Template talk:French commune

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If you came to this page, you might be interested in having a look at/ contributing to: Wikipedia:WikiProject French communes. olivier 10:52, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I think it is really silly to have longitude and latitude in separate fields, since it prevents you from using the {{coor dms}} template (you silly English persons!) dab (ᛏ) 19:37, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Who is silly? who is English? can you make more constructive comments? olivier 10:47, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
Don't you mean people? Captain scarlet 11:22, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Sounds like he was referring to the "French castle" scene from Monty Python's "The Holy Grail". You silly English wipers of other people's bottoms! : ) THEPROMENADER 23:05, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Unless and until there is an equivalent English article to that in the French Wikipedia concerning populations sans doubles comptes, an unlinked "Population without double-counting" is, in my view, unnecessary over-precision in the context of this template. Have changed it to "Population". -- Picapica 13:28, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I do not see how reversion from a non-minor edit can be itself classified as minor. At least I attempted to justify my edit here. -- Picapica 10:24, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

OK, fine. Let's leave "population" for now. It will add confusion for people who want to import the population figures from the French Wikipedia, as they distinguish between "with and without double counting". Eventually we will have figures randomly with or without double counting under the "population" header, and we will need to recheck them all once we define "without double counting". By removing "unnecessary over-precision in the context of this template" we will add just this: inaccuracy. olivier 06:53, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
I have added footnotes which explain the population sans doubles comptes. Hardouin 10:42, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
It makes the template a bit heavy, but it is definitely an improvement. Thanks! olivier 10:48, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I have changed the "Arrondissement" parameter so that people can copy and paste data from fr.wikipedia ~~

And I have changed it back, because the data from the French template needs some translation work anyway and cannot just be cut and paste. olivier 10:48, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

A date is needed for the population density, because some tables have two years for population (1999 census + 2004 estimate). Hardouin 11:09, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Which ones??? 706 articles have this table now. I think that less than 10 of them has 2 census dates. Shall we add the density date to the 696 other articles? In any case, does it make sense to have 2 population figures in the table? I suggest that we keep only one population figure in the table, which does not require the date for density. All the other population figures can be mentioned in the text of the article. olivier 11:21, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
See Nanterre for an example of table with two dates. We cannot leave only the most recent date (2004) because it is only an estimate. On the other hand, we cannot leave only 1999 date, because there is a more recent number for 2004. Usually on Wikipedia it is common to have both census and recent estimate date. Check for instance the infobox at United States, there is 2000 census and 2005 estimate. Hardouin 12:24, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Cantons

Is the entry "Canton" really needed in the table? The table is already quite long, and I think the canton entry is not necessary. Cantons have no relevance in France except as an electoral unit. Furthermore, as Olivier and others may be aware, many French communes are themselves divided into several cantons, so the entry become very confused. Last but not least, I don't know if you are also aware that some cantons are made up of parts of different communes. For instance, the western half of Castelsarasain in Tarn-et-Garonne is the canton of Castelsarasain Ouest, but the eastern half of Castelsarasain is merged with several neighbouring rural communes to form the canton of Castelsarasain Est. Another example, if I remember correctly, the canton of Toulouse XIII is made up of a small part of the commune of Toulouse PLUS two suburban communes. So as you can see the canton entry cannot accurately describe these intricate cases. Let's just remove this unnecessary and cumbersome entry. Hardouin 16:01, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Let's keep it. Otherwise, we can also remove the arrondissement and the mayor: are they really relevant? In the exceptional cases you are mentioning, it is very simple to just describe the situation in the table or at least write: "see administration paragraph". Hardouin, you are making things more complicated than they are: why should we make massive changes : i.e remove the cantons or add the density date just because of a few exceptions? Why not treat exceptions as exceptions and make a short explanation in the article text instead? olivier 10:07, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
The "exceptional cases" I am mentioning are not really exceptional. The problem with cantons exists for almost all urban communes. I am adding infoboxes for the communes of the Paris suburbs now, and almost all cantons there have problems. And in the DOM-TOM there are more cantons than communes! Mayor is an important entry and should be kept. Arrondissement is also a real administrative division, with real administration, but cantons have totally disappeared as a real administrative division since the early 20th. There are no more juges de paix, no more cantoniers, no more Conseil cantonal, the canton is only an electoral unit now. If you add canton, why not also adding legislative and senatorial electoral units? Hardouin 12:59, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Kesla's edits

