Template talk:Infobox former country/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 9

Infobox Former Subdivision v2

Speaking of updates: over at {{Infobox Former Subdivision}}, I have now heavily upgraded it to largely match this infobox, after clearing away a lot of the old formats. A new thing: the sn/pn variables (or anything like it) are no longer in that infobox - all terms are automatically listed at the bottom of the infobox if there are more than 5 previous or succeeding states (eg. Province of Westphalia). This is from my work on the SFRY prototypes above. For this infobox, I would probably list the entries at the bottom as they currently are (centered, no images), instead of what I have in mind for the former country infobox (side-aligned, with images). The older versions of the subdivision infobox ("historical province" and "prussian province") are now no longer used by any entries and are now listed for deletion.

The subdivision infobox contains one field that this infobox does not: "today", a field where instead of listing the entities that came immediately afterwards, but what entities cover this territory today. Going further back in history, this can be useful. This field might be handy for this infobox since it has already proven useful in the subdivision infobox (eg. Province of Schleswig-Holstein). What do you think? - 52 Pickup 16:38, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Very good! I think we should try to have the same kinds of functionality in both templates and they should be alike as much as possible. This doesn't mean that they should be identical, because there is a very good reason to keep countries and subnational entities separate. This is also one of the problems that we have to solve for the HRE and Germany: Entities in transition from being vassal states to the emperor over sovereignty into subnational entities. The today field seems like a good idea and I think it should be implemented. The might also be a case where there is a value in displaying related contemporary entities in the infobox. There is a link between East and West Germany even though they are themselves separate, just like there is for the Duchy of Prussia and Royal Prussia. I'm not sure how to best solve that. What is your opinion? -- Domino theory 23:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

This second infobox may go a long way towards solving some of these transition problems. But we should not rely on the infoboxes to solve all of these problems. For states that were members of the HRE, then the German Confederation, then of the German Empire, I don't see (at the moment) how all of that can be handled by the infobox. For that, the navbars do a better job of explaining this. As a test, I have converted the Free State of Prussia entry from Former Country to Former Subdivision and it seems to work quite well. I have just copied over the "today" field into this infobox, it might need a bit of tweaking - at the moment, this field is filled in simply by listing all entries, separating them with line breaks. This field should only be filled in if the previous/succeeding states do not adequately explain the present situation. As for links between parallel states, I don't think the infobox is the right place for handling this - to introduce such a feature may lead to confusion, even misuse. In many cases, parallel states are better explained by the "History of" templates (eg. Template:History of the Low Countries and Template:History of China). - 52 Pickup 14:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Nazi Germany government_type

It's currently Dictatorship, previously Totalitarian Dictatorship, but both are saying it does not comply. Can one of those be added to government_type? MeekSaffron 05:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

We're still working on supported government_types - it will be fixed soon. - 52 Pickup 08:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Major update

I have just made a major update to the template. It covers a number of things that have been discussed above:

1. The pn/sn variables have now been eliminated - if there are any pages which used these fields (and i don't think there were any), they will be phased out. Now you just enter the p1,s1,... fields as normal. If more than 4 of any one type are used, the side that has more than 4 entries will not be displayed in the date bar at the top, while everything will be displayed at the bottom of the infobox. This is very similar to prototype D that I used for the SFRY example above (plus a few tweaks). If the limit of 4 does not agree with many, it can be changed. (eg. Austria-Hungary)
2. A third government office field has been added between the "leader" and "deputy" fields. This is the governor position discussed above, used for representative leaders of a country (eg. colonial governors). This field has been named "representative". For an example of its usage, see Orange River Sovereignty. The standard usage of this is for representative leaders and will not have a use everywhere and should only be used in particular cases, although the availability of a third political office can also help in clarifying special situations (eg. Nazi Germany).

