Template talk:Infobox Switzerland municipality/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Font problems

<moved from User talk:Docu>

Hello again. You might want to revise your last edit to this template. If you take a look at Fribourg or Zug, for example, you can see the coordinates are doubled up in the top right corner. I'm not sure what change you were intending to make, so I thought I would drop you a note rather than revert or edit it. Regards, — BillC ^talk 19:56, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

For some reason, these two articles had coordinates in the article, despite that the infobox template provided them for the article for a long time. The coordinate format pigsonthe added (template:coord) weren't formated in the same way as the ones in the article (template:coor title dm). The only change I made was to correct the font size. -- User:Docu

</moved>

This is a bug with the template's use of font-size:90%. Please fix that and do not remove microformat markup as a work-around. Andy Mabbett 21:47, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

As you added the microformat markup afterwards, what do you suggest to fix your additions?

Please add it to Template:Infobox_Swiss_town/Test first, once there is a consensus, we may want to go ahead and add it to the live version.

Unless you suggested improvements, I consider your version 125788442 of 10:13, 2007 April 25 the last uncontroversial one. Unless there is a working improvement on Template:Infobox_Swiss_town/Test, we have to role back on that one. -- User:Docu

Your "have to " is an opinion not a fact. The bug is in the template, not the microformat. Andy Mabbett 10:20, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, you don't have to, I will do it myself. Please advise if you fixed coord in the meantime. -- User:Docu

There is nothing in coord to fix. The bug is in the template, not the microformat. Andy Mabbett 11:08, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, so you wont change the {{coord}} template to work with this infobox. What solution do you suggest? -- User:Docu

Fix the template. Andy Mabbett 08:08, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok. Until someone fixes the {{coord}} template, I will restore the last undisputed version of the infobox. It's a bit disappointing that you don't care about the result of your addition. -- User:Docu

You appear not to be reading what I've written: The bug is in the template, not the microformat.. Andy Mabbett 11:04, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I do, no problem: we will just remove the template from the infobox then. The microformat (vcard) can stay. -- User:Docu

Andy, while I am sure it is desirable to add a microformat to this template, it is unfair for one project to make changes to the template of another, and when adverse results are discovered, to declare it the responsibility of that second project to fix the problem. Can we at least ask you to work with us on Template:Infobox_Swiss_town/Test and resolve this issue? Thank you. — BillC ^talk 20:30, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Sure. Andy Mabbett 22:40, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I restored the consensual version. -- User:Docu

Where have the interwiki links gone, and what if we wish to edit or add to them? — BillC ^talk 22:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

They can be edited on the subpage. The font size now isn't the one we agreed on before. I suppose we have to do away with coord to fix this. Maybe Pigsonthewing can work out a proposal on Template:Infobox_Swiss_town/Test. -- User:Docu

You suppose wrongly. Andy Mabbett 22:04, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Andy, I thought you had undertaken to work with us on the test page. This is not in the spirit of cooperative editing. The reduced font size was in the template first, and this template is in use in a very large number of articles, some of which are now not well-formatted. Please tell us what goes wrong when font-size:90% is used in the template. — BillC ^talk 22:21, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

btw, the font-size was agreed on at Template_talk:Infobox_Swiss_town#Size. -- User:Docu

There are very good reasons, not least those to do with accessibility, why font size should not be set below 100%. It is unreasonable to tell coord to produce text at 90% and then to complain when it does. If you wish for coord to ignore such instructions, please feel free to raise the matter on either its talk page, or that of the user who wrote it; but do not pretend that it is "broken" when it does as it is asked. Andy Mabbett 11:46, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Pigsonthewing, it worked well before you started playing with it. We even incorporated vcard and coord without problems, so please restore the version we agree on [1]. We can even add the nicely made /doc subpage.

Please tells us if you are still willing to work out a compromise on Template:Infobox Swiss town/Test. -- User:Docu

We' don't agree on that version; and that version does not include coord Andy Mabbett 16:02, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

True there is just "vcard" in this one. Please excuse this.