The new infobox created by Kesla is quite ugly IMO, with bolded entries and no more separation lines in the table. What are the justifications for changing the infobox anyway? For now I am reverting to Olivier's infobox. Hardouin 12:40, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Latitude/Longitude information

I think it would be better if, instead of using two fields for latitude and longitude, you would use a single field for geographical location. Then you could use the geo tags as explained in Wikipedia:WikiProject_Geographical_coordinates. This has at least three advantages:

  • the reader can click on the location and has immediate access to maps, satellite images etc. See here for Paris: 48°51′12″N, 2°20′56″E
  • Planned future extensions of Wikipedia that will take advantage of geographical information to produce innovative views into Wikipedia will automatically work for all French cities.
  • your table has one fewer row.

All the best, AxelBoldt 02:11, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

That certainly seems like a good idea. Thanks for the info re Wikipedia:WikiProject_Geographical_coordinates with which I was unfamiliar. Dlyons493 Talk 15:28, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Municipal and cantonal elections 2007 postponed to 2008

Note to editors: a law passed at the beginning of December 2005 has extended all current mayoral mandates to March 2008 (to avoid an "electoral traffic jam" in 2007). Reference -- Picapica 19:27, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lightening

Is there any way to lighten up the infobox, it is rather big contains information worth dismissing or moved to {{coor dms}}. Some communes are so small that the infobox looks ridiculously out of place and in article where information exists, the box prevents inserting pictures at adequate. A lot of the information could indeed be metionned in a geography paragraph at the top of a commune article. Regards, Captain scarlet 11:22, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Please, god, yes. It is waaaay too big, and is killing me every time I try to add actual real information to an article on one of these communes. It's almost impossible to add images in a nice layout. Suggestions:
  • Move the two footnotes to a hyperlink. What a waste of 6 lines in the infobox.
  • Condense the INSEE and postal codes into one line.
  • Collapse the altitudes into one line
  • Scrap the population density - it can be calculated from the previous two lines
  • Scrap the Mayor's term of office - if it's that interesting, put it in the body.
I'll try a couple of these changes and see if anyone objects. Stevage 21:09, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Also moved the redundant France link with flag to the very top line, after the name of the commune. Stevage 21:19, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
I added the "clear:right" to the style attribute so it should bother its neighbours a little less now. This one for sure can use some slimming down - this may be a problem though because of the embedded image set to the (310px?) width - things are going to get fugly for a bit if the template is changed before these. --THEPROMENADER 17:17, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
PS: I just finished 'lightening' the "French big-city" infoboxes... communes could be the same as this minus the "city emblem/motto" and "urban spread" info. Perhaps replace the arms and such with an image? The timezone (not needed in this case?) and lat/long info is already embedded. If you like it it's yours for the taking - strip it down and make a new one if you like. Use at least the 'floating point' system - this way you won't have to make/upload thousands of examples of the same plan... because of a dot. I just remembered the 'smaller map' comment on the 'major french cities template page... yes. Even its present use, I find it a bit excessive - and in a way I don't see the need of putitng an entire map of France front and centre - really this is 'inset' material. Any ideas? THEPROMENADER 17:29, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
PPS : This template is present in too many articles to tweak directly - so I tacked a talk page sandbox to this talk page here. THEPROMENADER 17:36, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
I didn't think to look at just how many pages this template is included in beyond a single history page - now that I have: forget the above idea. THEPROMENADER 17:19, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Hmm, even with the clear:right tag, it still prevents images appearing directly opposite, and I don't understand why at all. For example, try going to Vannes and inserting an image under the Geography heading. It will actually appear all the way down the bottom of the page. No ideas? Stevage 08:28, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
(Scratching head) There's something odd going on here. It has nothing to do with the template - it has to do with any 'float:right' item: any "float:left" (thumb|left) image will float to the left near the top of the "float:right" object preceding it - but seemingly around 5px above this point and overlapping any text that may be above. I looked into the page source and css and see nothing amiss in the "div.tright" class attributed to the image wikicode: "float:right;clear:right:border-width:0em(etc)".
Yet when I tried to isolate the image from its 'float' instructions by enclosing it in an unstyled <div> tag, I discovered that by default all objects float to the right, even without any added attributes or styles! Very odd. There is some sort of style conflict going on here. Rest assured; it's not the template or images. Now, where to call attention to this? THEPROMENADER 09:52, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

