Template talk:Infobox bilateral relations

	Infoboxes
This template is within the scope of WikiProject Infoboxes, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Infoboxes on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InfoboxesWikipedia:WikiProject InfoboxesTemplate:WikiProject InfoboxesInfoboxes articles

International relations Template‑class

This template is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles Template This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

can this please be fixed up (template produces a redlink to "Image:United States Australia Locator.png"), I don't know how to do it myself. Thanks, Alec ^{-(answering machine)} 05:21, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I uploaded that one the other day, it's not a problem with the template, simply nobody had created the appropriate map for that article. Red links are not an error, many people seem to think they meant the link is broken, but it's not that at all. What it means is the page does not exist for the moment but someone thinks it should. Jackaranga 09:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This template should be updated to have an alternative to accept images with different filenames. E.g. svg maps etc. /Lokal_Profil 18:46, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Was already done. Have now added a comment about it in the description. /Lokal_Profil 18:52, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:52 Pickup/Drafts/Template:Bilateral Many articles that use this template contain the current heads of the two governments. So why not include it in the box? By taking these images out of the text, it should free up some space. What do you think? - 52 Pickup ^(deal) 10:01, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not a big fan of the images since state leaders change, also it makes the template to big for my taste. /Lokal_Profil 18:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I happen to agree. Besides these issues, diplomacy is technically conducted between heads of state. So for British-Canadian relations would be have two pictures of Queen Elizabeth, her Canadian portrait and her British one? For Canadian-American relations to we put the Queen next to Mr. Bush, which is technically correct but confusing to some readers, or Mr. Harper? --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 20:17, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since I don't know how to draw them, is there anywhere to request them? Kevlar67 (talk) 05:50, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, just drop me a line on my talk page or even better on my Commons talk page. /Lokal_Profil 18:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that links to embassies and ambassadors will appear on each page eventually, anyway so why not make it automatic? The problem is that "Embassy" in not the universal title. Someone smaller than me would have to figure out what to do about countries that send "missions", "offices", or "high commissions" (e.g. Tiawan, all Commonwealth countries), rather than embassies. Also why are my flags off centre?

Canada-France relations

France	Canada
Embassy of France in Canada Ambassador of France to Canada	Embassy of Canada in France Ambassador of Canada to France

--Kevlar (talk • contribs) 20:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also have a suggestion you can see it below! Template_talk:Infobox_bilateral_relations#More_discriptive_infobox_proposal --Gimelthedog (talk) 22:16, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since I've been asked before I figured I should drop a line here about how to make the Bilateral relations maps

All you need is a texteditor which can handle large textfiles (without adding junk code) e.g. Word Pad and the ISO 3166-1 alpha-2-code of the countries. If you then save Image:Germany Japan Locator.svg to your computer (need to save the actual file not the png thumbnail) and open it in your text editor you should see a two lines (84 lines down) which say

  .jp { fill: #e3801c; }      /* Japan */   .de { fill: #3c9d3c; }      /* Germany */ 

you then replace then replace "jp" by the isocode of the country you want in orange, and "de" by the iso of the country you want in green. Save the file under the new name and upload using a similar information layout to that on the Image:Germany Japan Locator.svg image page.

Some countries such as the UK and France are slightly tricker since they involve dependent territories (such as Reunion and Isle of Man) with their own ISO codes. For most countries it should be quite straight forward though. If you have any questions just drop a line on my talk page her or on Commons. /Lokal_Profil 15:45, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was just pointed out that the chosen colours (green / orange) are very hard do distinguish for certain colour blind people. I believe we should find two colours that work better, and change.

The next question is how to do this in the most efficient way. Were all the maps svg, it would simply involve changing two lines of text in each image, which could probably be done by a bot. Png's have to be edited manually. This is tedious and would probably lead to a long period of map colours not matching the colours specified in the template. Perhaps for an interim period we can have the box specify both colour possibilities? Or we could first migrate all maps to svg (a lot of this can be automated, so it's not as large a task as it may seem) and then once that's done, have a bot change all the colours.