If you disavow your initial additions, let's go with the February 28 version then. No further additions have been agreed on. -- User:Docu

Okay with me. — BillC ^talk 16:14, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

"If you disavow your initial additions" - What are you talking about? Andy Mabbett 16:19, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Just in case we could develop a consensus about your additions at 10:13, 2007 April 25. If you don't agree on them, let's forget about it. -- User:Docu

Once again, I have no idea what you mean. Andy Mabbett 11:06, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

We are just trying to locate the last version that is not controversial. That's all. -- User:Docu

No-one is "pretending" anything. Please refrain from such language. — BillC ^talk 15:23, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, they are. Andy Mabbett 16:02, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Update requests

Vcard

Can we add vcard? I made at test version at Template:Infobox_Swiss_town/Test which displays with the information from Aarau at Template talk:Infobox_Swiss_town/Test. To test some of its feature, one may need to use the "operator" add-on on Firefox.

Please edit the test version to make it work better. Once we agree on the stable version, we can use it for the live version, updating the 2000+ articles. -- User:Docu

There's no need. hCard (which is what I think you meant) is already in the template, though you keep trying to remove it. Your test implementation, unlike that on the actual template, is broken. Andy Mabbett 11:05, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Can you explain what needs fixing? -- User:Docu

On the current template? Nothing. Andy Mabbett 13:40, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

If it's ok with you, I will post it then. -- User:Docu

What do you mean, "post it" ? Andy Mabbett 21:26, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

In note that the template has again been reverted, with no explanation, and no answer to the above. Andy Mabbett 10:00, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

By proposing to post the test version to the live version, I mean to suggest replacing the current, consensual version (see BillC above), with a new, consensual version. Do you understand what I mean? -- User:Docu

Thank you for your belated response. I think I understand what you mean. I don't think you're correct, though. As I said above, your hCard mark-up is not valid and in any case, there's no need for it. Andy Mabbett 12:52, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I note that you have now removed the microformat mark-up completely, without even mentioning that you were planning to do so, or what you thought was wrong with it. Please reinstate it. Andy Mabbett 15:23, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Docu ignored the above, so I reverted, to restore the hCard microformat. He has immediately reverted me, with the edit summary "(rv pigs' (stop this; no explanation given on talk)''". My name remains, Andy Mabbett 20:08, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Still no answer. I therefore intend to restore the version with the hCard microformat markup in the near future. Andy Mabbett 16:48, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

As your initial attempt had some problems, it was suggested that you to make a test version. On May 1, you agree to this, but, as of June 10, you still haven't edited /Test yet. You didn't even bother helping with the test version I made for you. Make a working prototype and I will have a look at it. -- User:Docu

I made no such agreement. Please identify the problems you think exist, explicitly. I have already explained why your test version was redundant. I do not have to submit my edits to you in draft. Andy Mabbett 17:23, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Supposedly it was someone else using the username "Pigsonthewing". -- User:Docu

Rather than making cryptic or snide comments, perhaps you could state, clearly, what you think is wrong with the template which you have, once again, reverted? Andy Mabbett 21:26, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I waited 16 days for an answer to the preceding question, When none came, I re-added {{coord}}, only for it to be removed once again, this time with the edit summary "the font problem is still there/try to get it working on /Test first". In the light of earlier conversations, I am still none the wiser as to what this means or why the edit was reverted. Andy Mabbett 08:47, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Pigsonthewing, please excuse, but we can't leave the misformed version on the articles. To visualize changes, there is the test version.

The font problem we discussed more than two months ago is still not resolved. Oddly, you acknowledged the font problem back then [[2], but told us that it's for everyone else to fix.

As for the addition of "vcard" as a class, I left on the template. -- User:Docu

Oh that. What I actually said was "This is a bug with the template's use of font-size:90%. Please fix that and do not remove microformat markup as a work-around.". That remains unchanged. I did fix it, but you reverted that also. Andy Mabbett 10:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing, can you do a working version on test so there is a way to check if/how you fixed it? -- User:Docu

The various versions which you have reverted have all been working. Andy Mabbett 11:24, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

So why don't you provide us with a (working) test version? -- User:Docu

Because I've already provided more than one working live version. This discussion is utterly fruitless; if you want this infobox without parsable or user-configurable coordinates, have it that way. Andy Mabbett 17:00, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Transclusion of doc subpage

There is now a subpage at Template:Infobox_Swiss_town/doc which is generally used to transclude documentation and interwiki about the template. Looking at an old version [3], the coordinates of the sample collide with the ones used in the template. Shall we keep it there or leave the sample to this talk page? -- User:Docu

