| Revision as of 06:57, 29 October 2016 editStAnselm (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, File movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers160,711 edits →Predecessor/successor treatment: a concrete proposal← Previous edit | Revision as of 07:56, 29 October 2016 edit undoFuture Perfect at Sunrise (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Administrators87,196 edits →Predecessor/successor treatment: a concrete proposal: reNext edit → | ||
| Line 55: | Line 55: | ||
| ::::: Have fun doing that – you could have made a more useful contribution to the issue if you had instead finally offered a reason ''why'' you prefer the old format. This is now the fourth contribution of yours to this discussion where you have avoided doing that. You could also be making a more constructive contribution by simply asking other admins if they would like to make this revert for you, instead of throwing accusations around. Just saying. ] ] 06:50, 29 October 2016 (UTC) | ::::: Have fun doing that – you could have made a more useful contribution to the issue if you had instead finally offered a reason ''why'' you prefer the old format. This is now the fourth contribution of yours to this discussion where you have avoided doing that. You could also be making a more constructive contribution by simply asking other admins if they would like to make this revert for you, instead of throwing accusations around. Just saying. ] ] 06:50, 29 October 2016 (UTC) | ||
| ::::::I think the procedural issue should be resolved before we move onto the substantial issue (which I think should be done via RfC). When you suggest asking an admin to revert, do you envisage this happening at ], or some other forum? ]] (]) 06:57, 29 October 2016 (UTC) | ::::::I think the procedural issue should be resolved before we move onto the substantial issue (which I think should be done via RfC). When you suggest asking an admin to revert, do you envisage this happening at ], or some other forum? ]] (]) 06:57, 29 October 2016 (UTC) | ||
| ::::::: ] would be an option, but ] or something of the sort should also get you a fair range of competent template editors. ] ] 07:56, 29 October 2016 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 07:56, 29 October 2016
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Infobox former country redirect. |
|
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9Auto-archiving period: 2 months  |
 | Former countries Redirect‑class | ||||||
| |||||||
Use of continent for world-spanning empires
Spanish Empire uses this template, and currently has a warning about lack of the continent parameter. The documentation says to list them all in alphabetical order (I can only assume this means separating with commas, in this case "Africa, Asia, Europe, North America, Oceania, South America"), but this gives another warning that the value "does not comply". Looking at the source it seems that only single names are supported, meaning the documentation is incorrect. No single continent name would be enough for the Spanish Empire, which touched every continent. I'm not convinced "Category:Former countries in Oceania" for example would be appropriate, but neither would "Category:Former countries in Europe" since European Spain was really only a small part of the empire. Could the parameter just be omitted and warnings explicitly suppressed? Hairy Dude (talk) 00:01, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
- To be quite honest, I don't think this template should be generating content categories like that in any case, because a subcategory may well be more appropriate. For example Seljuk Empire is in Category:Seljuk Empire, a subcategory of Category:Former countries in the Middle East. Hairy Dude (talk) 12:33, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
native_name
Can native_name be substituted to add a Contemporary historical name. This has to do with an argument I had at the Qarakhanid page, a Qarluq Turkic people living in Central Asia, their language is long gone and obscure so we will never know what the native name, but can we use a Contemporary historical name that historians living at that time use, this mainly being Persian and Arabic name, both having the same meaning which is "The Khans", this name is more likely used with their diplomatic ties with various Islamic Empire near them. I have noticed that in the Tang Empire article, they use modern Chinese name with modern script instead of the Middle Chinese. Any advice here is welcome Alexis Ivanov (talk) 02:20, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Talk:Czechoslovak government-in-exile
There is a discussion on whether this infobox should be used for governments, rather than countries, at talk:Czechoslovak government-in-exile#Role of infobox. Comments welcome! —Brigade Piron (talk) 20:01, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Predecessor/successor treatment: a concrete proposal
It's been repeatedly discussed here that the current treatment of "predecessor" and "successor" states, by image-only flag icons near the top of the infobox, is unsatisfactory (most recently here and here). To briefly restate the reasons:
- Many (or most) pre-modern states had no clearly defined visual symbol such as a flag or coat of arms.
- Even if they did, most of them are not widely known and recognizable to the reader.
- Substitute symbols (such as coins) chosen by editors as a makeshift solution are too small to be discernible.
- In the absence of an icon file, the template currently forces the display of a completely enigmatic white rectangle
- Even where suitable icons do exist, image-only "easter egg links" without textual support are a poor design choice as a matter of principle, especially for accessibility reasons.