Thoughts? Let me know, either here or on my commons talk page. Regards, Marmelad (talk) 11:12, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unresolved

this edit (now reverted) broke the template. Can someone tell me how to achieve the wrapping of country-names in spans, please? I want to add the hCard microformat. Thank you. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 18:40, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At least my brower, Safari 3.2.1 running on Mac OS 10.5.6, an extra empty cell appears below the cell containing the name of the first country. Can this be fixed, or does this cell serve some purpose that is not obvious to me? Yilloslime ^T_C 04:44, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why does the infobox need giant flags on top of it . WP:MOSICON discourages this type of nationalist pride and decoration 86.42.86.114 (talk) 17:38, 3 September 2009 (UTC) {{editprotect}}[reply]

The flags should be removed from here . No objections have been raised 86.42.86.114 (talk) 19:39, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. A flag is useful for readers to identify the relevant country. I wouldn't mind making them a bit smaller though. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:40, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How are they more useful than the words just above them? 86.42.86.114 (talk) 17:04, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, they allow the countries to be identified at a glance. Presumably the same reason that flags are used on articles such as 2008 Summer Olympics to identify the nationality of the athletes. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 06:31, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Simple: They look cool. You could just as easily ask, "Why does the infox need a giant map showing where the two countries are?". It just looks good. Yilloslime ^T_C 06:39, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{editprotected|See above}} Hi there ! Can someone ad a link to the Turkish version ? Thanks:

• tr:Şablon:Bilgikutu ilişkiler
• tr:Şablon:Bilgikutu ilişkiler

Eras-mus (talk) 20:44, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please add these to the /doc page. Thanks — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:28, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Georgia and the European Union uses this template. In the template, Georgia is referred to as Georgia (country). The country is called "Georgia", but the Wikipedia article is called "Georgia (country)". How can the link be changed so that it says Georgia instead? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.247.11.156 (talk • contribs)

I think I've fixed it. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:27, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Someone seems to have vandalised this template to add the words 'smoking weed' to the box. I can't work out how this was done - it doesn't show up in the source code, and the template is fully-protected anyway! Can someone work out what is going on here, and revert it? Robofish (talk) 17:04, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think this might be something to do with Template:Getalias. That template had been vandalised, but even after reverting it, the damage remains on this one... this is more complex than I know how to fix. Robofish (talk) 17:11, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, whatever it was, it's been fixed now. Thanks to whoever worked it out. Robofish (talk) 23:31, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, fixed, and I have protected that template per WP:HRT to prevent that again. It takes time to clear the cache for pages to be updated, even after the repair on the transcluded template. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 23:36, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Check out fr:Modèle:Infobox Relations bilatérales! It's awesome. We need the same thing. --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 20:57, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some further thoughts: I esecially like the space for links to the missions from one country to the other, however instead of "Embassies" it needs to be "Missions" since they may be a high-commission or something else. The link for borders is genius. Good additions would be links for human migration and trade, two common topics in bilateral relations articles. Another good bit would be links to Foreign relations of Foo and Foreign relations of Boo. The bit about sports is interesting, but it's a little silly that they limted it to soccer and rugby. --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 21:42, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a way to change the green and orange colours in the box? Ahmetyal 19:50, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I've noticed that some of the maps are zoomed in a particular continent. Those are quite nice. Where do I find the base maps for these? --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 06:07, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can the flags be remove per WP:MOSICON and the subsection above? Gnevin (talk)

No, they can't. This is the standard format. Fry1989 (talk) 18:46, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What standard format? Is there are guideline that you think applies to counter my argument? Gnevin (talk) 23:42, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's a standard format because this is how it's always been. Fry1989 (talk) 18:19, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And I'm suggesting changing it, citing a widely accepted guideline. CON can change and if your only argument is this is ow it's always been then the guideline will win out . Gnevin (talk) 09:24, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No you're not. You're just hunting after every icon no matter the current consensus because you have some sort of childish distaste for it. Fry1989 (talk)