Documentation belongs on /doc, not /talk. Andy Mabbett 11:05, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

What are you going to do about the colliding coordinates? -- User:Docu

Pigonthewing, shall we note that you didn't respond or do you only respond after people undid your edits? -- User:Docu

I didn't notice your earlier message; I'm happy to answer now: nothing. My name remains, Andy Mabbett 12:52, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Change March 28, 2005

In order to make the link to Template:Coor dm possible, I split the coordinate field in four (nd/nm/ed/em) and placed the year of the population data in a separate field. I updated the different articles where the template was used. -- User:Docu

Change January 7, 2005

With class="hiddenStructure", it's now easy to add optional fields. Thus I included some of the fields available in other languages and already added to the articles, but not displayed due to the fact the fields weren't always available. -- User:Docu

Question?

Okay, I see what you mean, if you look at a large city, you've this problem, but for a small municipality, (e.g. Seigneux) we can't see the coat of arms. I think we should have a specific place for the name and a specific place for the coat of arms. And I also think that a more wikipedian-looking would be better. Could you do this, so that you're sure that everything's gonna work. And sorry if I've disturbed ;-p

Size

Why the small type? Other info boxes are normal size. Nelson Ricardo 05:20, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

To get some information into the pages, I added the infobox to the many stubs we keep getting, but I feel a large infobox might be too much (compare, e.g. with most French versions (e.g. fr:Rüti bei Bern has at least an image). -- User:Docu

It would be good to go to the normal font size. As it is the labels and information in the info box is near impossible to read for people like myself, who are over 40, and not userfriendly. Would be great if we can benefit and contribute to these articles as well. For instance, I work with the de-en translations and would love to get some of the now still missing articles into the system, but with a font that small I simply cannot do this to my eyes. If there is a concern about the size of the boxes, it works for most towns in other countries. And contributors can pear down the size of the box by either providing or not providing information for some of the fields. Any thoughts? --Mmounties 18:14, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I concur, larger font size makes it readable and doesn't really hurt, does it? —Nightstallion (?) 18:26, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I concur too. I'm getting 41 by the end of this month :-). Honestly, I don't like these small fonts. I also find the small references on pages like AIDS a real pain mostly suboptimal. --Ligulem 18:42, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I concur as well. I have never had a problem with the larger font of the Infobox Town DE, and I have seen it used with some rather short stubs. The large font looks just as good as the small, and is indeed easier to read. Wikipedia is used by people of all ages and abilities, so making it more accessible by enlarging the font is only increasing the potential number who can benefit from the information. --Inge-Lyubov 19:00, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

We really need not do everything as fr.wikipedia (the beauty of wiki is that they are different), but if one takes aarau as an example, french, italian, and german, and even spanish, all have tables with larger font. user-friendliness is more important than pure aesthetics (or they must at least be balanced), and making it large also has a way of suggesting that more information belongs there. there's no real reason to connect font-size with population size or article length, see these both can change incrementally! Adam Mathias 19:12, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Yep, I agree too. Whilst I can read it at this size, it's most definitely an unnecessary strain on my eyes. Trebor27trebor 19:31, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, bigger is better. My eyes don't like small fonts either. Saint|swithin 19:42, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Let's put it to a bigger size like most other boxes. JHMM13 (T | C) 20:50, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Which percentage would you like to use? Infobox Countries uses 95%? I suppose 90% should do. -- User:Docu

90% would be wonderful (I believe that's what the Infobox Town DE is at as well). Thanks so much! --Mmounties 21:48, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

not that I think it is overly important but a compacter look has its advantages. For those with smaller screens it gets everything on one page. I found working with the german infobox quite easy on the eyes so I have to agree with Mmounties Agathoclea 00:59, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Agree with Mmounties as well. Olessi 21:07, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I guess it depends on screen resolution and font size in browser as for which size looks better; but probably making the fontof a similar size to that inmost other infoboxes would be good. Kaiser 747 09:50, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I see that the font size was updated as a result of the above. However, the population figure itself is now 100% whilst everything else is 90%. This looks inconsistent to my eyes. Was this deliberate or just missed at the time? MarkS 21:02, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Sub category for Municipalities of Switzerland