What bugs me is that the template for major cities works fine (see the image across from the template at Nice), but this one doesn't. So there must be some difference between them. Stevage 15:32, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Really? I had exactly the same problem though - on the Paris page. I was a bit tired of the TOC leaving all that whitespace to its right, so wrapped it in a "float:left;clear:left"'d <div>... but at first it wouldn't float properly to the left at the "Name" subject where I wanted it - it would float no higher up than the top of the Paris infobox. After a bit of juggling I found that I had to make sure that the "float:left"'d TOC came before the object (in this case the infobox) that was bothering it and keeping it from rising up to its proper place: this done, itthe right-floating image and infobox would float 'up' and to the right after. Hit-and-miss, I know.
I have yet to play around, as I was thinking that it may also be the "clear" attribute - but I don't think so! --THEPROMENADER 17:36, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
I just noticed just how many articles this template is included in. There must be thousands! Best to tread verrry verrry carefully... did you solve your problem? THEPROMENADER 17:16, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Clear right problem

I hope removing the "clear:right" fixed the problem - did it? In the meantime I'll do a 'browser tour' (platform/OS/browsertype) to be sure. Sorry about that. THEPROMENADER 13:17, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

It checks out in everything but IE mac (not surprising). What did you mean by "Paragraph marks"? THEPROMENADER 13:22, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Afraid the clear BR is still there, hop you guy can resolve this soon. Cheers, Captain scarlet 22:41, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Clear 'br'? this is redundant code, and seen by W3.org as illegal... and some browsers won't read styled 'br' tags at all... me looky. THEPROMENADER 22:56, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Hello! If one of you doesn't find the solution first, can you up a screenshot? I couldn't find any BR at all. Will test on the PC tomorrow morning to see what's up - but can detect nothing in the code. Wiki is rather over-CSS'd IMHO... THEPROMENADER 23:02, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Well BR is pretty standard to break lines, but that's not really the question, in that template is something that doesn't text wrap around it. What's that clear right thing that Olivier removed ? Captain scarlet 23:10, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Forget about it, I found the culprit, it was not an infobox related problem (well it was, but stricly speaking it wasn't). Allez circulez, y'a rien à voir. Circulez. Circulez ! Captain scarlet 23:13, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] padding etc

Someone (Olivier?) made the cell padding 5 instead of 2. Could we try and agree on a common direction for this beast? IMHO it's such a nuisance to articles that we really want to make it as small as possible, even if we sacrifice some readibility - space is really critical. Throwing space away on extra padding seems wasteful. Anyone agree? Incidentally, TP, it's used in ~500 articles, I wouldn't stress too much about making updates, since it's obviously not used on "the big ones". Obviously preview before saving, but it's not thrashing the server or anything. Stevage 22:28, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

