Template talk:Infobox French commune/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Regions and departments functionality

Hi, I made a modification to the infobox sandbox version, see the test cases page. The regions and departments are automatically retrieved using the INSEE code. I checked whether there were articles without INSEE code, and repaired those. It also works for the overseas regions and collectivities. The regional map also uses the INSEE code now. The real test is of course when it goes live, I can check for errors using AWB list comparer. This allows for uniform links to regions and departments (if they're moved, we only have to fix the link in one place), and the fields "region" and "department" become obsolete. Comments? Markussep ^Talk 17:31, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Great. Are there any objections to moving some of the more complicated case statements to a subtemplate? Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:57, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I guess it's no problem to move the regional maps and the region+department switch to subtemplates, I'll give it a try. Markussep ^Talk 12:43, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

 Done Markussep ^Talk 19:20, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

The regions and departments functionality went live without major problems, I only made a mistake with the number for Aude (11 instead of 09), and fixed it. Markussep ^Talk 07:30, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, this looks much better. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 14:43, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Coat of arms without flag

We are now able to specify only the coat of arms without the flag. We should clean up the usage of hardcoded [[File:mycoa.jpg]] links in the articles. For example, like this. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:57, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Nice! It's going to be quite a job to clean up all the images ;-) I tweaked the default image sizes for upright images. Markussep ^Talk 12:29, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that works even better. I will start cleaning these up. It could take a month or two given the 35,000 transclusions. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 14:45, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Commune in the top line

A user asked at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_France#Commune why there's "commune of" in the top line of the infobox. I couldn't really answer that, except that the infobox is meant for the administrative subdivision type "commune". IMO we can remove it, thoughts? Markussep ^Talk 07:30, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I see no reason not to remove it. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 14:44, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Removed it. I see several larger towns have "Ville de Bordeaux" etc. in the "native name" field. I think that's equally useless, I'm removing it. Which deprecated parameters are still used in articles (I see 76 articles in that category)? I think we can clean up the infobox code significantly. Markussep ^Talk 09:49, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Great! I am plowing through the image link clean-up. As soon as I finish the first pass we can add a maintenance sub-category/section for that as well. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 15:31, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Region or department map?

copied from User talk:Markussep

Hi. I know you said you preferred the regional maps. But what would you say to using a department maps which also shows arrondisement divisions like the one on the right? Wouldn't it be better to feature a department map if it exists? Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 22:20, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

The regional maps also show the arrondissements, see Alsace for instance. We could use department maps, that's easier to do now using the INSEE codes. I like both, I have no preference for either. Do you prefer the administrative or the physical map? Markussep ^Talk 14:20, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I think both look good and I am glad we are getting hold of them. I do think though that the physical maps do look a lot more professional looking and realistic. Perhaps we could use the physical maps instead? Its just they look more like maps so to speak. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 15:41, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Map missing

Ehi! Why map is missing here, despite coordinates are given? Let me know... --'''Attilios''' (talk) 07:02, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I guess you fixed the problem yourself? I see two maps now, one of France, one of Île-de-France. Markussep ^Talk 09:17, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Regional maps

Hi, I made a sandbox version that creates a regional map under the map of France. It uses the "region" field, and map templates like {{Location map France Corse}}. Maps are available for Alsace, Basse-Normandie, Bretagne, Corse and Poitou-Charentes now. See the Corte example at Template:Infobox French commune/testcases. Markussep ^Talk 13:50, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I've made the version with regional maps "live" now, let me know if you see errors. Markussep ^Talk 10:49, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

This regional map will only work if the coordinates (latitude and longitude) are specified in the infobox. There are many communes for which a different location map is used (4236 articles as of now), for example Trédion, which doesn't use coordinates. Hence the regional map doesn't work. In for example the article Bignan coordinates are available, and the regional map works. Coordinates are available for all communes at French wikipedia. All we have to do is copy the fields "longitude" and "latitude" from the corresponding French article, and remove the fields "image map", "x", "y" and "lat long", see this diff for Bignan. It's an easy task, but a big one, and I could do with some help. Does anyone know whether a bot can do this? These are the relevant articles: [1]. As far as I know, the articles are all about communes in the departments Côtes-d'Armor, Ille-et-Vilaine, Finistère, Morbihan, Seine-et-Marne, Essonne, Haute-Saône, Doubs, Jura, Territoire de Belfort, Somme. The four Breton departments would have my first priority, since that regional map is already avaliable. We can monitor progress at Wikipedia:WikiProject French communes/Status. Markussep ^Talk 15:20, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