• RfC Comment. I saw the RfC notice, and have not previously been involved with this template, although I have previously commented on other MOSICON issues. It seems to me that, here, there is a specific, content-based, reason for including the flags: the very subject of the template is the relations between the two nations that the selected flags represent. I do have to admit that I share, to some extent, Fry1989's concern about over-eager efforts to expunge images. But, having said that, I can see some value in making the flags smaller within the template. They seem awfully large in relation to the map, making it seem a bit unbalanced. And I also think it would be reasonable to have options in using the template, such that editors at a particular page could elect to omit the flags from the template as it appears on that page. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:22, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When you put it like that , I agree. Instead of removing the flags should be made smaller and perhaps moved down? The map is the main focus Gnevin (talk) 21:18, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• RfC Comment — Regardless of MOSICON policies, this template is a page decoration. While that may be useful or not, one place where it should almost certainly be excluded on stylistic grounds is on pages with multiple bilateral foreign relations under discussion, like here: Foreign relations of Burma. In terms of content, the repeated image of BurmaMyanmar's flag provides nothing, while the repeated template provides enormous clutter.--Carwil (talk) 21:44, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RFC For Overhaul Of This Template[edit]

Seeing as a rfc was submitted for this issue, I am going to submit the issue ontop of some other changes:

I think that the template is fine but that we don't need the flags or the linking to the polities in question.

1. Flags: The rationale is that the flags are not very useful or informative
2. Linking to the polities: The polities are likely already linked in the text. cf wp:overlinkCurb Chain (talk) 01:29, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep both, move the flags below the map to the country name boxes and reduce their size by 30%. Items should be linked in the infobox for the same reason they appear in the infobox - because it provides a good summary area that a reader can skim over without having to locate the same information in the sea of the main body. It stands to reason that a reader would be equally as inclined to want to click a link while reviewing the summary as they would be to click a link while reading the main body. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 06:29, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I stand correct, but I won't pursue the issue, BUT, regarding flags, did you want Foreign relations of Burma with its hedonism of flags? I think we don't need the at all. We would need flags like this when we compare culture articles and the relations of polities of past civilizations, and that is just excessive.Curb Chain (talk) 10:45, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't consider misuse of the template as justification for altering the template itself. I could put something like ^{[citation needed][clarification needed][neutrality is disputed][original research?][according to whom?]} after a statement in an article somewhere and it might be considered technically correct, but clearly from aesthetic and informative perspectives that wouldn't really be suitable. And while one argument might be 'well maybe we should change the inline cleanup templates so that this isn't as ugly when it happens', I think a better argument would be to simply apply some common sense to solving the problem in the contexts it appears. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 00:21, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What information does it provide that the word above it don't? Gnevin (talk) 08:41, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Humans tend to process icons and pictographic cues faster than text. Aside from the additional information of the flag image itself, images help the reader interpret presented information in a faster, scan-read fashion. I've noticed in anti-flag arguments you've made elsewhere that you don't personally gain any benefit from flag images for improved transfer of information, but I wouldn't consider that a reason to limit the benefit to those who can in the same way that I don't expect all photos to be balanced for colour-blind people to the detriment of those who can distinguish the full spectrum. The ability to present the flag and country information neatly is certainly an issue to be resolved, but I wouldn't consider it an argument for removal. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 00:11, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reader who scan is simply not proven , I've heard it dozens and dozens of times with very little in the way of proof Gnevin (talk) 17:31, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It has the same "proof" as the statement that flags make a page "cluttered". Either statement is personal observation projected onto a perceived larger opinion. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 17:45, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

True but MOSICON lists a large number of reasons for avoiding flags apart from clutter Gnevin (talk) 19:20, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which of those reasons are relevant here? I think the aesthetics of the current of this template can be improved, but I see no reason to outright exclude any of the elements involved (locator map, names and flags of two countries). — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 19:26, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I know I opened this discussion but just to be clear per my comments above, I think the flags are ok since being resized Gnevin (talk) 19:34, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I guess I'd still say the same thing that I said before (previous RfC, just above). --Tryptofish (talk) 17:03, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion for redesign[edit]

Compare the infobox to the right with the example shown in the template documentation. Would this satisfy the concerns raised above? — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 21:10, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Canada–United States relations

Canada	United States

Yes, I think it's an improvement. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:12, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the flags are too small, can you increase them? And yes this is really Gnevin ! ;) Gnevin (talk) 21:15, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