That was me who changed the padding - just to take it away from the left margin. It was either adding that unique all-round style to the table, or adding a padding left & right only on each individual cell. Put it back if you like - but don't you think there's another solution for space-saving? Also: is it the width that you find overwhelming, or the height? Personally I don't see height as being bothersome... if things are thin enough. It's hard to see changes in a template without changing it - or am I missed some method? Anyhow, cheers. THEPROMENADER 22:42, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
I just knocked the line-height down (set it to, rather) 140% - from its 'default' 200% - this should save a lot of space. If you don't like it, please feel free to revert. If this does help anything, I would think that the left column entries would be more 'eye-catching' in bold, for those looking for quick info. THEPROMENADER 22:49, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Coordinates

It would be nice if the coordinates on the template would link to the map sources page as, e.g., Template:Coor dm or Template:Infobox Swiss town. When I got some time, I may update the existing pages and make them link. -- User:Docu

I've added a "lat_long" field in the template, following all suggestions on this talk page about the coordinates issue. Compatibility with the older system (i.e. two separate fields for latitude and longitude info) is still assured. --Angelo 22:05, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
How come some communes have their coordinates bring up the maps page, and others don't? By that I mean, the wiki page with aerial photo and maps of the area surrounding the coordinates.
Some use Template:Coor dm, others don't. Currently converting to use Template:Coor dm. If you see any and would like to help, you can convert. --Bob 00:21, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Compatibility doesn't seem to be there any more, see Mulhouse article this revision - it brings up text saying {{{lat_long}}} Madder 21:06, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Fixed. --Bob 00:21, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Recent change of infobox

User Ed g2s has recently changed substantially the appearance of this infobox, impacting thousands of article. The previous template was the result of a long history of adjustments and has been used unchallenged since months. Any substantial change as the one of Ed g2s would require at least an explanation in this talk page. Ed g2s' proposed changes include the broadening of the template, which leaves less space for the article text. Size reduction of the template has been a constant effort, and Ed's change is going against this. Additionally, the template used by Ed does not have a separation between the right and left columns, and it changes the colors of the template, which I disagree with. Ed, if you want your suggestion for a new template to be approved, please discuss it here first and try to seek suggestions and agreement from other users of this template. Short of such an agreement, I am reverting the template to its previous version. You may also be interested in participating in the Wikipedia:WikiProject French communes. Thanks. olivier 05:26, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Please read WP:ACCESS#Style_and_markup. We should be avoiding custom inline styling when we have a class the does the job we want - i.e. creating an infobox. If you are concerned about cell separation you can use class="infobox bordered". If you are concerned about the width of the infobox, then make in narrower. However we shouldn't be using all those hard-coded colours. Check out MediaWiki:Common.css to see what the class actually does. Thanks, ed g2s • talk 09:24, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
I am not discussing technical aspects, but the visual result. And as it is now, it is UGLY. Isn't there a way to recreate the same visual result with the [insert jargon] that you want to use? Thanks. olivier 09:48, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
The changes aren't bad are they ? The box isn't so flashy (no grey bandeau) and is smaller in height. Why the bother since when you look at it the box looks better this way (run a diff). Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 12:26, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
The current version is not the same one as Ed's first version, for which I had made my initial comment. I agree that the current box it is not extremely bad, but I wouldn't say that I really like the new version either. In the pre-Ed version, the size had been reduced over time, but I guess that we sort of had reached a limit, and the table now looks a bit too compact and is not really "light" to read. I prefered the white background (compared to light grey now). I also liked the idea of having a bandeau. Also, the current lines inside the box are quite dark and make the table look "busy". These lines were lighter in the previous version. In conclusion, I think that this table would now need some fine tuning, but I really don't know how to do that technically. olivier 13:35, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
You can make font-size and width changes easily, and you could've done that from the first version. Just keep custom styling to practical uses, and avoid using hard coded colours. As for it being "UGLY", that may well be your opinion but this is a style used on hundrends of infoboxes and therefore hundreds of thousands of pages. It is matched to the monobook skin, if you don't like the monobook skin use a different one. Thanks, ed g2s • talk 14:01, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
My comments were on the last version of Ed g2s'. It is very appropriate to make infoboxes the smallest possible and since in the latest version keeps al lthe original information, then why not? Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 14:51, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Olivier, the current template looks ugly, the previous one looked much better. As Olivier said, the separating lines are too dark, the infobox looks too compact and busy, and the now disapeared grey bandeau looked quite nice. As it stands now, it's probably the ugliest template around on Wikipedia. It looks like one of these templates from 3 years ago when Wikipedia was still in its beginnings. Compare with the stylish templates of Athens or Mumbai. Hardouin 15:35, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

