Template talk:Infobox women by region

11/27/2012

If you look at the source document on page 7 and 11:

"Our Gender Inequality Index (GII), updated this year for *****145**** countries, shows how reproductive health constraints contribute to gender inequality."

The tables are different than the actual GII index. The statistical data set is out of 145. The reason for 146 is because of the inclusion of a country that is sovereign, but doesn't actually have programs/laws/legislative bodies that could enact change in gender inequality. This means that the total set that is utilized for ranking and statistical measures is out of 145, not 146.

Please discuss below.

Adam Marré (talk) 10:03, 27 November 2012 (UTC)Adam
 * This template is based on and links rather explicitly to the table rather than the explanation. It makes no sense to keep on insisting that there are 145 countries in the list, as that leads to the nonsensical captions such as "145th out of 146" in the article Women in Yemen. It's much preferable to just accept that there is one more country in the table rather than in the explanation, instead of re-ranking every county to match the imaginary and probably erroneous rank offered in the explanation.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 10:13, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I honestly don't believe that the United Nations would make an "imaginary and probably erroneous rank". If they have, then it isn't a good source document to use for your template and you should go with a year that isn't "erroneous". Until then, I will continue to revert the changes made to match the sourced document. Adam Marré (talk) 11:19, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It's called 'typo', they happen even in the UN. There are clearly 146 countries in this index, as specified in the document itself, as can be seen in the statistical table.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 18:51, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Ambiguity
I feel there's an ambiguity between Women in Parliament and other metrics, see following example from Women in Cuba: Women in parliament	                   48.9% (2015) Females over 25 with secondary education	83.9% (2005-2015) Women in labour force	                   42.6% (2015)

Women in Parliament refers to the proportion of parliamentarians that are women,

Females over 25 with secondary education refers to the proportion of Cuban women that have secondary education

Women in labour force does NOT refer to the proportion of work force that are women, which is by implication to be understood the same way as Women in Parliament but to the proportion of Cuban women that are workers.

To avoid misunderstanding, more explicit headings should be provided, I suggest:

Women in labour force ⇒ Female labour force participation

--Jabbi (talk) 14:58, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Automatic reference and country count
copied from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Templates I noticed the Template:Infobox women by region has "out of 153" in the rank for the Global Gender Gap Index (the GGG in the template). I think that needs to be removed because the number of countries in the report can vary by year; exactly how the the GGI section accommodates for it.

I'm sorry to ask the dumb favor, but I already tried to fix it once and basically broke the whole thing. (Not a good look). I'm not sure how to better describe the issue, but I've already discussed it a bit over at the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red. Hopefully this makes sense and someone can take that out? Cheers Estheim (talk) 20:12, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I have changed the text to "about 150". A more sophisticated chunk of code could use something like report_year to generate an automatic reference and the correct number for that year. If the project wants that and can supply links to all of the relevant reference documents, I could probably code it for you. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:38, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, this whole thing came about because I was updating Women in Guyana and 2015 is the last year Guyana was included in the report. The top section for the Global Inequality Index just has it so the editor fills in the complete rank info, and I want the GGG section to be like that one. Since the reports themselves provide the exact info each year, one blank field is easiest for more editors to be able to update. (I guess I invited myself to be the one to update all that manually, but I'm up for it.)


 * IMO the "women by region" template was confusing enough, since it was unclear to me what the fields were for (it's all abbreviated and code-ish). However I don't have any kind of consensus behind me to make any changes beyond removing the erroneous "out of 152". So if you can remove the "about 150" I can start doing a spot check to update the total based on the most recent GGG report? Estheim (talk) 10:25, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with that the template should completely remove the "out of ..." coding from the the  "| ggg_rank = " field. While the ggg is published in each yearly report, within the table, the year and number of countries ranked that year varies. Additionally each Wikipedia country page for "Women in ..." gets updated at different time. There isn't a way to correctly code the number of countries and year of data across countries for this statistic. Hard coding will produce incorrect information and citation. Thanks for considering this opinion. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 15:27, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * +1 to including a parameter (I'd say ) that automatically: 1) generates the reference, 2) generates the right out of ... text, 3) adds the year where relevant. I see  already offered technical help. If a backup is needed, count me in. MarioGom (talk) 13:42, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * ,, , I have significantly overhauled the template, implemented year dates for data cited, variables for references, and   and   to deal with the issue of variable count totals from year to year.  ~Gwennie &#128008;  &#xFF5F;💬 📋&#xFF60; 15:24, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks ! I posted at the same time you did. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 15:29, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , right on. I updated the Women in Guyana with the new fields. I sort of feel like the Indices go better at the top before the General Statistics (putting the overview of the Gap/Inequality before the details), and the citation number going after the year (so it's at the end of the line). If I'm being too fussy, then don't worry about it since I'm quite grateful overall for all the assistance here. Estheim (talk) 15:41, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , yay! Glad you find it handy.
 * Wanted to expound on the reason I put the statistics are at the top. Those are the most concrete data stats. The indexes (GGG/GII) are complex second-level analyses of the base-level stats at the top (among other things). Also, I put into consideration that the big NGOs and supranational consortia that put these indexes together are often western-biased and since these templates are generally found on non-western countries, it's more important in my view to focus on the actual stats instead of the western aggregation of them into absolute metrics. ~Gwennie &#128008;  &#xFF5F;💬 📋&#xFF60; 16:00, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for elaborating; sound logic. What about the citation location? Estheim (talk) 16:08, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for elaborating; sound logic. What about the citation location? Estheim (talk) 16:08, 24 March 2021 (UTC)