Since a rough consensus for a change seemed to be apparent the last time round but nobody has come forward with a solution, I'm going to be bold and implement the following (cf. sandbox edit ):
- By default, all predecessor/successor lists will be shown as textual lists at the bottom of the box (as it is currently done only for lists longer than 5)
- If editors wish to retain the old flag-only format on a particular article, they can revert to it by setting a new parameter "successorflags=yes".
Personally, I'd advise against the latter solution in all but a few cases, as there are very few country flags (even of modern states) that an average reader can be relied upon to recognize without a written caption. I'd also recommend that once this change has been achieved, editors should weed out most of the non-flag substitute icons they have been using on various articles, such as coin or map images, as they will no longer be needed (otherwise they will continue to be displayed, next to the textual list).
Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:52, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
- I don't think this is an improvement at all. I found this discussion because I saw that the template on multiple articles was changed. Please revert your bold edit - I can't do it since I'm not an admin. StAnselm (talk) 01:24, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
- I do. A number of editors supported this proposal in past discussions, so the change largely reflects the consensus. Rob984 (talk) 10:01, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
- Do you have an alternative solutions to the issue? We had been using workarounds including text and other symbols when a flag or coat of arms wasn't available. Now this change had been implemented, many of those workarounds have already been removed. So reverting will result in a lot of blank flag icons as well. You can still re-add the icons at the top on a case-by-case basis. Rob984 (talk) 10:05, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
- No, it doesn't reflect the consensus at all - there had barely been any discussion. There are still hundreds, if not thousands, or articles that need to be "fixed". Why has the default been changed, when it was working perfectly well in the majority of articles? Why not have the option to move the predecessors/successors to the bottom if blank flag icons are a problem? StAnselm (talk) 00:26, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
- Well, but did they really "work perfectly" in the majority of cases? As I argued above, they never did, because the blank icons were by far not the only serious problem. Every flag icon is a problem if it's not accompanied by descriptive text. It's for very good reasons that the MOS strongly warns not to use them. Bare flag icons are inaccessible to visually impaired users with screenreaders; they are mostly useless in printout on paper (especially in monochrome print), and of course even for the average reader on normal displays they will be unfamiliar and thus useless in a very large number of cases. I'm afraid each of these three issues is serious enough that a return to the old state is simply not an option at this point. What exactly did you mean by "fixing" above? Reverting to the old format? I'm afraid that wouldn't be fixing them; it would be breaking them again. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:07, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
- No, it doesn't reflect the consensus at all - there had barely been any discussion. There are still hundreds, if not thousands, or articles that need to be "fixed". Why has the default been changed, when it was working perfectly well in the majority of articles? Why not have the option to move the predecessors/successors to the bottom if blank flag icons are a problem? StAnselm (talk) 00:26, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
- On the whole, this change is not an improvement. Even if it did make an improvement as to icons/images (I take no stance on this as I really don't care), it created a bigger problem, which is that the predecessors/successors are no longer at the top of the infobox. Like StAnselm, I found this discussion because I saw--to my dismay--that the template on multiple articles had been changed, and specifically changed in a manner that destroyed previous functionality. Before this change was implemented, it was easy to click from article to article, going back or forward in time through several different iterations of a country, because the links to the predecessors/successors were conveniently at the top of the infobox. This is no longer possible. If I'm at the top of United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, for example, looking at the dates of its existence ("1801–1922"), and want to go back in time to the predecessor(s), they are nowhere to be found by "1801". In fact, the dates and the predecessors/successors are nowhere near each other at all. I can't even see them at the same time. Kingdom of Great Britain and Kingdom of Ireland are buried about 10 sections further down within the infobox. So I scroll down, take some time to find the predecessor/successor entries, click on Kingdom of Great Britain--and then if I want to go back further, I get to go through the whole process again. What formerly was a quick "click-click-click" to go from United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland to Kingdom of Great Britain to Kingdom of England to Wessex is now a much more involved process. Even if there were previous discussions as to the icon/image issue, I don't think any argument can be made that consensus was achieved on the idea of removing all mention of predecessors/successors from the top of the infobox. I do not have a solution to the icon/image issue and I'm not proposing one. I think this change should be reverted because a small improvement (if indeed it is one) is not worth a bigger loss. I would revert it myself, but I do not have the ability to do so. Jdaloner (talk) 21:22, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
- And this is the problem - it is a change that has been without a proper consensus, and cannot be reverted by non-admins. @Future Perfect at Sunrise: I think this is an abuse of admin privileges - you have used your administrator abilities to gain the upper hand in a discussion. Once again, please revert your "bold" move and start an RfC or something. StAnselm (talk) 21:29, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
- Re. Jdaloner: if your problem is with the fact that the list is now at the bottom at the box and requires a bit more scrolling to get to it, I have no problem in principle with moving it further up again. But I refuse to accept that the inconvenience of scrolling is a "big loss" that could somehow outweigh what you have called a "small gain", when that "small gain" is all the difference between something that had zero information value for many (or most) readers, to something that is at least readable. Also please keep in mind that this is an info box, not a navigation box – its value must primarily be judged on how well it presents readable information locally, not on how easy it makes navigation to some set of other articles (that's what we have navboxes for). Third, if you don't care about the icon issue – then your stance is a problem. You should care whether this box is useful to other readers, because it's our shared responsibility to make our pages accessible to everybody, not just useful for our personal reading habits. Sorry to put it so bluntly, but not caring about whether these entries are accessible to blind people or people who wish to read an article on paper is simply irresponsible.