This has all been tested, but there might still be faults. Please let us know if you find any. - 52 Pickup 12:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Update needed

I need an urgent update to set the size of the map. Thanks! =Nichalp «Talk»= 04:55, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

If can be done, but it would be best to not have such parameters. For which entry are you having trouble with the size of the map? - 52 Pickup 14:06, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Problem with automatic wikilinking (it works, but causes a problem)

Hi! I work on disambiguating links to dab pages. I think the feature of this template that automatically creates wikilinks is very clever, but it created a problem for me at Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland. This template was used on that page, and the language was set to "English," resulting in a link to English, which is a dab page. When I edited the article to find the link, it wasn't visible (only the plain text "English" was visible), so I didn't know how to fix it. I just got some help at WP:VPT -- the solution was to replace the plain text with [[English language|English]], so the template wouldn't create the link itself -- but that wasn't obvious at all. Is there anything that can be done with the template to alleviate this problem, or alternatively, can the solution be documented in a readily accessible place? Thanks. --Tkynerd 15:29, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

If only one language were to be entered here, it would be no problem to automate the creation of the correct links. But with more than 1 (which is very common) it doesn't work. As requested, I have made a note of this at Template:Infobox Former Country/Instructions. Thanks. - 52 Pickup 21:58, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

The automated link generation for one language now works. If you now enter a single language, the template will first search for the entry "{{{common_languages}}} language". So if you enter simply "English", the infobox will now show [[English language|English]]. This only works of just ONE language is used. - 52 Pickup 08:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Handling of date parameters breaks user preferences

The example has

|year_start   = 1871
|year_end     = 1918
|date_start   = January 18
|date_end     = November 9

It seems useless and irritating to separate year from date. A unified parameter would have the following advantages:

• Dates could be displayed the way registered users have set in their preferences. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Dates containing a month and a day.
• People would be less restricted. What's wrong with leaving it to editors to choose between entering “[[31 December]] [[2007]]”, “[[December 31]], [[2007]]”, “[[2007-12-31]]”, “[[2007]]-[[12-31]]”, “December 2007”, “December [[2007]]”, “early 21st century” or “December 2007 or January 2008”?

Wikipeditor 23:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

It is not useless at all. It is very important to have these entries separated. The start and end year appear alone at the top of the infobox ("1871 - 1918") and these two parameters are responsible for the allocation of this article to two categories ("1871 establishments" and "1918 disestablishments"). If the year and the date are not separated, none of this would be possible. It does not matter if you enter "January 18" or "18 January" for the start and end dates - it will display the date according to the user's preferences.
For intervening events ("event1",...), the date and year are together in a single field (as "date_event1"). In these fields, the other date formats that you proposed are all valid. - 52 Pickup 07:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining the purpose. So how do you explain that even though I have my preferences to the 1999-12-31 format, I still see the December 31, 1999 format not only for special events, but also for "established" and "disestablished" dates (example: Second Philippine Republic)? Wikipeditor 00:27, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Usage for Republic of Texas

Is this template generating the Category:Short-lived states that appears on the Republic of Texas article? If so, there is a disconnect between what Category:Short-lived states says (less than five years) and what this seems to generate. If this template is the source, is any way to change the template so as not to generate the short-lived category for a state that lasted 9 years? Thanks. — Bellhalla 22:17, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this template is assigning the categorisation if the lifespan is less than 10 years. The error is with the category page (simply forgot to fix that earlier on), this has now been fixed. - 52 Pickup 11:54, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Government type (2)

We need a new government type: Theocracy, see Papal States. I figured I should mention it here, rather than just trying to hack the template about. I would mention about articles ending up in both Category:Short-lived states and Category:Client states of the Great French War, but that seems complex and, frankly, unimportant ;o) — OwenBlacker 23:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Flags

I am having several problems with flags on the infoboxes.

1. How do you get it to show a Preceding/Succeeding countries section like on Allied Occupation Zones in Germany?
2. How do I represent preceding or succeeding countries without a flag, without the gray Image:Sin escudo.svg appearing?
3. In the preceding/succeeding section, which flag/image fields are for what? How do I properly convince the template to link to, for example, Flag of Japan and show the proper image?
   1. In particular, I am having trouble convincing certain flag images (i.e. Image:Ryukyu Islands flag until 1875.svg) to show up at all.

Any help would be most appreciated. Thank you. LordAmeth 13:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

To answer your questions (a lot of this is given in Template:Infobox_Former_Country/Instructions:

1. The Preceding/Succeeding countries section like on Allied Occupation Zones in Germany appears if more than 4 preceding or succeeding states are given.
2. You can give a different flag to prevent the sin escudo image from appearing (using the flag_p1 field). If an image simply doesn't exist (as opposed to it being unknown or unavailable), "image_p1 = [[Image:Blank.JPG|1px]]"
3. Instructions text for image fields: "Going further back in history, flags were less common and coats of arms were used instead. Coat of arms images are generally narrower than flag images, so if coat of arms images are displayed at the defined image size used here for flags (i.e. width=30px), they appear too big. Therefore, if you have anything other than a flag/banner image to use for a previous/following entity, fill in this field. Here you must enter all wikilinking as normally done when entering an image, but set the image width to 20px (or higher, depending on the individual image). If you know that there is no flag for this entity, but do not know what the coat of arms is, enter in the image field".

