Template talk:Infobox former country/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Overlink

This template has the habit of linking common terms and expressions given certain common parameters, such as President, Prime Minister, Monarch and Governor contrary to WP:OVERLINK. — Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 20:53, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

• Here's the diff. Changes demonstrated on testcases page. The changes only made a difference on the Tanganyika infobox. — Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 15:57, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Multiple dates of start and end

Since there are former countries that existed multiple times, like Karelian Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic (1923 – 1940; 1956 – 1991) or Chechen-Inguish ASSR (1936 – 1944; 1957 – 1990), the template doesn't work in those. Can anyone find a solution? --Pudeo' 04:46, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I found a cheap solution just by adding the former date next to the earlier with <br/>1956–1991. But that won't fix the flag succession problem. --Pudeo' 04:51, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Status text box controversies: proposal for RfC on whether to keep or remove the status text

The status text box has become a subject of controversy at Talk:East Germany by a number of users, including me. The status text is typically used to say that a certain state or territory was a client state, protectorate, or vassal state of another - while including such material in the article is acceptable, the inclusion of this in the status text box has caused serious problems.

• Number (1): the status text box assumes that the categorization of such states and territories is simple, when it is very complex in international relations;
• Number (2): the status text box is too small to allow for explanation of the status, and implies that the status is a completely accepted fact, when it may not be - or as indicated in Number (1), it may be more complex than that.
• Number (3): in addition to it assuming simplicity of international relations and it being too small to allow for explanation, it is a potentially unnecessary repetition of a statement that could be made in the intro with additional statements as evidence for it.

I could probably identify more problems if I thought more about it, but these are the three major problems with the status text. I support the removal of the status text box from the infobox. However I support having an RfC on the matter, I would appreciate it if an administrator could be brought in to organize and draft an appropriate RfC that asks whether users "support" or "oppose" a proposition to remove the status text box for the reasons given above in my statement and other reasons that other users may provide.--R-41 (talk) 02:12, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

In some cases it is useful, which is why it is an optional field. Empires and confederations break apart, colonies gain independence, mandates end, etc. One would expect editors to have sufficient competance not to misuse the field. TFD (talk) 05:25, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm basically in agreement with R-41. I'm more pessimistic than TFD about the competence of editors. It's just too tempting for a single editor to use the field to state as bald fact an assertion which should be qualified with details (and can be in the body of the article). This can lead to complicated, ugly disputes as at Talk:East Germany. My belief is that the infobox should be used for clear, basic facts like the area, population or dates of a country. Dingo1729 (talk) 18:58, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

• On consideration I think the real problem here is that the parameter is called "status" even though it's only meant to be used for colonies. The parameter should be renamed "imperial-state-type". This would ensure against possible misuse. — Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 16:41, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

  It looks like there's a variety of views about this, but there doesn't seem to be a clear consensus. I'll deactivate {{editprotected}} for now. Tra (Talk) 02:22, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Number of entries

Is this limited? I entered more than 9 leaders in Kingdom of Pontus but it is only recognising the first 9 --Michael Goodyear (talk) 21:05, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit request: Commonwealths as a form of Republic

The term Commonwealth is (as its article explains) often used to describe a kind of republic, but in contexts where the use of the word "Republic" in the government_type field would be inaccurate and controversial (such as The Protectorate).

As such, after line 182:

  |Republic|Federal Republic|Federal republic=[[Republic]]
 {{#if:{{{_noautocat|<noinclude>yes</noinclude>}}}|| [[Category:Former republics|{{{common_name}}}, {{{year_start}}}]]}}

, in the {{#if:{{{government_type|}}}|{{#switch:{{ucfirst:{{{government_type}}}}} section, please add a new line reading:

  |Commonwealth|[[Commonwealth]]=[[Commonwealth]]
 {{#if:{{{_noautocat|<noinclude>yes</noinclude>}}}|| [[Category:Former republics|{{{common_name}}}, {{{year_start}}}]]}}

(I've wrapped both instances of this text for legibility, there should be a single space, rather than a line break in the middle.) This will enable the text Commonwealth to be displayed in these instances, but for the article to be added to the category Category:Former republics and not to Category:Former country articles requiring maintenance. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 22:31, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not so sure... looking at that article, a commonwealth isn't always a type of republic so I'm not getting why you would want to categorise them like that. What about having a separate category for commonwealths, or renaming the category to clarify that it covers both types? Tra (Talk) 07:47, 13 March 2012 (UTC)