We should be able to do this using AWB. I will have a look if Rich (or someone) doesn't have time. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 16:21, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I didn't know you can use AWB to copy info from other wikipedias, that would speed up things a lot! Your help is very welcome. Markussep ^Talk 20:44, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I don't know if AWB can copy from other WPs. However, I have a MediWiki perl script that can. I used this for adding infoboxes to about 3000 Spanish city articles a few months ago. 21:41, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good! Markussep ^Talk 12:02, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Could you post a link to your MediaWiki script? I'm interested in developing my own scripts for other purposes. Regards, Kiwipete (talk) 23:40, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Sure, I can post one. Most of my scripts aren't very well commented, and are specific to a particular job, but I can post an example. By the way, I created a tracking category here for all the transclusions missing latitude and longitude. This will us a list of which still need to be fixed. Is it better to copy the coordinates from the French Wiki, or convert the existing {{coord}}? Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 16:22, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I suppose it's easiest to copy the coordinates from French wikipedia, but I have seen one or two errors in them. There's no guarantee that the data used in the coord template is correct/unvandalized anyway. I found and introduced regional maps for Champagne-Ardenne, Bourgogne and Île-de-France as well, albeit in different designs, but good enough for until the new maps are available. Many communes in Île-de-France have locator maps (for instance Évry and Aulnay-sous-Bois), do you think we should replace them with maps of France and the Île-de-France region? Maybe reuse them somewhere in the article. Markussep ^Talk 16:46, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

BTW don't remove maps for communes outside "metropolitan" France, i.e. everything outside Europe (Reunion, Guadeloupe, Nouvelle Caledonie etc.). Markussep ^Talk 16:54, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay, the script is now up and running. It changes 'lat long' to 'latitude' and 'longitude', by copying the coordinates from the corresponding page on French Wikipedia. It only removes the map if it is File:France_jms.png. For example, the typical edit is like this, and if the map is not France_jms.png, then a typical edit is like this. If this looks good, I will have it run through the rest. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 20:48, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and as requested, here is the Perl script: User:Plastikspork/frenchcommune.pl. This is a somewhat complicated example. I will post some more simplistic examples as well, and link to them on User:Plasticspork. Note that I am not running these in "bot mode" as I make the script display the changes, and ask for confirmation to commit. In theory, these could be used to make bots, but that would require obtaining approval to run a bot, and I like to double check each edit myself. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:31, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

And, I added some logic to the main Location Map to position the label to the left for locations near the Eastern border. Do we need this in the other location maps? Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:55, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

This is now complete. As far as I can tell they all have latitude and longitude coordinates. In cases that the French and English WP didn't agree within a hundredth of a degree, I checked them by hand and corrected the one in error. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:54, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Any word on when the rest of the regions will be available? I was looking up (for some reason) Giez, Haute-Savoie and was straining to see exactly where in Rhone-Alpes it was, and thought to myself how nice it'd be to have the larger scale map available. > Minnecologies^Talk 05:18, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I guess we have to wait until Sting, the creator of the regional maps, finds time to make the Rhône-Alps map. Markussep ^Talk 20:04, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Demonym ex-parameter revisited

Hi. I was looking at new parameters and demonym in this page's archive. I'm still quite confused by this. The demonym parameter does still exist in many instances of the infobox, but it does not display. So I have two questions: (1) how come it doesn't display? (I know it doesn't matter; I'm just curious) ... and (2) presumably it is OK, nay, right, to remove this parameter and content when we see it? Yes?? Thanks and sorry if these are naive questions - I'm way outside my very small area of knowledge! Best wishesDBaK (talk) 14:54, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

If I recall, after the parameter was removed from the infobox, there was no pressing need to go through and remove it from the infoboxes, since it was essentially harmless to leave it there. I will search the archives for any other discussions (if there are any). Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:21, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

size of info box

Hello,

Is there anyway we can reduce the width of this map so that the info box is not so huge? I've been working on Vassieux-en-Vercors as I'm wanting to expand the article and also include all the World War II info, but the info box crowds out the text and would prevent other images from being added. Thanks.Malke 2010 (talk) 18:11, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

In my browser the infobox is not so big, about one third of the article window width. The infobox width is 280px (independent of the map size), which is not unusual. Do you have the same problem with for instance Vlorë? Markussep ^Talk 08:38, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit request

Currently "List of postal codes in France" is listed, which is a redirect, and so it would be nice to have it link directly to Postal codes in France. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 21:34, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

excessive precision in latitude and longitude

What's with the use of sub-millimetre precision? For example, the infobox in Écrammeville specifies the latitude to 0.0000000001-degree of arc (0.011-millimetre (0.00043 in)) precision and the longitude to 0.000000000001-degree of arc (0.0073-millimetre (0.00029 in)) precision. After studying multiple examples, I'm convinced that the source data is only accurate to at most 1-second of arc (31-metre (102 ft)) precision.

While it's true that, for most users, the template displays only second-of-arc precision, this looks like a blatant example of excess precision. There are literally thousands of examples just as bad as Écrammeville, many of which were generated by a single AWB user back in 2009.

If there's no objection, I'd like to task a bot with rounding the |latitude= and |longitude= parameters to four decimal places: 0.0001-degree of arc (11-metre (36 ft)) precision. I will of course go through Wikipedia:Bot requests. —Stepheng3 (talk) 18:56, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

WP:OPCOORD says "A general rule is to give precisions approximately one tenth the size of the object", also that degrees to four places of decimals is (as you state) approximately 11 m, which is therefore suitable for a place approximately 110 metres across. Are communes really that small?