:-D --Tryptofish (talk) 21:16, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How about now? (And should I submit an ANI report for a compromised account...? ;) — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 21:18, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that is better. And I'm not going to ask to make the map smaller. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:21, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed much better Gnevin (talk) 11:13, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, that looks great. I support this change. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 00:32, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Should I wait longer for the RFC to run its course, or just go ahead and make these changes? — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 20:43, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say give it 2 more days just so that it's run its course for at least a week and then make a call. There should be reasonable time for people to voice objections if they want to. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 23:43, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like a big improvement to me.--Carwil (talk) 00:13, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bug[edit]

The redesign is causing problems on pages that have "Georgia" as one of the template parameters. See example below. The link in the caption below the flag goes to the Georgia disambiguation page, not to the article about Georgia (country); the old template handled this ambiguity correctly, apparently by calling {{getalias}} when generating the links. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 14:00, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Georgia-Iran relations

Georgia	Iran

 Done That's not a bug with this template; it's a big with {{flagbig}}, now fixed. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 16:30, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

I based it on the current one of the English Wikipedia and parts of the version on the French Wikipedia.

Canada–United States relations

Nations
	Canada	United States
Leader	Stephen Harper	Barack Obama
Ambassador	Gary Doer	David Jacobson
Embassy	Washington, D.C.	Ottawa
Consulates	Anchorage Atlanta Boston Buffalo Chicago Dallas Denver Detroit Houston Los Angeles Miami Minneapolis New York City Philadelphia Phoenix Raleigh San Diego San Francisco Sacramento Seattle	Calgary Halifax Northwest Territories Nunavut Montreal Quebec City Southwestern Ontario Toronto Vancouver Winnipeg Yukon
Dual citizenship	American Canadian	Canadian American

I thought that the sports and border length were unnecessary so I left them out. Please support, comment or tweek!

--Gimelthedog (talk) 06:18, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please could you make your requested changes to Template:Infobox bilateral relations/sandbox then test it and make sure it works properly, then reactivate. Thanks — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:34, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry I'm new to making templates, I don't understand what your asking me to do? Do I change the sandbox or do I add this to the talk page. Thanks! --Gimelthedog (talk) 04:25, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

{{editprotected}} Please can the caption on the map be changed from "Map indicating location of..." to "Map indicating locations of...". Two countries are shown, so therefore there are two locations. Bazonka (talk) 21:10, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:17, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please change "Afghanistan South Korea Locator.png" to "Afghanistan and South Korea on the world map (crop).png", as the file was moved.

Sir Armbrust ^{Talk to me} _Contribs 15:35, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing in the template to edit for this but fixed the issue by creating a redirect on File:Afghanistan South Korea Locator.png -- WOSlinker (talk) 18:48, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The recipt, as outlined in this Infobox-Help, produces a bug - in that

Code {Infobox Bilateral relations |{subst:PAGENAME} |country1 |country2}

produces a doublette of relations relations when {subst:PAGENAME} is used, as told in this Help.

See:

and

Holy See – Israel relations

--95.168.156.237 (talk) 21:25, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is indeed a bug in the template if the page name is Country1 - Country2 relations. I'll modify the template documentation until the bug is fixed. (As an aside, it's not clear why the first parameter is needed. The template could always use {{PAGENAME}}, or build the name from the second and third parameters.) Illia Connell (talk) 21:54, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The following articles need maps:

• Eritrea–Yemen relations
• The Gambia–Iran relations
• People's Republic of China–Switzerland relations
• People's Republic of China–Portugal relations
• People's Republic of China–Sweden relations

Can anyone create them? Thanks! —danhash (talk) 21:27, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

{{editprotected}} The map that is rendered for the United States and Switzerland has the colors flipped. It shows orange for Switzerland (yet on the map the United States is colored orange) and the green for the United States. Please fix. Thanks, epicAdam^(talk) 16:32, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need to edit the template, you need to edit the article, which isn't protected. But in this case the file was the wrong name and needed to be migrated to Commons, so I did that all for ya. Regards, Quintucket (talk) 17:50, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why has the width of the template been increased? It is unneccesarily wider now and looks rather ugly in the articles by taking up so much space. Mar4d (talk) 02:50, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