Hope this helps. - 52 Pickup 16:52, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely. Thanks for your detailed response. I'll look into implementing those soon. Still, while I certainly don't presume to know the full history of such things as they pertain to East Asia, I'm largely certain that the Western concept of "coats of arms" for a country, much like flags or various other institutions didn't exist. No big deal, of course - I'm sure we can find substitutes, like the family crest/badge of the ruler, or the royal seal as I did on Ryukyu Kingdom. Anyway, thanks again. I'm glad to know how this preceding/succeeding flag thing works and that it's not just an error :) LordAmeth 17:08, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Number of leaders

It seems strange to me to see 6 entries for leaders (up to leader6). What if a former kingdom had 21 kings? I am asking because someone was puzzled in Talk:Soviet_Union#Government_Leaders why they cannot see Gorbachev (who is #7).

Please clarify the usage. `'mikka 00:51, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

While there is no response from template maintenance guys, I tried to fix this for the Soviet Union. But even if my change will not be reverted, the discrete nature of the template still remains to be fixed. Cmapm 11:06, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

As it is stated in the instructions for this template, it was NEVER inteneded to list every single ruler if there are so many. If there are more than 5, only the FIRST and LAST people should be given. No more fields will be added. Therefore, for the USSR entry you should have |leader1 = [[Vladimir Lenin]] (first) and |leader2 = [[Mikhail Gorbachev]] (last)

This infobox is already big enough. Having fields for over 6 rulers would be too much. As for 21... no way. Lists of rulers should be given either in the article body or as a different article. If in a separate article, the list should be accessed by the subheading that precedes the names, as you have correctly done in the USSR article with |title_leader = [[List of leaders of the Soviet Union|''Leaders'']] - 52 Pickup 16:29, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Terrible Changes to Template! Light blue background, yellow highlight of name

A recent edit to this template has made it look terrible! PLEASE restore the old template! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by R-41 (talk • contribs) 18:41, 10 May 2007 (UTC).

Fixed. - 52 Pickup 19:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Replace the 'preceded/suceeded by' arrows with prose above...?

In the section indicating preceeding and suceeding states, has using subheadings such as "Preceded by" and "Suceeded by" (in smaller font-size) above flag/s been considered...?  Having recently passed by a couple of pages using this template and had someone ask me to confirm what the leftward and rightward arrows imply (and also that they are/can be links), I wonder if something that's more more self-explanatory and more visible as a link might be preferable...?  Meanwhile, thanks for comprehensive template!  Regards, David Kernow (talk) 21:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words. Placing additional subheadings is something I had not previously considered, but it is a good idea. After I removed the default "flag unknown" image a while ago, it is probably not immediately clear what the arrows mean if there is no adjacent image. At the moment, I'm toying with how to make the infobox collapsible - if possible, I would then place that extended "Preceded/Succeeded by" section at the top and then remove it when expanded (if the number of states is small enough: <5), which should make it clear to all what the arrows mean. That's going to take a while, but your suggestion has come at just the right time! - 52 Pickup 09:20, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Glad it has; look forward to future development!  Best wishes, David (talk) 14:20, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I dunno, I really like the preceded / succeeded arrows as they are. — OwenBlacker 16:11, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

They'll still be there, just not when collapsed. It has occurred to me this infobox is rather big (so are the standard ones for countries and cities) and I would like to try reduce the obstructiveness of the template. So far, I'm not even sure if what I have in mind is practical or even possible - so it will be a while before any possible major changes are put forward. - 52 Pickup 14:18, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, from a recent query over at the Village Pump, it looks like the coding required for this collapsible template is not possible - at least not at the moment. Damn. - 52 Pickup 21:10, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

status_text

Is there a way of showing the status_text without adding a status? I can't really think of an appropriate status for the Stem duchy of Lorraine… — OwenBlacker 16:11, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

For this entry, you would say "status=Vassal", "empire=Holy Roman Empire" - this is the standard way to describe HRE states (the other option is "status=City"). This automatically generates some status text, but this can be overwritten. It should be stressed that the "status" parameter is used only for the purpose of categorisation - for this reason, the options for this field are limited and this field should be used sparingly. - 52 Pickup 14:11, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Stacked flags