Consider a partially urban, partially rural, partially mountainous department: Isère has an area of 7,431 km², and Category:Communes of Isère has 533 member pages, which works out at 13.9 km² as the average area for a commune in that department. If of roughly circular/square shape, such a commune would be 3.5–4.5 km across. I would suggest three or even two places of decimals for the degrees. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:10, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree that 0.001-degree precision would be ample for most communes. However, if the bot is going to apply a one-size-fits-all solution, then its solution must work for all communes, not just average-size ones. And because there are 3600 seconds of arc in a degree, round to 0.0001-degree precision has the desirable property of not altering the dms-formatted coordinates seen by most users. Let's not make perfection the enemy of improvement. Do you agree that reducing precision from 12 decimal places to 4 would constitute an improvement? —Stepheng3 (talk) 20:23, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh, yes - 4 is better than 12. But since entering the above, I've examined the lat/long on your example Écrammeville - and it appears to me that the apparent "precision" of |longitude=-0.943055555556|latitude=49.3238888889 is not due to measuring to that accuracy, but the result of dividing one number into another and then entering all the decimal places that the pocket calculator has displayed. I've seen school pupils do this since about 1978. Calculating back, I find that -0.943055555556 is near as dammit 0°56'35" W ({{decdeg|0|56|35|W}} → -0.9430556), and 49.3238888889 similarly works out at 49°19'26" N ({{decdeg|49|19|26|N}} → 49.3238889), so as things stand we're really talking about an accuracy of 1 second, which is to say 30 metres. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:49, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

That's more or less the analysis which convinced me that the source data is only accurate to 1 second of arc. Short of altering the template to accept dms format, I think rounding to four decimal places is the best solution for now. I'll take this to BOTREQ. —Stepheng3 (talk) 23:35, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Change INSEE links

Could the current link from the INSEE code to the commune's population page on the INSEE website be changed to the commune's geographical entry on the same website, and the population figure link to the population page, e.g. here for the population of Saint-Julien-l'Ars and here for its geographical entry? Kiwipete (talk) 08:33, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Good idea, but I prefer this one for the population. The DOMTOMs need special treatment, for instance the link for Cayenne is slightly different (http://www.insee.fr/fr/methodes/nomenclatures/cog/fichecommunale.asp?codedep=973&codecom=02) because the department number has 3 digits, and Nouvelle Calédonie and Polynesia don't seem to have INSEE entries. Markussep ^Talk 09:49, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with your population page. I had noticed the difference in links for the COG pages for DOMTOMs - would it be as simple as assuming that if the department code starts with 97 (971 Guadeloupe, 972 Martinique, 973 French Guiana, 974 Réunion, 976 Mayotte) then it's a DOMTOM and so the link needs to split the commune code 3/2 for the department and commune, rather than 2/3 for metropolitan communes? With regard to New Caledonia, French Polynesia etc, do they use this template? Kiwipete (talk) 21:53, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

It shouldn't be too difficult to create a rule for the DOMTOMs, the ones that are in the INSEE database indeed use the 3/2 scheme. A quick check: 971 Guadeloupe OK, 972 Martinique OK, 973 Guyane OK, 974 Réunion OK, 975 Saint Pierre and Miquelon no, 976 Mayotte no, 977 Saint-Barthélemy no, 978 Saint-Martin no, 984 French Southern and Antarctic Lands no, 986 Wallis and Futuna no, 987 French Polynesia no, 988 New Caledonia no. As far as I know they all use the infobox.Markussep ^Talk 09:12, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I have let this slip over the last few days. I don't know how to update this template. Is this something you can do, taking in to account the above observations? Kiwipete (talk) 23:42, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Unhelpful links

{{edit protected}} This infobox has several headings linked in unhelpful and unnecessary ways. Could they be unlinked/modified?

• France - it's a widely known country (see WP:OVERLINK) which is several levels of administration up and links are provided to lower-level subdivisions within which the commune lies
• [[Geographic coordinate system|Coordinates]]: this isn't the place to be explaining general concepts like latitude and longitude
• [[Administrative division|Subdivisions]]: this is a very general article with no particular relevance to France; and who doesn't understand the general concept of administrative subdivisions?
• Time zone - a widely understood concept that needs no explanation
• Mayor: another widely understood concept not unique to France. There is a subheading for France within that article, but it's only a single line, so not very helpful.
• Elevation: a basic concept not requiring explanation
• [[Population density|Density]]: another widely understood concept
• List of postal codes in France : this would be much more helpful if linked instead to the explanatory article Postal codes in France

Colonies Chris (talk) 16:25, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Done. --Closedmouth (talk) 14:02, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Image

The image should be changed to File:France fond de carte 27 régions.png.  Liam987  16:40, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Why? --Closedmouth (talk) 14:07, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

The coordinates should, by default, be displayed in the infobox as well as in the "title" position, as happens on most other infoboxes about geo-locatable subjects, not least {{Infobox settlement}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:49, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

flag ison

It would be nice to have a flag icon of France in front of the word France. This would match French wikipedia and not affect existing template usage. Samrong01 (talk) 08:18, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