Category:Municipalities of Switzerland has several sub-categories, such as Category:Municipalities of the Canton of Geneva. Should pages containing the infobox and belonging to the sub-category really be automatically added to the main category as well ? Schutz 21:25, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

It's quite handy to have them all in the category. The category Municipalities of Switzerland shouldn't be added manually to articles though. Possibly we could do without a specific municipality subcategory per canton. Categories such as Category:Vaud may be sufficient. -- User:Docu

I agree it is handy, even though the category will have about 2900 entries. On the other hand, looking at Category:Vaud and Category:Municipalities of the canton of Vaud shows that anything that is not a municipality will be completely lost among the municipalities in the former category, maybe justifying the sub categories too. Anyone else has an opinion ? Schutz 15:34, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Maybe Category:Places in the canton of Vaud would avoid loosing out on the localities that are not municipalities. -- User:Docu

Version by 83.76.32.102

It's at Template talk:Infobox Swiss town/Test. -- User:Docu

Simpler source

Hi. I would like to propose a simplification of the template source. There should be no visible changes. My proposal is at User:Ligulem/work/Infobox Swiss town/1, test inclusions are at User talk:Ligulem/work/Infobox Swiss town/1. I moved the small text size style onto the top level (diff). Have I overlooked something? --Ligulem 17:02, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Edited into the template here (diff). --Ligulem 22:21, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

For some reason it doesn't work in Cologne Blue skin. Is there a way to fix it ? -- User:Docu

Oops. Sorry. Hmm, what's wrong with it? I switched to Cologne Blue but it looks good to me (Firefox). But it's not such an important edit, so it would be possibly best to revert. Please do so if you think it is safer for now. I can try to track down the problem in my sandbox. I will have a look at it tomorrow morning. Thanks. --Ligulem 23:26, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

It looks ok. It's just the font-size that isn't smaller in Cologne Blue. -- User:Docu

You're right. I've seen it now. Have just reverted. Sorry. Strange. --Ligulem 23:45, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

As Of Rules

According to the As of page, the As of (month) (year) is depratected and should not be used. I propose that you keep the month, but the As Of link using only the year to be compliant with this..

I've added another paramer popofyear, which if defined should solve this problem. Rich Farmbrough, 18:57 7 September 2006 (GMT).

We could use existing redirects instead. There isn't much of the a problem with using them. The additional parameter is a bit an overkill (imaging all the noise created by updating the pages). Possibly we could include/fix it when revising other (displayed) fields. --- User:Docu

One of my projects is to remove the deprecated As of (month) (year) usages. I cannot find a way to do this in Swiss Town infoboxes without deleting the month. I appreciate efforts to link just to as of (year) but will respect any suggestions made here. MKoltnow 21:56, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Burp. I just read the example infobox at the top of this page. I'll use Rich's new parameter for popofyear. I will get back to reverting the boxes that I've modified to show months but link only to as of years. Sorry! MKoltnow 21:58, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

"As of year" seems to be superfluous, as redirects for "As of (month) (year)" are available. Consequently I removed this from the template. -- User:Docu

Automated categorisation

I see there's some resistance to my change to this template, so it's time for some discussion. All Swiss cantons have their own municipality categories, so all Swiss municipalities are in one or other of those. Articles should not be in both a category and a subcategory of that category (Wikipedia:Categorization#Some general guidelines, number 3). Using a template to automatically add articles to categories prevents one from applying the proper alphabetical order to the category, since the MediaWiki software puts accented letters (umlauts, acutes, circumflexes, etc.) after the usual alphabet, whereas they would normally sort together with the unaccented forms. In a previous discussion (above), no convincing reason could be found for keeping the double categorisation, and in fact a list would be better suited to that purpose. Anyone care to disagree? --Stemonitis 08:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Some things are easier to do if there are in just one category. Just ignore the category, if you don't want to use it. Please avoid doing reverts on it. As long as the categorization is consistent, nothing prevents us from applying both.