The template on Athens uses the infobox class, which is what I used in the first version. By all means fix the problems you outline, just bear in mind that the end results should be stylesheet-controllable. ed g2s • talk 00:09, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Not to mention that many French communes have their infoboxes completely screwed up now. Check Saint-Germain-en-Laye and Sainte-Geneviève-des-Bois. Not only these two infoboxes have different width (it seems the new template doesn't have a fixed width anymore), but furthermore the title of these infoboxes look absolutely ugly, the worst one being Sainte-Geneviève-des-Bois whose name is sort of squeezed and broken to leave some room to "France". The word "France" should not appear in the title of the infoboxes. Either put it in the table itself, or remove it altogether. Last but not least, check the population figures of Saint-Germain-en-Laye. A complete screw up that is. Hardouin 15:44, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Ed, I do not like the Monobloc, and I have been using the "Classic" skin since the Monobloc was made a default. Thank you for your advice for changing the skin, but I have already done that a few years ago. Now, this template is plainly not suitable for the Classic skin. It might have been matched on the Monobloc, but do you care if it does not match with other skins? Your argument about this template being used across Wikipedia is plain wrong. I can believe that some technical features of this template are common, but please don't tell me that all templates across Wikipedia are looking like this one! It looks like you have just made a change based on technical aspects, but that whatever the people working on the pages using this template think is not important. Following Hardouin, I will point at Tiger, Munich, and Sunflower. All of them are using common templates, and still are way better than what you are trying to have us accept. Again, how can we improve this template? Please don't try to make us "slaves" of technology and please don't force me to revert again. olivier 16:42, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand this Monobook vs. Classic skin exchange. I'm using Monobook, and the template looks plain ugly. If I select Classic skin, then the template looks equally ugly. This is how Saint-Maur-des-Fossés's infobox looks at the moment with the Monobook skin. Note how the name of the commune is squeezed and broken on two lines, and note how the population figures are totally screwed. Hardouin 18:11, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Screenshot
Enlarge
Screenshot
This means no-one has yet written in an infobox class for the classic skin. MediaWiki:Standard.css is probably where to start. Please remember this change is not an endorsement of the monobook skin. The point is to have as much style set by a class so that users have as much flexibility as possible in choosing how it looks. Inlining style imposes your style choices on everyone, regardless of what stylesheet they may be using. ed g2s • talk 00:04, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Ed, you are not talking to programmers but to editors. Can anyone translate what Ed is talking about because I almost don't understand anything. What I understand is: because of a technical guideline, you want the code of the table to be changed. Fine. But following this guideline should not change the aspect of the table as dramatically as it does now: the guideline is about coding, not about aspect. Now my understanding is: in order to obtain the aspect previously agreed upon by editors, while following the technical guideline, more coding should be done. Short of this, the aspect will remain inferior to other infoboxes. Reading the intro of Wikipedia:Accessibility: "However, it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception." To me, the common sense says that changing the infobox so dramatically without consensus is not appropriate. I understand also from Wikipedia talk:Accessibility that you are advocating a hardline stance for the application of this guideline, for instance regarding color, which is not shared by everyone. It looks to me like you are using the French commune template as a guinea pig for your technical point of view. I will be clear: either you or someone else creates a template using whatever coding you think is appropriate, without modifying the original aspect as drastically as it does now, or I will restore the original template: that will be the "occasional exception". Ed, I also saw that several people have complained about what can be understood as "your disruptive behavior". Please don't do that here. Respect the editors of the ~4,000 existing French communes articles. Respect their consensual choice of the aspect of a template. Address their concerns without hiding behind your technical jargon. olivier 03:24, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Olivier, go ahead and revert the changes. I'll support you on that. There are, however, two points in the former template that absolutely need to be improved. First there is this ugly "France" appearing in the grey bandeau of the infoboxes. This shouldn't be there. It skews long commune names toward the left, or even forces them to be broken on two lines, which is ugly. Either remove "France" altogether (I note that many municipio, komune, Gemeinden and whatnot infoboxes do not contain the name of their country), or create a specific entry in the template for the country, as it used to be before. I think the second option is better. In the case of French communes, the name of the country is more needed than, say, in the case of Italian comuni or German Gemeinden because of communes in overseas France (check Kouaoua to understand what I mean, the country entry seems necessary to me, but not in the grey bandeau!). The second point is the population figures, which are currently screwed up. This comes from a change in the template made by Stevage on August 10. Apparently he didn't know that some communes have two population figures. So if you revert to the former template, don't forget to also revert Stevage's well-intended but uninformed edit. Hardouin 12:04, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
I have modified the template so that the, IMO, ugly lines are removed. I also categorised the parameters and removed the France w/flag from the top line. I put this at the bottom. I also tried to put the census/estimate pop. figures in a better position. This template is now very similar format to that of the Template:Major French Cities. Trying to make things uniform. --Bob 19:51, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Bob, thank you VERY much for this. I like your template very much. It might require some minor fine tuning, but the code should be simple enough to allow "average" editors to do this. Again, thank you! olivier 02:09, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, thanks. If you don't mind, I'd like to tighten the line-spacing again in the annotations section, but before adding extra code I'll have a look and see if there is an existing style for that. I'd like to do the same on the Template:Major French Cities as well - looks nicer and saves some space. (Aside) Is is just me, or has the Wiki background gone from blue to white several times over the past days? It does make the infobox (and changes) stand out/blend in. THEPROMENADER 07:52, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Hardouin, just a few comments about your changes.