TfD

Please add:

{{Template for discussion/dated|page=Infobox French commune|link=Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 August 17#Template:Infobox French commune|help=off|type=sidebar}}

-- Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:59, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Done --Redrose64 (talk) 17:59, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:33, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Please add a 'noinclude' tag to the TfD banner, otherwise it shows up in some project pages, such as the test cases.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 03:48, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Question: Why is that a bad thing? WP:TFD mentions <noinclude>...</noinclude> only in the case of "templates designed to be substituted", which this isn't (very few infoboxes, such as {{subst:Infobox Bahnhof}}, are). --Redrose64 (talk) 08:38, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

No thanks; that would remove the notification from articles using this template. If you wish to change that standard behaviour, then a centralised RfC should be called. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:48, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Per the outcome of the TfD, please copy the content of the sandbox into the main template.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 19:36, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Nice work.  Done. Let me know if there are any problems — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:31, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Documentation

Please add:

<noinclude>{{Documentation}}</noinclude>

at the end of the template code, after }<!-- Check for INSEE code -->

-- Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:23, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Done — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 14:59, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:09, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Translation into cy

Thanks all for the great work on this template, which I've now copied into cy (Welsh) as seen here. As you can see a few words remain untranslated, as they are too deep under the radar! Please help by translating the few remaining words:

Rank = safle

Coat of arms = Arfbais

119th = 119fed

sq mi = mi sg

ft = tr

Many thanks! Llywelyn2000 (talk) 22:42, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Decapitalization

Could someone decapitalize "density" in the Population Density parameter? Thanks in advance. Brandmeister^talk 22:38, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please make your requested changes to the template's sandbox first; see WP:TESTCASES. You want this change for what gain? Also, how many of the existing 36,805 existing transclusions will this change break since parameter names are case sensitive? Or perhaps I misunderstand your request, in which case it may be best to show me what you mean by giving a working copy of your change using the sandbox. Thanks. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 23:01, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I want this change not for gain, but for correct English. The phrase "population density" simply is not a proper noun in this case, so the word "density" is not capitalized. It's not my fault, that the parameter is case-sensitive. Brandmeister^talk 08:37, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I think what Brandmeister means is that in the infobox (output, as shown on the transcluding pages) the population density is shown as "Population² Density", while it should be "Population² density". I don't think we can change it in this template, at least I couldn't find how to do that. Probably it's something that {{Infobox settlement}} does. Markussep ^Talk 10:57, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

It's not this template. As Markussep suggests, it's in {{infobox settlement}}, specifically the line

| label70 =  • {{{population_blank1_title|}}} Density

and so any change should be discussed at Template talk:Infobox settlement. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:02, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Interesting, thanks. Brandmeister^talk 22:30, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Alternative

As an alternative I would propose removing the trivial information from the infobox footnote (the method can hardly be seen as being a key feature of a commune). Then the normal phrasing of the parent infobox can be used and this problem would not exist. If there is consensus to remove those footnotes, I would be willing to make the changes in the sandbox. CRwikiCA talk 02:00, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

The "normal phrasing of the parent infobox" is a bullet and the single word "Density", capital D. The {{infobox French commune}} template instructs {{infobox settlement}} to insert text between the bullet and the word "Density" - this additional text is the word "Population" and a superscripted figure, which might be either 1 or 2 (it's 2 if |area km2= is set and |overseas collectivity= is blank or absent, otherwise it's 1). Removing either the word "Population" or the superscripted figure from this template will not change the capitalisation of "Density", which is fixed in {{infobox settlement}}. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:51, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Maybe I was unclear. If the footnotes are removed, there is no need to add "Pupulation²" and Density can be used on its own, negating the need for decapitalization. The word Population is only added before the footnote number, because otherwise it would make less sense than now. This issue can be resolved in two ways: 1) Remove the footnotes completely, per my earlier argument. 2) Link the population footnote from the main section header "Population".
Either of these solutions would enable the natural order commune-->urban-->metro population in the infobox and "Density" would appear on its own, which then is okay to capitalize. CRwikiCA talk 14:28, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Edit request

Could someone with editing rights change "Vosges" to "Vosges (department)" please. --Bermicourt (talk) 20:19, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

 Done --Redrose64 (talk) 20:34, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Edit protected

Please change [[Somme]] by [[Somme (department)|Somme]]. --Vivaelcelta {talk  · contributions} 18:03, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Done --Redrose64 (talk) 18:45, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Improving the infobox?

In browsing Wikipedia, I've discovered the Greek dimos infobox which I've found very clear and straightforward. You can check an example on the Athens article.