There are quite a lot of missing maps that are needed by articles that use this template. It is creating ugly red links and gums up Category:Articles with missing files. Can we alter the template so that if there is no image map for the two countries then no file link is displayed? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 00:51, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a test for existence of the map to {{Infobox bilateral relations/sandbox}} and shown testcases here: {{Infobox bilateral relations/testcases}}. If this change is implemented, I'll update the documentation Illia Connell (talk) 15:20, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Updated {{Infobox bilateral relations/sandbox}} to include pages without a map in the tracking category Category:Infobox bilateral relations usage without maps. If this change is implemented, I'll create the category. Illia Connell (talk) 18:11, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I made the change to the template. Please do create the tracking category. Let me know if there is a problem. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 05:07, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks! Illia Connell (talk) 16:26, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New request[edit]

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

Please change

[[Category:Infobox bilateral relations usage without maps]] 

to

{{main other|[[Category:Infobox bilateral relations usage without maps]]}} 

to limit the tracking category to articles only Thanks --Illia Connell (talk) 12:54, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

•  Done De728631 (talk) 22:16, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Illia Connell (talk) 23:02, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How are these maps of the highlighted countries created? Nicholasemjohnson (talk) 13:02, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hello, I have proposed a new infobox here a while ago, I created it into a proper infobox (link). Any suggestions and would it be possible to update the infobox to this? --Gimelthedog (talk) 19:12, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not done for now: Per WP:TESTCASES, please put your proposed version into this template's sandbox, and set up some testcases demonstrating that your proposal works as intended, and doesn't break existing behaviour. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:50, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

People's Republic of China–Grenada relations

Grenada	China

People's Republic of China–Grenada relations

Grenada	China

please change

<table class="infobox bordered"> 

to

<table class="infobox bordered" style="width:{{px|{{{size|}}}|250px}}"> 

so that I don't have to do this to keep the infobox from looking like this. Frietjes (talk) 20:11, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I tried your suggestion and it does not work. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:41, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

are you sure, see the examples now presented here. Frietjes (talk) 19:54, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Huh. Apparently it does work after all. Must be I was seeing a cached version. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:00, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Inspired by some of the proposals above, I've modified the sandbox version of this template to handle a few extra parameters which allow it to list the ambassadors and embassies of the two countries. Check out the testcases. What do others think of this change? TDL (talk) 01:47, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

my only concerns are that (1) it does compress the content to add a third column, and (2) the association of the column headings with the data is hard for my screen reader to parse. perhaps these new fields could be formatted in a simple label/data type list used by {{infobox}}? Frietjes (talk) 16:39, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Frietjes: Just getting back to this. Your suggestion is an excellent idea. I've converted the new parameters to header/data format, and it looks much better. TDL (talk) 05:39, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Danlaycock: looks good, I made some minor changes in the sandbox and updated the testcases page to show the results side-by-side. I may make the background a bit lighter, but otherwise, looks good. Frietjes (talk) 15:45, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Great. Since no one else has complained over the last week, I've put in an edit request. TDL (talk) 18:22, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've marked the edit request as answered for the moment. Since you're still editing the sandbox I think it'd be better to wait until there is a more stable version. I've also left a comment on the WikiProject's talk page to garner a bit more comment. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:33, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In case I forget ping me on Monday or reactivate the edit request and I'll (or someone) will make the change for you, Regards, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:04, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

done. Frietjes (talk) 14:40, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Docu: I'm wondering if this code is actually every used in article space? It seems to have come as a result of the discussion here, but it isn't clear if there was every a consensus to go ahead with using this template in that manner. There is no mention of these parameters in the documentation. Anyone know of a way of check to see which pages transclude this template with the parameters "view=table1" or "view=table2"? (I suspect I'll need to ask someone to create a bot task to check.)