If you care, you may want to define a specific optional sortkey to allow sorting by unaccented forms. It should be easy to add. I wouldn't mind. -- User:Docu

The policy is there for a reason. Please read it. And there is no consensus, just laziness. No-one wanted to make the change, although no-one could find a good reason not to. Please provide a convincing reason for this double categorisation. I've already sorted the accented forms once before finding the real cause of the problem. It's a large amount of work, when it could all be solved by one edit which you won't allow me to make. I've found a simple, easy, policy-consistent, sensible way of solving it; your solution is worse. Let me make it. --Stemonitis 07:52, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

You might want to read on the next page to get the full policy. A simple reason is that Special:Recentchangeslinked/Category:Municipalities_of_Switzerland wouldn't work. This way you can easy check changes to the articles you created about municipalities in several cantons. Besides, if you are not sure which canton it was in, you can easily located it. Anyways, please add an optional field for sortkeys, if you feel it's needed. -- User:Docu

I would recommend a list for that functionality. --Stemonitis 06:22, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I personaly don't care strongly one way or the other, but if someone thinks the listing of all municipalities in one category may be handy, then I'd choose to go with the status quo. I can take care of the optional sorting field if needed. Schutz 21:50, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I really can't understand why you wouldn't want to go for the easy option. --Stemonitis 06:22, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

What do you call the "easy option" ? Modifying a template (plus taking care of a few particular cases when there are accents involved) seems much easier to me than building a list from scratch and making sure that all the links are correct. Schutz 08:47, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

See User:Stemonitis/Swiss municipalities, created from the existing list articles, or list sections of the canton articles. No two links point to the same place except for cases where no disambiguation page exists yet. It took much less time to build than it would to re-sort all the accented ones (I know from experience). --Stemonitis 09:57, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I don't mind about the sorting. If you want to go for a static list, how often do you plan to update it? Daily, monthly or annually? Articles get created or moved once in a while. -- User:Docu

Using the list, I am able to see that the following articles have been created today: Märstetten, Bussnang, Bürglen, Thurgau, Birwinken, etc., etc. Any page moves would also show up under "recent changes". Page creations would not show up in a category if the new article is not put into the category, which is often the case, which is therefore an advantage of the list. Incidentally, the list is only a sub-page of my user page at the moment because I wasn't sure what title to give it. Feel free to move it to a title of your choosing. Can anyone give me any reason now that we've got the list, why I shouldn't empty out the Category:Municipalities of Switzerland? I feel I've answered all your queries. --Stemonitis 11:33, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Schutz 12:26, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

It just misses the articles that are created at locations to or from other than the ones on your list. Besides, you haven't responded to the question about the update frequency. -- User:Docu

And the category method misses those that are not categorised when created. One would hope that new articles would be created according to the titles given on the list; in most cases this is certainly going to be the case (where there is no need for disambiguation). The other alternative is that someone will create a disambiguation page at a title given on the list, at which point he or she should go through the incoming links and fix them to point to the disambiguated pages. Manual updates should thus never be necessary. Since a category structure exists already, it can be used to find the mis-titled articles anyway. This is the way it works at every other large category. Any further problems? --Stemonitis 06:30, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

The list is a good thing to have, I even moved it into article namespace. Thanks for making it.

It may not lead to the correct article as apparently it still needs updating. Now the question is, are you going to do the regular updates or not? I'd prefer we'd continue to use the category on the infobox and the project page to track the changes and keep things consistent with the same category in other languages.

BTW are there any articles you created you got trouble finding if we include the category? -- User:Docu

Like I say, it should only need updating when someone creates a disambiguation page, and when someone creates a disambiguation page, he or she should make sure that all pages that had linked to it are changed to point to the correct (disambiguated) pages. This is what I did yesterday when I found that the disambiguation page Rickenbach had been created. Other kinds of updates should not be necessary. Therefore, I only need to update it when I make a new disambiguation page. I have no plans to make one at the moment, but if I should, then I'll update the list; otherwise, I won't.

I don't think I understand your question about the category. There is nothing that can be found with the big category method that can't be found in a sub-category or (alternatively) on the list, unless articles are created at entirely inappropriate titles (mis-spelled, wrongly capitalised or similar).

It may also be desirable to split the list into sections so that it loads more quickly; I did very little formatting, since that didn't seem important at the time. I'll leave it up to you how the list will look.

