Talk:Lists by country

Lists Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Countries

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Countries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of countries 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.CountriesWikipedia:WikiProject CountriesTemplate:WikiProject Countriescountry articles

WikiProject Countries to-do list:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Check out the article alerts; see if anything catches your fancy.
Cleanup : clean-up listing for Countries
Stubs : de-stub articles in Category:Stubs by region.
Other : add {{WPCountries}} to talk pages of related articles, and assess.

Notes

transportation by country needs to be included in the table...

It'd be nice if the red links for each country were blank (as for the lists of people from each country)

Martin

If there is an easy way to do that and maintain them ..

The main reason there are no red list of people links, is that I'm/was too lazy to complete them, but ideally there would at least be the names of the lists (in black, if not red). Docu

(after removal of table)

I really don't like the new structure. I think the table version was FAR better. If no good argument is given in favor of the new structure, I will revert back to the table version. olivier 12:52 Apr 13, 2003 (UTC)

I made the change from table to list because I was quite unhappy with the table version. Generally I think lists work far better than tables, but in this case I'm not completely satisfied with the result. One component of my effort was also to integrate the separate lists after had been added after the table in the past version. The main problem currently is that the list just becomes too long. One sollution could be to break it up to several lists but there is also a relevant discussion to be settled, on the purpose of the list and what should and should not be included. -- Mic

I don't mind that the table version has already been reversed to a list, but personally I prefer the table. --- Docu 12:08 Apr 16, 2003 (UTC)

Actually, the initial table layout was based on a proposal on Talk:List of reference tables. I tend to think that the table was quite easy to read, as there were only three elements there, i.e.

Lists of people
Lists for country related topics
Lists of cities

I'd include lists available for, e.g. 40-60 countries, and leave others separatly at the end (or at the beginning?). Good candidates for inclusion would be the "subnational entities". Docu 17:04 Apr 13, 2003 (UTC)

The advantage of a list is really the simplicity. Perhaps it is just me, but I think that part of that simplicity is lost when you try to integrate several lists into a table. Neither is simplicity helped by several concurrent diversely styled lists, and lists of lists added before or after a table. Regardless of whether a list or reference table is to be implemented I think that it should be agreed that there ought to be one concept, not several concurrent and possibly conflicting ad hoc concepts, guiding the layout of the page. To me it seems reasonable to split the different listings to separate entries. I feel that the increase in complexity of entries is far less of a fault than not preserving the simplicity of lists. -- Mic 19:37 Apr 13, 2003 (UTC)

It's fairly simple to add entries for every country to a table (rather than a list), at least if one doesn't create the table manually. Maybe, I should add a short HowTo on this.
Country articles and specialised lists (e.g. List of cities) generally include enumerations of lists simply by country, thus an additional one, structured in a similar way would somewhat duplicate the effort there.
It's just my personal preference, but I find a "general table + specific list"-solution easier to get an overview of lists included or, e.g. check for broken links due to Michael Hardy's ponctuation correction.

Docu 20:36 Apr 13, 2003 (UTC)

I'd say that clarity and simplicity of the presentation is the overriding concern here. I'm not sure that reduction of ones own labour is a relevant criteria, and if that should be the case one is not really obliged either to do the work or to participate. Reducing redundancy is desirable. This is of course opposite to perpetuating it and the first thing to go is obviously the individual links to countries, since there already is a List of countries. The question is really why it is necessary to cram several lists into one page? While I support the notion of "list of lists" articles, I am not a fan of a concept like "lists of lists" within single articles. -- Mic 12:53 Apr 14, 2003 (UTC)

There is also already a list of people by nationality, btw. I quite like the consolidated table, mind you, but I'm not sure why... Martin

Yes it does look neat. :) -- Mic

In the present version, this list is somewhat similar to List of countries, thus we might as well redirect readers there. --- User:Docu

"List by country" navigational box

I would like to change the vertical "List by country" navigational box on the right of this page to a horizontal one at the bottom. Please discuss at Template talk:Lists by country. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 12:53, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New Discussion

A discussion has been started at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries/Lists of countries which could affect the inclusion criteria and title of this and other lists of countries. Editors are invited to participate. Pfainuk talk 13:47, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Templates for deletion nomination of Template:Lists of countries

Template:Lists of countries has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Cybercobra (talk) 06:51, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]