If it's not being used, it would be nice to clean up the code. Either way, given that the tabular view does not use any of the same code as the infobox view, it would probably make more sense to create a whole new template for this usage, rather than cluttering this template. TDL (talk) 18:22, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will add a tracking category to the sandbox, which will allow us to see any transclusions using that parameter. Frietjes (talk) 18:27, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, that will do the trick! TDL (talk) 19:49, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, a week on and still nothing in the category so it's probably safe to assume that this isn't a server queue issue. As such, I suggest implementing the changes suggested above (as implemented in the sandbox) which eliminates the unused code. I've also named the parameters, but set the default values to the unnamed parameters so that it should be backwards compatible. TDL (talk) 22:11, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

updated the live template with a couple minor changes. Frietjes (talk) 15:17, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I created a version of this template based on the Template:Infobox module. The resulting test cases can be seen here. @Docu:, @Pigsonthewing: (top contributors).--eh bien mon prince (talk) 04:55, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: I also made a more radical rewrite which is visible here.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 08:18, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

sandbox2 seems like the best version. I attempted far too many modifications to both versions to resolve a few issues (1) the orange/green should really only be there if there is a map, since it's basically a caption for the map, (2) there seems to be some spurious broken html being generated, causing some extra rows and/or borders, (3) we probably don't want the labels to be fixed at 50%. I do think that sandbox2 is better since the labels are aligned with the data, rather than using table headers far above the data. there probably could be more improvements made. for example, the current map image system requires (n × (n - 1)/2) images for n countries all with bilateral relations. if we used a blank map with overlays, this could be reduced to approximately (1 + 2 × n) images. you would have an orange and green version of each country, and simply overlay the images. Frietjes (talk) 15:45, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I made some more changes on top of your edits, because ideally the map should fall under a different field than legend bars or the flag. About the labels, it's undesirable that they would take so much space, but they remain fixed at 50% even after labelstyle was removed.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 00:43, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

if you embed the 50% items in their own table, they won't be hooked the width of the labels. might be good to add padding-left:0.2em to the labels. however, aside from the minor quirks, sandbox2 looks like the best option. Frietjes (talk) 23:13, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone please edit the template to enable historical flags. Pages such as Republic of Texas–United States relations would benefit from such edit where the United States uses the current 50-star flag when it has not even incorporated the former Republic of Texas as one of its states yet.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 15:54, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hariboneagle927, done. Frietjes (talk) 00:39, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When placing European Union as party1 in EU-Singapore Free Trade Agreement it gets shortened to Europe which is quite incorrect. Could someone please fix this? --Rabenkind (talk) 06:18, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rabenkind, to change this you will need to modify Template:Country data European Union (see the optional shortname). Frietjes (talk) 13:28, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing this out --Rabenkind (talk) 14:26, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To add more value to the infobox I suggest adding a parameter for the date of establishment of formal relations (as well as the end date for relations where one of the nations became defunct or the other nation cut diplomatic ties).Hariboneagle927 (talk) 07:30, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's bad that the template documentation doesn't provide any guidance on creating maps at all, but not even proving colour codes? How have people managed to use this template so far? --Paul_012 (talk) 10:18, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've added some instructions to the docs. --Paul_012 (talk) 10:38, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Currently, using the filetype= parameter with this template puts pages in Category:Pages using Infobox bilateral relations with deprecated parameters (for example, see Iran–Vietnam relations), but the documentation doesn't say this use is discouraged. Is there a problem with using filetype= rather than map=? We should either update the template behavior or the documentation to match. MarginalCost (talk) 17:26, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Zackmann08: I see you added this code. Can you shed some light on why you flagged this parameter as deprecated? MarginalCost (talk) 18:59, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

I am requesting that the following code added in this edit be removed:

{{main other|{{#if:{{{filetype|}}}|[[Category:Pages using Infobox bilateral relations with deprecated parameters]]}}}}

The new code can be verified as functional at Template:Infobox bilateral relations/sandbox2

The topic has been unresponded to on this talk page since April (see above). I have pinged the editor who added it and notified him on his talk page, but he has not been active since December. As far as I can tell the parameter works fine, and it adds over 1,000 pages to a cleanup category unnecessarily. Alternatively, if someone can explain why this parameter should be considered deprecated, I am happy to withdraw the request and update the documentation. MarginalCost (talk) 15:23, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Question: @MarginalCost: I hear your frustration. I'm not especially familiar with this infobox, but here's what I'd like to ask you to do. (If you do this, I'll promise to try to address it quickly.)