• Separating the major sections with a light background helps to better organize informations: location, government, population and other. Personally though I believe a light grey background would be more neutral than a light blue one.
• Instead of separating areas from populations in two different sections, each mentionning urban, metro and municipal, it does it the other way around. For each level, we can directly see the population, area and density figures. That's clearer this way IMHO. Furthermore, it allows the figures of both urban and metro densities to be mentionned if needed.
• The French "population" section mentions twice the word "population": firstly for the section, then for the municipal population. This is rather misleading as all mentionned figures in the section are I believe about population (that's the case for metro and urban too). Using the word "municipal" would be clearer, and would also fit with the INSEE definition "population municipale".

What do you think? Metropolitan (talk) 22:31, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

This template (which is a wrapper for {{Infobox settlement}}) should be developed (as should {{Infobox Greek Dimos}}) with a view to convergence, and eventual merger, with the more generic 'settlement' template. Any features of the more specific Greek box, deemed better than those in the generic box, should be migrated to the latter, via discussion on its talk page, to the benefit of all our place articles. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:17, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Population stat order?

I noticed something in Paris infobox, then others too - the main commune population appears at the bottom if there are other statistics too (urban, etc). This is misleading, especially to the uninformed or inattentive, as it seems that the top data (usually urban) is the real data. Probably because of its position, the fact that the main population has no bolded indicator ("city", commune, etc.), makes it seem less important (or not at all), and the nota makes it look like a footnote - I'm sure these would not be a problem were it at the top. It's also odd that the 'mother' template doesn't have this problem. Just wanted to give you a heads-up - thanks, and cheers. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 03:05, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

"urban" is the real urban area data, "metro" is the real metropolitan area data, and "municipality" or "municipal" should be the real municipal data. What is the most misleading is to use the word "population" to specify the municipal population entry in a section in which all entries are population data. Metropolitan (talk) 10:20, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I second Metropolitan here. In the "Area" section of the infobox (see for example the Bordeaux infobox below), the word "Land" should be replaced by either "Municipal" or "Commune" (the former is easier to understand for English speakers, the latter is more technically precise). In the "Population" section, the entries "Population" and "Population density" listed below "Metro" should be renamed either "Municipal" and "Municipal density" or "Commune" and "Commune density". As it currently stands, it is very very confusing.
Also, another point: can we round the population density at the single digit? Rounding it at the next hundred is not very precise, especially for the smaller communes, which make up 95% of the French communes. Der Statistiker (talk) 11:32, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Isn't the entire purpose of this template to show information about the commune? Other data is secondary to this. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 14:37, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Change the names to whatever you like, but the commune population data for this commune template should be up top. Your comments seem to ignore my initial statement. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 23:58, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

This template's use of 'population_blank1' instead of 'population_total' - is there a reason for this?

I was looking into the problem I mentioned earlier - the commune population being pushed below any urban or metro data - when I found that it uses 'population_blank1' instead of 'population_total' (as data to pass on to the parent template). I can't seem to find any mention of it in the talk page. I suppose that it has something to do with 'settlement type', right?

Yet if there is no 'settlement_type' declared, it uses 'city' by default, but this can be remedied by changing it... but in this template that space has been filled by a comment (no input possible) so it is declared... as empty, and this probably overrides the 'city' default.

Since this is a 'commune' template, would not declaring the 'commune' (by default) be logical? Of course, where communes are a 'pole' for an aire urbaine, 'City' could be used.

What is the reasoning behind using the '*_blank1' and blocking the use of 'commune' or 'city' (and forcing the commune population to the bottom in the process) - am I missing something? Perhaps the author of this could explain. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 23:19, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I ran some tests in the sandbox, and it seems that all the 'switcharoo' is for... adding an indicator to the bottom footnote at the end of the 'municipality' (that is 'population' - this has to be changed) title. There is no "area_km2_title" field to make that modification, so instead "area_blank1_km2_title" was used, and because of that "population_total" and "density_km2" were changed to 'blank1' too, forcing them to the bottom. A bit much for a footnote indicator! I'm looking at other solutions, though. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 21:26, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I did find a 'sort of' solution: attributing the "area_blank1_km2_title" teststring to the "settlement_type" variable works, but the ' ² ' appears in both population and area sections - there is no way to tell where that will be appearing.... wait a sec, I've got an idea, will work on it tomorrow. But please, any input would be welcome. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 21:30, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

(emulating Ferris Bueller's professor) Anyone.......? Anyone......? THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 20:46, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 27 October 2014

I'm proposing the following changes to the code of the infobox, to address the issues mentioned above. Check the diff of my edit to see the lines of codes in their entirety, since they don't appear here below.

| area_blank1_title =

should be replaced by

| area_blank1_title =

The superscript (1) needs to go next to "Area" at the beginning of this section. I'm not sure how to do it, but maybe this??

| area_footnotes = ¹

The other change that should be done is this:

| population_blank1_title = Population¹

should be replaced by

| population_blank1_title = Municipal

Again, the superscript (2) should go next to "Population" at the beginning of this section (this footnote, footnote #2, applies to both municipal, urban, and metro population).

Thanks.