Multiple previous and following flags look terrible in this template. I'l looking at Ukrainian People's Republic: I see a stack of six stripes on the left, and four on the right, and no identifiable flags. —Michael Z. 2007-08-13 14:32 Z

Yeah, I know. This problem has been bugging me for ages. Still working on it. - 52 Pickup 17:58, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Maybe the table cell just needs a line-height taller than the flags? —Michael Z. 2007-08-14 18:40 Z

Nice idea, but each stack is within a single cell - having individual cells for each flag would be a coding nightmare. But now I think I've come up with a way to do it, by playing with font sizes and adding some line breaks. So far, it looks like its worked, but if there are any problems, please post them here. - 52 Pickup 21:05, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Looks good in Safari 3.0.3/Mac. Thanks. —Michael Z. 2007-08-14 21:17 Z

suggestion

If this is needing constant fiddling, ...

Why not parameterize all the style characteristics as I did with width months ago?
Second, t'would be a good idea to make the standard width similar to other types of Info boxes, for cases where an article is serving currently as both a current topic/place and the former nation/state (e.g. Wittenberg and Duchy of Saxe-Wittenberg which size mismatch brought me here to check whether this had a width option.) I would recommend the much debugged and (imho, still overlarge) templates of Template:Infobox Military Conflict(edit talk links history) and the related war or campaign boxes as a max size model. (e.g. Battle of Breitenfeld (1631) (edit talk links history)). See the guts in Template:WPMILHIST Infobox style(edit talk links history) which maxes out the 315px, but a better size would be circa 22.5em which is pretty standard for big infoboxes. Best regards // FrankB 00:00, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that there is no "standard" box size. But usages of the same box should have the same width, hence the lack of extra parameterisation: this infobox has a lot of parameters already. In the Wittenberg example, there should really be a separate article for the duchy. Having too many infoboxes on a single page is never good.

If you want to bring up the matter of box width and discuss it with other infobox designers, perhaps you could bring it up at WT:INFOWATCH - 52 Pickup 09:40, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Problem with displaying the list of leaders (Tang Dynasty)

I added a list of leaders of the Tang Dynasty, where this template is used. Now, for some reason only the first few leaders are being displayed... I guess I am just to stupid to use it correctly ;-) Any savant got an idea? Tang Wenlong (talk) 01:24, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Another automatic wikilinking issue -- with "dissolution"

I, too, work on disambiguating, and I'm having a lot of hits on "dissolution" from this template. In this case, I don't think any of the identified meanings of "dissolution" fit when talking about an entire country, so the solution discussed before might not work. What can we do here to stop linking to the "dissolution" dab page? Thanks. Auntof6 04:40, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

This comes from people unnecessarily writing "Dissolution" in the event_end field. If nothing is given in this field, it simply says "Disestablished" without linking. The same can be said for saying "Disestablished" - and for saying similar things in the event_start field (where the default there is "Established" without links). So if any articles contain these template values, that field can simply be blanked. - 52 Pickup 17:23, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! With that info, I was able to finish disambiguating "dissolution". Auntof6 07:18, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Ifexist limt

This template is going to be annhilated by the pending limit on calls to #ifexist. Please rewrite it to make far fewer calls to #ifexist. Dragons flight 00:28, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing it out. I will try to make a review of it as soon as possible. -- Domino theory 12:48, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

The call count has been brought down from 194 to 92, just under the 100 limit that is being implemented. The calls performs important functions in the template, but the usage has to be planned more carefully and that should also bring the total number down further. A more comprehensive overhaul should be forthcomming. -- Domino theory 21:30, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

You need to check the rendered source of the template. It includes a comment of the form:

Pre-expand include size: 131698/2048000 bytes
Post-expand include size: 50777/2048000 bytes
Template argument size: 28650/2048000 bytes
#ifexist count: 111/2000

This provides a total of all ifexist calls in this template and the templates it depends on. Right now the total is still 111. In other words, this is still over the limit. Keep in mind that the limit is per page, not per template. Dragons flight 22:33, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

You're right! I had problems with the page cache so I checked different articles and they all gave the number 92. I have verified your figures and they are presently at 111 for the template itself. I realize the count is per page and that other templates might also use the #ifexist call, and that's why I would like to reduce it substantially. I will bring it down under 100 in the comming days, but a more effective use (less use) of the call will only be possible after a more comprehensive overhaul. Thank you again for bringing this to attention. Cheers, -- Domino theory 22:50, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Footnote beside flag link?

