Template talk:Lists of countries

[edit] * Includes map

Since nearly all the links in the template are to pages that include map/s, I'm wondering whether the template needs to sport all those asterisks...?  Perhaps a short note at the bottom to indicate that nearly all include one or more maps...?  Regards, David Kernow 14:15, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I tend to skip long lists without a chart so I think it should remain. I also hope it may encourage the creation of maps for those lists without one. Ultramarine 14:23, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Understood. Thanks, by the way, for all the work you've put into this template!  Best wishes, David 23:47, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Natural Increase

Since we have a page for Birth and Death Rates, could we have one for natural increase too? I know this would make work for someone. Squidnchips 17:41, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Current title

"Rankings through lists of countries"

Does this read awkwardly to anyone else...?  The previous "Lists of countries with rankings" seems much more straightforward; "Ranked lists of countries" would be neater if all lists linked in the template do use rankings. Feedback appreciated, David Kernow (talk) 17:52, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

The current title does look weird. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 17:59, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Have now reverted it. Regards, David (talk) 07:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Use of italics

Is there any logic as to which list titles are italicized and which roman? --Zachbe 15:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

See this edit. --Van helsing 09:24, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Although this may be explained, I think the use of italics is unaesthetic. 203.113.141.82 13:03, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree the use of italics is overused and hampers readability/usability. I am removing the italics. Moreover, every one of these list articles should have a map so the distinction is moot. Madcoverboy (talk) 18:53, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately they do not, so please keep this interesting distinction.Ultramarine (talk) 10:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Reverted back. "Interesting distinction" is not a condition for violating existing template standards or hampering usability. Madcoverboy (talk) 21:31, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Exactly what standards are you refering to? Link please.Ultramarine (talk) 06:29, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

This is the first and only template I've ever seen in my 2+ years on wikipedia that differentiates articles/topics within a template using text-formatting, to say nothing of basing such differentiations upon the non-semantic content/features of the article. A list distinguishing which articles do and don't have maps might be appropriate on a WikiProject page, the article talk page, perhaps even a template message (e.g., "This article could be improved with a map visualizing..."), but not on mainspace navigational template (navbox). WP:STYLE#Italics delineates the appropriate contexts for using italics none of which apply here, WP:STYLE#Keep Markup Simple recommends always using the simplest possible markup, WP:CLS#Disadvantages of article series boxes includes principles (2, 3, 4 especially) violated by needlessly italicizing articles/topics, and WP:NAV also makes mention of the need to keep a "tightly focused relationship between the articles and allow the reader to navigate to other related content quickly." WP:WAX likewise applies - just because other articles (that I haven't encountered) differentiate articles/topics like this, doesn't make it right. Madcoverboy (talk) 01:36, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

A template is not an ordinary text where italics should indeed be used sparingly. List and tables are different in many ways from from ordinary text. From WP:CLS: "Lists can be embellished with annotations (further details). For example, a list of soccer world championship teams can include with each entry when each championship was won, who the champions defeated, who their coach was, etc." An alternative would be to use an * instead, like in this version: [1]Ultramarine (talk) 10:11, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm putting in an RfC on this issue to get other input. See below. Madcoverboy (talk) 17:15, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Font size

The font of the right sides is a bit small, perhaps it can be incremented. --Anna Lincoln 16:56, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Instead of making the font smaller and smaller, other creative possibilities should be explored; see for example Template:United States topics. --Anna Lincoln (talk) 15:00, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RFC on Italicized navigational box

Should content within a navigational box be italicized to differentiate features/content? Ultramarine contends this is important information [2], Madcoverboy contends it hampers readability/usability [3].

[edit] Italics Again

I'm going to boldly remove the italics and see what happens. Simply put the primary purpose of a navigational template is to ease navigation, the italics make the text less clear and the template less aesthetically pleasing - making it harder to use and hence hindering navigation. Whilst a map might be a nice feature and it is quite possible a user will want a map on a topic that does not make up for the navigational deficiency. I would also say that knowing which pages have maps is not particularly useful as if someone is looking for a page with a missing map, say countries by their lowest point knowing that there is a map of countries by their highest point would not seem to be particularly helpful. Guest9999 (talk) 18:52, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Support removal We'll see how well this goes the 3rd time around... Madcoverboy (talk) 18:56, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Collapsed fields

The current hidden sections makes it more difficult to access information. I think it looked better before with all data visible. 76.65.20.53 (talk) 14:33, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I also believe the previous form of template was better. Not only it looked better, but it was also more navigable. One could open a template page or any page with this template in expanded state, then go on to a page with list, then click return button of browser and immediately move to some other list. Now when I click 'return' the template's fields are always hidden and I'm wasting time to find some field and expand it. That's very unhandy. I believe most people use this template to watch through a number of lists, not to move once from a list to list. So if anyone else will find it necessary to change the template back, please express your position here. Most likely I'll remake the temlate. Sorry, Sardanaphalus. Greyhood (talk) 15:04, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. The previous form was way more user friendly and has been stable for a long time. No reason to switch when it ain't broke. Nirvana888 (talk) 15:09, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, OK. Greyhood (talk) 15:17, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• Hold on a moment. The template's "broken" inasmuch as it's surely way too large in its previous format, especially for smaller windows/screens. So, rather than discard the current format, look into how its accessibility may be tailored -- including complete expansion by default -- at {{Navbox with collapsible sections}}. For instance, people may prefer the expansion-by-relevant-section approach (see the selected parameter). If you like, I'll implement selected on the pages linked from the first section, Geography · Demographics, to demonstrate the possibilities. Sardanaphalus (talk) 17:38, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• I have already recreated a page in the old format with some of your other edits intact, Sardanaphalus. I can try to futher reduce template's visible size. But if you do what you've offered and somehow insure there will be no problems with returning (see above), than we'll reach consensus. Can you at least fix your version of template so that all sections will always be expanded in the 'view' mode? And so that relevant section will always be expanded on the list pages this section links to? Greyhood (talk) 18:34, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• If by "in the 'view' mode" you mean wherever the template's transcluded, sure. More fine-tuned tailoring can always come later, as/when people ask after it and/or feel moved to implement it. Sardanaphalus (talk) 18:40, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• By "in the 'view' mode" I meant that on the page http://en.wikipedia.org/description/Template:Lists_of_countries all sections are expanded by default. Everywhere else the relevant section (or maybe several sections) should be expanded by default. Greyhood (talk) 18:52, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• Well, the template's reverted now, so I guess it's back to bloatville. Good luck. Sardanaphalus (talk) 21:55, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

By merging some sections I've reduced the visible size of the template to about a half of my screen hight. Probably it would be observable enough even on a smaller screens. I ask everyone not to change the format for now. The template syill has some potential for size reduction (sections merging, more laconic phrasing, removal of some low-quality lists etc.). If the template once again overgrow without possibility of rational reduction, we'll change format to proposed by Sardanaphalus. Greyhood (talk) 21:53, 29 July 2008 (UTC)