this empty row is not displayed. In the mobile version, it displays as a blank row. I can't tell whether this problem is caused by the Minerva skin, or the CSS for this infobox, or some combination. If this problem exists in another infobox, it may be easier to triangulate the cause. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:24, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also tried to figure out what was centering all of the labels in the mobile view, because it looks awful, but my CSS-fu is not strong enough. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:25, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mobile has overrides of css for all infoboxes, to ensure they are readable on mobile. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 15:18, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Specifying that infobox-label elements should be text-align: start (or left), should do the trick. This statement is not part of our Minerva styling for mobile infoboxes on en.wp, causing it to fallback to the browser default for th cells. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 15:36, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jonesey95, this problem started occuring only very recently (a year or two). Maybe a recent edit caused this error? Perhaps, go through them, or better create a two sandboxes, one with an older version of the template, and another using the sandbox template and see which older version didn't have this error. Due to template protection, I can access only the diffs and the current source code but not the older source codes of template. You can check if the 2021 version of the template still renders the error. If it does, it shall prove that the error must be due to a recent change to the skin and not the template. PadFoot (talk) 11:42, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I pasted the version from January 2021 into the sandbox, and it has the same problems: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jonesey95/sandbox – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:43, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jonesey95, Then, the must be due to the skin, I suppose and not due to the template code. PadFoot (talk) 15:07, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I very much doubt this is a recent change. I think simply no one happened to really notice. I've seen other infoboxes have the same issue with accidentally adding empty table rows. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 15:38, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I remember distinctly that this glitch appeared very suddenly. I was hoping that it would be fixed soon, but it's been a long time and no has fixed it. PadFoot (talk) 16:22, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cells on mobile have padding, and as this includes a cell with content (whitespace and non-visible templatestyles), the cells are drawn. Don't add rows to the output if you don't want something to display. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 15:21, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TheDJ, can you fix it then? @Jonesey95? PadFoot (talk) 16:20, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Infobox_country&oldid=1265166643"