Hello, discussion is running hot 'n heavy over at Occupation of Japan over the flag in this template. There was no de jure official flag of Japan at any time from 1885 until 1999. However, the Hinomaru or "Rising Sun" flag was clearly the de facto flag of Japan at all relevant times. It gets worse.. use of the Hinomaru was severely restricted during early parts of the occupation, but the restrictions were completely lifted a couple years before the occupation ended. The flag that is being used in the template at this moment (it may change by the time you read this) is not even close to being an official flag; it is a naval ensign. I suggest using the Hinomaru with a footnote to a lengthy and well-referenced discussion. I dunno if that solution will reflect consensus, but at present this template does not support the addition of a footnote in the place I would like to see it [beside the "Flag" link]... Thanks! Ling.Nut 06:39, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Use flag_type to put "[[Flag of Japan|Flag]]&sup1 ;" and footnotes for "&sup1 ; {The note on the flag.}". Remember that the footnotes or the infobox in general is meant for very brief information, so place the extended explanation in the article or in the Flag of Japan article. Cheers, -- Domino theory 12:57, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

• I didn't folllow your advice, but it helped me see what to do: rather than use the footnote param of the template, I used a link to a named footnote in the Notes:
  

|flag = Occupation_of_Japan#_note-flag

|flag_type = Flag&sup1 ;

• thanks! Ling.Nut 13:48, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

It looks fine to me. :) The only issue I have is that the infobox now is used to display "no flag". The best way would be to either show a flag, unofficial or not, or not to show a flag at all. However the discussion and the footnote about the flag is still as important. Until there is a better solution it's also ok to use Sin bandera.svg for flag navigation in other infoboxes, eg preceding/succeeding. Cheers, -- Domino theory 16:41, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Problem in the Soviet Union article

Only first 12 out of 15 (or 16) successor states included in the infobox are visible. Alæxis_¿question? 12:26, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Still There are 17 entities and not all of them display. Can someone fix this? -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:28, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

The code has now been extended to 15. I have not extended it further because there is an unnecessary amount of duplication in the 17 states currently listed and to include all 17 doesn't make any sense. Entities that comprise the same territory should not be listed. The 17 entries currently listed are:

1. Commonwealth of Independent States
2. Russia
3. Belarus
4. Ukraine
5. Moldova
6. Georgia
7. Armenia
8. Azerbaijan
9. Kazakhstan
10. Uzbekistan
11. Turkmenistan
12. Kyrgyzstan
13. Tajikistan
14. Estonia
15. Lithuania
16. Latvia
17. Union of Russia and Belarus

A few points:

• Union of Russia and Belarus is a clear duplication, since it contains Russia and Belarus. So either the union should be listed or the individual countries.
• Similarly, the CIS comprises most of the countries listed. So again: one or the other. You could just as easily list only the CIS and the non-CIS countries (Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania)
• All now-existing countries are directly related to previous Soviet states (eg. Ukrainian SSR → Ukraine) and the entries for these Soviet states have similar infoboxes that link to the now-existing states.

So without the CIS and the Russia/Belarus Union, that makes 15. This is the maximum number of states that does not lead to duplication. So please now reduce the states listed to either this 15 or to 4 (CIS, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania) 52 Pickup (deal) 15:58, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Problem with "Event" headers

This template includes default headers "Established" and "Disestablished" that are links to pages of the same titles. Apparently this is done through inclusion of the {{WPFCevent}} template, which automatically links headers if the corresponding page exists. Unfortunately, however, Established redirects to a disambiguation page, and none of the links on that page is relevant to the usage here; and Disestablished redirects to Disestablishmentarianism, which is an entirely irrelevant article. Please fix the template code so that it no longer links to inappropriate articles. --Russ (talk) 12:37, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Done. I've just added a switch to WPFCevent that first checks for certain words and then does not create links if these words are used. So if you see any other problem words in future, they can simply be added to this switch. - 52 Pickup (talk) 18:46, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Kingdom of Montenegro

There seems to be a problem, at the 1910 area estimate it add "{{{1}}}". What is that? --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 17:39, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Proposal

Why not add heads of legislatures? --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 17:39, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

The main reason is that the infobox is long enough already. - 52 Pickup (deal) 16:06, 24 March 2008 (UTC)