  • you increased the box size from 280 tp 307. I actually prefered the tigher version. Most pictures in infoboxes have a size of 300px. I did not notice any negative impact on them with the 280 size. Could we revert to 280?
  • I don't hink that INSEE/Postal code should be listed under "statistics"
  • maybe we should request the help of someone more knowledgeable, but I think it would be better if we could find a solution to have the population date on the right (as for density). I know that in some cases there are 2 figures and 2 dates, but I guess that the template could take that into account.
  • Bob's table had all the data of the right column aligned on the left and you reverted it to centre. I did not expect to come to this conclusion, but I think that the left alignment looked less messy and more readable.

That's all for the moment :-) olivier 10:06, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment The promenader and I have played with it since and I think we have addressed all of your concerns. Hopefully it looks better for you. --Bob 21:51, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

It does look great - much lighter! Can anything be done about the footnotes? They are rather imposing. Perhaps a more concise language would cut them down to two lines each. THEPROMENADER 22:53, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, one would think that the physical, political and demographic info would each have a section of their own - or would this make things too long? THEPROMENADER 23:21, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Answer to Olivier's comments:

  • you increased the box size from 280 tp 307. I actually prefered the tigher version. Most pictures in infoboxes have a size of 300px. I did not notice any negative impact on them with the 280 size. Could we revert to 280?
    • The result of having a 280px width is that infoboxes without an image have a 280px width, whereas the scores of infoboxes with a 300px image have a 300px width. Compare Saint-Germain-en-Laye (image) and Sainte-Geneviève-des-Bois (no image). The width of the infoboxes is different. I think all commune infoboxes should have the same width, otherwise what's the point of a standard infobox? With 307px set in the template (which was the setting in your original template), all infoboxes have the same width. Perhaps with 300px they would also all have the same width. Have a look and tell me what you think.
  • I don't hink that INSEE/Postal code should be listed under "statistics"
    • Listing them under "post office" makes no sense. The INSEE code is not a post office thing. For now I renamed this category "miscellaneaous". Tell me if you can find a better name.
  • maybe we should request the help of someone more knowledgeable, but I think it would be better if we could find a solution to have the population date on the right (as for density). I know that in some cases there are 2 figures and 2 dates, but I guess that the template could take that into account.
    • That's impossible, unless we change the scores of infoboxes that have two dates and have been formated to fit with the setting of your original template in which population dates appeared on the left between parenthesis. That would mean identifying the very many articles that contain such infoboxes with two dates, and manually modifying each and every one of them. Good luck! For now, please do not modify the population figures setting unless you make sure they don't screw up the dates and figures at Saint-Germain-en-Laye (one of the many articles containing two dates).
  • Bob's table had all the data of the right column aligned on the left and you reverted it to centre. I did not expect to come to this conclusion, but I think that the left alignment looked less messy and more readable.