Der Statistiker (talk) 23:20, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't know we could unlock it by request. While you're doing that, could you put the commune population info back up top where it's supposed to be? I'm surprised you didn't notice this. Thanks. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 00:16, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I managed to find the source of the problem - it is this template's using "population_blank1" (and other '*_blank1' - pushes it to the bottom) instead of "population_total" (top). I couldn't find any mention of it in the talk page. I'll start a new topic. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 22:51, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

already done? Frietjes (talk) 17:34, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Calvados problem

As pointed out on Talk:Caen, Calvados links to the brandy, not to the department. Can someone fix this? Thanks, Oreo Priest ^talk 06:44, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

The line |14=[[Calvados]] should become |14=[[Calvados (department)|Calvados]] to fix this. CRwikiCA talk 15:28, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

fixed. Frietjes (talk) 17:14, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! Oreo Priest ^talk 12:46, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Area/population position/footnotes correction

commune status = 'Skyscrapercity' (no 'total type')
Skyscrapercity
Country	France
Area 1	105.4 km2 (40.7 sq mi)
• Urban	2,723 km2 (1,051 sq mi)
• Metro	14,518.3 km2 (5,605.5 sq mi)
Population	2,203,817
• Density	21,000/km2 (54,000/sq mi)
• Urban	10,142,983
• Urban density	3,700/km2 (9,600/sq mi)
• Metro	11,769,433
• Metro density	810/km2 (2,100/sq mi)
Time zone	UTC+01:00 (CET)
• Summer (DST)	UTC+02:00 (CEST)
1 French Land Register data, which excludes lakes, ponds, glaciers > 1 km2 (0.386 sq mi or 247 acres) and river estuaries.

commune status = 'Commune' (no 'total type')
Commune
Country	France
Area 1	105.4 km2 (40.7 sq mi)
• Urban	2,723 km2 (1,051 sq mi)
• Metro	14,518.3 km2 (5,605.5 sq mi)
Population	2,203,817
• Density	21,000/km2 (54,000/sq mi)
• Urban	10,142,983
• Urban density	3,700/km2 (9,600/sq mi)
• Metro	11,769,433
• Metro density	810/km2 (2,100/sq mi)
Time zone	UTC+01:00 (CET)
• Summer (DST)	UTC+02:00 (CEST)
1 French Land Register data, which excludes lakes, ponds, glaciers > 1 km2 (0.386 sq mi or 247 acres) and river estuaries.

commune status = Commune / Department total type = 'City'
Commune / Department
Country	France
Area 1
• City;	1,054 km2 (407 sq mi)
• Urban	2,723 km2 (1,051 sq mi)
• Metro	14,518.3 km2 (5,605.5 sq mi)
Population
• City;	2,203,817
• Density	2,100/km2 (5,400/sq mi)
• Urban	10,142,983
• Urban density	3,700/km2 (9,600/sq mi)
• Metro	11,769,433
• Metro density	810/km2 (2,100/sq mi)
Time zone	UTC+01:00 (CET)
• Summer (DST)	UTC+02:00 (CEST)
1 French Land Register data, which excludes lakes, ponds, glaciers > 1 km2 (0.386 sq mi or 247 acres) and river estuaries.

(no 'commune status') total type = 'blob'
Country	France
Area 1
• blob	105.4 km2 (40.7 sq mi)
• Urban	2,723 km2 (1,051 sq mi)
• Metro	14,518.3 km2 (5,605.5 sq mi)
Population
• blob	2,203,817
• Density	21,000/km2 (54,000/sq mi)
• Urban	10,142,983
• Urban density	3,700/km2 (9,600/sq mi)
• Metro	11,769,433
• Metro density	810/km2 (2,100/sq mi)
Time zone	UTC+01:00 (CET)
• Summer (DST)	UTC+02:00 (CEST)
1 French Land Register data, which excludes lakes, ponds, glaciers > 1 km2 (0.386 sq mi or 247 acres) and river estuaries.

DEFAULT (no 'commune status') (no 'total type')
Country	France
Area 1	105.4 km2 (40.7 sq mi)
• Urban	2,723 km2 (1,051 sq mi)
• Metro	14,518.3 km2 (5,605.5 sq mi)
Population	2,203,817
• Density	21,000/km2 (54,000/sq mi)
• Urban	10,142,983
• Urban density	3,700/km2 (9,600/sq mi)
• Metro	11,769,433
• Metro density	810/km2 (2,100/sq mi)
Time zone	UTC+01:00 (CET)
• Summer (DST)	UTC+02:00 (CEST)
1 French Land Register data, which excludes lakes, ponds, glaciers > 1 km2 (0.386 sq mi or 247 acres) and river estuaries.

Hello,

I made some corrections to the template (currently at "Template:Infobox French commune/sandbox_paris"). This also works for land area and density (if the right data is present). This also involved re-activating the "settlement type" header, but I don't think it's too imposing.

Oh, and I had a look into the earlier "number rounding" problem, but that's way down in the 'infobox settlement' sub-templates - modification there will affect numbers here, but I couldn't do it with this modification, sorry. Cheers.

