Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:15, 7 March 2016

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Infobox former country redirect.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9Auto-archiving period: 2 months

Former countries Redirect‑class

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.Former countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Former countriesTemplate:WikiProject Former countriesformer country Redirect This redirect does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

RfC announce: Religion in infoboxes

There is an RfC at Template talk:Infobox#RfC: Religion in infoboxes concerning what What should be allowed in the religion entry in infoboxes. Please join the discussion and help us to arrive at a consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:41, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Problem with the second flag

Seeing the two flags together here, thought to be a unified. I do not think I'm the only. --IM-yb (talk) 01:48, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

The solution in that case is to simply remove both. First, all the information about flags is completely unsourced in that article. Second, if the info could be sourced, the design is so simple that it's basically not worth illustrating. Simply stating in text, "this state used a plain red flag up to year soandso, and a plain green flag afterwards" would be perfectly adequate. Our readers aren't stupid, they can figure out what a plain green flag might look like without being shown. (BTW, if you're going to try to source this, please don't use "Flags of the World" or similar mirror sites on the web; they are not reliable sources for that sort of thing.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:20, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

@Fut.Perf., I refer the fact because it is not compatible the second flag with frame information. Readers do not have to face in the context of information, all the former flags of the country or any secondary flags of the country in the infobox. About the unsourced flags, the issue is not related to the discussion here. You can report the issue about unsourced flags here. The country flags should be presented in a separate section within the article or in a separate article. Not in the infobox. Infobox is not a full list about all things. --IM-yb (talk) 17:08, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

edit request

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Can we add a parameter for "demonym" to this template? Thanks. - WOLFchild 08:45, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Agree, might be a useful idea for some cases. To make this a concrete edit request, we'd need first to figure out where it should be though and how it should be formatted. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:03, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

To editors Thewolfchild and Future Perfect at Sunrise: I checked the history and did not find where the demonym parameter has been removed; however, some usages already have that parameter, such as Czechoslovakia, so...  Done. Happy New Year! Paine  16:56, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Problem when no flag

When a former country has no flag and is listed at the top then all that is shown is a blank box and an arrow. This is not very informative. In a couple of articles I;ve seen a slow edit war where there is an attempt to put in a name and where an ip is just deleting it without saying anything, Kingdom of Ireland, and one which really shows up the blank boxes Lordship of Ireland. I think the idea of putting in a name is a good one but doesn't look exactly kosher Misplaced Pages to me. Any suggestions of could the template be modified to do something better? Dmcq (talk) 10:52, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I absolutely agree this is a serious problem. I tried to start a discussion about it some time ago (at Template talk:Infobox former country/Archive 8#Deprecate easter-egg links in successor/predecessor timeline?), but unfortunately there wasn't much of a response. I'd very much welcome fresh ideas how to solve it. My suggestion would be to just get rid of that timeline-like "preceded by"/"followed by" icon section and have a properly labelled textual list somewhere else in the box instead. The whole idea of having an section of information in the box that consists entirely of symbolic icons and no textual support at all was just an extremely bad design idea from the very start, even independently of the aggravating factor that many (most?) entities that tend to turn up in that section don't have readily recognizable visual icons. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:00, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree also. If there are more than 4 predecessors or successors, it shows up at the bottom of the infobox with text and icons (see Kingdom of England for example). Maybe we could just make that the default behaviour and remove the top section? The lower section could then possibly be moved further up the infobox? I added "Gaelic Ireland" to the info box at those articles but I admit there isn't really room for text alongside the date, although it is much more helpful than a blank box. Rob984 (talk) 17:13, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

If there is no fix for the blank image at the top then I support putting it all at the bottom. That bit of the template just doesn't work at all satisfactorily at the moment. Dmcq (talk) 14:14, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

• Redirect-Class former country pages
• WikiProject Former countries articles