    • Up to you. Your original template had data in the right column centered. I thought it looked better that way, but up to you. On the other hand, the name of large categories in bold ("Administration", "Statistics") should be centered. They look ugly aligned on the left, so I centered them. Hardouin 23:37, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Misc. sounds good enough. I put in Post Office as the template was set up Insee/Post code, which to me, and many others not in the know, made them out to be related. If they are distinct, then thet should be on different lines. --Bob 23:56, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
I completely agree with you that they should be on two separate lines. Unfortunately the template was the result of some users complaining that the template was too long, so they squeezed many entries on the same line, and tried to reduce size as much as they could, sometimes to the detriment of a clear format or meaningful presentation (such as INSEE grouped with Postal Code on the same line). Now, with all your changes, the template is as long as it was before they started their reduce campaign last Spring, so I'm afraid soon enough the same complaints of excessive length will resurface, and your changes will be trimmed. What can be done? The only thing I can suggest is to remove all the bold titles for general categories ("Administration", "Statistics", etc.). Then data would appear one below the other, without these category names (people are not stupid, they know what's administration and what's statistics). Check Athens, they have no category names, data appear one below the other. I also think that the title of the infobox ("Commune of XXX") should appear with a coloured bandeau, to give more prominence to the name of the commune, which will be made easier by removing all the bolded general categories with their greyish bandeaux. PS: I recommend not changing the overseas France commune templates until this template has become accepted and stable for a certain period of the time. All the back and forth is quite annoying. PPS: I would also recommend deleting the French flag at the bottom of the infobox. Why do we need a flag? Hardouin 10:55, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

You can make images any width you want. Since a majority of commune infoboxes do not have photos, this should not be too much of a problem to modify. Nothing is set in stone here. THEPROMENADER 11:56, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

We can make images any width we want, but there are already hundreds of commune articles who have a 300px image in the infobox (such as Collioure, Rennes, Saint-Germain-en-Laye, and so on). If we have to identify all the articles that contain 300px images in the infobox, and modify each of them, again good luck! Hardouin 15:12, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Changing the infobox width to 280px for infoboxes contining images 300px wide would mean that... the affected infoboxes would reamain 300px wide until they are found and modified. Would this be a disaster? THEPROMENADER 19:53, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Locator maps in the Paris region

Example with the location of Créteil.
Enlarge
Example with the location of Créteil.
"Beta version" of an alternative model.
Enlarge
"Beta version" of an alternative model.

Okay everyone, I've worked a lot on a locator map dedicated to Paris suburbs. The purpose is to use it in this template on French communes. I've already shown it to various people who made comments about it. Actually, I'm not sure about what to think about it, and that's why I would be glad to know your opinion. Here are those comments:

  • Greeneries just add more confusion to the map and should be removed.
  • The map shouldn't stop at Paris and inner ring departments but should go beyond.
  • Circles to make smaller municipalities more visible aren't necessary (ex: Vincennes).
  • Names of departments (or at least Paris) should to help anyone who don't know Paris by heart to locate everything.
  • Paris arrondissements should be added as even if they aren't communes, they are still municipalities electing mayors.

