Template talk:Infobox treaty

website parameter

Is is me, or does the 'website' parameter do nothing? Modest Genius ^talk 14:09, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Deposit

Template syntax says "depositor" while the rendered infobox displays depository...That's ambiguous. Lajbi ^{Holla @ me • CP} 22:13, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

A depositor is a depositing party, a depository is a place where a deposit is stored, and a depositary is the steward of a deposit. In all the material I've seen, the latter of the three is preferred when describing treaties. We'll need someone with a bot to clean up this mess.   — C M B J   12:38, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree. The template is erroneous. The proper term is "depositary" or plural "depositaries". NPguy (talk) 16:29, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Confusing (TPP but P4 information)

Given that the focus of this article seems more directed at the TPP as it is currently being negotiate, it is confusing for the infobox content to only really reflect information from the original P4 agreement. Should this be changed to reflect the updated negotiation status (i.e. the new members, etc.)?Qedashet (talk) 00:04, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

New field

Can we add a "citation" field, where we can put citations to the United Nations Treaty Series, United States Treaty series, Treaties and other International Acts Series, etc? Erudy (talk) 17:19, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 March 2019

Change [link to wikisource article] at WikiSource to "Read [link to wikisource article] at WikiSource" to help citizens discover primary sources. Ampdot (talk) 01:47, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: I can't see the real benefit from making this change, sorry. ToThAc (talk) 15:30, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

date_sealed parameter

The naming of this parameter doesn't make any sense. The term "sealed" doesn't have normal use in the international law of treaties. I believe this is meant as a reference to what is normally called "ratification", "acceptance", "approval" or "accession". Under international law, "ratification", "acceptance" and "approval" are three different words for the same thing, with each state free to choose which word it wants to use, but "ratification" is most popular; under some countries' domestic legal systems, the three terms have distinct meanings, referring to distinct domestic law procedures, but those distinct domestic law procedures are entirely equivalent for the purposes of international law. The term "accession" is usually reserved for ratification of a multilateral treaty, after its closure for signature and/or entry into force, by a state which was not among the original signatories. So I think this parameter should be renamed. The other confusing aspect of this, is that treaties requiring ratification/acceptance/approval/accession, the ratification/etc happens separately by each party, it very often happens on different dates (this is true even in the simple case of a treaty by two parties), so you can't speak of a single ratification date. SJK (talk) 19:57, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Treaties are traditionally sealed, i.e. national seals are affixed onto the treaty's pages as a proof of authenticity. See e.g. the infobox for Treaty of Lisbon. In this instance the date was known, and I think this is informative with regards to the process by which treaties are made. - Ssolbergj (talk) 23:31, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Non-party signatories field

I'm thinking of adding a field for states that have signed but not ratified, i.e., Non-party signatories. Some pages, for instance Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness, are using the Signatories field only to count signatories that never ratified, which is technically not correct according to any source I can find. Still others, like Partial Test Ban Treaty, are noting countries that have signed but not ratified under Parties, which is also not correct. If we had this field, the infobox could unambiguously tell apart, without redundantly naming countries

• Parties – the states bound by the treaty (including non-signatories who acceded), and
• Non-party signatories – the states not bound by the treaty but that are obliged "to refrain from acts that would defeat the object and the purpose of the treaty". Knr5 (talk) 18:55, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Date_ratified

Could this parameter be added please? Many treaties are ratified without a single one-day formal event when all the seals are affixed, so date_sealed is not suitable. This is especially the case for multilateral treaties that come into effect when N signatories have ratified in accordance with their national procedures. The facility needs to allow for each ratifier and their ratification date to be listed. For background to this request, see Talk:EU–UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement#'Sealed'. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:04, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

I support this new addition, but please leave date_sealed as is for cases such as Treaty of Lisbon where source clearly explains that the treaty was officially "sealed". Cordially, History DMZ ^{(HQ) † (wire)} 23:30, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Proposal

John Maynard Friedman and all interested editors, I propose:

---

1. In Usage:

| date_signed             = 
| location_signed         =
| date_ratified           = <!-- TIP: If more than two dates, type 'Multiple dates', wikilinking to relevant section or adding a footnote. -->
| date_sealed             =
| date_effective          =

2. In TemplateData:

Template parameters

Parameter		Description	Type	Status
Date ratified	date_ratified	The date(s) the treaty was ratified. If there is more than one date: For bilateral treaties, list the ratification dates for each party. For multilateral treaties (involving three or more parties), create a table in the body and put a link to it here by wikilinking the words 'Multiple dates.'; alternatively, you may use a footnote.	Line	optional

---

Feel free to improve this proposal. Cheers, History DMZ ^{(HQ) † (wire)} 01:21, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Agree but slight wording change to Description to read "For each party, date that it ratified." ("Sealing" is the single ceremonial event, there is not usually a single ratification date.) --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 07:54, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

If we use that description, we would have to allow for a bullet list format listing all parties and dates within that one parameter, which would clutter the infobox and visually dilute somewhat the more important 'Signed' and 'Effective' dates. I hope to avoid cluttering, which is why I suggested using the wikilinked words "Multiples dates" if more than one date. But if everyone here prefers the bullet list, we can do that too. Good day, History DMZ ^{(HQ) † (wire)} 08:48, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree, I've just came back to say essentially the same thing and you got there first. I had in mind something like "if there are more than about four parties to a multilateral treaty, create a table in the body and link to it here". Or words to that effect: "multiple dates" is a good hook to the table. (Or are you suggesting that it should almost always be "multiple dates", in which case why would need the enhancement to the infobox?) --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 12:36, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

It is possible that most treaties have multiple ratification dates, and therefore allowing for only one date to show in the infobox doesn't quite work. I think we could just leave it open-ended like in Template:Infobox document where there are no instructions for date_ratified. So in essence, the editors using this template can decide for themselves what works best for the specific treaty they are writing about. Cordially, History DMZ ^{(HQ) † (wire)} 13:45, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

I would expect nearly every treaty to have more than one ratification date, even bilateral treaties but especially multilateral treaties. (I wonder if the proposal should be Dates ratified?) What has brought this issue to a head is the number of times in the past few months where editors have updated the infobox for the EU – UK Trade Agreement pre-emptively. Yes, wp:competence is required but conversely we shouldn't leave traps for the unwary to fall into. Adding this parameter responds to that. So my inclination would be to spell it out in the guidance: "in this field, list the ratification dates for each party to a bilateral or trilateral treaty; for multilateral treaties, create a table in the body and put a link to it here". I think we are saying the same thing, just trying to find the best way to express it succinctly in a necessarily small documentation box. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:43, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Ok, I updated the proposal. First, I recommend leaving the parameter in singular to stay consistent with all the other templates that also use date_ratified. Besides, the reader will only see the words "Ratified" in the infobox. Second, I believe the most common kind of treaty is the bilateral one, so to minimize clutter I recommend limiting to two dates instead of three. Btw, Wiktionary states that multilateral is three or more parties. Hope you agree with these changes. Cheers, History DMZ ^{(HQ) † (wire)} 02:12, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Perfect. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 07:55, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

UNTS

Should the infobox also contain a reference (optional) to a treaty database such as the UN Treaty Series? Bancki (talk) 22:42, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Change Wikisource display text?

Is it possible to change the display text of the Wikisource link(s)? toobigtokale (talk) 23:48, 2 May 2023 (UTC)