ADDED NOTE: I noticed that adding refs to the area/population entry destroys the "density" calculation. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 13:49, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 13:49, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

The annotations are now by the 'Area' and 'Population' headers, and the populations/area are now in the correct order. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 13:49, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Whoop, and here's a diff to my modifications. Sorry, I haven't edited a template beyond graphic design before. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 14:05, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Whoop whoop, moved it to the sandbox, updated link to sample template, too. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 14:08, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

@Frietjes: Hi! - any chance of getting this fixed too? We could integrate your latest change into the version in the sandbox now. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 17:28, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

already done? Frietjes (talk) 17:34, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

ThePromenader by the way, your ping didn't work since you added it after you signed. for it to work, you must sign at the same time as you add the ping (or re-sign). Frietjes (talk) 17:36, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Hehe - that's only the second time I've ever tried to ping. Yes, it's been done since around a week now - I left the links to my modifs above (two places) if you want to have a look (and try it out). Thanks, cheers. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 17:53, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

@Frietjes: ! ; ) THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 18:21, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

ThePromenader, what is the new edit request? Frietjes (talk) 22:48, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I am new to this - what was supposed to happen? You answered "yes" and nothing changed. Sorry. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 23:05, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

see here? Frietjes (talk) 00:36, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Good lord, thanks! I thought (pointing to self) I was supposed to make the changes. Thanks! THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 07:05, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

And thanks for setting a link to the French 'commune' article as a default - sorry for that oversight, and quite observant of you to catch it - thanks! THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 08:26, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Frietjes, there are still two problems with the template:

• the name "commune" now appears on top of the infobox below the name of the city (see for example Toulouse). This should be removed entirely as these templates cover more than just the commune, but also the urban and metropolitan areas. Also, the word "city" cannot be used because the template is used both for cities and villages. I think removing that line altogether is the best
• commune density appears just as "density". This is confusing. See Nouméa for example where we have "density", and then "urban density". Very, very confusing. The word "commune" should be inserted, so we get "commune density" instead of "density" alone.

Thanks. Der Statistiker (talk) 14:44, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

okay, since this part seems controversial, I have removed it as the default, but you can still have it appear by setting |settlement_type=Commune. Frietjes (talk) 15:03, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Der Statistiker and ThePromenader is the current version acceptable? I will put the old version in the sandbox, temporarily, for comparison. basically, I had to add a 'total_type=' to keep it from saying "city" for the population and area. you can check the testcases to see how it used to appear. you can still add |settlement_type=Commune if you want it to say commune at the top. Frietjes (talk) 15:12, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Ok, ok, I think there was a misunderstanding Frietjes. I only meant the line below the name of the infobox. See Nouméa for instance. As it stands now with your latest edit, it's good. I.e. the word "commune" does not appear below the name "Nouméa" on top, and that's good, because the infobox is not just about the commune. BUT, the problem now is in the "area" and "population" subsections, the word "commune" has been replaced with "total", and that's exactly what the problem was in the first place (unclear wording). SO, could we leave the top of the infobox as it is now (i.e. with nothing written below "Nouméa"), but could the word "total" be replaced with either "commune" (as it was before your latest edit) or "municipal"? I hope I'm explaining myself clearly. If not just ask for clarifications. Der Statistiker (talk) 15:55, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

In a nutshell, the end result should be a- no word below the name "Nouméa" on top of the infobox, but b- "total" replaced with either "commune" or "municipal" in the "area" and "population" sections. Der Statistiker (talk) 15:55, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Der Statistiker, changed total_type to Commune. how is that? Frietjes (talk) 16:55, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Nothing controvertial, but some communes with double titles ("common name", "native_name") might have to be changed. All that needs to be done is the proper area covered to be "|settlement_type=Commune" or "|settlement_type=City" or "|settlement_type=Commune" - to suit the article - I even updated the documentation to reflect this. I also added a note about how any citations 'break' the population density, and updated the template parameters. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 17:01, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

There must be some sort of other parameter set for "total" to appear - if the "settlement_type" is blank, it defaults to "commune", and this should be reflected in the "population" and "area" fields... there is no "total_type" in the communes template, so this must be something in the "info box_settlement" being filled or overridden. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 17:09, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

@Frietjes:, there's just one problem - there's no need to block "total_type" at "commune", it would be best to set it as a default. Cities like Lyon and Paris overextend their commune boundaries, and Paris is also a Département, that double administrative status should be allowed for (one or the other, or simply "City"). Thanks! THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 17:26, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Also, why not have the "total_type" default to "settlement_type"? That would cover pretty well all existing/possible usage. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 18:05, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Der Statistiker and ThePromenader, yes, I can make total_type = settlement_type when settlement_type is not blank. however, you need to provide a value when settlement_type is blank. if |total_type= and |settlement_type= are blank, it will use either "City" or "Total", which I was told won't work. I added all the possible combinations to show the issue. should we just roll this back until we can come up with a solution for everyone? Frietjes (talk) 18:47, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Roll back the entire thing? No, it's okay to leave it as it is until we can find a better solution. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 18:50, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

For the record, a commune population doesn't extend past its commune limits, so I really don't see what the earlier 'explanation' is all about. It sounds like it makes sense, but it doesn't to anyone knowing any better. There are articles like Paris Metropolitan Area for instances where a population spreads across several communes. I think Der Statistiker didn't like the header bar or "city" appearing as a population total, that's all. If "commune" could just be a default (without the title bar showing) that would be fine.