Well, I don't really want to give my opinion on this as I'm waiting for yours first. If you have other comments to make, you're welcome. Thanks for your help. Metropolitan 20:30, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Hardouin has proposed an alternative model enlarged to outer ring départements. He told me he hadn't finished yet but you can see a temporary version of it on the right side below. It would be a great help if anyone reading those lines could give their own opinion about this. Metropolitan 13:22, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
I definitely find Metropolitan's version both more exthetically pleasing and informative, but perhaps the scope should be clarified. Insets? THEPROMENADER 13:34, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Um, tried the inset method, but no. Way too big. Too big for an infobox, anyway. (added) forgot the urbanised info in the lower left - it should be there too. Sorry, busy today, but I hope you get the idea. THEPROMENADER 14:35, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Actually, nix my suggestion altogether. I think that only an inset showing the département in France is needed - forget régions. Takes too much space and is confusing. THEPROMENADER 10:14, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why are the template parameters in French rather than English?

This is the English Wikipedia. If someone wants to edit the infobox for Nîmes they shouldn't have to learn French to do it. The following parameters names should be changed:

  • nomcommune -> name
  • maire -> mayor
  • deputie -> deputy
  • sans -> population
  • dens -> density
  • cp -> postal code

We'll also need to get a bot to go through and change the existing installations of the template to match the new parameter names. Kaldari 18:42, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

The current parameters allow a simple cut and paste from the French articles. olivier 09:34, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
An effective solution would be to have both French/English parameters, but behind "if" statements - then one could cut and paste from French articles and "Englishify" the parameters later without disturbing a thing. THEPROMENADER 09:39, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
I would support such a change. Kaldari 23:09, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Feel free to change away, sir - I'm sure it's not that difficult to implement. THEPROMENADER 08:15, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I think I have addressed your concerns on this point. --Bob 17:46, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Locator map

I have introduced an optional parameters so that the template:Major French Cities and this one may be merged. There shouldn't be that much noticeable differences between before and now, and the advantage of this is that we can now use the locator map to highlight the position of the communes without having to create a whole bunch of new maps. --Bob 19:41, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

The idea to merge the two was really cool. Especially since communes "are" practically cities anyways, at least for France. THEPROMENADER 20:26, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Urban Areas

For a better use of the Urban spread section, it would probably be good to add a line where we could name the urban and metropolitan areas of which each commune belongs. --Metropolitan 21:51, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I see what you mean. Actually I propose to make a section for communes that are the centre and source of the agglomeration (pôle urbaine) (aka "major cities") and make another section type - with a different terminology - for communes part of another pôle urbaine 's unité urbain or aire urbaine. In short, "urban spread" section should be reserved for centres of unité urbaine and aire urbaine areas.
Actually I would find it "à jour" to make a series of articles on France's largest unité urbaines and aire urbaines, then you could link to these from the template. For example, a commune in the unité urbaine of Nice would have a "Unité urbaine - Nice" - without the Nice UU numbers, as this would be confusing - and a link to the Nice unité urbaine article. This would be comprehensive from all angles. THEPROMENADER 22:37, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] White Background behind Flags/emblems

I really liked the white background behind the flags and emblems, and had made a grey line around the "flag-holder" box to this end - I would like to put it back. It makes a nice contrast with the monotone rest of the template, and the same also highlights the city name. THEPROMENADER 20:25, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for implementing that. I took the liberty of removing the cellspacing - this expanded the template beyond its indicated measure - and replaced this with cellpadding. This made the gaps between the white fields disappear. THEPROMENADER 22:39, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


[edit] TfD nomination of Template:Major French Cities

Template:Major French Cities has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Bob 17:10, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for the heads-up. THEPROMENADER 01:15, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Avoid doule location

Should it be possible to edit this template in order that, when no image is specified, it avoided the double "location" section like in Pau? --Attilios 15:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../f/r/e/Template_talk%7EFrench_commune_f36c.html"