- As for reverting, I did use Templateeditor access (not admin access) to make what I considered to be an uncontroversial improvement. I would normally revert when met with reasoned objections as a matter of courtesy, but in this case I'm afraid I feel strongly that the previous state is simply unacceptable as a matter of principle, so I won't. (I'll also note that Jdaloner is the first editor in almost three weeks who has raised a reasoned objection to the edit, beyond simply saying "I don't like it", so there wasn't really any content dispute up to this moment). If you can find some other admin or user with templateeditor rights who thinks this change should be reverted, I won't stand in their way and we'll then have an RfC or something about it, but I am personally not going to be making this edit that I feel would mean going back to an utterly broken and harmful state. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:09, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
- There is no way in the world any reasonable editor could consider this an "uncontroversial" change. It clearly comes under the heading Changes that should be made ONLY after substantial discussion in WP:TPE: "Changes that significantly affect a template or module's visual appearance to the reader." There clearly was no substantial discussion prior to this (through no fault of yours, however - but you should have started an RfC or something) and so you have clearly misused your Templateeditor access. Again, WP:TPE says The normal BOLD, revert, discuss cycle does not apply because those without this right are unable to perform the "revert" step. You described your edit as "bold" which kind of gives away that you knew you were misusing it. I wonder if you've really read the guidelines at all. So I realise you may have a conscience-based reason for not reverting, but I do intend to report you for misuse of tools. StAnselm (talk) 06:23, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
- Have fun doing that – you could have made a more useful contribution to the issue if you had instead finally offered a reason why you prefer the old format. This is now the fourth contribution of yours to this discussion where you have avoided doing that. You could also be making a more constructive contribution by simply asking other admins if they would like to make this revert for you, instead of throwing accusations around. Just saying. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:50, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
- I think the procedural issue should be resolved before we move onto the substantial issue (which I think should be done via RfC). When you suggest asking an admin to revert, do you envisage this happening at WP:ANI, or some other forum? StAnselm (talk) 06:57, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
- WP:AN would be an option, but Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Infoboxes or something of the sort should also get you a fair range of competent template editors. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:56, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
- I think the procedural issue should be resolved before we move onto the substantial issue (which I think should be done via RfC). When you suggest asking an admin to revert, do you envisage this happening at WP:ANI, or some other forum? StAnselm (talk) 06:57, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
- Have fun doing that – you could have made a more useful contribution to the issue if you had instead finally offered a reason why you prefer the old format. This is now the fourth contribution of yours to this discussion where you have avoided doing that. You could also be making a more constructive contribution by simply asking other admins if they would like to make this revert for you, instead of throwing accusations around. Just saying. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:50, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
- There is no way in the world any reasonable editor could consider this an "uncontroversial" change. It clearly comes under the heading Changes that should be made ONLY after substantial discussion in WP:TPE: "Changes that significantly affect a template or module's visual appearance to the reader." There clearly was no substantial discussion prior to this (through no fault of yours, however - but you should have started an RfC or something) and so you have clearly misused your Templateeditor access. Again, WP:TPE says The normal BOLD, revert, discuss cycle does not apply because those without this right are unable to perform the "revert" step. You described your edit as "bold" which kind of gives away that you knew you were misusing it. I wonder if you've really read the guidelines at all. So I realise you may have a conscience-based reason for not reverting, but I do intend to report you for misuse of tools. StAnselm (talk) 06:23, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
- And this is the problem - it is a change that has been without a proper consensus, and cannot be reverted by non-admins. @Future Perfect at Sunrise: I think this is an abuse of admin privileges - you have used your administrator abilities to gain the upper hand in a discussion. Once again, please revert your "bold" move and start an RfC or something. StAnselm (talk) 21:29, 28 October 2016 (UTC)