Perhaps it is possible to have a 'default chain', though, and if any of the values are filled it would take that one... today's earlier edits are complicating things more than anything. What version were you proposing rolling back to? THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 19:10, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

PS: Thanks for all your work in this. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 19:12, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

This seems to work.

• I changed the "Infobox_French_commune" 'settlement_type' parameter to 'commune status' to avoid confusion with the "Infobox_settlement" parameter of the same name
• I added an 'total type' parameter there too and
• If there is no 'total type' paramater, the template checks for a 'commune status' parameter, and if there is none, selects 'commune'

This should please all tastes and opinions, and not affect any existing usage. It's the version in the sandbox.
If this tests out okay with you, @Frietjes:, I'll update the /doc accordingly later - you've done work enough already. Thanks! THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 06:50, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Even simpler!

* Changed 'area_land_km2' to 'area_total_km2' <= the area entered here has to be the area counted (it's like this anyway in all French articles)

* Changed 'total_type' to default to '& nbsp;' <= as per the 'infobox_settlement' documentation - since the 'area_total_km2' now corresponds to the 'total_type', whatever is entered as this will be displayed in both area and population; if empty, there is no title and the numbers appear on same lines as 'area' and 'population'.

* Just as a reminder - the 'commune status' will default to empty (no upper banner) if not provided.

I'm getting good at this - are you guys hiring? ; ) THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 13:52, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

My modifications are still in the sandbox. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 13:55, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

@Frietjes: ! ; ) THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 16:29, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

will wait for comment from others (Der Statistiker?) Frietjes (talk) 17:12, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

It's exactly what he wanted, but if you like. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 17:23, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

@Frietjes:, I think you can go ahead (if you're still available) - my fixes has removed the 'Land' problem, and the template defaults to 'no banner, no sub-heading' which means that none of the templates in use will be affected style-wise (only population order fixes). THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 18:09, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I added the documentation back to make life easier for you - I'll update it with the changes as soon as the template goes into effect. Thanks! THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 18:14, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi Frietjes. Not sure I understand exactly ThePromenader's proposals. So I've made this little file below to show clearly what I mean(t). It shows what should and shouldn't change in the table (it's a summary of my previous comments here), taking as an example the Lille infobox. Instead of "Commune", you can use "Municipal", which is more easily accessible to the average English reader. Up to you. Der Statistiker (talk) 20:35, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I already indicated on the Paris talk page several times that those problems were already fixed - you have samples there and here, the bottom box is the 'default': the area/population number appears on the same line as the Area/Population title, unless you want something else. No banner either if you don't want one. But you indicated that the template may have other uses than just communes, so that possibility is there too. I took into account all the changes you wanted while I fixed the changes I requested - the problem is solved. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 21:04, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

@Frietjes:, I think it's okay to go ahead with this - Statistiker didn't seem to understand that their issues were fixed (by me), but hopefully they do now. PS: are you the only one taking care of the template lock? I see no list about this anywhere. Thanks. Again. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 18:22, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I will check back in about a day to make sure there are no further tweaks/objections/etc. not sure all the desired changes requested by Der Statistiker are feasible. do we have a sufficient set of examples in the testcases so all the changes and possible problems can be viewed/tested? Frietjes (talk) 22:36, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes sorry that what should have been simple got seemingly complicated. The only thing that's not feasible is having "Land" appear as "Land Area" - but now "Land" won't appear at all (just "Area" as the title - the 'land only' is indicated/elaborated by the footnote (otherwise why have it?)) and the area number will appear next to it, not on the next line down, unless the "total type" parameter is filled in, then whatever is given there will appear on the next line down (see the 'blob' example). The density calculation only uses the "total_area_km2"; anything else will break/cancel it. It's possible to have this template's "area" fill in both "land" and "total", but that means that both lines will show up...

They're asking that the bar be blocked from appearing, but I don't think we have the right to deny every user that option: again. only if something is entered in "commune status" will the bar appear. Paris, for example, is both a Commune and a Department, so may use it, and perhaps other communes have this particularity. But for now, no communes using this template will show a bar, it is empty by default. So, by default, no commune templates will change, they will have the right number appear on the right line, that's all. The rest was a bonus for Der Statistiker, since he didn't attempt any changes himself and I was on it anyway. And he apparently hasn't examined the examples I provided, this is wasting both our time.

Again, sorry to burden you with this. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 23:07, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

@Frietjes:, all's silent on all fronts about this for me. Any word on your end? THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 20:24, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

@Frietjes:, it's been more than a week now, and no added requests or comments on the existing modifications. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 14:09, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

done. Frietjes (talk) 14:48, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 15:19, 22 November 2014 (UTC)