• I don't doubt that your sandboxed version, removing the deprecated parameters category, will work fine. So my question will go back to whether or not it is necessary/appropriate.
• What I'd like you to do is to give me two examples of pages that you think correctly render using filetype= and two using map=, and let me just see for myself whether I think there is a problem with them. If not, I'll go ahead and make this change. Fair enough? (Remember, I'm new to the page.) StevenJ81 (talk) 21:24, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@StevenJ81: Oh no, I hope I don't come across as frustrated! I'm not! I'm just trying to show that I've made a good faith effort to find consensus, and lay out the steps I've taken, knowing that the edit-protected reviewers like you who are new to the page would want all the steps taken laid out in one place, since the best case scenario would be to come to a talk page finding an existing consensus. (In a bureaucratic culture, documentation can sometimes be seen as a form of aggression - that's not my intention here.)

As to your request, here are two pages with the map= parameter: China–United States relations (using .svg) & Japan–United Kingdom relations (using .png) . Here are two with the filetype= parameter: Iran–Vietnam relations & Bolivia–China relations (both using an svg extension) (bonus: Belgium–Netherlands relations uses a png filetype, even though that's the default param value and isn't necessary.).

Thanks for your quick response! MarginalCost (talk) 21:55, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@StevenJ81: it looks like Zackmann08 came back to Wikipedia and changed it on his own. I don't know if you're still monitoring this request, but you can consider the matter closed. MarginalCost (talk) 00:12, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Pursuant to the discussion at Category talk:Articles which use infobox templates with no data rows#Categorisation, I've been looking for templates which are unnecessarily populating the tracking category. It seems quite common for this template to be used with only the map and header parameters. But that case triggers the "no data rows" condition. The other parameters that populate data rows are all explicitly "optional". Since this is a common and accepted use, I want to add |decat=yes to the call to the infobox module. I've already done this at Infobox_cricket_tournament Diff/856345363 and I'm just applying the same approach to other templates as I discover them. Other examples where similar template-protected edit requests have been successfully made are at award and sports competition.

After line 28, near the bottom, which looks like:

| data6 = {{{envoytitle2|}}} {{{envoy2|}}}

please add the following line:

| decat = yes

Thanks. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:29, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:51, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

In header3 change Diplomatic Mission to Diplomatic mission per MOS:HEADCAPS—the headers of infoboxes should use sentence case. Kim Post (talk) 16:49, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

sure. Frietjes (talk) 17:13, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can anybody help me to improve the Finnish template fi:Malline:Kahdenväliset suhteet?--87.92.119.10 (talk) 06:59, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The suggestion is like the title since svg is the recommended format.--owennson（Meeting Room、Certificates) 14:33, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree. PNG is a bit rubbish really in terms of quality. Also, I have recently been updating a set of bilateral relations maps, and that can only be done sensibly in SVG. Hogweard (talk) 11:00, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There had been some recent changes of the wording for the envoy title to the longer form in many articles. I will put down an example on the top infobox.

German–Japanese relations

Germany	Japan
Diplomatic mission
Embassy of Germany, Tokyo	Embassy of Japan, Berlin
Envoy
German Ambassador to Japan Ina Lepel	Japanese Ambassador to Germany Hidenao Yanagi

German–Japanese relations

Germany	Japan
Diplomatic mission
Embassy of Germany, Tokyo	Embassy of Japan, Berlin
Envoy
Ambassador Ina Lepel	Ambassador Hidenao Yanagi

I am currently reverting them back to the previous standard of just using the shorter term on the bottom example. I think it's unnecessary because the Japanese Ambassador, for example would already be on the Japanese side of the infobox. There's no need for a lengthier title in the infobox for what's already obvious. Thoughts? - Bokmanrocks01 (talk) 19:24, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Green and yellow imply tiers or levels. Green is "good", And yellow is "okay" or "mediocre".

You wouldn't want to imply one party is greater or better than the other. DogeTheEditor (talk) 05:24, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]