Category talk:Countries

Naming conventions

There is no convention... at least not one that I could discern.

Some countries have the OLPC prefix while others don't. Some names are both a category and a page (and I'm afraid to look in the Special:Listredirects ;) (darn! had to look... ouch!)

I was thinking that some sort of order or convention should be applied, so here are some ideas:

Prefix denotes status

Country names starting with 'OLPC' are green countries, all others go by their short & standard name in english. If a country turns green, you move the page. If it drops from green (lets hope not) the redirect is removed, and the page is moved to its version without a prefix.

PROS

in the Category:Countries and on each country page it will be pretty obvious to spot those green 'OLPC' countries. Shouldn't create too much havoc on the URL and links. (or am I missing something?)

CONS

can't really think of any except that it could be confusing for some people... but not more than now...

Drop OLPC prefix

All countries will move to their short & standard name in english. A template could be created (much like {{OLPC}} to tag those countries that are 'OLPC Countries' and will be (automagically) included via the template into a new category (say 'OLPC Countries'? ;)

PROS

Democratic. All countries are equal.

CONS

Simple and the maintenance cost is nil (only add/remove the template tag), current redirects would only need to be checked for double ones.

Two pages per country

Countries could be seen as two different entities from the OLPC perspective. On one side you can have demographic and (relevant to the OLPC) background information, while another entity focuses on the development and deployment of the OLPC.

For example, how many schools and students a country has, the workings of the educational system, languages, etc. could all be in the 'social' page. While local news and contact information, support for local developers, could be collected in the 'olpc' page—this could be particularly useful when actual deployment plans and actions take place.

PROS

it keeps focus (if you are interested in how the project goes, visit the 'olpc' page; if interested in the effort's size or possible implications, visit the 'social' page)

CONS

hard to differentiate the desired focus and evolution when referenced from another page. Also it may confuse the newcomer the first time he sees any of them (what do I care about how many students there are? where is the latest OS image or viceversa). A possible solution could involve a third page that embeds something like the Ask OLPC a Question about Countries/Summary and similar sub-pages but specific for deployment and social aspects...

Make them subpages

Country / OLPC

Country pages would be normalized (say to its short english name) becoming the base or root for all the different aspects or facets for a country. Specific OLPC information would be found at [[Brazil/OLPC]], while [[Brazil/Education system]] would describe its education system; and they would hold similar information to [[Nigeria/OLPC]] and [[Nigeria/Education system]], and so on for whatever [[CountryName/Subject]] would be required in the future.

PROS

This would effectively become a sort of page-template structure for any particular country specifying where information should go, thus creating a homogeneous environment where no matter which country you look at, the structure/data would be the same.
Gathering all relevant information in a single page for on any given subject would be as simple as taking advantage of the wiki's inclusion mechanism: {{Argentina/Education system}}, followed by {{Brazil/Education system}} and so on...

CONS

None that I can think about...

OLPC / Country

Similar to the above, but the 'root' would be a new [[OLPC]] or [[OLPC Country]] page. This option is here mainly to keep 'all options open', and seemed a natural alternative to the above—although I don't find it natural to have to 'invent' the [[OLPC]] root page, given that its content is too vague and artificial.

PROS

not many, and creates a phantom structure that serves little purpose.

CONS

clutters the referencing of a particular country (although redirects could take care of the clumsy structure).

Don't touch it!

Forget this whole thing and go have a beer!

PROS

I love beer!

CONS

Tomorrow I will probably feel much like the Category:Countries... ouch!

Feedback? --Xavi 20:53, 18 January 2007 (EST)

Proposing adding country boxes

I am floating a proposed convention to add country boxes to all country pages, affecting about 80 or 90 pages. If you are interested in the proposal, see the active proposal. Please add any comments there. CharlesMerriam 05:58, 10 April 2008 (EDT)