I don't buy the argument about interwiki consistency. Different Wikipedias have different policies, and we should not apply the policies and practices of one Wikipedia to another. In any case, the French and Swedish Wikipedias do it the way I suggest, so there's no greater consistency either way. --Stemonitis 09:07, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok then you wont be updating it. Thank you for answering the question. -- User:Docu

I won't need to! Does it really make so much difference whether I personally agree to regularly update something that won't need updating? Maybe I will from time to time, but I'm hardly going to guarantee that here and now. If that's the only reason for your reversion to the double-category system, then I must say I'm disappointed. I've put some effort into improving the state of things, and you're resisting the improvements for no apparent reason. --Stemonitis 10:53, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

The category on the template automates updating. It's a simple as that. It faciliates extraction of the articles as well.

You don't need to get angry and call things "a disaster" just because you don't agree with it or you don't use a category you just discovered. If you like to improve or to contribute to WikiProject Municipalities of Switzerland, please help creating stubs for the municipalities that are still missing them. I will contribute the infobox. -- User:Docu

I don't wish to put words in Schutz' mouth, but his/her comment above ("Looks good to me") seems like support for my method, which also follows policy on categories. The only support I can see for yours comes from you yourself, and the only reasons you give are effectively nullified by the existence of the list. Consensus, such as it is, is on my side.

Often, when new users create articles, they are (understandably) not aware of the existing hierarchy of categories, and so the articles are not added to the categories correctly. If you rely on the category to discover new articles, you will miss those ones. With the list you will not. The alternative problem, that an article will be created, but at the wrong title, can be picked up through the cantonal categories whether or not the infobox fills a megacategory. If the new article is ill-titled and uncategorised, then neither method will pick up on it, anyway. You could always use the "What links here" on {{Infobox Swiss town}} to find out about (ill-titled, uncategorised) articles that use that template. This would be better than filling a category with what amounts to "Articles that use Template:Infobox Swiss town".

What do you mean by "facilitates extraction of the articles"? --Stemonitis 11:33, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Schutz that the list is nice to have. This doesn't mean it duplicates the current category solution. Categories and lists generally complete each other.

To discover new articles, the solution of the WikiProject is much more comprehensive 1. Once created, one just needs to add the infobox to add it to the category.

"facilitates extraction of the articles", i.e. you can get all articles on Swiss municipalities from one category. -- User:Docu

Well, if you've got that list, you don't need the category at all, and you never did. Curious. --Stemonitis 12:26, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I basically agree with your method... and I also notice that there seem to be a push at the moment to create stubs for all the Swiss municipalities; once this will be done, there should be no need to update the list anymore. Schutz 21:57, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

List of municipalities of Switzerland still seems to link to disambiguation pages, would you fix it or should we use the category? - November 22, 2006 -- User:Docu

As it's much easier to do fixes to the list as well as the articles using the infobox, I readded the category. Maybe someone else who helps fixing List of municipalities of Switzerland wants to comment? -- User:Docu

Please read the comments at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 November 1#Category:Municipalities of Switzerland. The list can be fixed, whereas the mis-sorting cannot so easily be fixed. Furthermore, no-one was able to think of a good encyclopaedic reason for keeping this monster category when all its constituent articles are already in one or other subcategory. Restoring the category is clearly going against consensus. Anything which serves primarily as a tool to editors should not be in the main (Category) namespace, but should probably be on the talk pages of the articles concerned instead. --Stemonitis 11:39, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, the main concern seems to be the missing sortkeys. I will try to fix it this week. It should be easy to do.

I don't understand why you mind that much having an additional category on articles you hardly edit, especially that it facilitates many things, e.g. Special:Recentchangeslinked/Category:Municipalities_of_Switzerland. -- User:Docu

It's not only the sort keys (although that's a big enough problem). The guidelines at WP:SUBCAT state that "In straightforward cases an article should not be in both a category and its subcategory". The reasons for this are clear; if every article in a subcategory were included in the parent category, many categories would become so large as to be unusable. If it is useful to put all Swiss municipalities in a single category and not only in cantonal categories, then by the same logic, it would be useful to have all European municipalities in a single category, or all populated places in the world. Very soon, the cateogry ceases to be useful and becomes a burden instead. Hence the guideline that an article should be sorted vertically into the most precise category, and not in any of that category's parent categories. --Stemonitis 02:13, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I will try to find a solution as well. Don't worry, none want's to mkae alist of all European municipalities similar to list of municipalities of Switzerland. Any other issues? -- User:Docu